Current Articles

Scenario 8: A Divided World

Diplomacy, Tactics

Article Rating:::: 21 Ratings :::: Friday, December 14, 2007

Sometimes real games that I play, accidentally offer a board configuration that are so well-balanced that  demand more examination and are just fun to think about. Here is one of these configurations.

The world in this game is divided between two groups. Three players own continents and three others don't. The three that have continents are well-off. They are like the rich nations of a planet, living in harmoney with no wars between them. Some like Brown have colonized lands far away from their home (Australia) and want to expand beyond their own continents.

Meanwhile, the situation for continent-less players seem to be dire. They have amassed large number of armies and seem to be ready to fight. Two of them (Black and Red) are competing over a very crowded Australia. They are not fighting because they know that the pair that fights will lose and the third player comes to dominate the continent.  Blue on the other hand is squeezed between the rich and the poor, not knowing which way to turn. 

In this world, anyone can win. It is a matter of having a vision and a sound strategy that you stick to. Nevertheless there is going to be only one winner. The players are all experienced and are unlikely to make even a single mistake. If you make a risky move, you can easily get kicked out.

Total Diplomacy Risk Map: ThreeContinentsThreeNot

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

Now, suppose you are playing as Blue and it is Red's turn. The card posession is shown in the following table along with total armies. Next cashing cards is at 8 and the sequence is 4,6,8,10,12,... There are no treaties in the game so far. Everyone has been quiet. They know that this is the critical points in the game and that players will make their big moves shortly.


Risk Game Table - Scenario 8


As Blue, what would you do? Which way would you expand to? How do you think this game is going to unfold?

Post Rating


Sam   By Sam @ Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:30 AM
As Blue I will do the turtle strategy.As Yellow i will destroy SA and get NA.

Sam   By Sam @ Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:50 AM
Oh i forgot, blue can kill black and get a chain reaction.

Sam   By Sam @ Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:51 AM
But red might do it first.

Europa   By Europa @ Saturday, December 15, 2007 5:02 PM
Scenario 8

This scenario looks fantastic and I think we can all learn a lot from it. I think however it is less balanced than first meets the eye. I have questions before discussing the scenario: what are the fortification rules? In Classic Risk you can only go from one territory to an adjacent one. The new rules say you can go from one to another along a connect route over as many territories that are connected in a single path. This is important when considering strategy.

Red: In a tough spot with only one card and no continent but gets go first. The question here is: to go for Australia now or make noise elsewhere? With only 3 reinforcements at this point, you can certainly make big move Down Under, but you may be too weak afterwards. My next decision as Red would be to get a card, either in Australia or take Scandinavia from Brown. I have to think about whether I want to stock up in Australia or pile them in Europe to make an eventual run in North America. Diplomacy for Red seems to be difficult since he doesn’t have much to offer the other players and he doesn’t stand to gain much either as a deal may block some of his moves. Yellow may want a deal, but does he want to help him get North America?

Yellow: I think besides Black, Yellow is the weakest in the game. Yellow can’t protect North America from both Brown and Black, but this depends on whether he can turn in his 3 cards. If he can, he has plenty of options, and can try to take South America (he needs to think about Green here as well, retake North America or both if he is really aggressive. If he has no cards, then he may want to just take away Brown’s advantage in South America since he can’t count on keeping continents with out more troops or get a deal from him which Brown will likely do given his situation. I think a deal for Yellow will be imperative at this point, and one from Red might be nice, but unlikely. One from Black, once he removes him from Alaska would be a boon if he can get it but that will be a hard sell and I wouldn’t believe Black anyway.

Brown: At first Brown looks okay, but if Yellow does indeed go after him, he will have lost a great deal and then be poor. So, he needs to make a deal in a hurry. He either needs a deal from Yellow and then go for North Africa to take away the continent from Green and/or do some damage in Australia. (Of course, maybe Yellow makes a mistake, doesn’t deal with Brown but doesn’t fight him either, but that’s just silly talk.) If Red does decides to go after Brown in Australia, then he is in a real pickle. So Brown needs to look at what he has left and put all his troops there. Brown will either need to fight back Yellow and try to regain South America (assuming no deal), eradicate Red out of Australia (but keep Black in Indonesia as a buffer, hoping his 3 cards don’t get cashed) or try something totally different like making a rush through Africa or Asia, which ever is easier.

