# Fastest Game of Risk Ever



## Bullgrit (Jul 20, 2007)

I love the board game Risk. I don't get to play it nearly enough to satisfy me, or to let me get good at it, but recently I had an amazing experience with it. I posted this on my blog a couple weeks ago, but a conversation this morning made me think to post it here, where all the gamers hang out.

* * *

My game group played some Risk tonight. We used the Mission cards that give each player a secret goal, rather than each fighting for full control of the world. Fighting for total domination takes too long to complete, especially with 3 or 4 players.

In one game, I got the Mission card to control North America and Australia. At game set up, I randomly started with two of the four territories in Australia, and four of the nine territories in North America. In setting out my extra armies, I put everything in NA and Oz, leaving everything else pretty defenseless. Surprisingly, neither of the other two players intended to contest NA. They both stocked their armies in South America, Europe, Africa, and Australia. Asia was left pretty open by all of us.

I won the die roll to take my turn first. I had to work a bit to take Australia from one player who wanted it for himself, but I got it all and moved into Siam. I then started work on North America. The single defenders in each NA territory put up a lucky fight, causing me to use up almost all of my attacking armies, but I eventually captured every territory in NA. I then ended my turn.

I had captured a total of nine territories in my opening move, taking both North America and Australia. I had a solid hold on Oz, with a strong force in Siam. But North America was only held by one army in each territory. There was no way I was going to hold it for even one round, what with enemy armies in Iceland and Venezuela. I took my Risk card for completing my turn, and the next player started counting his territories to determine how many armies he could place.

Then I remembered my Mission card. "Hey, I just won!" I showed my Mission card to the other players.

That was the quickest game of Risk I have ever witnessed, much less won. Victory in the first round, first turn. It had been 15 minutes from the end of the last game to the end of this game.

It was great. But it was also a Hail Mary play, because had the game gone for even one more player turn, I wouldn't have had anything but Australia to show for my effort. I lost the other two games of Risk we played tonight, but I won the Hell out of that one.

* * *

I'm interested in hearing your Risk war stories, and learning some really good game strategies. Help me improve my game so that when my group plays, I can totally dominate and become the master Risker in my group.

Bullgrit

Total Bullgrit


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 20, 2007)

Hmm ... not a risk player Bullgrit ... but I like your website (just had to say that).   

And now ... back to your regularly scheduled thread....


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 20, 2007)

IMNSHO, that's why the mission cards in the more recent versions of Risk kinda suck.  I had a game night a couple of years ago where I did the exact same thing, twice in a row.  Got to go first, and managed to succeed on my missions on the first turn.  The first time it happened, we started the game over again.  The second time it happened, we official swore off the mission cards, and went on with the game.  We haven't done mission cards with the stardard Risk boards since.

As a slight asside, I really really love some of the alternate versions of Risk out there.  After a enough games with the standard board, you do literally run though all of the good strategies on the board.  The alternate boards really spice things up.  I am particularly fond of the full sized LotR board, which is even bigger than the normal Risk board and has a ton more strategic options.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 20, 2007)

Mycanid said:
			
		

> Hmm ... not a risk player Bullgrit ... but I like your website (just had to say that).



Thanks for saying it. It's always nice to know that someone has seen your work, and it's even nicer when they give feedback.

Bullgrit

Total Bullgrit


----------



## Richards (Jul 20, 2007)

Whenever anyone asks to hear about Risk stories, I'm always reminded about the episode of "Red Dwarf" where Rimmer goes on and on about a particular Risk game he played, down to what each player rolled....

Johnathan


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 21, 2007)

Is it strategically wise to grab and hold Austrailia early in the game, if you can?

Is Asia really worth the effort to conquer it and hold it?

Is it strategically wise to always try to also grab South America when you get North America?

Bullgrit


----------



## Wereserpent (Jul 21, 2007)

Bullgrit said:
			
		

> Is it strategically wise to grab and hold Austrailia early in the game, if you can?




I would always grab Australia early in the game and put a ton of defense on it.  I would have like four or more cannons on the only island that you can enter it on.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jul 21, 2007)

I hate the mission cards... but then again, my RISK game still has the Roman Numeral pieces. 

As for strategy, take Australia and Siam... Fortify Siam and break your opponents wills. 
I usually try to take Australia regardless of where my greatest concentration of troops is, once you have it, it takes alot to wrench control and if you have forces elsewhere, it forces them to divide their attention.  Once you have it fortified, it isn't worth the effort to go after for your enemies, they tend to ignore it and you have a solid base of operations to strike out of if the rest of the game goes South.

And speaking of South, South America is a similar game plan, but not nearly as easy to defend, but once you have it solidly fortified you can go North or East and pretty much cause general havoc at your leisure.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 21, 2007)

The way we played it, you had to _start_ a round with those territories in your possession. Meaning that you have to be able to hold your territory for at least a round.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jul 23, 2007)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> The way we played it, you had to _start_ a round with those territories in your possession. Meaning that you have to be able to hold your territory for at least a round.




