Rolling sixes is how you win at Risk.
Win at Risk by using systems thinking
181–190 of 242 posts
Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking
#182The first part of the article can be summarized as: 1. Initiate as few attacks as possible 2. Let your enemies break up each other’s continents; 3. Take only one country per turn The problem is that it doesn't explain which country to take, and how to attack without being attacked -- which is what makes the game difficult. But, then, the article suggests something new (at least for me): 1. Find a way to grow in stren…
Take a least one country each turn is the "get lots of cards for bonus armies" strategy.
Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking
#183This 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…
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.
Well I've played hundreds of games of Risk, against many different people IRL and also a lot online.
IRL you'll see that people tend to be "nice", don't want to push you too far. And they're also willing to accept deals like "hey, you want to agree that neither of us ever crosses this border here?" rules, because there's a good chance that you'll play again together, so being trustworthy pays off.
Online, the game is played very differently, and it's all about maximizing the results of every single turn, and completely ignoring any metagame or personalities. You might as well be playing against bots.
I tend to do a bit better offline, because I'm a bit of a charmer and people want to make deals with me. But online, I feel like I can try many more strategies without worrying about people thinking I'm "mean" afterwards.
Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking
#184This 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…
> 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 likely to backstab player A and then emerge as the winner. The fun in Risk is the other player knows they will be backstabbed, but can't resist the temptation to team up anyway, hoping that they might be the one to do the backstabbing. Everbody knows that backstabbing will occur, and yet, invari…
Absolutely. Even if they don't end up backstabbing you, at the very least they'll be like: "Oh, you already dealt with the threat? Well then I think I'll just reinforce this turn."
Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking
#185In 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.
It’s also highly dependent on Luck and gambling is dumb.
Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking
#186The first part of the article can be summarized as: 1. Initiate as few attacks as possible 2. Let your enemies break up each other’s continents; 3. Take only one country per turn The problem is that it doesn't explain which country to take, and how to attack without being attacked -- which is what makes the game difficult. But, then, the article suggests something new (at least for me): 1. Find a way to grow in stren…
> If this is a good strategy, I have always played it wrong -- because I've always tried to take whole continents. Its not a great strategy, because it doesn't work. If you are taking only one country a turn and keeping only a small connected corr of reinforced countries with the rest weak, then anyone playing a “grab lots of countries quickly" strategy is going to steamroller your weakly defended territory, and if y…
I think it assumes you have more than 2 people playing, and the other people haven't read this article. Which...doesn't sound like a sound strategy to me.
Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can see why it makes sense in archaeology, but using it here without any explanation just led to confusion. Everybody knows BC/AD (or BCE/CE if you're wanting to be cross cultural) so using it is just poor communication in this case.
It's trivial to Google and then we are part of today's 10,000.
Yes we can easily Google "BP".
Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking
#188Having played Risk on and off for almost 40 years, this article sounds...silly and wildly overthought.
Oh and, my favorite strategy: capture Australia first, then creep outward, deny others full countries, and create opportunities for other players to attack each other.
Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking
#189Having played Risk on and off for almost 40 years, this article sounds...silly and wildly overthought. Oh and, my favorite strategy: capture Australia first, then creep outward, deny others full countries, and create opportunities for other players to attack each other.
i love that Australia strategy, its my go-to
Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking
#190In 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.
Are wargames (simulation of real battles) still a thing ?
Absolutely! Command and Colors for example is a popular contemporary system (for some definition of popular that includes wargaming).
The old school Avalon hill style hex and counter wargames have mostly been replaced by computer games, though. For obvious reasons.
Tabletop miniature wargames are also still going strong, probably more so than board wargaming. Although the historical side of the hobby is definitely aging compared to fantasy/sci-fi themed gaming.