Blue: Now we get to our turn. Blue is the strongest troop-wise, so he may have to face a few jabs from Red or Yellow if they try to take Ural, China and maybe India. Red may want to go for a pincers attack on Australia and place troops in Mongolia to take China and put some pressure on Black. Whatever happens, his major threat of Black in Siam and Green in Africa must be dealt with. Blue needs diplomacy at this point to either get Black to focus on Red or to get someone to help him Africa.

We know Green is actually the strongest player in game at this point, with 5 cards giving him at least 8, possibly 10 troops on his turn. If Blue or someone else does not take something away from Africa, Green will get 14-16 reinforcements and nothing to do but expand and fortify. Unless Brown gets North Africa, or Yellow turns in cards and is able to make an attack in Africa, Blue will need to take either Egypt (first choice) or East Africa or, for those true diplomats out there, make a deal with Green and create a polar world. How successful he is will determine his next move, but in either case, he needs to deal with Red and Black and he needs to create an alliance with one or both of them and get them to fight each other. IF Brown is near elimination, Blue needs to think about how he can finish him off. 3 cards right now would be really nice and he would start the next turn with 6!

Green will be doing some mop up, but with his huge haul of reinforcements, he needs to think about how he can maintain his edge in the game. He will need to take away South America’s bonus, secure Africa, put pressure on Europe and really find a way to deal with Blue.

Black will still be around, and hopefully he can’t turn cards in or else Blue will be in a little trouble. If anything happens in Australia and Black gets cards, he needs to go in and take it out. With Australia his and Siam fortified, he can then look at Kamchatka and decide if he wants to push for more in Asia and eventually unite his two armies or make life difficult for North America. Black may want to go after Blue in Asia since he may have spent much of his resources dealing with Green. It all depends on what opportunity presents itself.

Ehsan Honary   By Ehsan Honary @ Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:24 AM
Nice analysis Grant. The fortification rule is that you may move as much armies as you like from only one territory to another as long as they are connected. Most games are these days played like this and I generally assume that's the rule.

Europa   By Europa @ Sunday, December 16, 2007 5:38 AM
Thank you for the clarification. I do believe you are correct about the use of the newer fortification rule. My friends and I use it now almost all the time, but every now and then we get nostalgic revert back to the older rule.

I wonder what the rest of the Risk community thinks of this scenario and my analysis. I haven't really answered all of your questions about this scenario, hopefully I have also raised a few more questions about it and brought some ideas to the surface.

Europa   By Europa @ Monday, December 17, 2007 1:42 PM
It looks to me like Red will pull the trigger and start a fight in Australia, and then depending on his Risk factor, he may take a swipe at Scandinavia. Yellow needs to toke out South America by invading Venezuela and Brown should be in a tough spot. If not, he should attack Africa and then fortify. Blue will be left with addign to China and India while also attacking Africa from the Middle East. I think Black in thisd game is the Wild card.

Lex   By Lex @ Tuesday, April 1, 2008 1:45 AM
Blue has a tough match of it here... from my experience, he has two options in the immediate term. First, he can move south into Africa. This move, while appearing bad to start, could potentially help him in the long run. He makes a dangerous enemy in Green, but a potential ally in Brown. If Blue kills enough armies and survives the counterattack, with a little diplomacy and luck he can end up with Africa if Brown helps him out and the other players are preoccupied. The other, much less risky (heh), option is to consolidate by reinforcing the large army, moving north for a territory, and moving the Ukranian force in as well. This is basically a stopgap measure, though, since he really hasn't done anything except let the his (likely) mortal enemy Green get that much stronger. Trying for Europe always seems to end up a loser's game, and while it is possible to continue north and eventually get North America it would probably be too late to catch up to the major players (Brown and Green). As I see it, the best Blue will likely get is second if he moves south, takes out Green, and gets lots of help from a thankful Brown. Red and Black are playing for last place, barring a successful monster army buildup. Yellow will probably end up in a decent position by virtue of being well away from the large armies and crucial territories.

Ehsan Honary   By Ehsan Honary @ Tuesday, April 1, 2008 12:57 PM
Good post Luther. Going for Green is not a bad idea though if you can only get allied with Brown, otherwise it is a suicide since you and Green will become weak in the process for Brown and other player's advantage.

Nevertheless if you can pull it off, its a good move.

oddball   By oddball @ Friday, July 11, 2008 4:15 AM
why do people assume that once a player attacks one other , they will keep going on untill their end ?
In such cases I tend to pince a certain opponent 1 or 2 turns and make a truce deal so to put attention elsewhere.

