Scenarios

Scenario 6: Wrong Move

:::: 9 Ratings :::: Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Playing online Risk games is always different from playing with the board game. Performing diplomacy with text chat isn't quite the same. Nevertheless, the capability is there and it is possible to use it to perform some limited diplomacy.

In one of my online games, as it turned out, my diplomacy backfired completely. Here is what happened.

The Environment

Suppose I was playing as Yellow and my main aim was to get Africa (Shown above). We started with 5 players, but the fifth player was quickly eliminated. Going for Africa in a 4 player game is usually good. My thinking was that if I stayed out of conflict zones, I should do well and slowly grow. The card distribution was as follows:

Risk Game Table - Scenario 6A

My immediate problem was Blue. I was confronted with Blue both in Europe and in South America. Somehow I had to deal with it. Green was not much of a threat yet and I had to deal with him after I dealt with Blue.

Red on the other hand was getting dangerously strong. So I thought the best way to control him was to get him in a conflict with another player. For that, I had an obvious player in mind: Blue. If I could get Blue and Red to start a war of attrition over Central America, then Blue was no longer going to be a threat as he would need to save South America. I was then able to expand into Europe.

My reasoning was that after a few turns Blue could get very weak as he could not compete with Red very effectively. At that point I could also expand into South America and end up with three continents. Hence, now that I knew my short term objective, I needed a way to get to it. How could I get Blue and Red engaged? This is when I resorted to diplomacy. I approached Blue and asked him if we could have a treaty over North Africa and Brazil. To make sure that I could count on it (at least forcing the issue) I also said that the treaty will be valid until only Yellow and Blue were left in the game. As you may know, conversations in Risk are open and other players can also listen to them (or read them in this case).

I then reinforced North Africa to push the deal forward a bit so that Blue would feel under threat if he did not accept the deal.

This worked. Next turn I got several interesting messages. Blue said he agrees. That was good news. However, Green wasn't happy about our deal making. So Green suggested to Red that maybe they should get together against us as well. This was indeed very bad news. The last thing I wanted was two of them ganging against us, or most probably me. In fact that's exactly what happened.

Red invaded South America and made him very weak. Blue was so weak that asked me to eliminate him. At this point I cashed my cards, eliminated Blue, then got both South America and Europe. I achieved my short term objective. Here is the result.

Risk Strategies. Scenario 6: Wrong Move, Position B

Risk Game Table - Scenario 6B

I was strong, but I had one fundamental problem. I was left with two enemies. You guessed it. Next turn they both started attacking me and even though I was stronger than both of them, there was no way I could sustain so much attack from both sides. Eventually I got eliminated and Green went to win the game.

The Question

If you where in my position when I had only Africa and was wondering what to do, what would you have done? What sort of diplomacy would you use to improve your situation? How do you see the game progressing? Assume that the game is played online and you can use a chatbox for diplomacy.

Post Rating

12345

Comments

By Europa @ Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:36 PM

Clearly, aligning with Blue in South America was the wrong move since it made enemies out of the other two players. Knowing that your alliances can cause others to react in a hostile way is an important consideration, much like when NATO was formed at the beginning of the Cold War and in response the Warsaw Pact was formed.

I believe the better strategy would be to ally with a player other than blue so you can attack Blue. Having Green as your ally can help you since Green can now focus on Europe, which you won't need to worry about since he is your ally (hopefully) or on North America, who will be a much larger threat after you go into South America.

Aligning with Red in North America would be a great long-term strategy, one you can broker by stating that he will always have the better continent bonus and you can share South America for now. Since South America will be eating it on two fronts instead of you, you can then focus on Green, who has the strongest position in the game at this point.

By Machiavelli @ Monday, May 21, 2007 3:18 AM

This seems like a really interesting game...what website was this, by the way?

Looking at your board position, I would probably have done exactly the same thing - focused on Europe and tried to get Blue off my back in South America. Maybe I would have tried to make it clear that the treaty over the SA/Africa border was only a non-aggression pact, as opposed to us actively teaming up and coordinating to attack other players. The other players might have been calmed by that. Or maybe I would have set a different time limit on the treaty (such as "until one of us gets another continent"?) Then I would have aggressively attacked Blue in Europe, to make it absolutely clear that I had no alliance with Blue, only an agreement not to attack across the border.

