Recommend
26 
 Thumb up
 Hide
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Risk» Forums » Strategy

Subject: How to usually win at Risk rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1. Introduction

Time and again here on BGG I have encountered people smugly sure they know all about Risk and how to play. The most obvious dead-giveaways that these people have no idea what they're talking about are the beliefs that the game is dominated by luck and that it takes some horrendously long time to play. The fact is that Risk combines three elements of play with a natural victory condition which is well suited to those elements. The reason so many people have a bad experience playing Risk is that they have bought into the conventional wisdom of how to play, and that conventional wisdom is frankly wrong. This strategy article seeks to explain how the game should be played if one wishes to consistently win the game (and have fun)-- albeit no strategy will eliminate losses completely. The discussion is about standard rules world conquest Risk; missions and other variants are ignored.

The three elements of play in Risk are armies obtained for territories (including continents), the combat mechanism and the cards. The topology of the board plays into these. Of the elements listed, the number of armies received for territories is exactly predictable. The card combinations are governed by strict probabilities and are relatively easy to anticipate. The combat mechanism, i.e., the dice rolls, are not predictable for any given individual roll but are very strictly governed by a Gaussian probability distribution (due to the comparison of dice rolled) and therefore predictable in the aggregate. In other words, in spite of the random elements of the game, strategy can and will dominate play if players know what they're doing.

Some will admit the above, but then object that Risk takes too long for what it is as a game. I've been playing for about thirty years and have certainly played hundreds of games if not into the thousands. My consistent experience time and again is that with capable players, a 6 player game will typically take 5 or 6 rounds. Games with fewer players will take correspondingly more rounds.

2. The basic ideas

Risk is about ruthlessly crushing one's opponents. If one wants a "family game" perhaps one might try Catan. If playing with a child (or other person) who will cry if eliminated, Risk is definitely not the game to play.

Generally speaking, attackers have the advantage. True, on equal numbers of dice, the advantage favors the defender, but of course the attacker gets to choose when, where and whence the attack occurs and so again the advantage will generally go to the attacker.

Hoarding armies for a future attack will often work with inexperienced players but will get one crushed by experienced players. This point is one of the biggest faults of the conventional wisdom. People think taking one territory per turn to get a Risk card but otherwise piling armies onto one's territories is a sure-fire winning strategy. On the contrary, against competent opponents, it's a sure-fire losing strategy. I'll explain how and why below.

At the heart of Risk is an arms race. In the end, the person who consistently gets the most armies and uses them most effectively will win. Therefore the person to attack (all else being equal) is whichever player is in the lead, unless attacking someone else will get one more armies. These additional armies may be from taking an entire continent or from eliminating the player entirely and thereby taking his Risk cards. If no player is significantly more in the lead than any other (at least among one's opponents) and no specific attacks will garner one more armies than any other attack, then one should go for whoever is most vulnerable. If one can take a bite out of another player's continent, one should generally do it even if one has no intention of holding the territory involved.

3. Start of the game

When I was a kid, we did what was then the standard out of the box rules and took territories by placing one army on a territory in turns until all territories were selected. The principles I'll talk about in how to play will naturally extend into the choice of territories if one plays this way.

Later versions of Risk used as standard what some of the earlier versions of Risk included as an optional "quick set-up". Namely, one temporarily removes the wilds and then shuffles and shares out the territory cards as evenly as possible among all players so that all territories on the board are randomly distributed among the players. This means of set-up makes for a better game in many ways and has become standard. In this article it is assumed that this type of set-up is in use hereafter.

When distributing one's armies, one needs bear in mind two opposing factors. Apart from complete continents, all territories are of equal value when collecting armies. On the other hand, territories which are adjacent or very nearly adjacent (e.g., separated by one territory) can form the nucleus of a strategically powerful base from which to build. One also generally knows the order of play before armies are placed. If one is fortunate enough to have a starting position where a territory cannot immediately be attacked (as for example Madagascar if one also controls South Africa and East Africa) one should not waste the armies on that country but use them to fortify the buffer territories (South Africa and East Africa in the example). Armies should then be divided as evenly as possible among all territories that can immediately be attacked. If one then has armies left over so that all these territories cannot get an equal amount, the priority should go to those territories which are mutually adjacent or else nearly so.

