3-player Risk board game

[s7ryk3r]

Hey guys,

I know that I am not asking about a PC-related game per se, but wanted your opinions and suggestions on the Risk board game by Hasbro. Earlier today, two good friends and I started playing Risk and it took about 4 hours when we ended up in a stalemate.

Basically, everyone would build up, and whenever any one player got the power advantage (more units per turn thanks to the continent bonus), the other two would team up on him. After this happened, one of the players in the team-up would come out on top of the power curve, and the player that was just attacked and the weaker of the team-up would attack him, to keep his power in check. This went on around over and over again to where it was basically going no-where.

After the game, we discussed our options and tactics and decided that if it continued on like it did, the game would never end. The two weaker players would always gang up on the stronger one until he was sufficiently weakened and then the gang up turned on whoever was on top of the power curve after that.

Is there a strategy that works in this situation? The only thing I could think of to remedy the situation is if two of the players made a long-term alliance and just decided to destroy the 3rd player. In this scenario, one of the two players in the team up would have the upper hand, and the other player would forego his chances of winning by continuing the alliance.

Is there any fair way to break up the stalemate? If there is, I really don't see it. Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated.


-=s7ryk3r=-

[tony_j15]

One word: RUTHLESS. When you play, play to win. Create alliances and kick your buddy squarely in the hind quarters while he is destroying the other guy. Seriously, I have never had that problem cuz me and my friends play like that. So we usually end up having a real war. When me folks see the board games comin out, they get out the bandages.

[Ming]

I agree with tony_j15, ruthless is the right way to play. Basically the best time to attack is if there is a weak opponent and they have plenty of cards. Eliminate them, take their cards and cash it in to set oneself in good position to win. It is a gamble though as one might not finish the opponent if one is rolling quite poorly.

[shawshank62]

its been a while since risk....no one wanted to play after constant situtations like that. but it will always happen, the weaklings will always gang up on the stronger one...fact of life. then at the end, the weak just say joint control of world, and after some arguing about why we dont want france, we usually just quit. its hard not to do with alliances.....but because of stuff like that, we made rule, no alliances.....but they are there anyway.....

i dont know if you play like this, but we trade cards to try to get a continent, if you dont do this, the game is usually a lot tougher.

[ClubMed]

I would like to inform you about a similar game that in my opinion is much better. It's called Diplomacy, it's like Risk, you have a board game and armies, however what's better is that there is real diplomacy. You can make and break treaties with the other player, everything is written down (short abbreviated method) at the start of every round, then all players reveal the orders they gave to their units, if there is a clash (2 different armies ordered to the same region) a set of other rules and regulations determine who wins, you can support other nations in their attacks etc..

Some people also play it by email, with special online judge-programs to make sure no one is cheating and that everything is going accodring to rules.

More info here: http://www.diplom.org/

[s7ryk3r]

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions guys! ClubMed, I'll make sure to check out Diplomacy. As long as there isn't too much dice-rolling, I'm game. I think I'll try playing with 5 players... seems like if there are more people involved, things should be more interesting.

Has anyone here played CCGs? I have found that they make for more interesting gameplay.


-=s7ryk3r=-

[tmx468]

I think 3 player can be a little tough to play... far too easy to chop and change alliances, and always the risk of your back being burnt... but once you get 4 players, you have true battles - at any time it could turn from 1v3 to 2v2. Alliances can make a difference, but if things go wrong, you still have options, while looking out for yourself....

Great fun!

[jerrygarcia]

Originally posted by Ming
I agree with tony_j15, ruthless is the right way to play. Basically the best time to attack is if there is a weak opponent and they have plenty of cards. Eliminate them, take their cards and cash it in to set oneself in good position to win. It is a gamble though as one might not finish the opponent if one is rolling quite poorly.

In your case, the time to attack is when you cash holding 5 cards and after your other 2 opponents attack each other and the weaker is also holding 4-5 cards.

One of the 2 will always be weaker and attack for cards, you will get to cash again which will give you enough armies to break the third players continents that will give him/her(<----politically correct) virtually no new armies with the exception of holding cards. It's all timing. If you build up to where you have no feasible weak country to which your opponents can take a country for a card and quit, you'll turn them on each other.

In a game of a stalemate, the one that attacks first is usually the first one out. Play faster with no real alliances. A détente may be in place, but no allies. It's war with total destruction.