Still, I would probably have ended up in exactly the same position you did. At that point, I would have put all my armies in Central America and gone on a headlong Red-killing run. (Did you have a combination in the 3 cards, by the way? If so, it would be much easier.) If I succeeded, it would have won me the game at a stroke, since even the power of Asia cannot compare to that of the other four continents - and I would have Red's cards to boot. If the run failed, I would probably have lost the game - but that's up to luck.

Grant, that does seem like a good strategy, but I just worry that (as Ehsan said) Red is growing worryingly strong, and even if you could wipe out Blue or weaken Green, you probably wouldn't be able to win the game that way. Red would probably take South America, so you'd have to get Europe to have any chance of survival - not an easy task with Green expanding westwards.

By Ehsan Honary @ Monday, May 21, 2007 1:56 PM

The game was played on Grand Strategy, though of course you may get similar game play some where else as well.

I agree with Eng, that a different wording of the treaty might have saved the day. It came down to understanding and anticipating the behaviour of other player, specially Green in this case. Red didnt care too much about the alliance between me and Blue. But Green wasn't happy at all. I am not sure if he would have been happy with any sort of deal between us.

I did have a combination with three cards, but so did they. They both cashed before me and they both attacked me which meant I could not perform a proper counter-attack.

I also like Grant's suggestion of aligning with Red. The question is, suppose you 'want' to make an alliance/treaty with Blue or Red without alarming Green. How do you go about doing it? It needs smooth talking to all sides. It is much easier if you have played with them before, but if you haven't and you are online, its a different ball game altogether? Any suggestions?

By Europa @ Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:29 AM

The type of diplomacy was not a factor I had considered despite you asking me to. I felt that given the online environment, any treaty would cause alarm in other players. Indeed when I play on the board, usually the people I play with any alliance is seen as a major threat since it constitutes a significant tactical and strategical advantage in the game. Perhaps the wording of the treaty should simply have been limited to a short number of turns, a simple border agreement or something similar. But I feel it was a strategic error to ally with Blue given the turn order and the balance of power.

Red was to go before Blue and Red has a tactical advantage in terms of sheer numbers of armies and territories as well as the privilege to go in advance. Any treaty with Blue will raise Red’s desire to weaken and eliminate Blue. Remember, taking South America for the North American player is a great advantage since it does not increase the number of borders for the player while also giving him an additional 2 armies (in this case, he would also grow to 15 territories so that would give him one additional army for a total of 3 extra armies for taking South America). It is to Red’s advantage to take South America anyway to force a conflict between Yellow and Blue or even Green as well. An alliance there seems to be a waste of time since he can’t really help you. The two of you rank in the bottom in this game and a better deal would be to ally with one of the other players. This way they can better take the pounding.

If you ally with Red and Red loads up on South America, Green going next will sense a shift in power and respond, either with his armies in Europe or add a front in North America. The better of the two scenarios is for him to open a front with North America, this will help enforce the alliance since you need each other (he needs to concentrate on Asia and Europe and you need to keep Africa to push on Asia and Europe) and also make it more difficult for him to challenge you in Europe. If Green places in the Ukraine, a lot of armies are going to die and some one will get hurt. But I think this will happen any way. An alliance with Red simply makes it easier to fight Green since you can worry about one less border and Red is within striking distance with Green. Blue is too far away. Sometimes allying with a distant player is preferable to one adjacent to you.

When creating treaties and alliances, I feel that tactics need to be taken into account. Green’s armies must be dealt with more than Blue’s. You can fight off Blue or chip away at him and Blue will have to worry about Red slamming into it. When you take Blue out of the game next turn, you get the cards and you still have an ally. Now you tow can go get Green!

I truly feel that any treaty will cause alarm in most players in that situation, especially given the relative rankings of the players’ army count, territorial holdings and turn order. Blue was destined to die. Green was destined to attack you sooner rather than later. Unless you can get Green to help fight Red so you can take Blue, I think a Red alliance is the best bet, regardless of the diplomatic tactics.

By Europa @ Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:40 AM

On attacking Green: If you could not get an alliance with Red or want another solution, trying getting Green to be your friend. You don;t really want to attack Green anyway with his fortress that yields only two extra armies. Let Green go after North America and you can grab Blue in Europe and fend him off in South America. Since Red will no doubt go for South America himself, you will need to devote more attantion to that area so clearing the way now is a good idea. Red is certainly strong but he can be held back with some strong play from Green to strike at North America. Again, by adjusting the position of your alliance you take advantage of turn order by Green going after Red. By creating this alliance you may attract a snarl from Red, but it may be aimed at Green instead of you since Red is closer geographically and in terms of size. You may have caused Green and Red to fight in a war that allows you to focus on other things.