4. Weighing the odds

A number of otherwise well educated people dismiss Risk as being "all luck" because the core combat mechanism relies on dice rolls. Since no given roll of the dice can be predicted, they argue, one has no control over the outcomes in the game and hence the game is all luck supposedly. The flaw in the logic here is that while each individual die roll is random with even probability (i.e., in a fair die no one number is no likely than any other) Risk uses a comparison of dice. Any comparison or combination of dice is governed by a strict Gaussian distribution. Rolling equal numbers of dice, the defender has the advantage because ties go to the defender, but the attacker can roll more dice. The last point gives a very slight advantage to the attacker. The shift is small but enough to have a marked effect on the overall statistics. Roughly what this means is that if one could roll an infinite number of times for an attacker using three dice versus a defender using two dice (or respectively two and one), a good approximation is that the attacker would win slightly more than half the time and the defender slightly less than half. The variance in this result decreases as one rolls more times according to thee square root of the number of rolls. Admittedly, this is not a fine detailed analysis of the probabilities nor is this discussion meant to be. Rather this gives one a good enough approximation to inform strategic play of the game.

What all this means in practice is that as a rule of thumb, if one expects to conquer a territory, one should if possible begin with at least twice the number of armies being attacked (preferably more) if the number of armies involved is large. When the outcome is decided by only a few rolls of the dice, the statistics don't mean much. Flukes do happen, but the more rolls involved, the less influence fluke rolls will have over the outcome.

A corollary of the statistics is that the more often one attacks and the more armies are involved in the process, the more control one has over the game. If every player just distributes his armies over the territories he has and attacks only one or two territories a turn throughout the game, then Risk will become largely luck-driven. Conventional wisdom claims this is a strategy for winning the game. On the contrary, what I've described is a recipe for abrogating one's control of the outcome in the game; experienced players who know how to use the key mechanic of the game will time and again crush players who only attack a territory or two a turn throughout the game. Often the winning approach to Risk is derided as merely aggressive play and assumed to lose more often than it wins. Here one needs to bear in mind that the strategy also involves when and where to attack. Aggressive play does not mean one ignores defensive play; used properly, aggressive play is defensive play.

5. Where and when to attack

Especially in the early part of the game, armies are in limited supply. So one wants to use what armies one has as effectively as possible. The key element here is minimizing one's borders. Building up armies on territories that cannot be attacked (and by the same token cannot therefore attack either) is largely a waste. The benefits are that one delays an advance but one cannot stop an advance which takes the number of armies into account. Yet all armies in territories that cannot attack are just that fewer armies one has to pursue the objective of the game-- conquering the board. In the same way, the fewer attackable territories one has, the more powerful those territories can be with the same number of armies.

This aspect of the game lies at the core of the legend of the supposedly unbeatable tactic of taking control of Australia and using it as a base to build out from. Only Indonesia can be attacked from outside Australia, and one can only make such an attack from Siam. So one could pile all of one's available armies onto Indonesia or better yet Siam, with Australia controlled behind it by one army a territory. Such a position is certainly powerful, but invincible it's not.

The Australia legend however raises two important points germane to choosing a territory to attack. Namely, continental bonuses should not be ignored. The amount of armies added may be small in absolute terms, but relative to the number of armies one gets on a turn, the number is usually significant. That means one should always take a continent if one can, but likewise one should always deny a continent to another player if one can. That's the second point raised. A player gets armies for territories controlled at the start of his turn. If someone takes Ukraine from a player who had control of Europe, that latter player won't get the bonus armies for Europe that turn-- even if he takes Ukraine back immediately. If an opponent is building up a strong position, one absolutely should attack it-- the sooner the better. If one cannot take the territory involved, one should attack anyway because the attacker has the advantage; one will destroy more armies that will otherwise be used against one as the attacker in a losing contest than as the defender on the opponent's turn. That is defensive play. Ideally one takes the territory one would be attacked from, but if not then one either eliminates the ability to attack from the given territory or at least substantially weakens it. Opponents should not be allowed to build up powerful positions, even one has to make a drive specially to do so and even if one does not keep all the territories one takes. That brings up another point as well, one should not be afraid to lose territories. So long as one conquers more territories than one loses, one is advancing toward victory.