You mentioned 3 players have bonuszones ? I see only 2.

RED will wait. Perhaps make 2 dicerolls against brown aussie..but really cant od much more.

YELLOW is weak and would place his 3 new troops in mexico ..probably hitting venezuela..but if his first dice throw is shite he'll cancel.. a proposal deal with brown as to allow brown to put his troops in aussie wont be accepted as brown would still face too much opposition (time) there and has to worry about green africa as well.
Yellow will put his most troops in mexico and only if defense there i good/holds he'll think of dealing with black in Alaska.
Cashing cards would make him more secure..but not much.

BROWN keeps on defending SA warding off yellow attacks..cannot yet afford placing troops on australia..but should do so immediately when green invades SA from Africa (to let Yellow collide with Green).

BLUE can only annoy green.. Brown in SA is a slightly bigger threat to green.
But if yellow invaded venezuela..then blue should consider hitting east africa first and then move his armies to Ukraine and slowly grow there.
Alternatively you'd invade east africa AND south Africa and stick there with all your troops.
Green then becomes a buffer to the outside world...I'd probably do that (also because green has 5 cards..! strike now!).
yeah race to South Africa and grow from there.
GREEN has 5 cards and a bonusarea... defend it and build up.

BLACK is hopeless..stick to Siam and hope for break out opportunities (into Australia when red/brown are wasted or to Europe (china 1-Ural 1)).

oddball   By oddball @ Friday, July 11, 2008 7:25 AM
I see now that my tactic is the same as Luther..:)
I really didnot read it before.

But another comment on
"though if you can only get allied with Brown, otherwise it is a suicide since you and Green will become weak in the process for Brown and other player's advantage. "
Green has 5 cards.why ? because he had shite cards the turns before... chances are that he doesnt get the full it is less likely that he can immediately kill off all your bulk troops in s-africa. need for a special "treaty" with brown.
You only need to hold on the fight with green long enough, and automatically brown ôr any other stronger player will rise and stab green partially(West Africa plug) in the back...
Time will do the work.

Cardtrick   By Cardtrick @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:25 PM
Hi, I'm new here (and to the Total Diplomacy website, actually), but I've been playing Risk for nearly 5 years, so I've learned a thing or two. Also, I know I'm pretty late (it's been a year later since the previous comment), but like I said, I'm new to Total Diplomacy.

As to this scenario, it truly depends on the card value. For example, I see that only one color (yellow) has the potential to turn in cards by the time the round gets to blue. Assuming yellow can turn in the cards, he will do so in order to take out black in North America as well as the threat in Kamchatka. He will attack the latter territory at all costs because black might turn in cards when his turn rolls around and if he sees the fight in Australia heating up, he might call it quits in Australia and turn to his somewhat well-fortified territory Kamchatka and quickly sweep North America. As a result, yellow will try to take black in Alaska and Kamchatka.

Of course, there's always the chance that yellow can't turn in his cards. If that's the case, he needs to be ready to take a hit because black is almost guaranteed at least 10 more troops plus his regular 3. He might receive at least 13 troops. Chances are, black will place those troops in Kamchatka and attack east into Alaska, threatening yellow harshly.

With regards to blue, considering I won't be able to turn in cards, so no reinforcement bonus comes to me. Looking east is hotbed Australia, but it's best to stay out of that fight. Asia is also to the east, but any player in his right mind won't let any other player conquer Asia. Africa can be for the taking, but like I said earlier, the cards come into play. Green is forced to turn in his cards. Depending on yellow, he will receive his 8 or 10 troop bonus plus his 3, giving him at least 11 troops. He will use those troops to take back his lost African nation and severely punish blue for his attack. To avoid this, I would move into Europe. Since I am lucky enough to go before green, I'd strike a deal with green, claiming that he should stay away from Europe if I don't attack his territories in Africa. Green will probably accept this for two reasons: 1. he wants to keep Africa and 2. he has another way out (South America). Green can do some damage in South America with his reinforcements. Of course, brown could always attack green in North Africa, but if he does so, there's an even greater incentive for green to accept my non-aggression pact.

So, let's say that green accepts that pact and, like, Grant Blackburn said, red does take Scandinavia for his card. Assuming red put most of his forces in Australia, considering he has most of his troops there, his troops in Europe will be a low number. For example, knowing Risk players, if they want a territory so much, they'll do anything they can to take/keep it. If red pours his reinforcements (3 rein.) into Great Britain, he'll attack Scandinavia and take it over. That's well and good, but he won't put all of his troops into Scandinavia; he will most likely split the troops into each territory. If he doesn't, he's making it easier for blue. However, blue goes much after red so red won't know what blue's strategy is.

