Which Continent?

[MeDeFe]

Exactly that's the problem Pluto, "once taken", you have to be quick in order to do it. And if you go for NA you can be sure someone will get Africa, and if you go for Africa... well, you get my point. With your 5 armies you can take on one other player who's getting only 3 per turn, but not 2. If it's a 3 player game and the other one's getting 4 it's an even closer call.

[spline]

Exactly that's the problem Pluto, "once taken", you have to be quick in order to do it. And if you go for NA you can be sure someone will get Africa, and if you go for Africa... well, you get my point. With your 5 armies you can take on one other player who's getting only 3 per turn, but not 2. If it's a 3 player game and the other one's getting 4 it's an even closer call.

That pretty much says what I mean. If you are quick enough, or a man of diplomacy, you can get your continent and you have anywhere between 2 to 5 bonus armies to get. Whoever gets the bigger one has an advantage. In a six player game, its far more difficult to go for larger continents. So leave them aside. But in a three player game, you have a huge potential to get a larger continent than SA or OZ.

So to conclude, in a 3 player game,
1. you have more chance to get a bigger continent
2. once you get a bigger one, its much easier to defend it against those who have a smaller continent.

So, why not go for them?

[detlef]

You seem to imply that you are better off, consistently, to go with no continent at all. I like to disagree, because if the other players are isolationist and don't invade each other and sit in their own continent, you will lose. No question.

Not if you have escalating cards. It only takes one straggler each and a bit of planning to block them from completely killing each other, so when card values are high enough, you can kill one and incapacitate the other. They can sit on any one, it won't help.

If you don't have those cards, then take something, but there's no point deciding which place you want to take before the game starts. You're better off waiting to see which players will kill each other.

Why not apply some of these ideas of yours to actual games? It's a lot more fun than hanging out in ivory towers.

Ok, I see some misunderstanding are developing. The choice of continent, especially in escalating, is not applicable to end game or before the game starts. End game is dominated by cards, there is no point to think about getting to rubbing someone from continent bonus of 5 when your entire survival is under question.

Before the game starts, it is to wise to limiting to say I shall only do this strategy no matter who is playing. No one does that. So again that's not an issue.

The issue is, suppose you have the whole blank map in front of you, you can choose which continent you want to go and you know the other two players. What would you do. I can also put it in a different way. Suppose you dont know your opponents, but you have become luck, you have a choice to place your armies initially on the map (as opposed to random distribution) and are wondering, all things being equal, where should you place your first token. As you can see its a simple question, one that can be answered. There is no point to say "but you can win by starting from anywhere". Of course you can. In Risk you always want to make your life easy. It's a probability game. To win once is easy. To win every time no one can do. To win most of the time, is what we want to achieve.

So I would challenge you to answer this simple question. Every player should know the answer based on their style of play, much like initial moves in Chess.

And by the way, I do implement my ideas in practice, they work and I have fun (why should I talk about Risk strategies without playing it!). I like analysing Risk, as you might guess, hence why I am here talking about. Talking about it is just as fun, hence why you are here too, in the Ivory Tower, discussing Risk

I've seen your logic here and even hit your link to check out your same reasoning on your website. However, I believe your logic is flawed in respect to continents being more important in the early stages of an escalating game. Quite frankly, there is a very, very short period of time when continents out earn cards, and the only way you can take advantage of that time is to capture one almost immediately. Assuming that holding Asia is basically impossible, the best you can hope for (NA or Europe) earn you only more than the very first set played.

Now, if it requires taking even two 3 armied countries to take a continent and you don't get insanely luck with the dice, then it's going to cost you 5 armies to earn that bonus area. Which means more than one of the precious few turns where that continent bonus is worth more than a played set, you're just getting back the guys you lost. In reality, since it's highly unlikely that the continent that you got dropped just two short of holding is NA or Europe, you're really looking at 2 turns to make up the guys lost in taking it.

So, this is why the whole "which continent is best" argument as it relates to the classic board is really only worth talking about with respect to no cards or flat rate games. The simple reality is that you will never be able to even take, let alone hold any continent other than SA or Aussie in an escalating game of even 4 players without getting such a lucky drop that there's no need to even discuss it. Hell, it's probably not even worth going after SA or Aussie unless you either get 3 of 4 on the drop or somebody pulls their guys out to avoid losing them to you.