What this all means is that when choosing one's target for attack, one should give priority to reducing opponents' ability to attack one's own territory, then to taking continents or creating a buffer zone of territories about a continent one has and finally to minimizing one's borders. These considerations need not be mutually exclusive. Also one should not think in terms of a single territory to attack but a series of them whenever possible.

When one should attack is generally whenever possible, but one should try to arrange a string of attacks which allows one (after fortification) to leave one's attackable territories with a number of armies comparable to those armies from which each territory can be attacked. When more than one territory can attack, leaving the territory with a number comparable to the total of all territories it could be attacked from is generally a waste if that means one chooses not to attack one of those regions. The more territory one takes, the one armies one gets and the less one's opponents will correspondingly get as well.

6. Distributing armies

When placing armies, one should place armies for the attacks one wishes to make during the turn, whether the armies are from territories held and continental bonuses or from a set of Risk cards. Whenever possible one should before attacking figure out a continuous non-branching path of territories to attack one after another. For example, if one controls Brazil and wants to take all of South America, one should attack Argentina, then Peru and then Venezuela with armies starting in Brazil rather than attacking Peru first and then dividing the armies between an attack into Argentina and one into Venezuela. After all, one must move as many armies as one rolled dice in the last attack when taking a territory. Attacking Argentina first, in the example, is generally superior to attacking Venezuela first because Argentina dead-ends and so stops any advance. (Forcing an opponent to split up armies in this manner is a great defensive tactic because it forces the opponent to effectively waste armies.)

When figuring out if one has enough armies for a series of attacks, a minimum is roughly twice as many armies as the armies occupying the territories to be attacked plus an additional army for each territory one will have to occupy in the process. More armies is better.

One should remember as well that the number of Risk cards a player has is open information,although what cards they have specifically is not. If at any point, one eliminates a player and thereby acquires a total of six or more Risk cards, one must turn in a set immediately-- even in the middle of a turn. So eliminating a player and using his Risk cards to fuel an additional series of attacks is a great tactic whenever possible. So if one has a choice between eliminating various opponents on a turn, if possible pick the opponent that will give one a total of six Risk cards or if that's not possible whichever opponent will get one the most Risk cards.

7. Risk cards

A number of people complain because Risk cards increase in value as the game progresses, but the increasing value of sets of Risk cards is an essential factor of the game. It works both as a leveling mechanism to mitigate the advantage the leader in the game has and to force players to play for the win. The cards fuel an escalation of an arms race which should result a situation where each player must either eliminate other players or face being eliminated himself.

So a natural question arises whether one should hold onto Risk cards, even if one has a set, so that when one turns cards in the set will be worth more. The answer is a resounding no because armies are the limiting factor in how much one conquers on a turn. The more one conquers on a given turn, the more armies one gets and the correspondingly less opponents will get. Moreover holding onto Risk cards makes one a valuable target.

One should also not forget that if one controls the territory on a Risk card in the set one hands in, one will get two additional armies on that territory-- albeit one territory per set. So where one has a choice one should choose the cards in a set to give one additional armies on a territory, again if possible. If one has more than one territory in the set, then one should choose the territory most useful for attack actually or at least potentially as the one on which to place the extra armies. Of course if one can do so when one controls more than one territory shown on one's Risk cards, one should hold onto one of the cards with a controlled territory for the next set.

8. Conclusion

In general, the more armies one gets now the better. The more attacks one makes on a turn, the more control one has over what happens in the game. One should not interpret this to mean that one should make pointless or wasteful attacks that serve only to weaken one's position. If the attacks have a likelihood or success or are worth the Risk of failure, then one should make the attacks-- otherwise not. Preemptive attacks, even when one will not take the territory being attacked, are the heart of defense in this game. Attacks with equal numbers of dice should be avoided. Whether as attacker or defender, one should always roll the most dice possible.