Just don't ally with Blue, he can't help you.

By Ehsan Honary @ Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:03 AM

Grant, I like your thinking here. Getting allied with either Red or Green could have been better simply because they could have been more useful. There are however a number of risks:

1. What if Blue and Red made a treaty with each other and Blue started to expand to Africa. You may ask why should Red go for South America as an obvious choice. Because, Red may think that he needs to get rid of Blue before he can take South America and then he has to deal with me. Instead if he gets a treaty with Blue, he can set Blue against me and he can then concentrate on Europe which is practically empty. I would then have to deal with Blue and fight for my survival while have Green and Red threatening my North African borders. Hence, whatever I do, I have to make sure that Blue and Red don’t end up as allies.

2. If I ally with Blue, Green can still become upset. Green can still feel that he has to attack me because I have an advantage and may see more benefit in attacking me than attacking Red. He can get Asia, Europe or Africa, or simply many countries than to get a couple of countries in North America.

Considering these risks, maybe it's better to ally with Green. This alliance, however, will not have any short term benefit. Accepted that I will have an ally in the future, but as of now I still have to deal with Blue and Red, while Green is not much of a threat anyway. If I survive, my alliance with Green will be a great move (provided he stays true to his words). If I ally with Green, how can I stop Blue and Red to gang up against me. In fact, they have even more incentive to make an alliance against the two of use (Yellow and Green). That will only benefit Green since he will not be affected as much in his fortress, while I will get hammered in Africa by both Blue and Red.

Allying with Red is perhaps better. I get to set up Blue against Red and I can focus on Europe or eliminating Blue. I just have to hope that Green doesn’t get upset too much. An alliance between Blue and Green doesn’t make much sense, so it may not happen. The diplomacy still needs smooth talking to make sure Green doesn’t get out of hand. There is only one problem. Allying with Red means that I have to offer something. Since we are not neighbours, this can be difficult. Players don’t usually like to have an all out alliance. Besides, if we eliminate Blue, who is going to get South America. As allies we may have problems solving that as it would benefit both of us greatly. Alliances, as you know, can be broken easily.

So there is still room for discussion here ... what do you think Grant?

By Europa @ Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:11 PM

This post is in response Eng Ng earlier: He pointed out that with Green and Red being so powerful, have I considered the long term aspect of the game, in other words, will my short term objectives lead me to my long term goal, or will I just be in second place? (remember, no points for second place!)

I believe that by staying in the game long enough to build your empire, you will eventually grow strong enough to win. Since Red is so powerful and farther away than Green, we need to focus more on Green. Taking him out in Europe will help you keep Africa and take Europe. Once you fend off those 7 army territories in Europe, it becomes easy pickings. If you plan well, you could get Blue's cards by eliminating him. You and Red can pick away at Green and by the time it becomes necessay to attack Red, hopefully your better continent bonus will hold up as well as some clever strategies that you devise along the way.

South America seems like a tough bet to take and hold with Red bearing down on you. I would rather make concentrated strike at Australia's fort in Siam to cripple him and have a go in Aussieland.

No long term strategy works unless you can get there. Ehsan Honary lost his game becasue he allied with Blue, lost him almost immedaitely and he gets eliminated. Keep an ally around for a while, get strong and then punch through. You at least give yourself a chance to win by getting to second place late in the game. An alliance with a stronger power also gives you more leverage in the mean-time since your opponent has to concentrate on two fronts instead of one.

By Europa @ Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:12 PM

Yes, there is a lot of room for discussion, this scenario is complex and difficult and can serve to teach a variety of lessons. I will take on your questions one-by-one and attempt to provide a broader look at how to approach this situation.

First, if Blue and Red make a treaty, which is entirely in the realm of possibility, you will then be forced to ally with Green or else you are doomed. Blue and Yellow are the weakest players in this game based on the strength (or lack thereof) of their position. So if one of them is left out in the cold in terms of alliances, then the game may be very short for them. Eventually Blue will be raking in the armies as he is propped up by Red who is raking them in already and they will take you out in a race against Green for your cards and territories. I would attack Blue hard and fast if he were allied with Red by taking Europe and Brazil. More importantly, you are right: whatever happens, prevent The American Red/Blue alliance from even coming into existence.