Anyway, so blue makes that non-aggression pact with green. As a result, blue can start attacking in Europe. If all goes well, he will get most, if not all, of Europe. The "threat" in Greenland will most likely subside by the time yellow rolls around as black will most likely attack yellow in North America.

Now, there are some holes in my theory. First, let's say red decides to do some attacking in Australia other than Europe. Chances are, he will take either Eastern Australia (risky) or Western Australia (also risky, as that divides his troops). Either way, if red succeeds, he has no incentive to attack Scandinavia for a card. The 5 troops on Great Britain persist, but will continue to persist as long as red stays in Australia.

Black might decide that Australia is the way to go despite all the fighting and intensely fortify Siam (or Indonesia, assuming it's still under black's control). As a result, yellow might not have much incentive to attack Kamchatka, which could spell disaster for me. If I continue to attack Europe, my empire is pretty dilute by the time I arrive at Iceland. As a result, yellow might turn in his cards and get the 5 bonus from North American and eliminate me. Hopefully, yellow would attack South America, but if he goes for Europe, I will have to brace the attack and hopefully survive long enough to maybe cash in my cards the next turn.

I could also take over territories in Europe that do NOT belong to green. If I realize that I am not able to conquer all of Europe, I would attack all the non-green territories and ask green to move his troops out of Europe ASAP. If he does so, I will have eliminated the non-green threat in Europe and have green by a good as I won't attack him in Africa and he won't attack me in Europe.

This is my first solution idea, so I hope you all enjoy reading it. Also, I would appreciate it if you all tell me if there are any other holes in my theory. I haven't been playing too often, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this as well, Mr. Ehsan Honary As a Risk player, so many choices come to mind and a wrong turn could spell disaster.

Ehsan Honary   By Ehsan Honary @ Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:21 AM
Welcome to TD Aaron. Great post and a very nice long analysis.

The idea of going to Europe is interesting, though here is a question. You mentioned that you want to make a pact with Green and even avoid attacking those two Green territories in Europe despite going for Europe. Don't you think that Green would benefit a lot more from this pact than you. Green will effectively use you as a shield and since already has a continent is more likely to grow faster than you since you wont have any continent. How are you going to deal with this?

Even if you have pacts with others, you should keep an eye on their power since if they become too powerful, they may become more adventurous than you like.

What would you do if Brown and Green made a pact? Brown would go for Yellow and Green will be laughing his head having secured two sides of his continent. He would only have one front and no real threat assuming you have moved away from Asia to Europe.


Cardtrick   By Cardtrick @ Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:49 AM
Thank you, Mr. Honary, for your response.

You raise some good points. Perhaps it is unwise for me to NOT attack green's troops in Europe. However, I proposed that idea because if I do strike a pact with green, I will expect him to honor it and move his troops out of there, leaving Europe to me. But, you're right, there's the chance that green and brown have a pact.

The key here is turn order. Depending on the damage red does in Australia could affect brown's strategy. If red does attempt to attack brown's units in Australia or attacks the territories surrounding brown, then brown might realize that Australia may be his and fortify his units there, neglecting the Brazil-North Africa link. This, in essence, would lead brown and green to a pact, hurting me.

Now, brown goes after yellow and before green. Because yellow will most likely not attack brown in South America (because he's focused on Alaska/Kamchatka) and will not get the +5 North America bonus, brown doesn't have much to worry about this turn. As a matter of fact, if there's a pact between brown and yellow, the better it is for blue.

It seems unwise for brown and green to have a pact because green doesn't benefit much from that pact either. Much like I would be a shield for green to the north, brown is a shield to the west. Because brown and I (blue) go before green, I would propose what Luther previously stated: a pact between me and brown to attack Africa. Africa will feel pretty threatened if two armies are attacking him.

I understand that by the time green comes around, he will have traded cards and begin his recover of Africa, but he will spend most of his armies taking back Africa rather than attacking and severely weakening me. Also, he's going to turn in cards no matter what, so it's best if I limit his response to taking back Africa as opposed to expanding. As a result, his empire will be pretty dilute (he will receive at least 8 extra armies, assuming yellow doesn't turn in cards) by the time that he takes back Africa.