When taking continents, having a buffer zone about that continent is strongly advisable if one can do it. The rule to remember is that one should attack with at least twice as many units as the defending armies, plus one army for each territory to be taken, as a minimum. If the case is borderline, one should usually Risk the attack but stop when the number of armies one has becomes comparable to the number of defending armies.

Players get armies for territories held at the start of a turn and so taking territories one cannot hold but which deny an opponent armies is always advisable. If in the end one does in fact manage to hold the territory, so much the better. To this end, wherever possible attackable borders should be minimized. Armies on those borders should be maximized. When at the end of a turn moving reinforcements, one should place them on the territory from which one most wishes to attack next turn.

If an opponent has done so with a large amount of armies, one should attack the territory, especially if one is massively outnumbered. If such cases, one stops when one can no longer roll three dice unless one has reduced the opponent to a single dice or taken the territory.

If all players play in the manner described, then borders will ebb and flow like tides. All one has to do to win is have one's losses on the whole outweighed by one's gains.
31 
 Thumb up
2.07
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This post by
Twinge
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
is interesting as a side-note. It lists the actually probabilities of the rolls in Risk.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Providence
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice assessment.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Gagnon
msg tools
I haven't played Risk with 5 or 6 players, but would expect that game to go faster than with a smaller number of players. With more players, it is easier to eliminate a weaker opponent and get cards that produce more armies to have an early advantage over other players.

My primary experience with Risk was playing against my brother when we were growing up. Those games devolved to the turning in of cards and having back and forth swaying battles with the cards providing each player 25, 30, and more armies. On those turns, one of us would beat the other back to a few armies only to have the opponent turning in cards and doing the same in reverse. That stopped the game from being fun or remotely realistic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randatollah
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have found that the best way to attack my opponents is to get them to attack each other. Meanwhile, I nibble away at the fringes for as long as I can remain inconspicuous. The attacker has the advantage, yes, but the attacker still usually loses troops, too. The key is taking territories that your foes won't even try to take back. This isn't done by piling on massive troop levels; as you note, that's a losing strategy. But if you leave 4 or so men on each of your frontier territories, that will help discourage attack. Your opponents, especially if they have been wearing each other down, will be looking for a soft target whenever they don't feel like they can take a strategic one. This works if your opponents don't see the territories you hold as strategic for themselves.

I am actually a fan of leaving troops behind your front lines, as long as unlimited reinforcements are being used. This can make your troop levels look deceptively small as your opponents tend to worry about only what you have amassed on their borders. Then, when the time is right you can, for example, conquer all of Australia and Asia, and leave the choke points of Kamchatka, Ukraine and the Middle East all well-manned by moving all of those stragglers to the front.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eggy Toast
msg tools
rgagnon wrote:
I haven't played Risk with 5 or 6 players, but would expect that game to go faster than with a smaller number of players. With more players, it is easier to eliminate a weaker opponent and get cards that produce more armies to have an early advantage over other players.

My primary experience with Risk was playing against my brother when we were growing up. Those games devolved to the turning in of cards and having back and forth swaying battles with the cards providing each player 25, 30, and more armies. On those turns, one of us would beat the other back to a few armies only to have the opponent turning in cards and doing the same in reverse. That stopped the game from being fun or remotely realistic.

I think that's true for most people's experiences. The defense I've seen against Risk is that there's a right way to play it, which is counter to how everyone naturally plays it. The game mechanic that a defender always wins on a tie encourages people to play defensively, even if the odds are ultimately in the attacker's favor assuming they always roll with more dice. A new or newish player who attempts to play aggressively and loses due to crappy rolls will quickly assume that playing offensively isn't the right choice, even if it fixes the game mechanic.

The card thing is the other element that's usually overlooked. Every game, even one that is based on playing aggressively, uses the cards to amass a giant army quickly and sweep through everyone still on the board. Whether you acquire the cards by attacking or by waiting, the end condition is the same. If you remove the cards, you change the nature of the game to something that is more purely strategy, but also extend the playing time significantly!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicholas Retallack
United States
California
flag msg tools
I still have some questions about strategy. Help me apply this to a situation I often end up in.

