Conquer Club

How do you handle the neutral players on a map when you're against someone 1V1? Do you ignore them and try to take out your opponent's armies or do you spend armies of your own taking them out so you can get bonuses?

I tried a couple 1v1 games ignoring the neutral armies, I would hold a small territory that I could defend, and I would just keep putting 1 army into my opponent's near-completed territory and taking as much out as I can, even though it means scattering 1's and the occasional 2 everywhere.

I'm not very experienced playing RISK, is this a good strategy?

im new myself and also a newbie at risk but i find that since i haev played a few 1 vs 1 that its best to ignore when there are 3 or more neatrals in ur way of getting a bonus and only after the ones that are 1 or 2 territories from getting u a bonus otherwise its a waste of ur troops. however, u should pay attention to ur opponent and see if he is putting troops to taking out neutrals. if he isnt, its not wise to lose ur troops to neutrals while ur opponent stacks up is army. of course my strategy is based on the indochina map and the chinese checkers map.

Depends as always. You have to both: (i) Play according to your game plan (i.e. is it profitable for you to take out one or two neutral countries?), and (ii) Try to prevent your opponent from playing his game. It's a balance.

In a 1 v. 1 game though, a lot depends on the drop in round 1. If unlucky, the game can be over just due to the starting-positions.

Best way though is to play a lot of games, eventually you get ideas from experience, you'll remember the good and bad moves you made. And sometimes you see a great play made by your opponent that you can keep in mind.

In general though: If you can avoid attacking neutral, do so. No sense in wasting your own troops on something that doesn't hurt your opponent. But again, you may want to have a card. Or you want a continent or a way through to attack your opponent. Sooner or later, one will have to attack neutral armies.

stratgy for 1v1 differs from game to game becasue of its nature.

usually i try to ignore the nutrals unless i only need to take one for a continent. but i feel the best strategy is to kepp as many in as possible becasue there like a natural defence that wont attack you of move away.

Neutrals are a useful defensive position, but on the other hand if they are blocking you from taking a continent obviously attacking them is good. It might be good to get 'behind' a neutral in certain circumstances as your enemy is less likely to come through a 3 to attack you from that side.

yeah its all true... 1v1 can get annoying with these neutral countries sometimes but i normaly try and find a way of using them to my advantage... like possibly trap my opponent in a corner and divide their masses of armies while trying to keep all my armies conected to maximise my forting ability...

my statagy is kinda like this... first i find a spot where i should conquer and get bonusses... say south america or australia... if neither than id try and stop player from getting bonus... so i rack up as many armies as possible so i can get the opponent weak and seporated.

gimil wrote:stratgy for 1v1 differs from game to game becasue of its nature.

usually i try to ignore the nutrals unless i only need to take one for a continent. but i feel the best strategy is to kepp as many in as possible becasue there like a natural defence that wont attack you of move away.

Yep - I would say that that is the only reason to attack neutrals because, as gimil said, they are very useful as defense mechanisms

I have found that if it is a "no cards" game that taking out the neutrals for the continent bonus is almost imperative to winning. It usually helps if you have some other neutrals acting as defenders for you though, at least at the beginning. If there are cards involved....it's not quite so important if you ask me.

Optimus Prime wrote:I have found that if it is a "no cards" game that taking out the neutrals for the continent bonus is almost imperative to winning. It usually helps if you have some other neutrals acting as defenders for you though, at least at the beginning. If there are cards involved....it's not quite so important if you ask me.

Yeah. But that goes for all no card games. That's the kind of setting where continental bonuses are, more or less, absolutely necessary to get an edge against an even opponent.

In card games, well. It depends on how long the game runs. If you're hitting 7-8 rounds and still has an even game, continents aren't that important anymore.

lol alster u finally found something u can help ppl out with

your all wrong continets arnt importnat in 1v1 with no cards. due to the fact that attackign netrals jsut tak armies away from you. it always better to try and lower you opponents deployment by either

A.takign there continent bonus
B.Counting there territoires and ensureing that u have take out ennuff to lower there delopment and rise your for the next turn.

most of the games ive won on 1v1 didnt involve me with a bonus but with me usign the netrals as a defence mechanisim whick allowed me to bulk my armies. losing 3 or 4 troops osnt worth a bonuses of 2 to me when those 3 oe 4 i lost could lower the enemies delopemnt next turn.

gimil wrote:your all wrong continets arnt importnat in 1v1 with no cards. due to the fact that attackign netrals jsut tak armies away from you. it always better to try and lower you opponents deployment by either

I would have to disagree somewhat there. 1 v. 1 no cards tend to take quite some time (compared to 1 v. 1 cards). Sure, turn bonus is cool. But if you can take a continent, shielded by neutrals. That's a game winner. At least for me.

ive beat plenty of people withuot holdign a bonus in 1v1. some of them even being pros

I find the best bet is to take teritories away from your opponent, leaving as few of yours vulnerable to being taken as possible, using neautral as defense wherever possible.

Basically, I think territory bonuses count for more than continent bonuses more often in 2 player games.

RobinJ wrote:

gimil wrote:stratgy for 1v1 differs from game to game becasue of its nature.

usually i try to ignore the nutrals unless i only need to take one for a continent. but i feel the best strategy is to kepp as many in as possible becasue there like a natural defence that wont attack you of move away.

