2.1 Strategy Guide (suggestions welcome!)

[Zivel]

Comon Fitz, let us in on this secret method!!! I am loving world 2.1 and its pretty much all I play now. I want to know some more thoughts on different strats people use.

[AAFitz]

Comon Fitz, let us in on this secret method!!! I am loving world 2.1 and its pretty much all I play now. I want to know some more thoughts on different strats people use.

there is no secret method...most play it the same way anyways.

Thats the best part about the map, no tricks or secrets. Just lots of decisions. The key is to make all the correct ones.

[Tripitaka]

Days later... i look out my window and this is what i see.... (gasp)




Soooo... before i share my secrets, i will test your geography knowledge...
Where on the World 2.1 map am i? (remember, I am looking at the above scene out my window)
And the 2nd question... where on the World 2.1 map will I be if I were the same person in the 21st century?

Answer both, and I'll tell you everything I know about winning on World 2.1

That is Portmeirion in Wales, so you would be in the British Isles. And seeing as that was the filming location for the 60's cult TV show The Prisoner, as can be seen in the last picture, I am assuming you are the character "Number 6".

Tragically, as is so often the case with cult series, an American production company decided to film a remake, swapping Portmeirion for Swakopmund, Namibia as the location of "The Village". Ergo that's where you'd be now.

You needn't share your vast World 2.1 knowledge with me though.

[Robinette]

Days later... i look out my window and this is what i see.... (gasp)




Soooo... before i share my secrets, i will test your geography knowledge...
Where on the World 2.1 map am i? (remember, I am looking at the above scene out my window)
And the 2nd question... where on the World 2.1 map will I be if I were the same person in the 21st century?

Answer both, and I'll tell you everything I know about winning on World 2.1

That is Portmeirion in Wales, so you would be in the British Isles. And seeing as that was the filming location for the 60's cult TV show The Prisoner, as can be seen in the last picture, I am assuming you are the character "Number 6".

Tragically, as is so often the case with cult series, an American production company decided to film a remake, swapping Portmeirion for Swakopmund, Namibia as the location of "The Village". Ergo that's where you'd be now.

You needn't share your vast World 2.1 knowledge with me though.

Bravo... Bravo...
I was beginning to think this would never be answered...
And you connected all the dots... again, well done...

I certainly hope my optimism for the remake does not crash head-on into your pessimistic view...
I don't expect it to be the same, and I so very much want to be entertained... therefore i remain optimistic.
We will know come November.

[Mr Changsha]

Days later... i look out my window and this is what i see.... (gasp)




Soooo... before i share my secrets, i will test your geography knowledge...
Where on the World 2.1 map am i? (remember, I am looking at the above scene out my window)
And the 2nd question... where on the World 2.1 map will I be if I were the same person in the 21st century?

Answer both, and I'll tell you everything I know about winning on World 2.1

That is Portmeirion in Wales, so you would be in the British Isles. And seeing as that was the filming location for the 60's cult TV show The Prisoner, as can be seen in the last picture, I am assuming you are the character "Number 6".

Tragically, as is so often the case with cult series, an American production company decided to film a remake, swapping Portmeirion for Swakopmund, Namibia as the location of "The Village". Ergo that's where you'd be now.

You needn't share your vast World 2.1 knowledge with me though.

Bravo... Bravo...
I was beginning to think this would never be answered...
And you connected all the dots... again, well done...

I certainly hope my optimism for the remake does not crash head-on into your pessimistic view...
I don't expect it to be the same, and I so very much want to be entertained... therefore i remain optimistic.
We will know come November.

So someone finally got it.

Ok, robinette. Give us the goods.

[railfrog]

ok Mr C......so what happens if you are last to go in a 8 man/no cards and all the good spaces have been taken?

[Mr Changsha]

ok Mr C......so what happens if you are last to go in a 8 man/no cards and all the good spaces have been taken?