Lets say we have a game where one player has taken Australia, another has taken Africa, and another has taken South America. All three are low-yield but easy to defend continents that people are likely to take near the beginning of the game. They each place large armies on their borders.

The player on Africa is at a disadvantage because they are sandwiched between two power players. If they attack one of their neighbors, the other will become stronger than them. Also, they have to defend more territories than the other players in order to hold their continent. What should they do? Expand into Europe? Attempt to weaken a neighbor and hope the other neighbor doesn't swoop in? What should you do in any situation when you are stuck in between two powerful players?

Assuming two players have equally-sized armies on bordering territories, is it advantageous to attempt to chip away at each other, even if you don't intend to move in to that territory?

If you do end up busting in to another player's continent bonus, how many troops should you place on that territory, knowing that it's likely the player will retaliate immediately? Should you leave just one troop to minimize your losses, three troops to minimize losses but still have an ok probability of hurting them when they attempt to take it back, or go all in and risk major losses and possibly lose your own continent bonus when they break through?

What should you do if you are losing? Say for example you only control 3 or 4 territories, but have enough troops to discourage other players from attacking you for a while. Should you stockpile troops in this situation? Is it advantageous to attempt to take a territory per turn in order to get a card, or is this only going to hurt you? Is it better to just take your three troops per turn and stay as invisible as possible?

How do you handle suicidal maniacs? Nearly every time I have played risk, one player has gone on a rampage across the map just to mess up another player, reducing their entire army to single-troop territories that tend to get eliminated before their next turn. These players often play kingmaker by weakening a strategic player and messing up their continent bonuses so others can swoop in and hurt them more. Is it worth it to go all out in eliminating this weakened player for their cards, even if it means losing even more forces by changing their swath of one-mans into one mans of your own that other players will snatch up for cards?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Personally I'd probably attack South America. The player with Australia is less of a threat. Usually what I do though is build a buffer zone. don't just take Africa. Take Brazil, the Middle East, Southern and Western Europe-- i.e. anything bordering Africa. If another player as a continent, you just need take one country of it to deny the armies.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roger Hobden
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
NOT playing Risk makes you a winner every time.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mallet wrote:
NOT playing Risk makes you a winner every time.
Please kindly take the anti-Risk comments elsewhere. This is a page and article for fans of the game.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Bowers
United States
Nashville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice article, but it seems to ignore the diplomacy side of the game. Who to ally with, how to mitigate their betrayal. How to successfully manage multinational coalitions. These are often the difficult parts of the game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
faustulus wrote:
Nice article, but it seems to ignore the diplomacy side of the game. Who to ally with, how to mitigate their betrayal. How to successfully manage multinational coalitions. These are often the difficult parts of the game.
Yes, I downplayed that aspect of the game, partly because the social conventions of gaming I grew up with and am still used to discourage out of game agreements unless the rules expressly allow them. Frankly it's viewed as a mild form of cheating, although I know that's by no means universal.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Bowers
United States
Nashville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
faustulus wrote:
Nice article, but it seems to ignore the diplomacy side of the game. Who to ally with, how to mitigate their betrayal. How to successfully manage multinational coalitions. These are often the difficult parts of the game.
Yes, I downplayed that aspect of the game, partly because the social conventions of gaming I grew up with and am still used to discourage out of game agreements unless the rules expressly allow them. Frankly it's viewed as a mild form of cheating, although I know that's by no means universal.
I have a friend of a similar mindset. Tried to play with a group once and it was a disaster. He mostly plays online now which is kinda sad because he is good at the the strategy aspect.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Not Available
Australia
flag msg tools
whac3 wrote:
1. Introduction
If all players play in the manner described, then borders will ebb and flow like tides. All one has to do to win is have one's losses on the whole outweighed by one's gains.



