Forum

Hello and thank-you for taking your time to address this issue.

Me and my brothers got Risk about three years ago as a christmas present. When we first got it, we were over the moon, it was the best thing ever, it was all we ever played for days (we would wake up and play it none stop until bed time). However, over time we discovered all the strategies and intricacies (as you do) of the game, and we found that provided you're not a total bone head, there really isn't any strategies.
We stopped playing the game when we found that the game depended not on skill of the individual but on alliances and negotiations made throughout the game. This led to a long period where we didn't play.
Recently however, I realised that there must be more to the game, because it is obviously flawed (an example will follow later in this post) and it would otherwise not be such a popular game. That's when I discovered TD, and using some of the new rules discussed on this forum, we (there's four of us) set out playing again.
Whilst the new rules did improve the game, we run into the same problem as before.

Just today, we played a game of Risk. I had my capital in Great Britain, D had his capital in Yakutsk, J had his capital in Scandinavia, and P had his capital in Madagascar. The last game we had played was particularly violent, so this time around, everybody seemed very easy-going and tended to attack little. I went first, but I didnt kill J because of a truce, I let him go to Australia instead. I migrated over to North America but still held my capital, whilst D took a few Russian and Northern European territories including J's capital in Scandinavia. I did not attack D even though I usually would of because P had no near enemy and had taken Africa and nearly all of South America, meaning attacking D would make P too strong. Instead, I started expanding in North America but didnt get all territories in the fear that I would be attacked. Meanwhile, the other players didnt really do much, and P was getting stronger, whilst D mucked around in Europe (still didnt attack my capital though) and J claimed Australia.
We have special rules as detailed in the following thread:
http://www.totaldiplomacy.com/RiskGameCommunity/Forum/tabid/80/forumid/8/postid/1894/view/topic/Default.aspx
We were using the special rule "special mission", and the territory was 'Argentina'. This led me to attack and invade South America after I held North America for a a couple of turns. At this point, I held my capital in Great Britain, all of North America, and all of South America. seeing as I was obviously winning, I tried to wipe out another player. I decided to wipe out P, who controlled some of Africa and South West Asia. He was getting three troops per turn, D was getting 4, J was getting 3 (he controlled Australia but was getting penalised for not having control of his capital), and I was getting 9, and would have got even more had I held South America.
But everyone attacked me, because of my stance. J only scratched the surface because of his position, D happenned to get through a poorly guarded Iceland and Greenland, thereby removing my continent bonus, and P fought back from my invasion, cashig in his risk cards and taking Brazil. But yet, I still relentlessly attacked P that next turn with the hope of killing him, i did not however, and P lived on with only a few African territories (including his capital in Madagascar).
However, the next turn, D charged through kamchatka and Alaska, wiping out half of North America (he had risk cards) as well as attacking my capital at Great Britain. D now had most of Europe and alot of Norhtern Asia and Northern America. p saw the chance to reclaim south America because I was weak, and J typically did nothing really (the person who controls Australia tends to be the least active). I used my 3 men to take back a few territories in North America that were unguarded. However, I did not have a set so I had four risk cards that I could not use.
The next trun, D wiped me out and got all my risk cards.

The game does not rely on skill, it relies on negotiation and laying low. Whenever aplayer gains strength, they are at the mercy of the whims of other players. The game is flawed in the way that "ganging up" ensures that there is no real victor. The victor is eventually decided when the gold horse goes up the ladder to the high numbers, when it is simply a game of luck.

Also, the gold horse returns to 4 after it reaches 35, not 60, in our rules.

There you go, RISK enthusiasts, please make your comments.

Thanks for sharing the game. Must have been fun.

Well, I guess you mean that playing a good Risk requires a different set of skills such as negotiation, diplomacy, psychology and politics than the tactical skills you may use initially when you are introduced to the game. If winning in Risk is random then over time every player must win equal number of times. Fortunately this is yet not the case, despite the more sophisticated game play of top Risk players these days. There is still a lot of future for Risk...

@Ehsan Honary
The game was fun until I got beaten unfairly.
I'm not saying that it doesn't require skill, but for players such as me and and my older brother who play games such as Stratego, Age of Empires, Monopoly, Warhammer, and REAL tactical games, and we find all the good tactics, and become proficient at winning, games like Risk do not provide an outlet for utilising real tactical talent. Players come to a plateau when they discover the tactica and then realise that the only way they can beat the other players (provided they also have a fairly good grasp of the game, like my brothers do) is to deliberatly not get into a winning position and wait until the risk cards become of more value.

@Bruce
next time you play your friend, wait until he is getting a high amount of troops per turn, then get all players to attack him, thereby reducing him to a miniscule amount of territoies. Then watch him wither away as somebody conquers him to get risks.
The point is, the strongest player doesn't win, the player who looks as if they are losing does best.