Before I consider railfrog's doomsday scenario (and I remember knocking him out early of an 8 man 2.1 in the exact situation he describes ), I would just say that experience teaches all...

I joined two kinds of large 2.1 games after the bulk of this guide was written; one (by my design) was to invite two or three specialists + others less well equipped for the format. The concept was that enough mistakes would be made to allow a definite advantage for one of the principle actors (most likely) to take the game by the scruff on the neck and pull through by round 50-60.

Game 3928869
Game 3908069
Game 4491004

However, my concept was flawed. The stronger players (some from good positions/some not) gradually worked there way into strong positions, eliminated the weak, and then settled in for the very long game. Specialist 2.1 singles players just don't make mistakes, read the intentions of the opposition rounds ahead, and the possibility of gaining a definite advantage seems to be nigh on impossible. However, the opening 60-70 rounds of these games was played at a very high level indeed, as the stronger players built their empires around, through or over the rest.

However in these games...

Game 4524385 note: cpurcell played with a grudge (against me) in this game and a few got taken out in the carnage. Nonetheless, once he was eliminated, the board settled.

Game 4352760
Game 4810881

...we see a board where every single player is of a high standard and, simply, no one dies. The better players did manage to carve out larger empires (IMO), but are completely unable to actually progress to the win. I wouldn't say I don't have plans (based on income or the likely glacial shifts in the position) but they are so long-term as to be not worth considering until 2010.

So I expected the second set of games to progress as they did, but had hopes that the first would stay open, competitive and finish within 100 rounds. In this I was wrong. I suspect now that you could put railfrog, scholtz and I with 5 cooks playing blind and the three would still manage to avoid one winning. Maybe that example is a little too extreme, but you take my point.

With regards to railfrog's point, it must be admitted that every once in a while you are just going to get knocked out (though in the very high level games it is perversely easier to stay in from an awful position...as your likely threats are all to aware of their likely threats.) I think what will kill you would be a combination of awful position + awful dice + incorrect opening strategy.

Placed in the position described, I would consider these factors:

1. Which spot is least likely to face an invasion from a superior force around rounds 4-6? For example, you might have a couple in Amazonas, but if another player looks like having a fast parana development, well, you're going to get eaten. So I'd be looking to find a spot (no matter how useless) that isn't likely to be in anyone's short-term invasion plans. If that meant stacking British Claim, then so be it. In the end, as railfrog well knows, it is far better to survive than die trying to get 'a position' you won't hold. Once the fighting begins, that British Claim stack might be abe to slip into South Africa in time...

2. What are the other players likely to do? Some players are more expansionist/aggressive (like me!), others more consensual/defensive. In the position described I would certainly consider if there is a player on the board likely to let me live 'to avoid a fight' and stack up next to him. Others, you know they'll murder you in your sleep given half the chance...better to stay away from them!

3. Finally, a good bit of diplomacy. Announce in gamechat that you are royally screwed positionally, and that you may as well sit back and watch the show. "Don't mind me..." etc etc. Chat amusingly on the board, be a 'fun kinda guy' and you might avoid an early kill as you seem so unthreatening and just, well, harmless. One of the reasons I often chat on the board is that I do believe it minimises the chance of getting hit.

In the end however, there is the odd occasion where you are just going to get wiped and there's nothing you can do about it. However, it has only happened to me once (that I can remember) and, ironically, it was a blind cook who took me out! 2.1 has enough starting position for 8 players to get in, however if I was faced by 2 in The Horn (going last), when another player had 8 in Africa with Western Europe nigh on secured on round 1...well I'd run off to my 3 in the claims and start stacking. I think you would be less likely to get killed.

Oh and Fitz, still getting the wins 6 months on...

Mr Changsha (World 2.1) +977/ 21 from 42 (50%) Warmongerer (80%) Equalitarian (0.811) (includes 8 man dubs)
Mr Changsha (4-8 man singles flat rate/no cards sunny all maps) +1455/ 29 from 60 (48%) Warmongerer (82%) Equalitarian (0.809)

...though my interest has shifted to the 8 man dubs format which in my view (and this I have tested this out with v.high level teams) doesn't stalemate.

