Conquer Club

To begin with, let us assume we are playing a classic, flat rate game with more than four players. Let us also assume that the fortifications might either be adjacent, chained or unlimited. Let us assume that the player in Australia has captured it and held it for a round with a large enough force in Siam to be sure of holding it for another round at least. Let us finally assume that the player is good enough not to weaken Siam thus allowing another player to steal Australia over the next few rounds.

With that understood, we would now naturally discuss how Australia would go about winning the game from here and these plans could in general be summarised as:

A) Use Siam as a base and apply extra forces around the board to disrupt and eventually conquer other territories.
B) Build from Siam and gradually conquer territories in Asia before finally either taking Asia and holding or attacking in strength later using the extra armies built up to hold the territories taken.

While it can be taken for granted that a number of players on CC on are already gearing up to savagely attack the simplicity of A and B, might I suggest that A and B are merely meant to be very general guides.

What should be discussed and to my knowledge hasn't been discussed in any depth on CC before is how to defeat Australia once Australia has been comfortably held. Some quick points need to be made now to flesh out the reasons behind the topic. First, it must be said that I have been a keen Risk player for years and once on CC quickly devoted a fairly large number of games to the form I described above. I play 6 player, flat rate, chained (in general) Classic Risk. Someone might decide to correct me, but I imagine my win rate on this style would be about 45%. If you are wondering how I could have held Australia so many times, this is due to my absolute determination to get it, from often very unlikely positions. Second, I have not lost a game on CC once Australia has been held by me for one round and have only managed to win once from another position (Europe). In all games I have lost, the player in Australia has won every time. My memory might be faulty here, but I don't believe it to be so.

This is really an incredible thing, suggesting that if you have Australia and know what you are doing you WILL WIN in the end.

Now, there are some really excellent players on CC and I wonder if they are prepared to divulge any strategies for beating Australia in the kind of game I am suggesting.

Some thoughts spring to mind...

A) Quick diplomacy to make sure no one secures Australia early, with an early coordinated invasion.
B) Players waiting to strike if Australia even slightly over-extends (which is how I won from Europe)
C) A player managing to achieve considerably more income than Australia (say SA + NA), but this is difficult to do in a large game.

To conclude, I am well aware that one can win from Europe or South America or even Africa but this is often achieved because the player in Australia isn't playing well. What I want to discuss is how to beat a player in Australia who is playing well.

Mr C

The most obvious answer I can think of is holding a another, larger bonus. Europe for instance.
As you said though, in a large game this can be troublesome to achieve.

I would say wait for a few players to be exterminated, hold at least one bonus, gather enough forces and then launch a full blown campaign against Australia. What most people don't realise is that by putting all your forces there and not bothering about anywhere else is that you are doing a "King Theoden" or a Helms Deep". Just without the mountain passage.
If Siam is taken, you are trapped.

And there is no escape.

You've only played those settings (6p flat rate classic) 6 times total... not too much experience, although winning 66% of the time is by no means a bad percentage - before actually taking your word on the strategy however I think it would be best to get the number of games finished up, as I disagree with Australia being the end all for games, although it is significant.

Most players would be smart enough to if they see an Oceania building up, to let someone else easily take another continent as to preserve armies. As you said you'd go to great lengths to acquire Oceania, it also sounds like you'd put yourself in a weak situation to take it. For example if you don't drop anything in Oceania, but have a 3 on Siam, would you still try to take it?

FabledIntegral wrote:You've only played those settings (6p flat rate classic) 6 times total... not too much experience, although winning 66% of the time is by no means a bad percentage - before actually taking your word on the strategy however I think it would be best to get the number of games finished up, as I disagree with Australia being the end all for games, although it is significant.

Most players would be smart enough to if they see an Oceania building up, to let someone else easily take another continent as to preserve armies. As you said you'd go to great lengths to acquire Oceania, it also sounds like you'd put yourself in a weak situation to take it. For example if you don't drop anything in Oceania, but have a 3 on Siam, would you still try to take it?

If I had one out of the 4 territories, another player had two and I went first I would certainly drop into it. If I went second and I had not much else on the map I would still play there and try and bluff my way into holding it. i.e

"I've got nothing else so I'm going for it whatever."

Or something like that.

If I held Siam and again had no other reasonable position I would proably drop back to China and hope to catch my opponent napping, as simply blocking Siam will just end badly for all concerned. In answer to your question though, no I wouldn't kill myself trying to get it, however I do like to lurk near and possibly catch it on cards!

Your point regarding number of games played would I think be valid on any other map on CC, but you must surely concede that a number of new players will have played a lot of classic risk before joining CC. I am one of those players. Including slight deviations I have played a few more than 6 classic games on CC (maybe 4 players and up some with unlimited fort) about 14 I would guess, though my percentage would drop to a still quite healthy 40% or so. You will just have to trust my word (and my words) that I do know my way around the classic map.