If green doesn't take back Africa, then I will leave Africa for brown for two reasons: 1. my goal is Europe, not Africa and 2. the continent bonus will be equal for brown and me (+5)

If green does take back Africa, that's the time I would make the pact that I proposed earlier. If I make it now, though, I would encourage green to attack South America or wait for me to leave Asia and have him expand eastwards. A pact between green and brown is not likely as brown needs to expand and when he sees my 13 armies in the Middle East, he will jump at the opportunity to attack Africa.

If our attack on Africa goes under, that's where the real problem erupts. Assuming green receives only 11 troops, he'll most likely fortify his European territories and attack south into Africa, making my European conquest a little easier. But, if he still has Madagascar after both brown and I attack, he might move north from there, but that's unlikely as he would eventually split his troops or would be dilute by the time he reconquers Africa.

If green doesn't accept my offer, then I would have to employ one of the methods I learned here: appearing strong. He sees my 13 armies and knows that I can do some damage in Africa. It's for his best if he feels threatened and becomes emotional, making rash decisions. Right now, green only has Africa; if he loses that, he loses it all.

I have been playing the computerized version of Risk and I have sometimes been in this type of situation. Blue truly is in a predicament here. If I were blue, I would play pretty conservatively. With no continent, I can't offer much, but if I load up my territories with armies, I have a chance to broker treaties and do some damage. With all these solutions, what would you do in this situation, Mr. Honary?

Ehsan Honary   By Ehsan Honary @ Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:56 PM
I agree, allying with Brown seems to be a very good move beneficial to both parties. I also think you are right about pressuring Green into submission. You can always say you have no other choice than to attack if you feel threatened. For Blue, preserving armies is the utmost priority since if you don’t lose armies in attacks, you will be almost as good as those with a continent who spend their extra armies in corrosive wars.

In any case, good analysis Aaron.

Beaner   By Beaner @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:54 PM
I would attack green. but then again it all depends on card value and if green would attack back.

RedzoneRacer   By RedzoneRacer @ Saturday, October 3, 2009 7:20 AM
I think Green would strike back with 14 armies coming on his next turn. At this point, I would make a treaty with Green and turtle, keeping a presence in Europe. Once the situation in Australia clears and a ruler has emerged, smash it, then annihilate Black and expand to Europe or NA.

Beaner   By Beaner @ Friday, January 1, 2010 5:25 PM
i think the best thing to do would be to use the turtle stradegy. well thats what i would do

do people grow from spores?

welshjr   By welshjr @ Monday, March 1, 2010 11:41 AM
Has anyone thought of reinforcing from the Middle East to the Ukraine and then going into North America through Greenland? I'm not sure if it would work, but I think it would be interesting. I'm looking at this through territories-first strategy perspective, since blue doesn't have much of a chance of taking a continent without some serious losses. Also, Green has 5 cards so he is guaranteed to have a match. I think the best move is to not piss Green off or at least stay out of his/her way for the time being. Maybe even talk to Green and let him/her know you're going to North America as soon as possible. An alliance with Green would place the game in both of your hands; it secures a victory for one of you and second place for the other, which is better than last place :). Oh, I almost forgot, it would be prudent to get a card this turn instead of just reinforcing to the Ukraine. I think the best option is to attack Italy from the Middle East, seeing as Yellow will soon be your enemy anyway. I don't really know how this strategy would turn out, it's just a thought. I just don't see Blue getting a continent anytime soon, so he/she would need to get territories. The easiest place to get territories in this game is North America, and Blue is in a pretty decent position to do so, but no one in the game will expect it. Pulling a move that no one expects and actually usually gets you a certain amount of respect too, and people might want you on their side. Yellow might get pissed, but what are they going to do about it? Then again, Yellow does have cards. I don't know, this game is way too complicated haha.

slickandjake   By slickandjake @ Friday, September 24, 2010 10:55 AM
An intersting setup indeed. Each color has options, but to make an attack somewhere may tip things in another's favor rather than your own favor. I like green and blue's chances the most at this point, but things can tip rather quickly when the card sets come in to play.

I like to constantly look at who is ripe for a decisive attack to take their cards when they have 3 or more of them. This is difficult here since blue and green, who appear strongest on the board in my opinion, are concentrated in one area, while the other four colors have significant strength in two or more locations with distance between them. Our best hope for taking an opponent out is to take out black, however he already has 3 cards and we cannot take him out within a turn or two, when he'll cash in his cards. Therefore, my strategy at this point is to still lay low but be prepared to mop up a very weak opponent. I need to stay away from a big conflict with a strong border foe.

