Forum

In the beginning you just want to get your continent as fast as possible without other interrupting you. So also deception is important, but yes you are right it is not as important as locations. However I think as location goes, borders are more valuable than inside territories. This is a four player game, so I expect Red to get at least 6 to 7 territories in NA before it is completely taken. So the territories will be more or less connected. However I think it is much more valuable to have two missing territories in the middle than say not to have Alaska and Greenland. That will be a problem if they get nailed later on. It is however less likely for inside territories to get nailed.

I hope they dont  get stuck in this war  forever  ...

To unhinged!: I agree with you there ,but Peru would be a better option as you said before, link (connect) territories.

These conversations are great.  I think filling in the inside may need to be done sooner rather than later, since you can get eaten up from the inside out.  I will be interested to see how this map looks when it is all done and to see what strategy will come of it.  Below is the continuation of this map, and I have filled in Green's turn which is to continue in South America.  I take Peru since Argentina is more isolated so if someone takes that territory from me, it will be easier to contain.  Peru has access to both Brazil and Venezuela, not a good thing if you are trying to establish a continent. 

Risk Map: Opening-territory-grab-1-res4 --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

Hmmm... I think Blue should take Eastern Australia or Western Australia. I think Eastern as it will fill the inside. whaddaya think? Maybe put in Argentina and hope not to get in a war of attrition?

Well, if you are playing as Blue in Australia in this scenario,  place a Blue army in Argentina and prevent at least the inital conquering of South America by Green. Australia still needs two more territories at this point and will likely have one of the opponents prevent him from getting all of Australia. I just think the need to prevent someone from taking a continent is very important, especially early in the game. You don't have to have a strong presence in Argentina, just a presence.

IF Blue doesn't do it, I will forgive him, since he is also chasing his own 4 territory continent, but then the onus falls on Brown which is something he may not like and he may end up taking an Australian territory. Perhaps diplomacy is needed here. 

Risk Map: Opening-territory-grab-1-res5 --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

I see that there is a already two opposing camps both with good reasons to either go for Australia or Argentina. The vote camp tilts on Australia so I guess we will go ahead with that. 

Even this simple example shows how many varieties of gameplay there are and each with their corresponding consequences.

As for diplomacy suggested by Grant, its a good idea though practically any initiation of diplomacy may quickly lead to polarise the world. Say, as soon as you want to have an agreement with Brown, Green may become hostile to you. So you may need to avoid diplomacy at this very early stage if you can get away with it (or what you want is too small to gain for the price you pay).

It also depends on the player types and their history, something which is a bit unknown in this game. If I knew Brown and could count on him/her, then I may negotiate a deal, but even then Brown has little to gain by giving up the continent to me. Brown on the other hand could be an expansionist player who wont make any deals and is planning to get Australia 3 turns later, In which case securing Australia becomes top priority.

Ok, now is Brown's turn. Up to you guys ,...

Risk Map: Opening-territory-grab-1-res5 --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

As Brown, I have no choice but to place an army in Eastern Australia as I am in direct competition with Blue and I can't allow him to start with a continent. 

Risk Map: Opening-territory-grab-1-res6 --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

This is a typical situation. I like to do a bit of analysis. Playing as Red, I have two choices:

• Place in Argentina to make sure Green (playing next) will not get the continent.
  • Plus: Green will not get 2 armies right from the beginning of the game.
  • Minus: I have to spend 1 army there which will be lost when attacked. I will also fall behind 1 territory on getting North America.
• Place in North America to complete my continent.
  • Plus: Will be quicker to finish NA my primary continent.
  • Minus: Green will move to finish his continent and then will naturally come to place in North America and I wont be able to retaliate.

Considering all this, I will choose to place in North America.  Green is  going to  get his continent anyway, so  why waist armies. The difference is 1 army, but in return I get one more country in my continent. That's much more valuable because otherwise I have to fight to get it which requires 1 army as a minimum and several more if I get unlucky. It's simply not worth it.

I choose Western United States so that my territories can be connected and also try to discourage Green from placing just behind my border.

These maps are becoming really interesting since they expose so may issues. Let's get it rolling ...  Blue is next