121–130 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BP (when properly explained) emphasizes that the important aspect of the timeline is its relativity to the current time.
So it saves 2 characters compared to ###y ago but requires an explanation. 2500 BP 2500y ago
In our gaming group, we decided Risk just isn't that good of a game. It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. Our main plays have been Dominion, DnD, Gloomhaven, Wingspan, and Crokinole, all of which we greatly prefer.
I've found I actually enjoy Risk when played on the computer. Just speeding up army placements and automating the dice rolls, so you can say "attack until N remain", saves an unbelievable amount of time.
In our gaming group, we decided Risk just isn't that good of a game. It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. Our main plays have been Dominion, DnD, Gloomhaven, Wingspan, and Crokinole, all of which we greatly prefer.
Risk takes forever because setting up and rolling dice takes forever. Same with Axis and Allies. The moment you put it on a computer it becomes fairly fast and ... actually most of the gravitas goes away. One person’s opinion.
In our gaming group, we decided Risk just isn't that good of a game. It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. Our main plays have been Dominion, DnD, Gloomhaven, Wingspan, and Crokinole, all of which we greatly prefer.
Gloomhaven scenarios take way longer than one game of Risk IME. Actually one of its weak points...
I can spend 4-5 hours playing a good board game, and enjoy it immensely and go back to it anytime.
Risk is not a great game regardless of length of play. Sure it’s enjoyable playing on PC, but there are still many more enjoyable games tabletop or PC.
This is true, for me at least, due to the fact that it’s fairly shallow plus it involves too much luck. I enjoy deeper games that are less reliant on luck (though I still enjoy games with some luck/randomization).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BP (when properly explained) emphasizes that the important aspect of the timeline is its relativity to the current time.
So it saves 2 characters compared to ###y ago but requires an explanation. 2500 BP 2500y ago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I read stories like this I always wonder how much of this is groupthink. Speaking as someone who has played a ton of different, complex games over many years, groupthink can be really pervasive and often explains why someone swears a particular strategy is dominant. I don’t play Risk so can’t speak this specific example. I suspect if you took your strategy elsewhere your get far more boxed results however.
In the ever evolving online game world (eg, hearthstone), group think is basically 'the meta.' Lots of people get the same common advice, or learn a new trick, so suddenly it becomes advantageous to use strategies which defend against the trick or take advantage of some weakness which opens up due to a trade-off... And then repeat. Afaict, being really good at these games requires a good grasp of the fundamentals, kn…
If the general perception is that Bears are too powerful while Geese aren't powerful enough, developers may subsequently alter the game to reduce the power of a Bear's attack, or allow Geese to fly further. These are often called "balance tweaks" but it's almost unavoidable that they'll focus on the meta, rather than addressing a proven flaw in the game itself because most of these games aren't subject to any theoretical underpinning. As a result the meta may change even as the game itself is being changed as a result of influence from the meta. If you announce on Tuesday that from next weekend the overpowered Bear gets reduced damage, and then on Wednesday a renowned player demonstrates that (with the existing damage) Bears are easily overcome by a previously unseen strategy using Geese, the developers look foolish. Cue outcry when the damage reduction takes effect on schedule while at the same time players who favour Bears are now being swarmed by Goose players who've learned the new strategy.
If they stop balance patching the game obviously there's a risk that a degenerate strategy is discovered. Perhaps Bears are in fact just so good that Geese always lose against equally skilled players, and people lose interest in the game. But it's also possible that the meta continues to evolve, Bears dominate Geese, then with a new style of play Geese are destroying Bears, and later the Bears are back on top, even though the rules never changed. This is the case with Chess for example, styles wax and wave in popularity as top players show off one way or another way to play the game and win.
StarCraft: Brood War (by now a very old game) is still played competitively although its meta doesn't evolve as quickly as it did twenty years ago.
Title: How To Win At Risk Every Time By Using Systems Thinking Disclaimer at bottom of page: The above strategy works “on paper,” but that doesn’t mean that it will work in your next game of Risk.
Yeah this title is clickbait. No strategy wins every time, especially if everyone's cognizant of your one style.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience players are happy to unite against me. Usually I take Australia and move into Asia when I’ve amassed enough forces. Then my strategy moves to holding asia at 3 points, while I disrupt the continental bonuses of my opponents between turns. Africa, Europe and North America can be disrupted from this position.
So take it from a young man who spent way too much of one summer playing Risk on the computer, you don't want to take Australia, the problem with Australia is that there is no good way to go from Aussie to anywhere else because the only thing next to you is Asia so someone else can solidify gains somewhere else, and Aussie only gives you 2 more reinforcements, not enough to get you a decisive enough edge to move out…
Asia usually lacks a strong player while players focus on their relative home continents, often being sabotaged by competitors or me. That said, I rarely get a chance to play people with Risk experience these days.
We played extensively at school, with lots of politics - so games often lasted weeks (played in-between certain classes) as naturally the weak team up against the strong, ad infinitum.
This article suggests that you should not play too aggressive and not take continents too early (maximizing Reinforcing Feedback), because other players will then unite against you (Balancing Feedback). However, this article fails to understand that in Risk, most players are not willing to unite. In fact, if player A and player B decide to unite against me and player A had his turn and stopped me, player B is highly…
Might just be a friend group thing but I will also add on that very few games of risk I ever played didn’t involve some level of ‘meta’ strategy like a husband/wife not attacking each other or that guy that doesn’t like you refusing an obviously mutually beneficial alliance.
edit: In a way, it feels like people who wave you on when they have the right of way at a stop sign. It's not nice, just follow the rules and drive predictably. /rant