I agree with you that the diplomacy you should undertake to prevent the alliance from happening should focus on the fact that if Red takes out Blue now, he can benefit more than if he allies with him. Blue really isn’t much of a threat to Red and I would point that out. Red goes before Blue in this scenario so Red can attack first and force Blue’s hand. If Red takes Blue out, then he has increased the number of territories he has and decreased the number of armies at his front door and potentially he could get another continent without increasing the number of borders he has. All of these benefits should become apparent and Red should see the folly of partnering with Blue. Besides, where else will Red go? There are buffer states between his other big stacks of armies at his other borders. The prime place to attack is in South America. Red may be eyeing Europe as a place to expand since there are more armies located there and his alliance with South America will certainly aid in that goal. This is not good for you since this is where you want to go as well. Red and Blue must be made to fight!

You stated in number 2. of your response to me: “If I ally with Blue, Green can still become upset.” I wonder if you meant Blue or Red in this one. I still don’t think an alliance with Blue is a good idea. But an alliance with Red will certainly raise the ire of Green and will prompt an attack. In fact, the more I look at this set-up, and alliance with Red will almost certainly bring an attack from Green’s 7-man death squad in the Ukraine. Green will get from 5-7 reinforcements on this turn and he can mount his force in Europe. If he does so elsewhere (Africa or North America) he is splitting up his forces. This is never the most efficient way to handle your new armies and doesn’t guarantee success. Placing them all in the Ukraine will allow him to do the most damage which will be to take out at least one continent. So the alliance with Red will necessitate an attack on the Ukraine to force his options elsewhere. If your partner Red is diligent and attacks South America, you will not have to worry about that border as much and you can focus on the European theatre to mitigate the Green threat. Have no doubt, Green will respond and if he doesn’t go in Europe, then you are better off and your ally isn’t, which isn’t bad for you either.

An alliance with Green does not provide very much in the way of short term-benefits except that it will prevent an assault from Europe and that death squad will focus else where which can benefit you as well. Eventually Green will start to fight with Red, and this can be very corrosive and work in your favor. Be sure to stay out of the fracas and just mine for cards so you can cash in late and sweep the board. One really bad thing about allying with Green in that it can create a Red/Blue alliance in response. As stated earlier, this is not acceptable. Really good diplomacy must be had here. First, you need to work on Red to get him go after South America. Then, once you have him convinced, align with Green and go to work on Europe showing you have no interest in Red’s new South American plans. You may even want to propose an alliance with Red, but do so in a way that will either put you in a really great position or force him to say no. Hopefully you have still convinced him to go after South America while also being able to align with Green. This is going be tough though.

Red still seems to be the best bet for an alliance. Green is only a threat immediately in Europe as his other armies need a few turns to get to where they are needed. Blue is a harrowing threat and putting him down is top priority. Certainly one of the maxims of Risk is to eliminate the weak, and this game is no exception. How can you entice Red? Well, first, tell Red that an alliance now doesn’t have to last forever. Put a turn limit on it or create a border treaty to entice him more. He has to know that his North America is better than your Africa so an alliance doesn’t jeopardize your immediate holdings. What it does do is create an opportunity for both players to expand and not get in each others’ way. The main immediate threat is Blue and once eliminated the immediate threat will be Green. Focus on this and show him that you are willing to do your part. Show Red you want to expand where he doesn’t and that you are willing to help him with a few of his goals, like weakening Green.

The fact that an alliance between Blue and Green doesn’t make much sense is one of the best parts of this alliance. It creates virtually no advantage for Blue/Green and as such, you won’t need to try to stop it. With the other alliances you seem to have to play hoping the other opponents don’t align or think of ways to mitigate the threat, but if you align with Red, Green doesn’t have much of a response and as such your position is stronger. This fact should be pointed out as a selling point since Red’s major concern after eliminating Blue will be Green since he is the strongest threat.

When engaging in negotiations with Red for an alliance, consider as part of the agreement a general plan: You take South America and I’ll take Europe. Set this up so it is clear and you have no problems in the future. You can add in to the treaty a border agreement over the Iceland-Greenland border but NOT over North Africa-Brazil. This might entice Red to join you as well: allow him to expand into Africa (at least diplomatically, maintain your strong military presence in North Africa by all means). If that doesn’t work, you can consider other options. Whatever option you choose, be talking about who will divvy up the spoils early on to keep the integrity of the alliance strong and follow through on that plan to the best of your ability.