To lobby:

Thanks for your wonderful article of argument.Your point is well-supported with "your examples".No matter what strategic game,it still have its flaw whether it's huge or little.Is Risk really as bad as you said?Maybe I can discuss with you here.Though my view maybe not true.

You claimed that Risk is just a game of diplomacy and negotiation,have less "strategic elements".It's all about number.Who have the numerical advantage and luck,who obtain the victory.Indeed,this is arguable.Let me ask you some questions:

You have learned the importance of "power of balance".Did you use it well in the previous games?If not,then do you think the other players will sliently watch you growing too powerful and let you win without doing anything?Let me tell you one interesting history.

I ask you,do you know why Napoleon was defeated finally?Napoleon won many glorious victories in Europe,The Battle of Australitz shattered the power and morale of Russo-Austrian force,The Battle of Jena destroyed the Prussian corps which is well-known of its courage!In 1812,Napoleon even led 600,000 troops to invade Russia!Well,isn't Napoleon the mighty tactician?But I want to tell you,"strategy" is much difference with "tactics".

But unfortunately,Napoleon is not the good strategist.His expansion caused the wide-spreaded terror among many European countries which afraid that Napoleon is too strong and "destroy their position and power".So they organize the alliance to against Napoleon.And Finally,Napoleon was defeated in 1813-1815 by the overwhelming force of England,Prussia,Austria and Russia.

Well,what do you think about this story?

And you claimed that Risk is only the game of number,the player who have the highest number's troops surely win.But if one player can't mobilize and allocate his troops effectively,dviding his troops and launch many meaningless attack which can't bring him much benefit.While his rivals learn the importance of "concentrating his army",launch the decisive strike in the critical moment.You think who is the victor?If you doubt,please watch my battle report "The Conflict Between Three Sides" in this forum,watching how I defeat my last rival in 1 vs 1 final confrontation.

You said Risk rely too much on luck.Then I ask you,in the real battle,is luck important?For example,if the Prussian Army didn't arrive to help the English army in the Battle of Waterloo(1815),do you think that England is able to defeat Napoleon in the battle?(If you don't know about this battle,please go to watch the information)

Have you heard about the strategy of "deception"?(eg.When you strong,show you weak;When you weak,show you strong;When you want to attack someone,show no purpose to attack him;Or even violating the treaty when your rivals turn weak;And lie to your opponents,using the false reasons to persuading him achieve your strategic plan.)

Have you heard about even negotiation require skills?

Did you have the long-term strategic and diplomatic plan in the game?

I heard the Chinese strategist said,"If you want to gain,you have to give,If you want to defeat someone,you have to support him."Do you understand what does it mean?

Hence,Risk is actually a game that you can perform the "high-level and variety strategies and tactics".Do you think that it is still a "less-strategy required game" after my anaylze?

Well,You may argue that "at least Risk require a lot of improvement".Indeed,I have the same view in this point.If Risk just retain the same rule and same map,then I guess many player will get boring finally.That's why I love Landgrab Risk!(This website have different maps and own the system of "leader" and "fortress",I sure that you won't complain Landgrab Risk 100%!I even made some maps to play in Landgrab Risk)So,if Risk have to attract the people "continually",it have to reform and "stregthen its strategic elements",making it more interesting gradually.Just like Obama said,"Change!".Then Risk never fall!

lobby,sometimes comment is easily affected "by the people's passion".Thus the people always incline to neglect the "other side" when analyzing one thing.In fact,my pro-Risk view is not fully true at least,but I just want to tell you:Risk is not that bad indeed.

Well,what do you think about my argument,lobby?

Well, this is an old topic, but it's timeless -- so I'll jump in. :)

We've all experienced that Risk plateau where alliances and dice rolls have thwarted our great strategy, but really isn't that a lot like life?

I have played even more chess than I have Risk and there are a few different levels that one can go thru in chess. The subtle meanderings of a Chessmaster are quite tedious for a beginner to even contemplate, let alone learn from. And even tho there is much more chance of luck and collusion in Risk than in chess -- there are still different levels in Risk.

Part of moving to the "next level" in Risk is to broaden your horizons, both with different opponents, and with different priorities. Sun Tzu in the "Art of War" famously said, "All warfare is based on deception" and this is very true in Risk. Mr. Honary has provided many ways for us to disguise our true meaning in Risk and/or to remain flexible in our plans. I love this website for that.

Risk is very evolutionary and one of the prime directives of natural selection is that every entity that is a player has a strong will to survive. If that means collusion or any other means at a player's disposal -- survival instincts demand that we do that.

So, there is more to Risk than meets the eye -- it's more than just having a brilliant strategy at the beginning that you overwhelm your opponents with -- that's Risk and that's life.

Does that make them bad games? Well, as Tony Soprano often said: whaddayagonnado? Was it Machiavelli who said that first?