In a competitive game with escalating cards, the early game is all about preservation and maintaining enough armies to avoid being the first guy taken out. Since the best way to achieve this is to avoid attacking countries with more than one army, the notion of taking bonus areas becomes obsolete. Well, that and the fact that holding a bonus ties up your armies defending it so you can be limited on your options when it comes to taking players out. (Which ends up being the objective in escalation anyway)

The only good news is that, should you be able get one of these bonus areas easily, you're not likely to get many people trying to bust you up since they want to avoid costly attacks early on just like you.

None the less, it's just a simple fact that you need to assume that Europe and NA are simply off the market in terms of options for escalating games.

[xxtig12683xx]

why is asia not an option?

thats what i usually go for because everyone else goes for other things leaving all that nice land for the taking.

you get it an you win the game, every time!

so asia it is

[detlef]

why is asia not an option?

thats what i usually go for because everyone else goes for other things leaving all that nice land for the taking.

you get it an you win the game, every time!

so asia it is

Well, for starters, I was responding to a poster that was talking about escalating games. Honestly, if you're able to take Asia in an escalating game before the very end, the reason you're winning every time is because you're playing against idiots.

As for Asia in any sort of game is the fact that, invariably, someone is going to get Australia. There's no feasible way that you're going to land Asia before they do and they'll be able to not only continually bust you, but likely drop a big army on Siam, thereby not allowing you to get it to begin with.

The next game I'm in against players of any skill at all that somebody is able to hold Asia against anything more than battered and beaten opponents will be the first.

[spline]

In a competitive game with escalating cards, the early game is all about preservation and maintaining enough armies to avoid being the first guy taken out. Since the best way to achieve this is to avoid attacking countries with more than one army, the notion of taking bonus areas becomes obsolete. Well, that and the fact that holding a bonus ties up your armies defending it so you can be limited on your options when it comes to taking players out. (Which ends up being the objective in escalation anyway)

The only good news is that, should you be able get one of these bonus areas easily, you're not likely to get many people trying to bust you up since they want to avoid costly attacks early on just like you.

None the less, it's just a simple fact that you need to assume that Europe and NA are simply off the market in terms of options for escalating games.

First of all, that's certainly a good challenge, and here is my reply.

As you said "Quite frankly, there is a very, very short period of time when continents out earn cards, and the only way you can take advantage of that time is to capture one almost immediately.", that's exactly what I mean. There is a short time that it's worth having a continent which can help you a lot in the early game.

As you know, a player's survival depends on many parameters, such as staying out of trouble, getting attacked less than others, diplomatically avoid attacks and so on. You need to use all of these against good players. When it comes to early game, you just want to establish yourself. Once you declare your continent it is less likely to get attacked by others. This is psychological. We have evolved from territorial animals after all. This is also reflected in our style of gameplay. If you think this is too far fetched look at research. Look at games that others play. Usually those players who dont have a continent are the first to go. The reason is not necessarily because they didnt have the 3 or 5 bonus armies for say 2 turns. That's too small to get them eliminated so quickly. The reason is that everyone that wants to expand targets them instead, since they are all over the place and "homeless". So everyone keeps attacking a bit at a time until they are gone.

So if you dont want to be that "homeless" player, you need to find yourself a continent. If you have a continent, you can also engage in diplomacy with others. I agree with your calculation on losing armies. You are quite right, but you get other benefits that makes it more beneficial to have a continent such as becoming a world class player. So armies are only one side of the equation.

So, now that you need to have a continent, the question is which one will you choose. You suggest that small is beautiful. I agree for crowded games, pretty much for the same reasons as you mentioned. But I think, against three players, the cost to get a continent, and the number of turns you can hold it, is worth it. You avoid getting attacked because you are not in everyone else's way but working on your own continent. You can also negotiate removal of other player's armies from your continent so you dont have to attack them. This will invalidate your calculation entirely. If you want to negotiate, it is much better to have a stronger position than a weak one, i.e a bigger continent. I have almost never found myself negotiating with a player in OZ, because he cant' give me anything I want. He is not a threat. He has no access to the rest of the world.