[Donald Fung]

I like your strats Changsha. I think I should try and use em lol

[Robinette]

One of the reasons I often chat on the board is that I do believe it minimises the chance of getting hit.

mnnnnnnnnn......

maybe i should try chatting it up more in my games...

[Mr Changsha]

One of the reasons I often chat on the board is that I do believe it minimises the chance of getting hit.

mnnnnnnnnn......

maybe i should try chatting it up more in my games...

Man talk strategy woman listen.

Man play CC woman cook man dinner.

[Robinette]

Man talk strategy woman listen.

Man play CC woman cook man dinner.

oh noooo... another Neanderthal on the loose...

[Mr Changsha]

South America is the enemy of North America. Remember that North America's push must invariably come South if he wants to secure a 30+ income. So when the player secures La Plata he must be nigh on sure, as he surveys the rich pickings (and usually split pickings of Amazonas), that his most likely great danger will come from the North. For to the East he faces Mahgreb, either partly split, completely split or occupied badly. To the South he might face either South Africa (unlikely as The Horn is a much better first spot) or Australia (who is usually looking to push up into Indonesia). This is South America's great advantage, but also its greatest weakness. It has only one threat, but that threat is a bit bigger than it, maybe even a lot bigger if it has also pushed into Europe as well. So South America should do one of two things. If NA is split it should dive for Central after gaining La Plata, if Na isn't split (say US/Central hold) then La Plata can't go for central and must attempt to complete Amazonas. In that situation it will take skill just to complete the SA bonus...attacking NA is unthinkable. And remember the 3 territory Central defence to the US. Hard to attack up.

Now while we would hope that SA does complete his bonus quickly, and does break into Central, destroy the US and sweep effortlessly up to a game winning position, it is much more useful to consider what SA should do if he manages to hold NA in the early game, but not attack. In this situation, the good player would actually have broken into NA and left US/Canada entirely alone, but secured a definite income advantage over this broken NA. In this situation SA should attempt to hold NA back, while moving into Mahgreb which will be more than likely the easiest neutral(ish) bonus to invade. In fact Mahgreb is always great to invade. 5 or 6 easy territories and it rarely pisses anyone off. Europe, Middle East players...go f*ck about in Mahgreb. In this situation SA's income has now grown 5 or 6 points a turn ahead of NA and at this point SA will prepare for the eventual NA push.

Why?

Because North America can only come down. Every other extension (Europe, Asia, Oceana) are either too stupid (Oceana), too hard to fight and hold (Asia) or too extended to defend (+usually seriously occupied...Europe). NA/SA is the classic 5 border 30+ position.

Alternatives for SA, spreading through the claims into South Africa, trying to hold Mahgreb (a terrible mistake I once made) or attacking Oceana are foolhardy, for while the Oceana push looks tempting (with it likely engaged with Asia thus creating the always tasty 'War on Two Fronts') it means taking the eye off the main game, North America. Which is now heavily arming up on the border and you've lost the initiative.

My current continent ratings are...

1. Asia
2. Europe
3. Oceana
4. North America
5. Africa
6. South America

South America is last because it is forced to be one dimensional and is fundamentally weaker than the other one dimensional power, North America. I nearly bumped Africa to 4th, but feel that while it can get up to a 20(ish) empire, it is difficult to get to a 30+ (though I am doing it in one of my current games). I've done it a few times, but it is hard. I placed Oceana 3rd because it does have options, South Africa does make sense, to gain purchase on Asia at the very least. And if it can defeat Asia (and I've done it numerous times) then it has access to the best attacking route in the game, China and then really anywhere. Europe is second for while it is a tough position it is nowhere near as tough as it is on classic. It can be taken and held and then it has that one great advantage... options. It can spread into Africa, North America, The Middle East or Asia. It is a position one can sweep the board from. And that leaves Asia, which has as many options as Europe but more muscle. I am sure that The Far East must be the most popular opening position on 2.1. So many fight hard for it early and the player who gets it has to really f*ck up (or be terribly unlucky) not to develop well into the mid. game.