I like green and blue's chances the most. My two most dangerous opponents right now are black and green, with brown and red potential threats whenever the Australia mess gets cleaned up. The problem for Green is, where does he expand? If he takes South America, brown is isolated in distant lands and is ripe for someone else to take his cards, but there is no way for green to take him out. Therefore, he will likely keep the buffer of brown between him and yellow and attack either asia or Europe. Blue is in Asia, and a significant foe. Europe has many borders with Africa. So green's best interest is to ally with blue, but that is dangerous as well since you don't want blue too strong, after all he is likely your biggest threat as well. I think, if I was blue, I don't want a conflict with green right now either, nor do I want to ally with him due to him potentially growing too strong and having a "card advantage" over me right now. I could take an African territory each turn and get into a grinding war with him, but that only hurts me as well. So as blue, I would likely try to avoid much conflict with green, but try to drive him to Europe or South America. At least Europe will take a bit to capture, and will leave him over-stretched, ripe for counter-attack. My situation is not very good, however, since my strength is concentrated in an area that puts me close to green and if I expand west, I will likely get in a war with green and even potentially yellow. I sure would like a significant force in the eastern part of my empire so I have room to expand, and in an area that will not be as threatening. I think I would plan to use Japan to attack Mongolia, give up claim to Ukraine and move those armies to Ural on a non-combative move, and start pushing east while keeping a strong presence in the middle east, just to keep green in check and make my armies available for a counter-attack on green. I think things are going to heat up in Australia, and I want to be a presence in that area to pick up the remains of whoever wins it. That will likely be a future expansion point, but I do not have the ability to do that now. Therefore, moving east is somewhat non-threatening to those groups, but is still close enough to quickly bear my army against them. Unfortunately, for me right now, I want to see what other people are thinking. I want to influence, however, green and black to avoid attacking me in order for me to remain a strong force. Nobody else, at this point, is a threat to me.

slickandjake   By slickandjake @ Friday, September 24, 2010 11:38 AM
Oh, I forgot to explain my analysis of each of the other colors:

red- I think he is in trouble. His main force is locked in an isolated position against two strong adversaries. The first to make a move will likely not win the continent, and what hurts more is that red only has one card. His next strength, in Europe, is close to the likely strongest player, being the green player, who also has cards to turn in his next move. Red's best hope for survival lays in Asia. If I were red, I would look to strengthen my Asian forces, perhaps taking China to gain a card and then retreating from it on my non-combat move. I may put an army in Aussie to keep a strong presence there, but I just hope black and brown attack each other first, which will be difficult since they are buffered between each other right now with their weak army territories.

yellow- He is in a tough spot also. It may not look like it, but he is in my opinion. Taking North America is not easy at this point, because black is strong enough to be a pest. And if I take black out here, then he is isolated in Aussie for someone else to knock him out and take his cards. Brown poses a similar problem. Not only will taking South America put me in a position to border the true world power, green, on the Brazil-North Africa border, but doing so will also isolate brown in distant lands for someone else to capture his cards. I would do the dirty work of taking brown's territories, only for someone else to reap the benefits of my work. I would actually ally with brown to keep the buffer with green and allow him to fight it out in Aussie, but also to allow me to concentrate elsewhere. The only problem is that the elsewhere is Europe. The two strongest players, blue and green, have signfiicant forces in that area and it will put me in a potentially bad spot. Therefore, my move would likely be to take Alaska, try to ally with brown, and ask for a few turn no attack truce with black. This would allow me to hold N.A., for a turn or two at least, and see how the rest of the world plays out. Then after a turn or two, I may have a card set and exploit whatever weakness there is out there. I'm really hoping for a blue-green conflict in the meantime. The only problem with the plan is: getting both black and brown to leave me alone. Brown may agree due to his dire situation, but black may not want to since he has several options right now.

Brown- Ugh, just not good. Pinned between green and yellow in S.A. Pinned in Australia. Where does he go? Attacking from either place is suicide. He has one spot in Europe, but that is a hornet's nest. The best likely place to attack to grab a card is in Asia, but this territory is surrounded by 3's and a 5. I think, if I was brown, I would agree, or ask for, an alliance with yellow. I would place 4 armies in Yakutsk, 1 army in Eastern Aussie (assuming I still have S.A. on my turn), try to attack and take Siberia from Yakutsk, then ally with yellow if they will let me.