Alliances can be broken and this has happened more often than one would like, so it is important that you show how willing you are to participate to accomplish the alliances goals and not just using the alliance to protect your self. Building up your reputation as a good partner in an alliance over the course of many games will also make it easier for you to make and keep a partnership. Sell yourself as loyal and show how this benefits your partners and how it has helped in the past. In the event that a betrayal occurs, Yellow and Red’s power bases are far enough away that it can be something you can overcome more easily than if you were close neighbors.

In conclusion, Red is the best alliance you can broker and you should strive to accomplish that goal. Short of reaching it, try to engender conflict between Red and Blue (with out it seeming like a major priority) and then align with Green. Blue still remains the worst option. Lesson: never align with the weakest player unless he can help you immediately. Always try to align with a strong player that can provide you with tangible benefits or else your alliance will be more of a liability than an asset.

By Europa @ Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:15 PM

Tactical Analysis of Scenario 6

Red and Green have a superior position while Blue and Yellow occupy an inferior position in the game.

Red holds North America and 11 territories with 39 armies which garners him 8 reinforcement armies per turn. With well defended borders and no immediate threats, he is in a good position. He also occupies the 2nd position in turn order, going before his rival South America where Red holds a near 2 to 1 advantage. His superior position makes him the envy of the world and should invite attack sooner rather than later.

Green holds Australia and 15 territories with 36 armies which garners him 7 reinforcements per turn. He is thin on his perimeter but Australia is well guarded. He has a death squad in the Ukraine that may do some damage but most of his armies are boxed in. His threats are minor at his stage but will grow soon with Red and Yellow. He goes next in turn order so he can respond to Red and Yellow, is two more immediate concerns.

Yellow is in better position than Blue with Africa and 7 territories held by 34 armies while Blue occupies South America and has 9 disconnected territories with 32 armies. Yellow gains 6 reinforcements while Blue gets 5. Blue also goes last.

Yellow has its borders defended well, but faces immediate threat from Blue in South America with 4:3 ratio and a looming threat in Europe from Green and Blue. Blue has three disconnected empires with an isolated Japan, a small region in Europe with a death squad of 7 and South America that faces two immediate threats from Red to North at a near 2 to 1 disadvantage and Yellow to the East with an easier 4 to 3 disadvantage.

By Ehsan Honary @ Tuesday, July 3, 2007 10:19 AM

Yes I agree, as I stated earlier alliance with Red seems to be a good choice. The only issue is that the alliance is not over a territory, it is more like a full alliance. It is basically around South America. So I can easily imagine that Red will want to know what he gets out of the deal. He may want to make sure that I will not attack South America. I will then have to say something in return. I will have to ask Red not to attack Europe. All this conversation is in the open and Blue and Green may be listening in either amusement or horror. So, also making a deal with Red seems to be a right choice, getting it done is the real challenge. Very subtle words need to be used to convince Red, while not to annoy Blue or Green. An annoyed Blue and Green can be a big problem: I may survive, but my conflict with them will leave its scar and Red will eventually win.

By Europa @ Tuesday, July 3, 2007 4:30 PM

You bring up a good point, diplomacy out in the open can cause major problems. First, keep in mind Red goes before Green, so aligning with Red gives you the advantage of two turns in a row before Green goes.

As far as the diplomacy goes, it may be advantageous to engage in some psychological warfare here. If you know Red is some one you want to align with, then perhaps some propaganda against Green would be beneficial here. Make Green look like the enemy more than Red. This will of course be tricky since you border Green. Looking at the situation, you can try to convince Red that Green is his biggest threat, and he is going to have to deal with him sooner rather than later. You need to really pile on the fear factor, even to the point of making Green look better than he is. Say some flattering things about Green and the way he has played, point to his trend and make him look like the guy that is the “quiet-in-the-shadows” type and that he will soon strike. The fact that Red gets to go first can be used as leverage: attack now and save yourself, hesitate and he may overrun you. The cards could be in combination, and Green may have a combo and if he does, a lot of people are in trouble. Plus, if Red turns in his cards, Green will get a few more armies when he turns in his cards. Partnering up can be to get rid of Blue, which will raise Green’s attention, but if you set it up right, you can also eliminate Green’s major threat in Europe. Part of this diplomacy has to be to erase a threat or two in your favor so any retaliation is minimal.