Now SA is a different issue. I think starting from SA is a 50/50 gamble, no matter how you look at it. Either you get attacked from NA or Africa and unless you get one secure you have no chance to survive. As the saying is, SA is a dilemma (2 choices), while NA is a crisys (3 choices). It's probably easier to handle a crisis than a dilemma, because you have more choices.

Anyway, I guess we have taken the topic to extreme. It's nice to think this deep sometimes, but of course at the end of the day, it all depends on players, the rules and how much fun you want to get out of it. enjoy.

[detlef]

In a competitive game with escalating cards, the early game is all about preservation and maintaining enough armies to avoid being the first guy taken out. Since the best way to achieve this is to avoid attacking countries with more than one army, the notion of taking bonus areas becomes obsolete. Well, that and the fact that holding a bonus ties up your armies defending it so you can be limited on your options when it comes to taking players out. (Which ends up being the objective in escalation anyway)

The only good news is that, should you be able get one of these bonus areas easily, you're not likely to get many people trying to bust you up since they want to avoid costly attacks early on just like you.

None the less, it's just a simple fact that you need to assume that Europe and NA are simply off the market in terms of options for escalating games.

First of all, that's certainly a good challenge, and here is my reply.

As you said "Quite frankly, there is a very, very short period of time when continents out earn cards, and the only way you can take advantage of that time is to capture one almost immediately.", that's exactly what I mean. There is a short time that it's worth having a continent which can help you a lot in the early game.

As you know, a player's survival depends on many parameters, such as staying out of trouble, getting attacked less than others, diplomatically avoid attacks and so on. You need to use all of these against good players. When it comes to early game, you just want to establish yourself. Once you declare your continent it is less likely to get attacked by others. This is psychological. We have evolved from territorial animals after all. This is also reflected in our style of gameplay. If you think this is too far fetched look at research. Look at games that others play. Usually those players who dont have a continent are the first to go. The reason is not necessarily because they didnt have the 3 or 5 bonus armies for say 2 turns. That's too small to get them eliminated so quickly. The reason is that everyone that wants to expand targets them instead, since they are all over the place and "homeless". So everyone keeps attacking a bit at a time until they are gone.

So if you dont want to be that "homeless" player, you need to find yourself a continent. If you have a continent, you can also engage in diplomacy with others. I agree with your calculation on losing armies. You are quite right, but you get other benefits that makes it more beneficial to have a continent such as becoming a world class player. So armies are only one side of the equation.

So, now that you need to have a continent, the question is which one will you choose. You suggest that small is beautiful. I agree for crowded games, pretty much for the same reasons as you mentioned. But I think, against three players, the cost to get a continent, and the number of turns you can hold it, is worth it. You avoid getting attacked because you are not in everyone else's way but working on your own continent. You can also negotiate removal of other player's armies from your continent so you dont have to attack them. This will invalidate your calculation entirely. If you want to negotiate, it is much better to have a stronger position than a weak one, i.e a bigger continent. I have almost never found myself negotiating with a player in OZ, because he cant' give me anything I want. He is not a threat. He has no access to the rest of the world.

Now SA is a different issue. I think starting from SA is a 50/50 gamble, no matter how you look at it. Either you get attacked from NA or Africa and unless you get one secure you have no chance to survive. As the saying is, SA is a dilemma (2 choices), while NA is a crisys (3 choices). It's probably easier to handle a crisis than a dilemma, because you have more choices.

Anyway, I guess we have taken the topic to extreme. It's nice to think this deep sometimes, but of course at the end of the day, it all depends on players, the rules and how much fun you want to get out of it. enjoy.

All the theories about being territorial creatures in the world won't change the simple fact that you're wrong. The research? Well, do some of your own. Play more than 3 games here and see how many escalating games you win against better players if you try to take continents off the bat.

Your assertion that the "homeless" are the first to go simply doesn't hold water around here because it's simply not true at all. I have tons of imperical evidence to support this. I have lived this.

If you manage to get a small continent on the drop and can take it without losses, it can be handy. However, those that fight for continents, deplete themselves and end up being targets for elimination because a) they haven't gained back the troops and b) they've had to disregard dropping men on their other spots around the map, so most of their guys are in one place.

I

[spline]

If you manage to get a small continent on the drop and can take it without losses, it can be handy. However, those that fight for continents, deplete themselves and end up being targets for elimination because a) they haven't gained back the troops and b) they've had to disregard dropping men on their other spots around the map, so most of their guys are in one place.