[PhatpatSC]

I appreciate the guide. i am happy you are back at it. i just joined recently and have been enjoying 2.1 a lot. this helped me through some spots.

maybe after enough games i could give some insight into this map

thank you again for the guide.

[danryan]

Mr. C, your guide is excellent and really deserves to be listed in the official strategy guide section.

viewtopic.php?f=374&t=124295&start=0

[Mr Changsha]

Mr. C, your guide is excellent and really deserves to be listed in the official strategy guide section.

viewtopic.php?f=374&t=124295&start=0

While I am naturally desperate for all and any medals (heh heh heh), I am quite happy for my guide to be in this forum. It is a work in progress and I am still interested in combining it with my other guide 'Weapon of Choice' (which is in this forum somewhere), as well as writing an essay on the different types of players one can encounter in large standard no cards games.

I would think my very first post (on opening positions) is what interests you for the official guide. Yet I consider my posts on the mid. game (continent positions) to be just as valuable. I like my essay replying to Railfrog's question on starting last in an 8 man and, as I said, I still (actually I've wanted to write this for years) want to examine any typical psychological constants one is able to identify in large standard no cards games.

I initially abandoned the official strategy guide group because I felt that while a basic guide could be of some use, I am interested in trying to examine 2.1 (and standard large no cards games in general) in real depth. I am aware that most of the players who have read this guide have probably only read the opening post. And that is fair enough. But I still see value in the overall project, which is to write a comprehensive guide on playing European Risk, with 2.1 as the basis...as I believe the 2.1 map elevated no cards standard Risk to a new strategic level. Frankly, I achieved all I wanted to with regards to playing CC. I just play for fun now. But I am still interested in writing about Risk...which I suspect I am better at anyway.

If someone wants to use my opening post as part of an official strategy guide for 2.1 then they are welcome to do so, as long as they credit me where that credit is due.

[MarathonMax]

I am lost here

There used to be an awesome strategy guide for World 2.1 but I can no longer find it.

Not that this thread does not provide valuable input, but I sort of recall seeing a particular paragraph on how to handle 1-on-1 games.

So, if you guys have thoughts on how to handle 1-on-1s (actually, doubles playing one against another), let me know.

Tx

Max

[Dauntless07]

I won a game rcently on world 2.1. It was a hard won victory on flat rate, unlimited reenforcements, and no fog. I was behind a more powerful player who took CA and SA while I took Canada and persuaded him to allow me to take the USA after making a truce with him. This was a tricky position as it was already midgame and I had fallen behind. I was sandwitched between the player who took Europe, and the player who took SA, knowin the SA player could turn on me anytime, and that he would not give up CA as he was expanding into Oceania, and I had nothing to offer in return. With another player in Asia, I built up in te only continent left; Africa, and managed to take the Horn and the Middle East. This whole time I had to mannage two separate empires, unable to connect them until the end. Luckily, the European player dropped out, easing tension of a possible war on two fronts, and a war between the Asian player and the SA player weakened both sides, which finally allowed me to take them both out.

I would never choose to be in a position where I cannot freely reenforce to all my territories, but in this case I had no choice. The Asian player also made a blunder in trying to take Europe, which was effectively a worthless continent when the European player had dropped out leaving his stacks. there was actually another player going for Africa, but my ally's constant attacks kept him from growing, and I reaped the benefits. I think Asia is one of the best places to expand to, as taking the ME and later India is what allowed me to wrap up the game in the end. That's my story on how I played the 2.1 map.