Yep - I would say that that is the only reason to attack neutrals because, as gimil said, they are very useful as defense mechanisms

i would agree with these 2. i would also like to add, when i see an opponent with a big army, even though i have an even amount of armies, i would attack, there is no point worrying about the neutrals.take out a neutral if it gives you a bonus and other neutrals are protecting you. i have done 3 on 3 many a time on nuetrals many a time to get a continent, with great success and went on to win the game. take chances, because if your weak, there is no one esle to take you out, just the one you made weak.

1st of all the thread name should be called 1 vs 1 no strategy

it depends on dice , drop , and most certainly on cards

if a player is better then his opponent he will have that only advantage if not then both players should walk through those 3 conditions hoping they r luckier then the other person

as for ur question about neutrals if u think attacking neutral in 1 vs 1 is a good idea then my friend i would want to tell u to go to another site where they play monopoly or something...but risk aint ur thing!

chessplaya wrote:1st of all the thread name should be called 1 vs 1 no strategy

it depends on dice , drop , and most certainly on cards

if a player is better then his opponent he will have that only advantage if not then both players should walk through those 3 conditions hoping they r luckier then the other person

as for ur question about neutrals if u think attacking neutral in 1 vs 1 is a good idea then my friend i would want to tell u to go to another site where they play monopoly or something...but risk aint ur thing!

I agree...I leave them alone unless you have no other alternative (to get to your opponent or get out of the way)

I usually don't touch them...you can use them to your advantage like trapping your opponent in the middle of a bunch of neutrals..

it usually makes him attack them to avoid you...therefore wasting their armies....

alstergren wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:I have found that if it is a "no cards" game that taking out the neutrals for the continent bonus is almost imperative to winning. It usually helps if you have some other neutrals acting as defenders for you though, at least at the beginning. If there are cards involved....it's not quite so important if you ask me.

Yeah. But that goes for all no card games. That's the kind of setting where continental bonuses are, more or less, absolutely necessary to get an edge against an even opponent.

In card games, well. It depends on how long the game runs. If you're hitting 7-8 rounds and still has an even game, continents aren't that important anymore.

alstergren wrote:

gimil wrote:your all wrong continets arnt importnat in 1v1 with no cards. due to the fact that attackign netrals jsut tak armies away from you. it always better to try and lower you opponents deployment by either

I would have to disagree somewhat there. 1 v. 1 no cards tend to take quite some time (compared to 1 v. 1 cards). Sure, turn bonus is cool. But if you can take a continent, shielded by neutrals. That's a game winner. At least for me.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=534456
Right from the start, I'd attacked green's Great Hall 2 & neutral's Great Hall 5 successfully to enjoy The Throne(+1) & Great Hall(+2) bonuses with a couple of neutral territories protection. Needless to say, this game played on the Siege! map was already over since Round 1.

Therefore, alstergren knows what he's talking about so take heed of the pointers shared.

It is interesting to note that when you're receiving a greater number of armies reinforcement per round than your opponent, you'll probably be able to acquire more territories easily or mercilessly . I prefer the latter option .

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=526691
On a separate issue in this particular game played on the USApocalypse map, red enjoyed a superior drop and started first. So, there's nothing much I could do except to foil whatever plans my opponent had conjoured up with grim determination and just waited patiently until good fortune came knocking on my door.

Well, red experienced bad dice rolls in Round 3 and misdeployed his armies in Round 5 which I'd fully taken advantage of on both occasions to grind out the win.

The lesson here is to execute your strongest move correctly.

alstergren wrote:Depends as always. You have to both: (i) Play according to your game plan (i.e. is it profitable for you to take out one or two neutral countries?), and (ii) Try to prevent your opponent from playing his game. It's a balance.

In a 1 v. 1 game though, a lot depends on the drop in round 1. If unlucky, the game can be over just due to the starting-positions.

Best way though is to play a lot of games, eventually you get ideas from experience, you'll remember the good and bad moves you made. And sometimes you see a great play made by your opponent that you can keep in mind.

In general though: If you can avoid attacking neutral, do so. No sense in wasting your own troops on something that doesn't hurt your opponent. But again, you may want to have a card. Or you want a continent or a way through to attack your opponent. Sooner or later, one will have to attack neutral armies.

The only thing I have to say is that my post was going to start with "It depends, as always". One extra word, but identical thoughts my friend.

Alstergren wrote: (and sully800 agreed)

In a 1 v. 1 game though, a lot depends on the drop in round 1. If unlucky, the game can be over just due to the starting-positions.

This is usually not as bad as it seems, on smaller maps like Australia it's definitely alot harsher than on larger maps like siege, especially if the player with the lucky drop goes first.

An important point I think players should remember regarding attacking neutral territorities for continent bonuses, if you cannot hold the continent convincingly, DON'T DO IT. Chances are highly likely that your opponent will end up with the continent. If you can hold it, DO IT, it's an investment.

i think 1v1 depends too much on luck, especially on classic. i often see people starting with the whole of south america or oceania. this lets them win incredibly easy.

samuelanonymous wrote:i think 1v1 depends too much on luck, especially on classic. i often see people starting with the whole of south america or oceania. this lets them win incredibly easy.

There's no more chance of people starting with the whole of SA or Oceania in 1vs1 than there is in 3 player.

the diffirence is the 3rd player isnt going to stop you holding teh continent

RobinJ wrote:

gimil wrote:stratgy for 1v1 differs from game to game becasue of its nature.

usually i try to ignore the nutrals unless i only need to take one for a continent. but i feel the best strategy is to kepp as many in as possible becasue there like a natural defence that wont attack you of move away.

Yep - I would say that that is the only reason to attack neutrals because, as gimil said, they are very useful as defense mechanisms

yes