I

When a group of people play to together consistently, they may develop similar strategies since they start to copy each other. May be in CC, players have decided that the best approach is to be turtles from the beginning. That's fine. CC is not the only place you can play Risk, so the style of play here should not be generalised for Risk as a whole. I have seen in other places that continent grabbing takes place fairly frequently in the beginning of escalating games even in 6 player games! Let aside in three players, which is what the discussion is about.

In any case, I always hold the fundamental rule that there are many strategies you can win with and that the type of players you play against are an incredibly important parameter to consider. I would never say, so and so strategy will never win, which is what you are implying. All I would say is that you are "more likely" to win if you have a base, don't get attacked by other and manage to survive. All strategies would simply have to satisfy your survivability.

I guess you are saying something similar but from a different point of view. I will look into continent grabbing styles next time to see how people decide and what happens to them, in small player games. We shall see ...

Thanks for the discussion.

[Lone.prophet]

it all depends on placement and gametype/cardtype

[detlef]

If you manage to get a small continent on the drop and can take it without losses, it can be handy. However, those that fight for continents, deplete themselves and end up being targets for elimination because a) they haven't gained back the troops and b) they've had to disregard dropping men on their other spots around the map, so most of their guys are in one place.

I

When a group of people play to together consistently, they may develop similar strategies since they start to copy each other. May be in CC, players have decided that the best approach is to be turtles from the beginning. That's fine. CC is not the only place you can play Risk, so the style of play here should not be generalised for Risk as a whole. I have seen in other places that continent grabbing takes place fairly frequently in the beginning of escalating games even in 6 player games! Let aside in three players, which is what the discussion is about.

In any case, I always hold the fundamental rule that there are many strategies you can win with and that the type of players you play against are an incredibly important parameter to consider. I would never say, so and so strategy will never win, which is what you are implying. All I would say is that you are "more likely" to win if you have a base, don't get attacked by other and manage to survive. All strategies would simply have to satisfy your survivability.

I guess you are saying something similar but from a different point of view. I will look into continent grabbing styles next time to see how people decide and what happens to them, in small player games. We shall see ...

Thanks for the discussion.

You're the one who said "studies show", etc.

You're the one who said players who have continents are less likely to be attacked because of some evolutionary trend towards being territorial, etc.

So don't now start with this business about me being ridged in my play and you having a fundamental rule about many styles, etc.

I understand there's a number of ways to do this and I certainly don't have some dogmatic approach to the game. As I said before, if I can grab a continent without much cost that can be held easily, I will. However, based on your statements here as well as those on your site, you seem to feel that continent grabbing should be the first priority even in an escalating game.

Yes, I do give you enough credit for having enough sense not to do so if you simply don't have any foothold what-so-ever in anything attainable, but you have claimed that holding a continent is the best way to go forward. Allegedly you have studies to prove as much. Well, my only point was that, should you actually choose to play against strong players here, you will also be shown that only works if everyone conforms to your vision of how we will act.

Isn't that the #1 rule in any game like this? Don't assume the other players will behave as you need them to for your plan to work.

My study went like this: I started playing here against other inexperienced players and did the continent grab just like we did when we played when we were kids. It worked pretty well. Then I wandered into the deep end and played against the better players. I continued to do the same thing and got beaten time and again. Not until it dawned on me that fighting for continents made me too weak and concentrated in one spot to compete once people started cashing in and going after each other, did I realize that system just didn't work very well.

Now, as I see it, if a plan works against weaker players and not against stronger ones, well it's just not all that great a plan.

Lastly, understand that my comment about the short window where bonus areas out earn sets of cards was shown to explain why they don't work. In order for that small window to pay dividends, you need to capture the bonus area by round 3 and suffer little to no casualties doing so. There are precious few situations where that actually works. Of course, when those situations arise, I'm sure to take advantage of them.

Now, perhaps I came in late and didn't realize we were talking specifically about 3 player games. Obviously, the less players, the easier it is to grab a continent, so they're a higher priority. However, don't for a minute claim that your thoughts on continent grabbing are limited to just those games. You've said too much about their importance already to imply otherwise.

