Imported Post
King
Posts:232
 |
| 30 Apr 2007 2:28 AM |
|
This is it one of the most importen quesition in Risk"What territory to go for?" When I have played risk i have noticed that some players tend to go for a certain area with a territory in mind. For some it is austrailia for some it is centrel america even some go for north africa.I know that best is an opinion but I think there is a #1 teritory that is most usefull.I myself think that you can use great britain and middle east to a great extent.Do you think I am wrong? Tell me your opinions.
Riskperson |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 30 Apr 2007 2:29 AM |
|
there is a number of "#1" territories. You cannot say that one is the best for any one reason, for different strategies can null that opinion.there is indeed some good strategies, such as taking australia and holding siam.. but that is also a strategy that many new players try to take advantage of because they believe it would pay off and they should only concentrate on holding it. imo great britain may seem appetizing but would not be considered the best territory. europe is in a tough spot to hold and is rather easy to invade. ...
Guest(Hello) |
|
|
|
|
Mr Strategist
Strategist
Posts:29
|
| 30 Apr 2007 3:35 PM |
|
| When it comes to a single territory, Middle East seems to be the one that stands out simply because it has access to everywhere. There was a guide on this site that talked about this. There is even a survey on people think is the most useful or important territory. |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 05 May 2007 5:07 PM |
|
[QUOTE]Imported Post wrote
there is a number of "#1" territories. You cannot say that one is the best for any one reason, for different strategies can null that opinion.there is indeed some good strategies, such as taking australia and holding siam.. but that is also a strategy that many new players try to take advantage of because they believe it would pay off and they should only concentrate on holding it. imo great britain may seem appetizing but would not be considered the best territory. europe is in a tough spot to hold and is rather easy to invade. ...
Guest(Hello)[/QUOTE]
I think that you are wrong and that europe is a good continet for definsive purposes
riskperson |
|
|
|
|
The Player
Strategist
Posts:38
|
| 20 May 2007 4:37 PM |
|
| Europe is actually good for diplomacy. Because you are at the centre of the world, you get to interact with everybody. Then again everyone can also attack you. If you look at the real world, Europe also benefits a lot from being in the 'middle' of the world. Kind of funny that playing Risk game maps so well with the real world. |
|
|
|
|
cyray7
Diplomat
Posts:121
|
| 26 May 2007 10:19 PM |
|
| there is no BEST territory. end of discussion. the territories like Middle East are vulnerable but can attack anything. territories like Argentina or Madagascar are less likely to be attacked, but can attack less territories and continents. |
|
|
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 21 Dec 2007 12:16 PM |
|
| I agree with cyray7. |
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 21 Dec 2007 5:59 PM |
|
| Hopefully in the next month I will have a table ready that we can debate about the territories that are considered "The Best". Truth be told, it is all relative, but there are some territories that have more "value" in tha game. I think the Middle East is one of those territories. Controlling it, while hazordous, gives you a huge advantage since you control the hub of three continents. I think the territories that are the least valuable, such as Eastern Australia and Argentina, have less value because of their relative isolation in the game and as such, they don't see much traffic. Now, there are certain situations that these territories become very valuable, but on the whole, those situations are very specific and somewhat uncommon. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 21 Dec 2007 6:04 PM |
|
| I agree that there is no "BEST" territory, but I've always held UKRAINE in high regard for it's strategic loaction. |
|
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 21 Dec 2007 6:14 PM |
|
I would have to agree with you. I think the Ukraine is often overlooked, it is very in a strategic location. I think the Middle East is still hte most "valuable" and I think North Africa, Southern Europe, Egypt and maybe even Siam are really hot properties as well, but the Ukraine is the lynchpin for Eastern Europe. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 22 Dec 2007 1:41 AM |
|
| Also there are no best territories, some are more valuable than others naturally and that's what this is all about. How to find them, how to use them, what are they good for, why are they good, when not to use them, when you shouldn't care about them and so on. So a measure (or measures) that can answer these questions will be useful. Grant, we can't wait for the table. :-) |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 22 Dec 2007 12:45 PM |
|
| I personnaly would wanna take the inside of a territory and as I like Europe, It might be N.Europe. |
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 02 Jan 2008 2:09 PM |
|
| Why would you do that? That seems interesting given that most players like to secure the borders first and then worry about the middle later. I like your approach though because it does seem silly to fight inward first so you can expand outward later. Your method can certainly simplifies logistics. How does your strategy work out in games? How successful are you in capturing and keeping Europe? |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|