I've played risk since I was a little kid...but usually with sub par players who only played for something to do. My background is the game "Diplomacy" which relies less on luck and more on negotiation and tactics. I truly do not understand the Conquer Club culture where I've seen many players purposely ignore the overwhelming board leader and not try to unite with smaller players to turn the tide. To me, it's the difference between certain death and a chance to win. Why not keep your chances open?
With Risk on Conquer Club, there are some major differences to Diplomacy. First and foremost, luck plays a huge role in Risk and a relatively minor role in Diplomacy. Second, (theoretically) the game of Risk does not end until someone wins while the game of Diplomacy does not always (and theoretically should very rarely) end in a win (solo victory).
However, the major principle remains the same. If you're the top dog on a board, you should be giving the little guys reasons not to gang up on you...either by playing favorites with them or by using the chat to convince them that the other guy is the benefactor of the alliance. If you're one of the smaller dogs, you should be rallying the troops so that you are not attacked and can become stronger.
In my opinion, a typical game of Risk should move through three stages...the first stage of jockeying for position and establishing strongholds on continents, eliminating players with poor draws or bad dice rolls...to the second stage of identifying a board leader and weaker players uniting to stop him. If the leader changes, the dynamics change in turn and new alliances are formed. What usually breaks this and ushers in the third phase of the game is when a large player or the largest small player attempts to make a play for the win (cashing in a big set, eliminating a small player, leaving their stronghold in order to do so) OR someone makes a very large mistake...finally, the game arrives at inevitability and capitulation....someone has advanced so far that it is almost mathematically certain that, even with terrible luck, they will not be defeated.
These games are the best to play in because they last longer and generally rely less on luck and more on strategy. If players are willing to concede defeat during the first phase of the game based on draw and dice rolls, why not just play high card low card??
Best recent example I have is the following...
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=703789
Game moved into phase two with AceVentura (good draw, grabbed Aegean quickly...board leader from early on), myself (centered in the Peloponessus, fairly weak), wolfmaster (Starea Ellada - second most powerful), and darkhorse (Boreia Ellada - fairly weak). I encouraged the three of us to work together against Ace. Wolf decided to make a play for board leader and nearly succeeded. I played Wolf and Ace against each other for a while, hoping to build up my forces and become more powerful. Ace kept attacking me while Wolf didn't...so I sided with Wolf and played Kingmaker...when it was clear that I wouldn't win, I threw everything I had at Ace and willingly gave cards to Wolf. Wolf went on to win. Based on draw and luck, Ace should have won easily but I take some degree of pride knowing that I helped 'cost' him the win for not trying to work with me and continuing to attack me. Taking nothing away from Wolf of course...he played an excellent game and knew exactly what he was doing...plus, he won and I lost. I obviously didn't do a good enough job convincing Ace not to attack me.
In short, I enjoyed that game a hell of a lot more than one that I won without opposition.
Can anyone explain to me why this is not the kind of game you would want to play in?
by Rocketry on Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:23 pm 
Rocketry