[MeDeFe]

I've seen your logic here and even hit your link to check out your same reasoning on your website. However, I believe your logic is flawed in respect to continents being more important in the early stages of an escalating game. Quite frankly, there is a very, very short period of time when continents out earn cards, and the only way you can take advantage of that time is to capture one almost immediately. Assuming that holding Asia is basically impossible, the best you can hope for (NA or Europe) earn you only more than the very first set played.

Now, if it requires taking even two 3 armied countries to take a continent and you don't get insanely luck with the dice, then it's going to cost you 5 armies to earn that bonus area. Which means more than one of the precious few turns where that continent bonus is worth more than a played set, you're just getting back the guys you lost. In reality, since it's highly unlikely that the continent that you got dropped just two short of holding is NA or Europe, you're really looking at 2 turns to make up the guys lost in taking it.

So, this is why the whole "which continent is best" argument as it relates to the classic board is really only worth talking about with respect to no cards or flat rate games. The simple reality is that you will never be able to even take, let alone hold any continent other than SA or Aussie in an escalating game of even 4 players without getting such a lucky drop that there's no need to even discuss it. Hell, it's probably not even worth going after SA or Aussie unless you either get 3 of 4 on the drop or somebody pulls their guys out to avoid losing them to you.

In a competitive game with escalating cards, the early game is all about preservation and maintaining enough armies to avoid being the first guy taken out. Since the best way to achieve this is to avoid attacking countries with more than one army, the notion of taking bonus areas becomes obsolete. Well, that and the fact that holding a bonus ties up your armies defending it so you can be limited on your options when it comes to taking players out. (Which ends up being the objective in escalation anyway)

The only good news is that, should you be able get one of these bonus areas easily, you're not likely to get many people trying to bust you up since they want to avoid costly attacks early on just like you.

None the less, it's just a simple fact that you need to assume that Europe and NA are simply off the market in terms of options for escalating games.

You need to rethink your math a little, we're talking about 3 and 4 player games, and in those it takes longer for the sets to become worth more than continents, also you need 3 rounds to get three cards, in that time Europe has already given you 15 armies, that's what the 6th trade in is worth; I'll assume noone wants to trade in before they have 5 cards on hand, so in a 3 player game: 2 rounds to get Europe at the cost of 6 armies (your numbers), 3 rounds in which you get 15 more than otherwise, now the cashing in starts 4 -6 - 8, another 3 rounds of collecting cards and a further 15 armies for you, cash ins 10 - 12- 15, only now have the cards caught up, meanwhile you gained 30 bonus armies from Europe in which you invested 6. You know, this doesn't sound like such a bad deal.

[detlef]

I've seen your logic here and even hit your link to check out your same reasoning on your website. However, I believe your logic is flawed in respect to continents being more important in the early stages of an escalating game. Quite frankly, there is a very, very short period of time when continents out earn cards, and the only way you can take advantage of that time is to capture one almost immediately. Assuming that holding Asia is basically impossible, the best you can hope for (NA or Europe) earn you only more than the very first set played.

Now, if it requires taking even two 3 armied countries to take a continent and you don't get insanely luck with the dice, then it's going to cost you 5 armies to earn that bonus area. Which means more than one of the precious few turns where that continent bonus is worth more than a played set, you're just getting back the guys you lost. In reality, since it's highly unlikely that the continent that you got dropped just two short of holding is NA or Europe, you're really looking at 2 turns to make up the guys lost in taking it.

So, this is why the whole "which continent is best" argument as it relates to the classic board is really only worth talking about with respect to no cards or flat rate games. The simple reality is that you will never be able to even take, let alone hold any continent other than SA or Aussie in an escalating game of even 4 players without getting such a lucky drop that there's no need to even discuss it. Hell, it's probably not even worth going after SA or Aussie unless you either get 3 of 4 on the drop or somebody pulls their guys out to avoid losing them to you.

In a competitive game with escalating cards, the early game is all about preservation and maintaining enough armies to avoid being the first guy taken out. Since the best way to achieve this is to avoid attacking countries with more than one army, the notion of taking bonus areas becomes obsolete. Well, that and the fact that holding a bonus ties up your armies defending it so you can be limited on your options when it comes to taking players out. (Which ends up being the objective in escalation anyway)

The only good news is that, should you be able get one of these bonus areas easily, you're not likely to get many people trying to bust you up since they want to avoid costly attacks early on just like you.