Yet the discussion is already moving towards either how to get Australia or what to do with it! So I want to firmly wrench it back towards how to defeat the player in Australia.

With regards to your point regarding letting someone else take a continent, this is likely to happen anyway in a six player flat rate game. South America is almost always held by someone early in the game, though the other players will probably be without a continent for the first 10 rounds or so. Nonetheless, Australia's income is still superior by far as South America is usually contending with an ambitious player in North America and often a player in Africa looking to take North Africa on cards. A defensive Australia (as I prefer to play it) must usually only concern itself with making sure Europe doesn't get going (and I will always come out of my shell to do that) as Europe has the income to quite quickly strangle Australia.

So with that in mind, might players in a game with a capable player in Australia actually encourage someone to take Europe, on the basis of Europe being able to squash Australia. To put it as concisely as possible, I am suggesting that the key to Australia's success on CC is that players will pathologically attack Europe, which leaves the player in Australia with absolutely no theat at all.

If the player in Australia is as boring and determined as I, he will simply bank his income, wait for the right moment and use those banked troops later to hold the positions he takes later in the game.

Mr Changsha wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:You've only played those settings (6p flat rate classic) 6 times total... not too much experience, although winning 66% of the time is by no means a bad percentage - before actually taking your word on the strategy however I think it would be best to get the number of games finished up, as I disagree with Australia being the end all for games, although it is significant.

Most players would be smart enough to if they see an Oceania building up, to let someone else easily take another continent as to preserve armies. As you said you'd go to great lengths to acquire Oceania, it also sounds like you'd put yourself in a weak situation to take it. For example if you don't drop anything in Oceania, but have a 3 on Siam, would you still try to take it?

If I had one out of the 4 territories, another player had two and I went first I would certainly drop into it. If I went second and I had not much else on the map I would still play there and try and bluff my way into holding it. i.e

"I've got nothing else so I'm going for it whatever."

Or something like that.

If I held Siam and again had no other reasonable position I would proably drop back to China and hope to catch my opponent napping, as simply blocking Siam will just end badly for all concerned. In answer to your question though, no I wouldn't kill myself trying to get it, however I do like to lurk near and possibly catch it on cards!

Your point regarding number of games played would I think be valid on any other map on CC, but you must surely concede that a number of new players will have played a lot of classic risk before joining CC. I am one of those players. Including slight deviations I have played a few more than 6 classic games on CC (maybe 4 players and up some with unlimited fort) about 14 I would guess, though my percentage would drop to a still quite healthy 40% or so. You will just have to trust my word (and my words) that I do know my way around the classic map.

Yet the discussion is already moving towards either how to get Australia or what to do with it! So I want to firmly wrench it back towards how to defeat the player in Australia.

With regards to your point regarding letting someone else take a continent, this is likely to happen anyway in a six player flat rate game. South America is almost always held by someone early in the game, though the other players will probably be without a continent for the first 10 rounds or so. Nonetheless, Australia's income is still superior by far as South America is usually contending with an ambitious player in North America and often a player in Africa looking to take North Africa on cards. A defensive Australia (as I prefer to play it) must usually only concern itself with making sure Europe doesn't get going (and I will always come out of my shell to do that) as Europe has the income to quite quickly strangle Australia.

So with that in mind, might players in a game with a capable player in Australia actually encourage someone to take Europe, on the basis of Europe being able to squash Australia. To put it as concisely as possible, I am suggesting that the key to Australia's success on CC is that players will pathologically attack Europe, which leaves the player in Australia with absolutely no theat at all.

If the player in Australia is as boring and determined as I, he will simply bank his income, wait for the right moment and use those banked troops later to hold the positions he takes later in the game.

Well the reason I didn't give as much credit to new players is that the board game risk isn't played as flat rate. It's played as escalating I believe, in which going for Australia is a VERY bad decision if you have 6 players or more (it's OK in 5 players, and decent in 4 and below). This is because the amount of armies you lose taking Australia will never be gained back - unless you drop 2 territories or have very lucky dice (which of course - this game is about strategy and not hoping for lucky dice, in the long run it wouldn't pay off) and manage to take the continent within the first 1-3 rounds.

Flat Rate/No cards I agree - Australia is probably the most viable continent - I assure you that you will find other threads already referring to that as a basic strategy. By no means though am I saying you are wrong - a 66% win% as I said is more than merely impressive, I just want to make sure that it is able to hold up over time (even a 40% win would be miraculous as you claim). If you can manage a 40% win amongst 6 players, you'll find yourself up and playing amongst the top ranks very soon.

Coming from the UK, I always played flat rate (though escalating was an option in the instructions).

With regards to my win percentage it will surely drop if I play more high ranked players.