Certainly having an alliance with Red that is turn based, future oriented (don’t attack me past South America and I won’t attack you past Europe or something similar) might dispel some fears of an all-out alliance. Any treaty with Red needs to give him an assurance of getting South America. At any rate, my concerns about Blue are minimal, it is just Green I worry about. And the alliance with Red can help you to attack Europe to remove your biggest threat and possibly get him to start hitting Green.

By Sam @ Friday, December 7, 2007 1:27 PM

Shift all your armies to attack Australia. Then do the turtle strategy.

By Europa @ Friday, December 7, 2007 11:29 PM

Wow, talk about brute force and to shoot first and ask questions later! Sometimes, this is what you have to do, but you are really putting the fate of your game in the hands of the gods. I like your idea in theory, but what if it goes wrong?

By Dreams @ Friday, December 21, 2007 7:13 AM

" I was strong, but I had one fundamental problem. I was left with two enemies. You guessed it. Next turn they both started attacking me and even though I was stronger than both of them, there was no way I could sustain so much attack from both sides. Eventually I got eliminated and Green went to win the game. "

At this point of the game, you may have appeased Red with south america to look as if u have given up and just wanted a balance between green and red (maybe pretend to be pissed with green)
leave no armies on the borders of south ame and africa, but say on chat telling green to take south ame and request that "africa be kept for 1 more turn" (but dont mention what happens after that lol)
the armies deployed from south ame should be able to keep green out but not give him too much pressure.
(continue blaming green and hinting that you are supporting red)
green is likely to get paranoid and attack red from north ame
basically at this point you have a greater advantage than both of them
farm cards in asia and/or north america, keeping a balance between them while securing afr and eur(on 1 of the turns depending on the situation get your army back to the borders of south america and africa)

By Ehsan Honary @ Friday, December 21, 2007 8:01 AM

Whispering Dreams, thanks for the solution. I think at this point the momentum was so large that it would have been difficult to convince them diplomatically to do anything else. If Yellow retreated back to North Africa, Red would simply advance and resume the fight there. It wouldn’t change it much except it would have made it easier for Red to attack Yellow even more with the bonus he gets from SA. The trick, as you say rightly, is to stop him attacking Yellow altogether. Making a deal is a good idea, but he could easily see Yellow’s vulnerability. Red had to make a choice to either go against Green and make a truce with Yellow, or to attack Yellow first and worry about Green later. Now looking at the map, it is much more lucrative for Red to expand to SA and get Yellow than to expand to Asia against Green. Simple choice really. So at this point Yellow really didn’t have anything to bargain with.

Ok, as a question, why do you think Red should accept any proposal from Yellow?

By Dreams @ Friday, December 21, 2007 8:27 PM

ops i think i had a typo on the last post

"leave no armies on the borders of south ame and africa, but say on chat telling RED to take south ame and request that "africa be kept for 1 more turn" (but dont mention what happens after that lol)"

"Red had to make a choice to either go against Green and make a truce with Yellow, or to attack Yellow first and worry about Green later. Now looking at the map, it is much more lucrative for Red to expand to SA and get Yellow than to expand to Asia against Green. "
Yes, my point was to "Act innocent" by pretending to be emotional and giving away continents. It is to get 1 of them to seem overpowered and get into the position you were at, making the other (seem) a natural ally. My post above is just 1 way it could be done.

This strategy is quite risky but this is what i will do.

It is not really getting a deal with red. It is just giving South Ame away, and sort of promising Africa
Giving Africa away or not is another issue. Maybe getting your troops out of middle east and africa into europe would be good. Tell red to take africa and agian pretend to be emotional agianst green.
Green is likely to get africa (as it is empty) too, so you have started a fight between green and red. Getting africa for any of them would mean an unbalance in bonus for another, thus the fight should last.

Retreating into europe would discourage any one to fights you as u still have the same amount of army but there is little to take from you. You will still have the most army, but now more concentrated ready to strike when the time comes.

By Lex @ Tuesday, April 1, 2008 1:58 AM

My view is that an alliance/nonaggression with Blue wasn't necessary. He already has a bigger problem (Red) to concentrate on, and attacking Yellow is the last thing on his mind. I would stick it to Green... leave a garrison in the Middle East, and then take as many single territories as possible (esp. Green's). You'll lose them, but at the very least you force him to retake them or go head-to-head with you in Africa. I would leave N. Af. basically undefended, since if Blue is smart he knows that Yellow is a natural ally against the other, stronger, players. Ignore Europe, fortify Africa, and spam territories to get armies or distract Green. If Blue can distract Red, you should be golden since Green's Australia is weaker than Yellow's Africa. Of course, the real problem is surviving the next card cash by Green. There's really nothing to do about that except trust to luck and poor judgement.