None the less, it's just a simple fact that you need to assume that Europe and NA are simply off the market in terms of options for escalating games.

You need to rethink your math a little, we're talking about 3 and 4 player games, and in those it takes longer for the sets to become worth more than continents, also you need 3 rounds to get three cards, in that time Europe has already given you 15 armies, that's what the 6th trade in is worth; I'll assume noone wants to trade in before they have 5 cards on hand, so in a 3 player game: 2 rounds to get Europe at the cost of 6 armies (your numbers), 3 rounds in which you get 15 more than otherwise, now the cashing in starts 4 -6 - 8, another 3 rounds of collecting cards and a further 15 armies for you, cash ins 10 - 12- 15, only now have the cards caught up, meanwhile you gained 30 bonus armies from Europe in which you invested 6. You know, this doesn't sound like such a bad deal.

Well, as long as we're re-thinking our math a bit. Can we not assume that you're getting the Europe bonus starting with round one? I mean, if that's the case, let me change my stance. Yes, if you get the entire continent of Europe on the drop, you should absolutely keep it.

I guess I'm operating under the more realistic situation where you need to take 2-3 countries to secure the continent. This would require 2-3 turns and cost you about 6-9 armies assuming that everybody leaves you alone and nobody deploys on any of those spots. Both those last assumptions, of course, would be optimistic to say the least. Well, so is getting all but 2-3 of Europe or NA on the drop, but I'm giving you that one. OK, very well, under even this very extremely fortunate situation, I'm cool as well. Of course, this makes the whole argument rather moot since we're discussing which continent is best and one can only make an argument that any is even worth holding if you get an insanely favorable drop and get lucky along the way.

As for the 3-4 player deal. I admitted in my last post that I came in late here. Well, for that matter, there was also no mention of escalating cards to begin with either.

My argument is with spline's claim not only in several places here but also on his "how to win at risk" website that escalating games have two phases, the beginning where it's all about grabbing a continent and the second where it's all about taking players out. Now, while this may apply to a 3 player game and, possibly to a 4 player game, this absolutely doesn't apply to 5 and 6 player games. At least not to most of the players and certainly only with respect to anyone with a solid foothold in SA or Aussie.

[spline]

Now, perhaps I came in late and didn't realize we were talking specifically about 3 player games. Obviously, the less players, the easier it is to grab a continent, so they're a higher priority. However, don't for a minute claim that your thoughts on continent grabbing are limited to just those games. You've said too much about their importance already to imply otherwise.

Mmmm, what's this about! Let's not get too carried away about this, it's just a game Cool ....?

This thread is about 3-4 players. That's what we are talking about. In just about every post I had in this thread I talked about 3 players game (notice I didn't even mention 4 player games, just three). So what you say is completely unfair. I mean what I said for three. I would never claim to go for NA in a 6 player game. We both understand why, so there is no point to discuss it.

Remember, the point of the discussion is to learn something new or tell some other people something new, its not about saying I am more clever than you or something, so lets not get emotional here.

Now back to the discussion, I want to put what I think into concise sentences so its all clear what we are discussing:

Clause 1. In a 3 player game, escalating, classic map, normal Risk rules with standard continent bonuses, where players have a choice to place their troops initially on the map (not randomly), it is better (not essential, just better) to go for a continent in the initial round to get an advantage over other.

Clause 2. Since you want to go for a continent, and since there are only two other opponents in a game where there are 42 countries (each ending up with 14 to start with), it makes sense to get a bigger continent that gives you more than 2 bonus armies (a continent such as Africa only require you to get 6 countries).

Would you agree with any at all in principle or modified?

Thanks for reading my thoughts on my site. As you may imagine, my emphasis is always on diplomacy and the latest thoughts on phases is within that context as well. The discussion we are having here is far more specific and narrow in comparison with the general statement (for general rules used in Risk without mentioning how many players are in the game) that I have made on my site. Again, I am glad that you read my articles, but its good to confine our discussion here to what the topic is so that we don't go off the mark.

And by the way, your point of view has certainly shed light on many valuable areas that I like to look into.

