Solution for Scenario 1

Current Articles

Solution 1.A

Article Rating:::: 4 Ratings :::: Friday, March 2, 2007

Risk Strategies, Solution 1.A: Treaty with Yellow


Treaty with Yellow

First I shall try to make a treaty with Yellow for my east border. Hence, Yellow will not attack Ukraine or Southern Europe and I will not attack Ural, Afghanistan or Middle East. This effectively lets Yellow to conquer Asia. So I am giving something in return for the treaty. Blue does not have much power to be threatening so no one will listen to him, and his propaganda won't work. Green cannot brainwash Yellow either since the offer for Yellow is very good or if he doesn't accept it he might have to go for Africa anyway. So the offer will most likely be accepted by Yellow.

Now that my South and East are protected, all I have to be concerned is North America. However, Green is trying to get it too. So it is going to be two players against one, and Blue won't have a chance! Eventually Blue will be wiped out, though it is difficult to predict who is going to get the cards. At that point Yellow is trying to get Asia. Green knows that he has to prevent this or he will loose. Besides, Yellow can get Middle East and threaten two African territories from one.

This is bad news for Green: he has to try to balance the border and place armies in two territories as a result. Over time, Yellow will be able to break into Africa. So if Green is smart, he should never let go of Middle East or that will be the end of him. Therefore, there will be a conflict based on Middle East between Yellow and Green. This means that Red has an advantage since he has only one front and he will be more successful in the battle of North America in comparison with Green or Yellow. Eventually Green will collapse. However, Red can easily expand to South America and end up with 5+5+2 = 12 for continents in comparison with 2+7 = 9 that Yellow might get.

It is always difficult to guess the end game as cards play a very important role (even more important than continents). But generally speaking, at this instance of the game, this seems to be the right thing to do.

Post Rating


Imported Post   By Imported Post @ Friday, March 16, 2007 11:35 AM
There is a problem with the suggested solution to the given scenario. Red will want to expand to north america. Therefore he has to make an alliance with yellow, thereby protecting his eastern border. The problem lies in the alliance with green. It is obvious that green also wants to expand to north america. The only way he can accomplish this is by keeping friends with red. Now, if red makes an alliance with yellow, he makes clear that he wants to invade north america. Green therefore will want to break the
alliance with red because red wants to conquer the territory that he was hoping for. Red could argue that green should be focused against yellow, but green's response would be that this is why he has an alliance with red.

Making an alliance with yellow therefore implies breaking the alliance with green...


Europa   By Europa @ Monday, May 28, 2007 11:37 PM
Assuming a treaty with Africa AND Australia is even possible in this scenario, this is the best bet: attack North America, now. Cripple it so he can't attack you back. This will serve as your outlet for growth and cards as you merely mediate the conflict between the other players. Taking North America too early can bring backlash though, and any treaty between the southern powers should be trusted for too long simply because they can't afford to let the northern powers accumulate 5, 5, or 7 armies per turn in continent bonuses.

C-dawg   By C-dawg @ Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:05 PM
From the red's perspective, I don't think first line of attack is obviously Iceland. For the next 2 or 3 turns, wait out and buffer all the fronts while finishing off the easy countries to obtain cards. Thirdly, stay still until the right timing and finish off the blue. Otherwise, when red has buffer Ukraine up to 12 or 14, start sweeping to North Africa and attack down to Brazil to paralyze green. The rest is up for grab since I don't know the specifics regarding how many cards each players have, how they play, what they want, nor how the alliances are holding up. Though, red has a good chance of taking the game if it plays wisely. I would say 60% - 40%. Unless something dramatic happens, red wins.

slickandjake   By slickandjake @ Friday, September 24, 2010 2:45 PM
I agree with Bob, making an alliance with yellow implies the alliance with green is broken. Green must see that yellow is the main threat to him now, and that any attack on blue will result in a battle between red and green in N.A. and/or S.A. while yellow knocks on my door in Africa. Basically, green must recognize that while red and yellow are allied, green and blue are "independents". If I was green in this case, then I would offer a truce with blue, pulling my troops from Mexico on my next turn if he pushes back the attack from red, effectively giving blue N.A. in return for protection from blue attack on S.A. As green, I am still in gerat shape in this scenario because I have control of both Africa and S.A., at least Africa for a turn. I can then decide if I break the treaty with red since he effectively chose a different ally, or if I attack in Asia. Either way, I must reinforce Africa.

MyWorld   By MyWorld @ Monday, July 1, 2013 11:39 PM
Oh, you dumb, dumb people. If yellow expands into africa, then he will attack you from africa!

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.
Rate = 4.5 out of 5 :::: 4 Ratings.
SCN 1 Best Solution
What is the most practical solution for scenario 1?

Submit Survey  View Results
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