I suspect one of the reasons for our argument in 'suggestions' might be the difference between escalating and flat rate. I can well understand that a slow, or ill-considered or even wrong-headed move could end a game very quickly and I can understand the frustration involved. Flat rate is a more gentle game in that sense, a few mistakes can be made and still a win be had. It rewards patience above anything else, as well as a clear uncomplicated plan to follow through on. My point being, I have seen many a corporal, or sergeant play an excellent game of flat rate classic risk. It is also a British game...join one of my speed games and you'll find 6 brits playing risk as it was meant to be played...slowly and with grit.

Though still no words on how to defeat my Australia!

Still no words on how you are taking it.

Odd that flat rate was standard for your RISK - as CC added it on as a feature later on. Originally it was only Escalating because that's the standard rules for RISK... out of Escalating/Flat Rate/No cards, Escalating makes up around 60% of the games played on this site. A vast majority.

My understanding was that in the US escalating was standard while in the UK flat rate was...certainly all the games I played at university were flat rate.

Not true that I haven't proposed a strategy. I suggested above that only Europe had the ability to effectively kill Australia and therefore players should change their strategy and allow Europe to exist, rather than always smashing it no matter what.

(though I wrote it much more beautifully above... )

FabledIntegral wrote:Odd that flat rate was standard for your RISK - as CC added it on as a feature later on.

Flat rate was the default rule for RISK games sold in most of Europe during 80ies and 90ies, IIRC it stayed that way until the anniversary edition in -99. I actually never tried the "optional" esc rule so the first time I ever played an esc game was in -05 or something, almost 20 years after my first RISK game played.

Thezzaruz wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:Odd that flat rate was standard for your RISK - as CC added it on as a feature later on.

Flat rate was the default rule for RISK games sold in most of Europe during 80ies and 90ies, IIRC it stayed that way until the anniversary edition in -99. I actually never tried the "optional" esc rule so the first time I ever played an esc game was in -05 or something, almost 20 years after my first RISK game played.

When I first started playing RISK I killed way too many neutral armies.

Jeez Mr, why so many f*ck'n words??? Just say it fer f8ck's sake!! Edit and cut down, take it from a fellow proper-speaker ranter.

If they put a huge army on Siam, you've got two territories that can attack the same territory. So build two inconspicious armies somewhere else as if they're going to attack somewhere else, fly them in ('cos Asia's usually full of '1's in a developed game), cut Siam down with one army in China or Inda then take Australia with the other army.

Then fortify in Indonesia until you've got the strength to extend out solidly.

Siam is for suckers unless you're passing through to kick ass.

I enjoyed writing it, you truly didn't have to read it...

I like your way though, get in there and put the guy under pressure.

I'm not sure how you're going to move two armies with chained fort, but I get your point and it could be adapted.

But I wonder what would be going on behind you while you were waging total war against Australia? If I'm playing in South America or even Africa, I'm applauding you for your audacity while planning how to mop you up afterwards.

Also, wouldn't your plan involve giving Siam first crack on 3 dice, as you would transfer them in before attacking?

Interestingly, I am playing a new six player and Australia was simply not allowed to get going (so far) and the player in South America is also unable to hold his continent. I wonder if my opponents have been reading this thread... (it's also a no dice game so that does change things a little as well).

I've PM'd you Mr Changsha, I'm blabbing too much about my strategies in public! Loose lips sink ships y'know!!

Cheers mate.

In a doubles game me and my mate used to have a good strategy if the other team (we only played 4 players) got oceania. One of us (generally me for some reason ) would put pressure on oceania. Most of the time, BOTH team members of the other team would try to keep it - in the mean time, my partner would be building in SA/NA.

In singles, you could definately bend this strategy a bit to make it work for you. For example, in a 6 player game, let's assume you were 'Player A'. Player 'B' got a quick road to oceania. Player C and Player D attacked Oceania trying to stop (in their minds) Player B from getting too powerful. You then, as Player A, could build up in SA, NA or Africa (Europe IMO is too hard to hold) and only have 2 opponents.

This only works in certain circumstances - with more experianced opponents, you could find them putting the pressure on you to take down oceania - and if no one does anything, oceania will win anyway! But around 50% of the time, a similar scenario happens to the one above and you need to be the one BUILDING, not the one using your armies attacking another player and thereby weakening yourself and the other player.

Yeah, I know, nice words coming from a Private. It's good in theory I guess .

Here is a good example: Game no. 3157876

You will notice that blue is in Australia and green (who was in no position to attack) wisely made a deal due to the teal threat in Africa. I say wisely, as why should green sacrifice himself for the rest of us...and of course, there is a strong Africa, a rarity to be sure, deflecting attention away from Australia with every strong fortification.

Now teal looks the leader in this game, but experience tells me that if blue plays this right and in this situation plays it long, he will prevail over time.