[Tanel]

I nearly bumped Africa to 4th, but feel that while it can get up to a 20(ish) empire, it is difficult to get to a 30+ (though I am doing it in one of my current games). I've done it a few times, but it is hard.

I just won my first standard game on 2.1 (I've won 1 terminator game before) and I started out from the middle east, then moved on to the horn, from there to southern africa, then piece by piece took maghreb. I have to say that I completely agree with you on Africa. It is nice to get a huge bonus and it's pretty easy to defend it, but in the mid-game I had no clue what to do, where to expand! Luckily for me 2 players deadbeated and in the end-game Asia player just kept her troops stacked on China, therefore giving me the chance to wipe the board. When she finally realised her mistake, it was already too late.


HINT: in the mid-game, when holding Asia, keep a huge stack on China and no one will want to attack you!

[Mr Changsha]

There comes a point in every Risk game when diplomacy has run its course, when the time for talking is over, when the doves of peace have all been locked up in prison and named as 'collaborators'. It is at those times that you must pick your weapons and here are some examples of the various weapons at the disposal of every CC General.

These weapons are suitable for no cards/flat rate multiplayer games.


The Nibble: Effectively a shot across the bows for your neighbour. Break the bonus, leave a 1 and keep forces behind only large enough to avoid the break back. Useful (for example) when your neighbour has gone for a second bonus and you feel the need to make your intentions clear.

The Raise: Assumes the 'threat of force' can be as effective as actual force. Involves stacking up on your neighbour's border. The idea is to stop your neighbour's push before it gets started to maintain balance. Often works well, but also allows your neighbour first hit (and attacker's advantage).

The Break and Leave: Similar to The Nibble but leaving a 3 in his territory (assuming you've reduced him to a 3 deployment). Should have at least a 3 behind to both guard against the lucky break back and, more importantly, allow you to break again with ease.

The Cut: Either to be used as a method to stop a winning surge, or as the first stage in a three move invasion strategy. Involves breaking all the bonuses your opponent holds but only leaving 1's. The size of the force behind the original break determines whether this is a defensive or offensive move. i.e if if you merely guard against a 'cut back' you're playing the world policeman, if you leave a second invasion force then you certainly look like the aggressor.

The Cut and Leave: An opportunity to show some artistry in your killing. Take ten territories and leave 2's in all? Or how about a graduated 1, 2, 3, 4 defence..sadistic as hell and devilishly hard to get out. Also stage two in the three move invasion strategy.

The Cut and Behind the Lines Hold: Similar to The Cut and Leave but your invasion force is stacked in one strategic spot to either force your opponents remaining forces away from your borders or to set up a new bonus within his territory.

The Slow Creep: Break your neighbour and leave a force in one territory large enough to (pretty much) ensure it holds. Next turn take another and leave a three. The following turn take another and again leave a three. Rinse and repeat.

The Invasion: No faffing about with this weapon. Involves the removal of all your opponents troops as well as the determination to hold what you've taken from other players on the board. The hardest move to play of all as well as, obviously, being stage 3 in the three move invasion strategy.

The Long March: My trademark move. To be used when faced by a situation whereby not moving equals Death by Sandwich. Involves one huge all encompasing cut+invasion of another's territory and the total relocation of forces into the new territory. i.e Playing NA/SA on 2.1 and cutting through Europe into Asia and conquering Russia/China/India in one move and then (using unlimited forts) moving everything out of NA/SA into Asia. You leave a whole lot of 1's for your opponents and (the hope) is that the turmoil involved in your move actually changes the game from Death by Sandwich into a favourable position.

The Suicide Stack: When faced by a superior force intent on your bonuses, the suicide stack is often the weapon of choice for the serious player. It effectively says to your opponent "No I'm not going to play fair here. Break my bonus and you'll get the lot in the face!!!" The opponent has to determine if 1. the stack is big enough and 2. if you are bluffing or not.