[spline]

You need to rethink your math a little, we're talking about 3 and 4 player games, and in those it takes longer for the sets to become worth more than continents, also you need 3 rounds to get three cards, in that time Europe has already given you 15 armies, that's what the 6th trade in is worth; I'll assume noone wants to trade in before they have 5 cards on hand, so in a 3 player game: 2 rounds to get Europe at the cost of 6 armies (your numbers), 3 rounds in which you get 15 more than otherwise, now the cashing in starts 4 -6 - 8, another 3 rounds of collecting cards and a further 15 armies for you, cash ins 10 - 12- 15, only now have the cards caught up, meanwhile you gained 30 bonus armies from Europe in which you invested 6. You know, this doesn't sound like such a bad deal.

Nicely calculated. It supports what I mean especially in the context of 3 player games.

[detlef]

Now, perhaps I came in late and didn't realize we were talking specifically about 3 player games. Obviously, the less players, the easier it is to grab a continent, so they're a higher priority. However, don't for a minute claim that your thoughts on continent grabbing are limited to just those games. You've said too much about their importance already to imply otherwise.

Mmmm, what's this about! Let's not get too carried away about this, it's just a game Cool ....?

This thread is about 3-4 players. That's what we are talking about. In just about every post I had in this thread I talked about 3 players game (notice I didn't even mention 4 player games, just three). So what you say is completely unfair. I mean what I said for three. I would never claim to go for NA in a 6 player game. We both understand why, so there is no point to discuss it.

Remember, the point of the discussion is to learn something new or tell some other people something new, its not about saying I am more clever than you or something, so lets not get emotional here.

Now back to the discussion, I want to put what I think into concise sentences so its all clear what we are discussing:

Clause 1. In a 3 player game, escalating, classic map, normal Risk rules with standard continent bonuses, where players have a choice to place their troops initially on the map (not randomly), it is better (not essential, just better) to go for a continent in the initial round to get an advantage over other.

Clause 2. Since you want to go for a continent, and since there are only two other opponents in a game where there are 42 countries (each ending up with 14 to start with), it makes sense to get a bigger continent that gives you more than 2 bonus armies (a continent such as Africa only require you to get 6 countries).

Would you agree with any at all in principle or modified?

Thanks for reading my thoughts on my site. As you may imagine, my emphasis is always on diplomacy and the latest thoughts on phases is within that context as well. The discussion we are having here is far more specific and narrow in comparison with the general statement (for general rules used in Risk without mentioning how many players are in the game) that I have made on my site. Again, I am glad that you read my articles, but its good to confine our discussion here to what the topic is so that we don't go off the mark.

And by the way, your point of view has certainly shed light on many valuable areas that I like to look into.

Well for starters, it is not my intention to get emotional. I should say, however, that the tenor of some of your posts have gotten my dander up. Perhaps it is because I am leery of your motives for posting here. You've played but 3 games, all against primarily low ranked players and lost all three. At the same time, you are linking to a website that sells a book on Risk strategy that I assume is yours. I went to that site and read your thoughts and, frankly, didn't think they were all that sound.

None the less, I apologize if my debate style has seemed too personal.

I have given that in a 3 player game, continents are more worth holding. However, you also need to understand that this website is not devoted to Risk, but rather Conquer Club. In Conquer Club, you are not given the choice of where to put your troops. Thus, a discussion about which continent is best has to take into account that you are not likely to be dropped a huge majority of armies in one specific continent. Thus, larger continents become less worth going after.

[detlef]

You need to rethink your math a little, we're talking about 3 and 4 player games, and in those it takes longer for the sets to become worth more than continents, also you need 3 rounds to get three cards, in that time Europe has already given you 15 armies, that's what the 6th trade in is worth; I'll assume noone wants to trade in before they have 5 cards on hand, so in a 3 player game: 2 rounds to get Europe at the cost of 6 armies (your numbers), 3 rounds in which you get 15 more than otherwise, now the cashing in starts 4 -6 - 8, another 3 rounds of collecting cards and a further 15 armies for you, cash ins 10 - 12- 15, only now have the cards caught up, meanwhile you gained 30 bonus armies from Europe in which you invested 6. You know, this doesn't sound like such a bad deal.

Nicely calculated. It supports what I mean especially in the context of 3 player games.

It also requires a very specific and favorable set of circumstances that are barely worth discussing in terms of strategy. If we are to discuss holding a bonus area considering this enormously favorable drop, why are we talking about which one? You are not going to have your choice of bonus areas with this kind of drop in one game, so what's the point?

