| Author |
Messages |
|
Bonaparte
Tactician
Posts:4
 |
| 20 Jun 2007 2:03 PM |
|
This post is a follow up of the prior, Help improve my strategy! Read that to understand references in this game.
This game was only a 1v1 game, so the strategy and feel was a little bit different. I was playing only the Kaiser with neutral armies and no mission cards. Also, just to remind those who aren't familiar with this style of play, we were assigned territories through the distribution of shuffled risk cards. The game proceeded in the following manner.
After I had placed one infantry unit on each of my territories I quickly searched for a place to bunker so that I could fend for myself and build an army. I found that I was relatively scattered, with positions in Europe, Africa, and Both of the Americas. I noticed that I basically controlled Europe. The neutral army held Southern Europe but that was of little concern, since it couldn't attack. Also Northern Africa, Egypt, and Sudan (forget the territory name in risk) were also mine.
I also took into account the possitioning of the neutral units. I knew that Asia would be difficult to conquer and defend with the territories I owned, so I decided to ignore it completely for the time being. I also knew that without any warfare going on in Asia, that the Kaiser would quickly take it and build massive forces that would threaten my prospects of Africa and Europe. At this point I noticed that the neutral armies controlled a stretch of land perfectly bordering Europe and walling off the middle east from the Kaiser. If I wanted to gain control of this region without threats from that side I decided that it would be wise to fortify those neutral units (in a two player game, when each player places his armies he also gets to place one neutral army on a neutral territory to create a strategic buffer). Also the neutral player controlled Brazil. It would be perfect to fortify that place with neutral players so that the Kaiser couldn't attack Africa (he had a slightly threatening control of the middle Americas).
So this is what I did. I also established large armies in the border contries to the middle east and Europe as I prepared to quickly drive out the Kaiser from those spots on the first turn. I gave up all of my control of Asia and the Americas willingly at this point so that I could focus on the African and European regions. Within the first turn I had taken all of Africa (since he didn't fortify there) and most of Europe save for Iceland and southern Europe, since the Kaiser had placed a massive neutral force there to nail Europe. Also I made a well planned move and bunkered a mass of forces in the Middle East after taking it from its one petty defender.
Now I had him nailed in Asia and all of my forces were protected from attack from Asia since there was a wall of neutral armies spanning vertically across Asia that blocked any player to player contact. It was on the next turn that I realized the Kaisers bunkering in Australia. This was no threat since it was relatively removed from any front I was on. Here he swept across most of Asia and towards the peninsula that leads a route to Alaska. He also built a massive force in central America, just as I had suspected, and picked off the large bunker of neutral units in Brazil. From here he began to attack Africa, and had me nailed down for a turn. But his force was depleted from fighting the neutral bunker and was no match for the large station of men in Africa. I quickly pushed him out of Africa and with the help of some risk cards out of south America as well. I was now bunkered in Central America, along the line of defense behind the wall of neutral units (which was heavily fortified now) and in Iceland, were the only threat to my dominion on Europe could escalate. Now I controlled with ease, all of Africa and South America and was only naild down in Europe by the Southern European Neutral coalition of evil. I wasn't too worried though, i didn't need the continent bonis from Europe, only the territories and the monopoly of the region.
Now Kaiser massed forces in Alaska and took most of north America with little resistance. He then attempted to entrench on southern America but was repelled. The next turn I amassed counter forces from Iceland and Central America and struck down all of his forces there and bunkered in Alaska. What would follow for the next few turns would be a constant struggle on the two peninsulas as Alaska and kamchatka were constantly switching ownership. An important development was that Kaiser finally broke through the neutral line in Asia and had proceeded to take India. I was ok with this. On the next turn I planned my final solution (pun intended), a genius blitzreig on Asia. I turned in some risk cards for an extra boost and used my bonus from the three continents I owned (Both Americas and Africa) to crush down all of the Kaisers asian empire from the Middle east and Alaska. The conquering quickly moved through all of Asia and even uprooted his no longer defended Australia. I had won with sheer conquest.
The key points in my strategy that changed were: I was more careful not to spread myself too thin. I found places to bunker and hold off attacks until I was ready for strategic moves. I also controlled the center of the map. On this site there was some debate on what continent is best to populate first. I would defidently argue Africa. It is relatively defendable and has access to some very key points that allow for wonderful offensive maneuvers and has accessibility to most of the map. It was because of my position in Africa that I was able to take the western hemosphere. This was made easier by the fact that the Kaiser started in Asia. A piece of advice for other risk players would be to watch the player who controls Africa. He can easily threaten south America and then soon threaten the north without proper preventions. Always lock down South America to Africa, if you don't you will be threatened by an easily defended and high income empire who has no trouble sweeping north America. My argument summed up: If you control south America and Africa you can easily control the game in your favor.
