on what settings is this game not terrible?

hellogoodbye · Post by **hellogoodbye** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:43 am

i remember the first time i played risk against people rather than computers and thinking, "god this is awful." the only thing someone really had to do to win was amass troops, wait until they got their cards, and then add those armies to the ones they already had concentrated and go on a world tour killing everything. there was no real thinking involved and no real gains since whatever idiot did that inevitably left so many holes in their defense all their new territories were taken back next turn. lo and behold this is the exact playing style i find here. however, later on i found a way to play risk that had balance and strategy, where you could only put so many troops in a territory, could only fortify a territory with so many troops, and couldnt take world tours with a massive army. the game was much more enjoyable than the garbage ive found here so far. so, is there something im missing or is that all there is?

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:54 am

Try no cards games.

FiveThreeEight · Post by **FiveThreeEight** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:59 am

"No cards" RULES!!!

hellogoodbye, would you like to play a "no cards" game on the British Isles? It's a lot of fun.

Haddaway · Post by **Haddaway** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:02 am

hellogoodbye wrote:i remember the first time i played risk against people rather than computers and thinking, "god this is awful." the only thing someone really had to do to win was amass troops, wait until they got their cards, and then add those armies to the ones they already had concentrated and go on a world tour killing everything. there was no real thinking involved and no real gains since whatever idiot did that inevitably left so many holes in their defense all their new territories were taken back next turn. lo and behold this is the exact playing style i find here. however, later on i found a way to play risk that had balance and strategy, where you could only put so many troops in a territory, could only fortify a territory with so many troops, and couldnt take world tours with a massive army. the game was much more enjoyable than the garbage ive found here so far. so, is there something im missing or is that all there is?

Don't let them amass giant forces? Seriously, they are setting themselves up as immobile targets. Just run around and grab as many territories/continents as you can and play on No Cards.

FiveThreeEight · Post by **FiveThreeEight** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:47 am

I saw the game I think you were talking about. I have to say, that was a lot of armies. I haven't seen that happen very often.

Honibaz · Post by **Honibaz** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:56 am

In 2 player no cards it's almost all about luck.

Honibaz

David_Wain · Post by **David_Wain** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:58 am

You need to play several games before jumping to a conclusion there are a ton of different settings here and game types.. try them out please before assuming. Have fun

David_Wain · Post by **David_Wain** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:58 am

Honibaz wrote:In 2 player no cards it's almost all about luck.

Honibaz

LOL of course it is.....

hellogoodbye · Post by **hellogoodbye** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:26 am

thanks. im pretty sure 1v1 would be terrible with cards or without.

Honibaz · Post by **Honibaz** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 am

hellogoodbye wrote:thanks. im pretty sure 1v1 would be terrible with cards or without.

Actually, it's the quickest way for you to gain or lose points.

Honibaz

snufkin · Post by **snufkin** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:24 am

Honibaz wrote:In 2 player no cards it's almost all about luck.

Honibaz

the larger the map the less it´s about luck.. and no cards is the way to go if you want to minimise the luck factor.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:37 am

Honibaz should have wrote:
hellogoodbye wrote:thanks. im pretty sure 1v1 would be terrible with cards or without.

Actually, it's the quickest way for you to lose points.

Honibaz

Edited for truth. 1v1 killed my score.

The1exile · Post by **The1exile** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:47 am

Coleman wrote:
Honibaz should have wrote:
hellogoodbye wrote:thanks. im pretty sure 1v1 would be terrible with cards or without.

Actually, it's the quickest way for you to lose points.

Honibaz

Edited for truth. 1v1 killed my score.

I'm probably just about breaking even - I just had a look through my games, I appear to have won 62/106. Mostly thanks to scarmagnet and mandalorian2298 though

David_Wain · Post by **David_Wain** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:07 am

I am 87 wins to 24 losses.... only 1 question mark... and at least 50 games maybe more 1500+. Just pointing out it isen't just luck over that many games the luck factor is significently decreased.

David_Wain · Post by **David_Wain** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:08 am

lol why is that in yellow :S no clue what I did there.

Uberwald · Post by **Uberwald** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:38 am

My friend,

Please play a few more games before you start saying you have seen it all...

There are many different settings and depending on you're taste you will find a few interesting types.

Freestyle / Sequential, i prefer sequential just because in my opinion thats the way the games is most pure / more like the board game. But if you can live with the loopholes then its an interesting twist.

Flat rate / escalating / no cards

When i started i was into flat rate games, but after a while they tend to be build games way too often. But when playing new players that is less of a problem (because they will make more mistakes)

Escalating is my thing now but yes these are games where 1 player will have an opportunity to storm the board killing all. But then you gotta play it right, waiting for the right moment and trying to prevent the others from such a killing spree by blocking etc.

no cards is not for me..... way to long / boring and difficult to recover when having a bit of bad luck.

Terminator / standard

Both fun with a term being more aggressive and better for flat or no card games (a kill is a kill

)

Team games very cool but here you require different skills in 'sharing' each others troops, but team is not my best game type.

Don't get me started about 1 vs 1 as far as im concerned it involves too much luck and i just suck at it

Which fortification type doesnt matter to me, unlimited is a bit easier then chained and adjecent which both require a increasing more strategic thought if you ask me and are less flexible.

In the end, join or start a few games with different settings and find out what you like. I tell you there is a whole lot more to this game and this site then you might think!

On the other hand i find people either like risk ... or they don't....
If you like it then this site is the best, if you don't like risk then there's not much this sire can do to convince you next to allowing adult graphics in the maps

misterman10 · Post by **misterman10** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:04 am

Honibaz wrote:In 2 player no cards it's almost all about luck.

Honibaz

No it isnt. Every game type requires lots of skill, whether its 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 player; whether its no cards, flat rate, unlimited or whatever.

ALL ABOUT LUCK MY ASS???

Keebs2674 · Post by **Keebs2674** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:52 pm

hellogoodbye wrote:the game was much more enjoyable than the garbage ive found here so far.

WWAAAAAAAhhaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

killerkael · Post by **killerkael** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:55 pm

i would have to say that the best game settings here are the classic risk maps: classic map, flat rate cards, adjacent fortification.

other maps are fun, but never quite the same as the classics.

beezer · Post by **beezer** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:53 pm

Just to add on to what's already been said, I think that a true strategy game would involve a setting of: no cards, adjacent forts. The game would take forever, but if you win then you definitely deserve it.

I wonder how many members actually prefer playing long games opposed to unlimited forts which make the game faster.

misterman10 · Post by **misterman10** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:08 pm

beezer wrote:Just to add on to what's already been said, I think that a true strategy game would involve a setting of: no cards, adjacent forts. The game would take forever, but if you win then you definitely deserve it.

I wonder how many members actually prefer playing long games opposed to unlimited forts which make the game faster.

a true strategy game is being able to play ANY type of game. Whether you win no cards or flat rate, you need good strategy to win. I don't know why people say some setting are harder than other settings. harder, no. more strategic, no. longer, yes.

Grisle · Post by **Grisle** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:59 pm

So do you have Risk or this site? Why are you on here is either are true? Both Risk and this site are very entertaining. If you've got everything all worked out how come you haven't won yet? I mean if there is no thinking involved and you've got the strategy down why haven't you been able to employ your winning strategy to any of your games? Maybe it's because you don't have it down and it's not as easy as you think.

on what settings is this game not terrible?

on what settings is this game not terrible?

Re: on what settings is this game not terrible?

Re: on what settings is this game not terrible?

Re: on what settings is this game not terrible?

well