Green- So many options, but so few are good ones. You could take S.A., but the same dilemma applies as it did for yellow. I am dong work to take it, only to border a strong foe and likely not reap too many rewards since brown will be isolated in Aussie for others to take the cards. That may not be the case, IF I surround Scandanavia to protect that lone brown territory so that I could take it when brwon is destryoed elsewhere. This over-extends my army, however, right along a border with a strong blue opponent. At least I will have a matching set. I would likely ask for a no-attack truce with yellow for a turn, and take a good part of Europe on my turn to minimize my borders and eliminate one of my opponents, red, from Europe. I would leave the European brown territory alone for two reasons. First, as a buffer between me and blue. Second, as an option for attack on my next turn if blue leaves me alone. I would also ask brown, before my turn, to give a one round no-attack truce. He will likely agree, thinking more about S.A. then Europe.

Black- another color in a tough spot, but with some potential. He has 3 cards, which gives him some leverage, as well as salivating enemies. Blue, as well as red, could potentially knock me out. Australia is the stronghold, but is surrounded by three strong enemy armies. I would likely attack China and immediately retreat to leave this country as an attacking buffer for everyone else. I am in the best position to take Australia, leaving brown and red to fight it out.

In any event, I think a lot of fighting will occur in Europe and Asia the next round. Australia will likely stay status quo, at least for now.

slickandjake   By slickandjake @ Friday, September 24, 2010 11:45 AM
On second thought with red, I would likely take China and keep my forces there. This would put black under some pressure, and may force him to make a move in Aussie or into Asia. Either way, I am relieving some pressure for myself.

locus   By locus @ Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:25 PM
Blue - I place reinforcements in the Middle East and launch an attack on East Africa. The odds are heavily in my favor to only lose a few men - and I have enough to absorb a bad roll or two. I take Africa from green, then use the rest of my men to attack Southern Europe. Fortification time and I move all of my armies from Afghanistan to Ukraine, creating a power base in Europe.
Green is forced to choose between revenge on me or consolidating Africa - which is the only smart move. In order to reclaim africa, he realistically needs to use men from Egypt, causing a misdirection of resources otherwise reserved for aggravating me. His expansion plans took a 1 turn hit, Asia becomes a release valve for black to move away from siam. This give several players a better place to claim risk cards than the territories I am absorbing in Europe. I play it off as if I am just trying to get "out of the hotzone"...apologize to yellow for taking southern Europe, encourage black to take my asian holdings with no repercussions, caution green against aggression by stating a very real destruction of his african empire if he dares to take the fight to Europe.

RedzoneRacer   By RedzoneRacer @ Sunday, February 20, 2011 6:21 PM
There are two things that I note in your analysis, Locus.

First off, as I said before, Green has a trade-in. You said he would need to use reinforcements from Egypt, but he instead can place from a one-man territory and solidly overwhelm your men with armies to spare. At this point, Green has over you a continent and a prior foothold in Europe, which he can consolidate with his trade-in.

Second, what makes you think Asia is a hot zone? You have the highest concentration of armies on the board; no one will be in a rush to attack you. At this point, I would recommend either to: A) Move into Ukraine with your stack of 13 and start building up in Europe, or B) shadow Australia, use propaganda to set the 3 players against each other, let them destroy each other while you build up, then smash it when it's significantly weak and proceed from there.

If anyone has any questions about this, I would love to hear them.

p.d0t   By p.d0t @ Tuesday, March 29, 2011 7:57 AM
Hey all,

Brand new here, but I stumbled across the site and started reading the thread, and I felt compelled to jump in.

First, let me say I am not a fan of multi-lateral agreements (and this thread would seem to agree with me on that); generally you can make an agreement between 2 factions but not more.

I think this side has a couple of different plays, despite their perceived weakness. To solve your problem in Australia seems quite simple to me; there are 2 ways you could go about it, but both are mechanically similar.

a) Ally with Red -- to gain a free hand in Australia, offer North America as an enticement; controlling South America, you are ideally placed for this. Get Red to clear Black out of Indonesia and Siam; if you choose to go with all-out war on Black, this may further entice Red to join your cause, as Red is well placed to knock Black out and take their cards. This would allow for Red to inflitrate North America through Kamchatka as well as Iceland. Brown may bear the reprisal of a fleeing Yellow into South America, but you have at least secured Australia in the process and gained a strong alliance.

b) Ally with Black -- More or less the same strategy; use Black to eliminate Red in Australia and use your position in South America to support Black's incursion into North America

Since either of these alliances will need to last a few turns to be successful, and will result in Yellow being very mad at your ally (and possibly you) taking Yellow out of Siberia in the earliest turn of this alliance will probably help you both out. In any case where Yellow is squeezed in North America (whether by you, your allies, or otherwise) running through you (Brown) in South America is probably their only survival strategy, rather than trying to beat back any invasions.