Thank your for taking your time to read this, don't forget to leave some input on this scenario and my strategies/opinions. It would be great to hear some feedback. |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 21 Jun 2007 3:39 PM |
|
Wow, that was a long one. Interesting way to win the game. I agree with you that Africa is quite a useful continent. I think from 4 players upwards, it is the best continent. It gets more than the smaller 2-bonus continents, and is easy small enough to control.
Neutrals always play a significant role in the game and their placement in the initial phase of the game is critical indeed. You certainly seem to enjoy the games more than just a Risk game. Well that how it should be I guess. The game gives you power.
Let us know of any more adventures. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Bonaparte
Tactician
Posts:4
|
| 21 Jun 2007 3:47 PM |
|
| yes I do. It kind of connects one with great rulers and allows (with a little imagination) for one to feel a general of a great nation. I am into history and this is a perfect slice of abstract simulation. Also playing with family makes for more entertainment as we have fun competing with one another. I like the global strategy and politics of it. |
|
|
|
|
The Player
Strategist
Posts:38
|
| 22 Jun 2007 4:35 AM |
|
| That’s cool. Kaiser seems to be in big trouble. :-) I quite enjoyed your posts. I don’t play many two player games these days but I remember when I played some, the game play was quite different. It felt like chess to be honest. And if my opponent was good, I couldn’t afford to make any mistakes. So I had to be very careful to see where I deployed my armies and if I blocked myself out. I remember that placing neutral armies in the beginning was quite fun, but towards the end their placement gave me headaches. It was worst if I had placed them myself. Sort of shooting myself in the foot. It was good fun though….. |
|
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 24 Jul 2007 3:58 PM |
|
I find this two-player game interesting. I apprecaite your post and allowing us to look in on 2-player strategies since nuetral armies can play a major role. I don't play the 2-player version often, but when I do, I often use your tactics to bolster key neutral territories to my advantage.
I find it interesting that you and Mr. Honary like Africa as a continent to use as a starting base of operations. For my taste, I tend to stay away from Africa. The problem with Africa is that it tends to get attacked from all sides and makes it difficult to defend unless you have a weak Europe to contend with or you control most of Europe, which it seems you did in this game. While Africa gets more of a bonus, this bonus does not seem to be as useful for defensive purposes. I tend to run into all sorts of problems when I take Africa: invasion from South asmrica who tends to be an aggresive player that makes deals with North America early, a stubborn Europe that also like to make deals with North America and a creeping menace from Australia and Asia (Australasia). I find the only way I can win using the African strategy is to make a secure deal with Europe since he is the biggest threat, and expand to South America and keep Australasia at bay.
Funny thing, I am a guy who likes to take on the challenge of using Europe as my base of operations. I have won a few times using that strategy and I find myself hooked on using it. It gives you a real sense of accomplishment when you win that way since the smaller continents are more popular and successful as is North America with its smaller borders. Perhaps African strategists have a similar feeling of accomplishment. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 19 Aug 2007 7:33 AM |
|
Europe is a very good continent once you have setup the diplomacy correctly and are not squeezed between a number of expansionist players. Africa provides an alternative to Europe if you prefer to stay a bit more isolated and want to build up your armies. I agree with Grant that in the long run Europe provides a better option, though I have seen it many times that a player starting from Europe is left behind from those with smaller continents. By the time someone manges to conquer Europe it could be late to get the bonuses it provides and anothe player may come to attack it.
So, to put this in a concise way, if you think you can handle South America and make treaties with him, go for Africa as you get one of your borders secured and can quickly start to accumulate armies. On the other hand, if you dont trust the player in SA, then go for Europe, provide that the player in North America is not intendig to expand via Europe (i.e. he is not negotiating with SA for a treaty over Central America). |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 28 Nov 2007 7:50 PM |
|
| Unfortunately, Europe is not the best option all of the time. you need to read the game context and then diplomacy is a must. It can be easy to allow Europe to be an Achilles heal as you feel you must hand onto it as I have felt many times. Sometimes, it can be good to abandon it, and start a microcontinent somewhere else or go to Africa. Long Range, it may be better to start in a smaller place, appear to try to take it, only to bolt for Europe or some contients that are sparsely contested. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
|