Imported Post
King
Posts:232
 |
| 15 Mar 2007 5:32 PM |
|
newbie here, and my family has been enjoying this game for a few weeks now. the problem I've noticed is that when you play a two person game, the person who gets to attack first, seems to have a distinct advantage, winning more often, and noticably always seeming to have the upper hand.
I'm not sure if this is true for a three or more person game, we haven't had enough experience yet. We are considering altering the two player game such that the second player no matter what his territory count is, gets to start with his 7 armies (his original 21/3 count) plus a 2 army (9 total) second player bonus (we haven't had a situation where the second player has had a natural continent)
I'm curious about what more experienced players feel about this.
Sincerely,
Jon |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 15 Mar 2007 5:32 PM |
|
Yeah, it can often be a bit unbalanced. Are you using a third neutral player as a buffer zone? I find that helps to negate player 1's advantage. It doesn't attack anyone, and if a player attacks it, then your opponent rolls for the neutral, and players take it in turns to place reinforcements starting with player 2 (it obviously doesn't get any cards). You'd need to set up by dealing the cards into 3 as well, as the neutral obviously couldn't play territory grab!
I would tend to shy away from giving out bonuses to player 2, as that could unbalance the game the other way. Other than that, you could try a variation called 'same-time' risk, which I've put as a new topic, as it's more complicated than I first realised, so I'd leave that until you're more familiar with the rules. |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 15 Mar 2007 5:33 PM |
|
the third neutral player sounds like a much better solution than mine. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks!!! Although If the first player was very aggressive towards the other real player wouldn't he still have an advantage?
Jon |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 15 Mar 2007 5:34 PM |
|
It wasn't really my idea to be fair, it was in an old copy of the rules. Oh yeah, also don't roll to see who's going first until you've both set up, that way both sides should deploy more defensively. Player 1 may still be able to get an advantage early on, but playing agressively towards player 2 would probably cost him a continental bonus, as he's got to deal with the neutral as well. To be fair I've only played it a few times, try it out and see what happens!
Fuegan |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 15 Mar 2007 5:35 PM |
|
wait a minute maybe I'm missing something, when does the second player get to "set up his defenses" We've played he starts with one army on each of his countries, and that's it, should he be getting to set up his initial 7 armies before the first person gets to attack? and if so does he get a reinforcement of more armies when its his turn to attack?
Jon |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 15 Mar 2007 5:35 PM |
|
Wow, that explains it, if you were starting with only one man in each territory then no wonder player 1 gets a huge advantage, there'd be nothing in his way! Well, first off, you actually start with 35 troops each in a 3-player game (the rules say that just two players is impractical). You use these to put one man in each of the territories you've been dealt (which in this case would be 14), then the remaining 21 are deployed in your territories as you see fit. That's what I referred to when I was talking about 'setting up defences'.
You were right when you said that each player doesn't get their reinforcements until it's their turn though. Does that help at all?
Fuegan |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 15 Mar 2007 5:36 PM |
|
Ok hold the phone. I did some research. I now see a big problem with the way I was playing the game. I was using the the 1959 instructions, but my copy of the instructions had one change: from 2-6 players. The original 1959 instructions were for 3-6 players. Also in that game you only got 21 armies to start! Now things are making more sense. Playing this way as a two person game is ridiculously biased for the first person; hence the game couldn't even be played with two people. In 1963 the rules were upgraded to 2-6 players, but they added that you start with 50 armies (for a 2 player game) and 35 armies (for a 3 player game),...
That changes the game a whole lot, and makes it a whole lot more fair.
I also see that the current instructions include the neutral country as well as a two player game starting with 40 armies. I think I like that best of all.
I will have to reassess the entire game now.
edit: were posting at the same time. I posted without reading your response.
Jon |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 15 Mar 2007 5:37 PM |
|
[QUOTE]Imported Post wrote
Wow, that explains it, if you were starting with only one man in each territory then no wonder player 1 gets a huge advantage, there'd be nothing in his way! Well, first off, you actually start with 35 troops each in a 3-player game (the rules say that just two players is impractical). You use these to put one man in each of the territories you've been dealt (which in this case would be 14), then the remaining 21 are deployed in your territories as you see fit. That's what I referred to when I was talking about 'setting up defences'.
You were right when you said that each player doesn't get their reinforcements until it's their turn though. Does that help at all?
Fuegan[/QUOTE]
yes it does. I got that when I compared the two sets of instructions, the 1959 vs the 1963 (vs the latest version with the neutral territories) This will be a much more interesting game later this week (I have to work tonight and tomorrow night.)
I got my set this Xmas from a new deluxe release, its in a wood book style box, 6 section folding board, and has the old wood armies 1x, 10x. The instructions are a reprint of the orginal 1959 with the one edit. What a big mistake to make.
Jon |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 15 Mar 2007 5:37 PM |
|
1959? Where on earth did you get that from? You know, it'd actually be cool to have something that old, I'm jealous! Well, problem solved anyway.
Fuegan |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 15 Mar 2007 5:38 PM |
|
| We keep clashing! It's funny. Yeah, I've seen that one on the shelves, it's surprising that they didn't update the rules. The box looks cool though. |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 15 Mar 2007 5:40 PM |
|
[QUOTE]Imported Post wrote
We keep clashing! It's funny. Yeah, I've seen that one on the shelves, it's surprising that they didn't update the rules. The box looks cool though.[/QUOTE]
the whole set is great. the box top is dove tailed cut to slide in and held in place with a magnet. nice heavy large dice too.
I also got the matching set board game "clue".
Kids won't play monopoly with me anymore. They say I'm too rutheless.
Fuegan
|
|
|
|
|
cyray7
Diplomat
Posts:121
|
| 26 May 2007 10:15 PM |
|
| it should be even in my opinion. but in the end it relaly comes down to the general idea of, "who has the advantage overall, the first or last player." |
|
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 01 Jul 2007 6:30 PM |
|
The rules of the game states to have three armies set up in a 2 player game: one for each opponent and one neutral army. Follow the rules in hte game and you should be fine. The first player in any game has a distinct advantage since he gets to choose his territories and place first as well as attack first. The second player in a two player game though can be smart and place his troops en masse away from his opponent so he doesn''t get clobbered early. Then, when it is your turn, you had a chance to see your opponent's set-up and moves and you can react accordingly.
In Risk, each scenario is different and how you react is what the game is all about. Just like in real life, everyone doesn't start off equal, so it isn't the position you start in, but rather how you handle it that matters. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 27 Sep 2007 1:24 AM |
|
| It is not biased to the first player(in my opinion) but the first player does have an advantage. |
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|