In both of these strategies you basically give up on South America, unless you and your ally can crush Yellow, but chances are Green will see an opportunity and sweep into South America. *Hopefully* this will cue Blue to attack Green in Africa, wanting to limit their power, and probably giving you some freedom to move in Asia from Australia. If any such de-facto alliance with Blue happens, you may be able to hold out in South America after all.

A truce with Brown seems in order. While you can probably take them out of South America if you so choose, any weakness will likely provoke Blue to war (just on the general principle of you shifting your forces away and leaving your continent open anywhere).

IMHO, war with Blue seems inevitable; an alliance with Yellow seems your best bet. Yellow forces in Southern Europe and Siberia would be a huge asset to your cause, taking out the smaller Blue forces in Asia and Ukraine while you hit the Middle East as hard as you can; offer Yellow a free hand in Europe to seal the deal.

If you *are* threatened from Brown in Brazil, Yellow will be the faction best able to help you (from North America), so you will want them on your side for this reason as well.

Red is very weak and spread around the map, but they do have a lot of outs. Basically, as Red I would say, "make me an offer!" and play kingmaker, assisting whichever faction gives you the most preferential deal. You're in a good position to wipe out Black, isolate Brown to the southern continents, and/or stir the pot in the northern continents. In any case, you need a sponsor; find someone whose goals you can assist with and get a little something for yourself in return.

North America push seems like the best play, especially if you can get some outside help. If you don't align yourself to Red or Brown over Australia, you stand a chance of mopping up there after they duke it out. If one of them comes after you before fighting each other, your forces in Siam are stuck, unless you can get Blue or Yellow to clear out Red and Brown in Asia for you.

As I've said before, Green seems like your natural enemy. You have a couple possible partners, but they all have the same objectives: hold off any opposition in Asia and attack Green in Europe and Africa
a) Ally with Yellow - Yellow attacks North Africa from Southern Europe, Blue attacks Egypt/East Africa
b) Ally with Red - Red is fairly well placed to hit Green in Europe, but doesn't give you that opportunity to take out Africa from more than one direction. However, Red is the strongest partner for you in Asia, but if Green gets Yellow on their side, you could be in trouble
c) Ally with Brown - probably the least likely scenario; while brown is well placed to attack Green in North Africa, they really don't have any reason to work with you, and more likely would prefer a truce with Green.

At least you have options, right? If you can forge more than one of these alliances, all the better. Green is clearly the strongest player at this junction, and usually at that point people will acknowledge the need for cooperation in order to knock them down a peg. Black is the only faction in Asia who is of no use to you; whoever is most interested in eliminating black may end up being your dance partner, if nobody bites on an alliance to knock out Green.

To be honest, I would abandon North America. Either sweep through South America or make a play for Europe. You may need to swing deals to earn co-operation if you do choose to take Europe; luckily you do have forces outside of North America which are positioned such that they can do a couple favours for your prospective suitors (mostly explained above).


p.d0t   By p.d0t @ Tuesday, March 29, 2011 8:11 AM
(in reply to myself)
red-blue-yellow VS. black-brown-green ?

RiskDominator   By RiskDominator @ Saturday, June 8, 2013 12:36 AM
I haven't looked at a lot of the other posts yet, so i may be repeating somebody's idea. But, as red, i would wait for the chaos in aussie to die down, and then take it. boo hoo for the bozos who get eliminated in the process.

RiskDominator   By RiskDominator @ Saturday, June 8, 2013 3:58 AM
Also, i could convince green to take brown, thus weakening green so i can capture him.

RiskDominator   By RiskDominator @ Saturday, June 8, 2013 4:07 AM
Or, as a final option, try and eliminate yellow.

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.
Rate = 3.81 out of 5 :::: 21 Ratings.
Do you want more?
Would you like to see many more scenarios and solutions?

Submit Survey  View Results
Submit Your Scenarios
You can submit your own Scenarios using Risk Map Editor to the forums.
My Book: Risk Game Strategy

Total Diplomacy: The Art of Winning Risk

Available from Amazon as paperback and Kindle

Available in Apple Books

Learn More About the Book