If all players are attempting to have their losses outweighed by their gains in the manner you describe, the only factor that will determine a winner are dice rolls -- ergo, luck.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gallumph wrote:
whac3 wrote:
1. Introduction
If all players play in the manner described, then borders will ebb and flow like tides. All one has to do to win is have one's losses on the whole outweighed by one's gains.



If all players are attempting to have their losses outweighed by their gains in the manner you describe, the only factor that will determine a winner are dice rolls -- ergo, luck.
No, the use of dice does not imply luck is the dominant factor. Randomness within an overall distribution-- in this case Guassian-- doesn't work that way. If it did, modern physics could not describe anything, but ti does extremely well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Kalk
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmb
Gallumph wrote:
whac3 wrote:
1. Introduction
If all players play in the manner described, then borders will ebb and flow like tides. All one has to do to win is have one's losses on the whole outweighed by one's gains.



If all players are attempting to have their losses outweighed by their gains in the manner you describe, the only factor that will determine a winner are dice rolls -- ergo, luck.

If all players play with the same degree of skill, the result will ALWAYS come down to luck, in ANY game...even if the only random factor in the game is who plays first. A game is "skill-based" if a player with more skill canwin more than their fair share. In 5-player RISK, cconsistently winning 25% of games is evidence of skill.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Young

Oregon
msg tools
Christian,

That isn't accuracte. The reason being that no two players are ever I think the exact same situation at any time and there may be more than one strong play or tactic available. If each player were in the exact same situation then yes it would be a matter of luck because all other variables would be equal. But as long as there are decisions to be made you cannot call it a game of chance.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dinkeldorf wrote:
...
LOL
Winning is never guaranteed but there are strategies that work. I started playing the game with my sisters at about age 5 and now am in my 40s and still play it. I don't play the computerized version and don't think I ever have.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexander Knepprath
msg tools
One time I was playing with my sister and parents, and I got somewhere around 15 6s in a row simply by holding the 1 side up about a foot off the ground and dropping the die. I took out my dad's entire main force before he finally told me to knock it off...


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alexandrondon wrote:
One time I was playing with my sister and parents, and I got somewhere around 15 6s in a row simply by holding the 1 side up about a foot off the ground and dropping the die. I took out my dad's entire main force before he finally told me to knock it off...


If you manipulate the die unfairly, that's just cheating.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Kalk
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmb
A questiom for the OP...how many players are typically part of your games? It seems to me that winning strategy would be considerably different with 6 players than with 3.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KamikazeJohnson wrote:
A questiom for the OP...how many players are typically part of your games? It seems to me that winning strategy would be considerably different with 6 players than with 3.
I've played a lot over nearly 40 years now. I've therefore played everything from 2 players to 6 players a lot. The principles of the strategy really aren't different in each case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Henrik H
Sweden
flag msg tools
EggyToast wrote:
rgagnon wrote:

My primary experience with Risk was playing against my brother when we were growing up. Those games devolved to the turning in of cards and having back and forth swaying battles with the cards providing each player 25, 30, and more armies. On those turns, one of us would beat the other back to a few armies only to have the opponent turning in cards and doing the same in reverse. That stopped the game from being fun or remotely realistic.

I think that's true for most people's experiences.

It's important to realize that there are many different versions of Risk, with different versions of the rules!

In the version you mention, each card has one or two stars, and when you trade in 10 stars you get 30 armies. I agree with you - this version of the game is horrible.

However, in most versions of the rules, each card has a soldier, horse or cannon - instead of stars. You trade in these cards in "sets" of three. The first time somebody trades in a "set" of 3 cards they get 4 armies, the next set gives 6, armies, then 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40... all for one set of 3 cards. This allows for a more dynamic and interesting play, and these are the rules assumed in whac3's article above.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Casey Blakley
United States
Chatham
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I've tried this approach on the mobile version and get destroyed every time. I have more luck with securing a continent and amassing troops there.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rustyshack86 wrote:
I've tried this approach on the mobile version and get destroyed every time. I have more luck with securing a continent and amassing troops there.
I don't know the mobile version.
I've played real people lots for 40 years now and counting. It works well for people of al types over and over again.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   |