Now naturally I cannot comment on a game I am involved in, but I wonder if anyone would like to either challenge my overall notion of a set Australia being the front-runner (even in a game like this), or if that is agreed upon, what the other players should do to combat that threat - which is not an easy thing to do without handing the game early to Africa.

For isn't that the crux of the matter. It rarely makes logical sense to hit Australia (in this case due to a strong Africa), so it never GETS hit and therefore, over time to be sure, it slowly builds its way, or suddenly pounces, to victory.

A recent sample of 100 randomly chosen flat rate and no cards games showed that overall, most wins come from either Australia or SA, about 1/3rd each if I remember correctly, the difference was only 1 or 2 wins so you can say that either continent works equally well.

However, when I checked my games on classic I found that 1/3rd of my wins were from Europe, and I maintain a 50% win rate on that map.

The best thing for the other players to do is to divide the other continents among themselves, if they keep attacking each other the guy in Aussie can sit it out and sweep the map a few rounds later. Good players know this and will act accordingly, I recall situations where 5 people had a continent each and a 6th kept deploying on one country in Asia. The key to winning against someone getting Australia early on is diplomacy.

MeDeFe wrote:A recent sample of 100 randomly chosen flat rate and no cards games showed that overall, most wins come from either Australia or SA, about 1/3rd each if I remember correctly, the difference was only 1 or 2 wins so you can say that either continent works equally well.

However, when I checked my games on classic I found that 1/3rd of my wins were from Europe, and I maintain a 50% win rate on that map.

The best thing for the other players to do is to divide the other continents among themselves, if they keep attacking each other the guy in Aussie can sit it out and sweep the map a few rounds later. Good players know this and will act accordingly, I recall situations where 5 people had a continent each and a 6th kept deploying on one country in Asia. The key to winning against someone getting Australia early on is diplomacy.

I won a five player (no cards this time/unlimited/sequential) classic game from Europe yesterday.I was able to hold Europe for probably 15 rounds (there was also an Africa + South America), built up a large amount of troops and when I finally made my move still had to deal with Australia in a dog-fight.

MeDeFe is right though. The fact that the other players didn't attack each other stopped Australia walking away with it. The player in Australia certainly knew this (he was a major) and spent 25 rounds trying to start a war which I refused to get involved in.

Anyway like MeDeFe I have no real problem playing Europe in a large game (the key is in knowing when to make the move to hold it). Personally, I hate playing from South America as I find it difficult to either take Africa, or keep it broken (force in North Africa) while at the same time trying to take North America. Yesterday, the player in South America (another major...some good points for me last night) made that play from South America. He took almost all of it and just before he could make his final push I took greenland and laid a 15. Pretty much the end of the game for South America.

As I wrote earlier, a strong player in Europe can certainly beat Australia.

Easiest way to defeat Australia is to elect the Liberals

MeDeFe wrote: I recall situations where 5 people had a continent each and a 6th kept deploying on one country in Asia. The key to winning against someone getting Australia early on is diplomacy.

To wit, Game 854738. I lost NA when the player in Europe beat me up before leaving the site. It'll probably stay like this until someone else leaves.

That's the reason No cards is a joke imo....

Can happen in escalating as well but it happens more than possibly fathomable in No cards...

Shouldn't this thread be renamed to "Ways of defeating O on the classic map"?

OliverFA wrote:Shouldn't this thread be renamed to "Ways of defeating O on the classic map"?

To horribly paraphrase that great lady Mrs T: Mr Changsha is not for turning!!!

As you might well imagine, yesterday was a pretty hard day for me.

I am probably better at 2.1, but the classic map is a work of complete perfection and a map I simply never get tired of playing on.

While I am without question a very sad man, I could debate classic strategy all day - I really love the map that much.

Mr Changsha wrote: Let us also assume that the fortifications might either be adjacent, chained or unlimited.
Mr C

What else would it be?

zsp wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote: Let us also assume that the fortifications might either be adjacent, chained or unlimited.
Mr C

What else would it be?

I meant of course that any of the three fortification options would be applicable within the scenario described. The main point was actually to exclude escalating cards from the discussion.

There is being critical and then there is being overly-critical. I think you just reached that point there, zsp.

But beyond that (and I normally do enjoy reading your posts...!) how do you defeat a guy in Australia who knows what he's doing?

hi every one
I agree that oz is a very important factor to win the game..but like some 1 said SA is too.
If u play with less experienced players maybe u will be allow to build a overwhelming army from OZ, but if u playing a 6 player game, probably there will be 2 conti hoders and 4 roamers.Roamers tend to commit a mistake on fighting eachother..that will lead to an end..and victory to 1 of those 2 conti holders.
Another thing ive read, is people winning the game by conquering EU, well i find it very hard to do...im tottaly positive i wouldnt tolerate u would take that conti...now one ever should.

Then comes a major part of the game DICE!!!