The End Game Push: Ideally used once you have 50% of the territories/troops (often quite possible with 40% +). The concept is to send cutting armies against all your opponents at once. The hope is that your opponents are unable to get them all out, thus increasing your next deployment/screwing their next deployment and allowing you to push again.

The Whittle: When your opponent lays an enormous blocking stack into your bonus, or has an enormous stack outside of your bonus and you want him to push it back, and you respond by taking a decent number off every turn. Effectively a war of attrition.

2.1 record currently: +1328 37/78 47% Tyrant 76% Eq. 0.8 2.1 (large standard + 8 man dubs in the main.)

[jimboston]

How do you pull stats for a particular map?

[usernamer]

ok Mr C......so what happens if you are last to go in a 8 man/no cards and all the good spaces have been taken?

dunno exactly which places you're calling the good spots but if, say you get bad dice at first so are stuck with, say mahgreb, middle east, canada or claims, best bet is probably to stack for a bit, then try to get a bonus if there's any spares around, when you'll be strong enough to defend it fairly well... takes a while, though and could be hard to win if you're that stuck.
if people are going into each other and getting weaker, then you could try to take a small piece of someone's bonus off them (so they won't get annoyed enough to kill you), or you could try to eliminate one, you and the other guy who's already attacking them spliting up their territories between you...

couldn't look up Robinette's map rank, but judging from the rank and win %, id say it's not many games and 1v1 (generally hard to get large games on world 2.1 going (esc is easier, though) with just higher ranks - in my experience at least) - well done, even if im right as 93% is always a nice amount
- look at mine though, is quite nice, although nothing like the same win %, probably a higher actual points gained/lost map rank, or unique defeats

also, a good tip (but quite obvious) for trips games at first, is to try to take a territory of the player going after you, since you all start off with 18, so if you get them down to 17, they deploy 1 less. repeatedly do this, and as a team they'll deploy a fair few less over say the first 2 rounds...

[Fewnix]

How do you pull stats for a particular map?

Wen you run Map Rank you will get Table listing all the maps you played. In the far left corner, headed Maps. go down to the map you want, in your case world 2.1 and you will see data. Click on the map you want,and you will get a chart.You can click on different parts of the chart and get specific data. Have fun.

[Robinette]

couldn't look up Robinette's map rank, but judging from the rank and win %, id say it's not many games and 1v1 (generally hard to get large games on world 2.1 going (esc is easier, though) with just higher ranks - in my experience at least) - well done, even if im right as 93% is always a nice amount
- look at mine though, is quite nice, although nothing like the same win %, probably a higher actual points gained/lost map rank, or unique defeats

Hey! What are you getting at?
I've played 640 games (i think that's a lot considering that thing called "real life", lol)
Ahhh.. but you got me on the 1v1 thing... nope, never played one of those, not a one.

Rank .........Points............Win/Loss.................Unique Defeats........Kill Ratio.................Relative Rank
Brigadier.....3099.......182 from 640(28%)...............502...........Serial Killer (64%).........Equalitarian (0.858)

and World2.1 stats
World 2.11 Corporal +189 2 from 5(40%) 13 unique defeats +189 2 from 5(40%) Warmonger (82%) Equalitarian (0.961)

wow... i've sure not played that game very many times... thought there were more than 5...

What does it all mean???

[usernamer]

lol. some nice games there Robinette. Just for some reason believed you earlier when u said you had like 93% win on 2.1 and didnt think you'd manage to get that if u played lots of bigger games on it is all.

[Robinette]

lol. some nice games there Robinette. Just for some reason believed you earlier when u said you had like 93% win on 2.1 and didnt think you'd manage to get that if u played lots of bigger games on it is all.

huh? wha?
93% win rate?
i dun't ever 'member say'n nutt'n lyik dat befur...


oh wait... i think i might have said something like,
93% of the people that have been in a 2.1 game with me were defeated...
you see, only 3 people have ever defeated me in that game, and i've played a few dozen unique players...

Kinda fun how statistics can be used to exaggerate a point