Forum

This is a game that i recently played. I lost and was wondering how sound my strategy was.

It had 5 players

1. Red me: In control of Australia and about half of Asia

2. Green: Controls all of Europe already started expanding     

3. Blue: Controls all of Africa  

4. Yellow: Controls S.A.       Intent unknown

5. Black: Controls all N.A..  Intent to build up men and turtle it.   

P.S. Green and Blue have an uneasy agreement.

Risk Map: Stratton-1 --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

Risk Map: stratton1 --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

Risk Map: stratton1 --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

This is what I initiated please offer your opinions on it.

The order for turns is Red, Black, Yellow, Green, Blue.

Red: invaded Alaska because of weakness and to stop him from getting 8

Black:  only gets 3 men can't start a counterattack until next turn. Must move his forces from Central tthe north.

Yellow: invades Central America sensing weakness leaves himself slightly exposed to Africa.

Green: Alarmed by the recent events in confused on what to do, decides to just fortify and let things play out.

Blue: Is in a arms race with Green that will eventually turn violent. Has aspirtations of capturing S.A.

My plan was to weaken Black with the help of yellow. Also I planned on a costly Green, Blue war. While this happened Yellow would capture most of N.A. and hopefully make Green and Blue nervous. My goal was to capture Asia and emerge in a dominate postition. The only people who could have stopped me were Blue, or Green but I foresaw my plans keeping them occupied.

Please evalute my plan and offer your moves in my place.

Thanks I thought the plan was nice to, but things soon went bad just like Murphy said. Yellow instead of concentrating on Black only commited few troops (and was soon pushed out) and instead invaded Africa. He succeded but Green And Blue instead of bloodyin each other treatyd and pushed him out. Black also invaded Asia and later S.A., as did Blue. Green advanced on Asia. I was quickly losing ground while blue destroyed yellow and invaded N.A. Now that he was storng he betrayed Green and invaded Europe. Blue eventually won in a few more turns. I came in 3rd only because I withdrew to Siam and made a last stand.

Each of the following maps show one round and portray what I just said.

Risk Map: stratton-End --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

Risk Map: stratton-End-2 --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

Risk Map: stratton-End-3 --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

Risk Map: Stratton-End- --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

Risk Map: stratton-End-4 --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

Oh, that played out well. From looking at the maps I can say straight away that Green made a fundamental mistake. By making a treaty with Blue, Green and Blue got a huge advantage over others since others didn't have such similar treaties. However, Blue used this agreement more effectively by expanding towards SA and getting a whole continent, eliminating a player all without increasing the number of borders. On the hand, Green fought a useless war in Asia and gained absolutely nothing. So Blue had the game to himself when SA was conquered. Black was almost gone. Green sat tight and Red was pretty much stuck in Australia and a bit of Asia.

So I can see why Blue went to win. Green should have tried to engage Black either through Kamchatka or Greenland. Black was already weak and already in conflict with Yellow. It made sense to get some territories in NA since it leads to a useful continent. Green could have made a treaty with Red over Asia to cover his back and then just go for Black. Red would have been happy to accept the deal, thinking that getting Asia is his best choice given the map.

Green could meet Blue over central America. and that could have led to a conflict and a corrosive war. Red could grow until he had enough armies to attack others.

The moral of the story is that if you make a treaty with another player, you should honour the treaty but still classify the player as a competitor. After all, there can be only one winner. By having a treaty you help each other to get to the end of the game, but still you have to fight it out in the end. So, it's a good idea to set the scene in such a way that your competitor has to work hard to get to the end so that, hopefully, by then you have enough momentum to win the game against him. In this case Green should set the scene so that every other player starts attacking Blue. Over time, Green may end up with an advantage.

Playing as Red, you should exploit the deal between Green and Blue and push both to fight other players. A deal with Green might have led to a 3 polar world (Blue, Red and Green) where two poles would be in conflict all the time. So Red could have won.

Nice contribution though. Please post more. This is what Risk is all about. Pure strategy and fun.