By oddball @ Friday, July 11, 2008 3:12 AM

you made a misconception to assume green was not a threat..with almost all of asia in his claws (that's 8 times 1 army there..if you need to overrun that it requires at least 15 armies to attack) and a foothold in Europe.

YOu'd better suggested to GReen to bolster Asia defenses against Red (allow him Asia..retreat from Middle east)..that will give fire between green and red.
You ask green to retreat from europe...and then you can put all your attention to blue (In europe and SA)..red cannot afford to enter europe if his war with green is severe enough...

By 4pointdeer @ Thursday, October 23, 2008 7:55 PM

I would first retreat out of the middle east and after green has taken all of asia use a lot of propaganda against green. I'd say "green is getting way to Stong" and "If we don't get him now he'll eliminated us all"(which is true) I am taking a risk of green killing me (becasue after getting asia It's either me or europe and I want euopre so either way I'm in the line of fire. However Because of green getting so powerful and me using propaganda I have no doubt that eveyone else will try to kill him. once this has been done I will make a treaty on the S.A. noth africa border ,for adout three turrns more or less, with blue who probably has become more powerful from being away from the action. This causes him to only be able to go after red or if he has europe(which I highly doubt) Will fgiht me and red at the same time either way he will Die or be severly weakened from fighting and red. now all thats left is a severly weakened green and a moderately strong red or blue I Will Alighn with the weaker play kill the stronger in a mad dash through their territory and then eliminate the last one coming out on top.

By 4pointdeer @ Thursday, October 23, 2008 7:59 PM

By the way I am relatively new to the game(on and off for half a year) Please responed and If you know of a free website to play a good risk game tell me

By 4pointdeer @ Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:00 PM

and sorry for the Typos

By Ehsan Honary @ Friday, October 24, 2008 4:10 PM

Thanks Fred for your comments. I suggest you try Grand Strategy, you will find many interesting Risk games and it is also free and players are mostly friendly.

Enjoy your Risk games.

By Anonymous User @ Tuesday, March 29, 2011 5:52 PM

I've noticed a couple of people saying that a Blue/Green alliance is unlikely, and that they have nothing to offer one another. How so?

Clearly, Yellow and Blue are the weaker factions, so probably one of them will be targetted and killed.

Suppose this scenario:
Blue and Green form a full military alliance with the sole purpose of destroying Yellow. This would put Blue/Green in control of Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia (however they would agree to split them between one another).

If they could secure "neutrality" from Red, assuring that their only aim is the destruction of Yellow (plausible, since it is their strongest point upon which Blue and Green can focus fire) the alliance may even be able to keep South America for a short time.

So while Green and Blue as an alliance may end up far better positioned than Red, they will have done it by a heavy war of attrition, while Red will have been building up every round and seeing little combat; Red may be convinced to allow the others to destroy Yellow, hoping that Red may be able to mop up afterwards. So, while Red cannot directly attack Yellow, it may be in their interest to allow the other factions to wipe Yellow out and not provoke the allies too much/at all.

By Ehsan Honary @ Sunday, April 3, 2011 3:49 AM

Thanks Anonymous User. There is a slight problem I see with your scenario. If Blue and Green become allies intent on engaging with Yellow, then how is Blue going to deal with Red. You see, Green is positioned in a way that Red is not as much of a threat to him as it is to Blue. Hence such an alliance would be to extreme benefit of Green, because it leads to elimination of Yellow then Blue. Meanwhile Green can become more powerful as a result of territory grab so eliminating Red would become easier and is likely that Green wins.

Hence, if you are Blue, alliance with Green against Yellow is not really that attractive as it doesn't solve the threat of Red. What do you suggest for that?

By RiskDominator @ Saturday, June 8, 2013 12:46 AM

Consider green dealing with red by moving a part of the gigantic army to confront red @ alaska

By Eliminator @ Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:20 AM

Ehsan, why ally with the weak player? Ally with red. If Green gets mad, he is stuck with our weak friend blue. Oh, and for all of yyou who said yellow is the second weakest, how so. Yellow has confidently secured his continent without any real concern.