For that matter, we may as well discuss what the best way to take advantage of rolling great dice.

[BaldAdonis]

Nicely calculated. It supports what I mean especially in the context of 3 player games.

It also requires a very specific and favorable set of circumstances that are barely worth discussing in terms of strategy. If we are to discuss holding a bonus area considering this enormously favorable drop, why are we talking about which one? You are not going to have your choice of bonus areas with this kind of drop in one game, so what's the point?

For that matter, we may as well discuss what the best way to take advantage of rolling great dice.[/quote]

I think he's (spline) still assuming that the players choose their initial territories. How he manages to spend 7 or 9 selection rounds taking each territory without anyone stopping him is some form of magic, but when it works, then of course that's the best start.

Also, gotta blow on the dice before you throw 'em. That cleans out the pips, so that the 1 side is the heaviest and it falls 6 more often.

[spline]

Well for starters, it is not my intention to get emotional. I should say, however, that the tenor of some of your posts have gotten my dander up. Perhaps it is because I am leery of your motives for posting here. You've played but 3 games, all against primarily low ranked players and lost all three. At the same time, you are linking to a website that sells a book on Risk strategy that I assume is yours. I went to that site and read your thoughts and, frankly, didn't think they were all that sound.

None the less, I apologize if my debate style has seemed too personal.

I have given that in a 3 player game, continents are more worth holding. However, you also need to understand that this website is not devoted to Risk, but rather Conquer Club. In Conquer Club, you are not given the choice of where to put your troops. Thus, a discussion about which continent is best has to take into account that you are not likely to be dropped a huge majority of armies in one specific continent. Thus, larger continents become less worth going after.

If you want to know my motives, you should just ask me: I like Risk, and I like to talk about it, on my site or others. If you cant take that you should explore the web a bit to see how it all works. If I didn't link, you wouldn't know about my other thoughts in this regard which as you saw in our discussion, it was helpful for you to see where I am coming from. So, please give the element of the doubt, don't accuse people before you know anything about them.

Your apologies are accepted nevertheless.

I am also not going to get to the argument of Risk is not CC and all the rest of it as it has been discussed extensively before.

In any case, I think we have pretty much clearly stated what we mean, and let's leave it at that. If there are disagreements, lets also just agree to disagree.

Cheers

[Dui]

I say Oceania - obviously the biggest problem is that when you will have gained aussi, someone else will have taken SA, and the round after most likely Europe or NA will be taken. Hence, unless you get really lucky and you are the only one with a bonus (very unlikely though), your army advantage will be nonexistent.
So the key to victory is taking aussi and then trying to maintain a spread - aussi's biggest advantage is that it is easily blocked since it has only one border, and once aussi is taken, people rarely try to break it.

However, I don't like 3 or 4 player games on Classic -- sooner or later, people will team up against the leader, and the cards aren't worth anything before round 12 or so - Flat Rate I don't even play anymore with those settings.

[BaldAdonis]

We've got 24 games going with the same 4 players (classic, escalating), so in a while I can let you know which continent made the most winners (actually I can tell you right now, it's Aus or SA, because no one has been able to hold any others).

[munster]

I think S America is too hard too defend to only get 2 reinforcements per turn

[Ultradeath99]

Anything but Europe or Africa. those 2 are the hardest to keep. because of their placment. I usually go for N or S America.

[SunshineRays]

Seems to me, (and don't take this seriously, I haven't finished a game yet lol) after playing risk for some years and studying the rules and strategies of CC players, best thing to do in a no cards or flat rate 3 or 4 player game would be to take a small continent in a centralised position first - South America or Africa would seem ideal.

In an escalating game, I come to the conclusion Oceania would be the best place to start, as that would be an ideal launching pad.

Of course, I have never tried any of these out in CC, just tried them in my version of Risk, which I believe is only slightly different to CC

[Plumey]

In most of the Risk games I've played in the past (real life, anyway), the person holding Australia is the last person to get eliminated. So it always seemed to me that Australia was the "second place" bonus. I personally prefer getting South America and moving up from there.

[lozzini]

with oceana ther is not a good opportunity to expand, so S. America is better, then N. America with Oceana in as thurd best