I would have thought that everyone would have to have the same amount of turns in order to claim a victory.  For example, if you went first, everyone would have to have a turn after you in order and you still hold the required territories in order to win.  On the other hand, if you went last, you might be able to do exactly what the OP did since everyone has had a turn.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Jul 23, 2007)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> I would have thought that everyone would have to have the same amount of turns in order to claim a victory.  For example, if you went first, everyone would have to have a turn after you in order and you still hold the required territories in order to win.  On the other hand, if you went last, you might be able to do exactly what the OP did since everyone has had a turn.
> 
> Olaf the Stout





Makes sense.  If Olaf's interpretation isn't canonical rules, it's a darn good houserule.

Never used Mission cards myself.  I always felt that the charm of Risk is playing for 5-6 hours and cursing the stalemate in Asia as everyone starts rubbing their eyes in exhaustion.   

Anyone played Risk: Godstorm? That one looks interesting, especially the "heaven" and "hell" boards (whatever they call them--I think the hell board is the "underworld" or something).

Oh, and this is my first post on enworld, though I've lurked for three years so I don't really think of myself as a noob or anything.   

Anyone tried any of the "nuclear Risk" variants floating around on the web? They're pretty nifty.


Shortman


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 23, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Anyone played Risk: Godstorm? That one looks interesting, especially the "heaven" and "hell" boards (whatever they call them--I think the hell board is the "underworld" or something).




I have. It's certainly interesting, but I think it's probably the most flawed of the Risk variants out there. We've found the miracle cards, while flavorful, tend to be a mite powerful; also the effects of the god of War (attacker wins ties, if the god is with the army) breaks one of the fundamental balancing points of the game. Further, the Underworld, while somewhat interesting, is nigh-useless. You gain no armies or Faith for possessing territories, and the crypts/altars there are of marginal utility. I like the secondary board (the Moon) in 2210, because it's useful to have. The secondary board in Godstorm, however, seems to be shoehorned into the game. 

The plague territories are also handled in what is, to me, an unsatisfactory manner; they take away half of the units stationed there each turn (rounded down; you can never lose the last one), and anyone attacking that territory loses half the invading army. This leads, in my experience, to the attacker massing an army on the territory adjacent and attacking one unit at a time, secure in the knowledge that he will win eventually. I suspect this is against the intent of the plague rules, but the RAW seem to allow it. On the whole, I'd prefer that they act like the Devastation markers in 2210, and cause the territories in question to be utterly impassable and unable to be occupied. 

As stated earlier, there are some really flavorful miracles. There's nothing like sinking Atlantis, and laughing as your opponent's troops find their way to the Underworld.

Being a fan of antiquity, I really wanted to like this game. I prefer it to a game of the original, but if I had to choose 1 Risk game to play for the rest of my life Godstorm wouldn't be it.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Jul 24, 2007)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Being a fan of antiquity, I really wanted to like this game. I prefer it to a game of the original, but if I had to choose 1 Risk game to play for the rest of my life Godstorm wouldn't be it.




What *are* the other Risk variants out there?

Off the top of my head, I can think of . . . 

Risk: Godstorm
Risk: 2210
Risk: Star Wars original trilogy (saw this not too long ago at Wal*Mart--at least, I *think* it was labelled "original trilogy")

Risk: Transformers (yech.  Just saw this one at Wal*Mart too)
Risk: Lord of the Rings (are there different versions of this one?)


----------



## kenobi65 (Jul 24, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> What *are* the other Risk variants out there?




In college (20+ years ago), we played "Risk For Drinks."  The additional rules were pretty simple:

1) Lose an army -> take a drink.
2) Lose a country -> take a drink.
3) Lose a continent you once controlled ->  finish your beer.

The ante to play was a 12-pack of beer.  If you were able to stay in the game until the end, you got most of the way through your 12-pack.

Ahhh, the good old days.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jul 24, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Oh, and this is my first post on enworld, though I've lurked for three years so I don't really think of myself as a noob or anything.



The first one is free!   _Or _Welcome to the boards, sort of....



			
				Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Anyone tried any of the "nuclear Risk" variants floating around on the web? They're pretty nifty.



Before all the variants available today, my friends and I played Risk a few dozen times. Toward the end, we used the nuclear option (play a country card on your turn instead of doing anything else and nuke that country--kill all armies in it currently and make it radioactive. After that, all armies in that country were reduced by half every turn they remained there. Ouch). 

The nuclear option was fun, although it was most often used by the player in last place as a Spite Move. It was much less fun for the person who was winning.   :\


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 24, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> What *are* the other Risk variants out there?
> 
> Off the top of my head, I can think of . . .
> 
> ...




I think you got the big ones. I have a copy of Castle Risk sitting on my shelf, but I have no idea whether that one is still made.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jul 24, 2007)

(never mind)


----------



## Ourph (Jul 26, 2007)

Bullgrit said:
			
		

> Is it strategically wise to grab and hold Austrailia early in the game, if you can?



Yes and no.  Australia is a great strategic area to hold, but the only way to expand from Australia is into Asia.  Asia is one of the toughest continents to hold onto in the early game because of its many borders with NA, Europe, Africa and Australia.  If you have other "bases" beside Australia to expand from it's great.  If Australia is your only real stronghold you have to be very careful about how fast you expand and in what direction.



> Is Asia really worth the effort to conquer it and hold it?



In the early game, Asia is one of the least attractive continents to control.  Asia becomes much easier to hold if you control NA and Australia too.



> Is it strategically wise to always try to also grab South America when you get North America?



SA is one of the easiest continents to keep control of if you have plenty of armies.  NA has one of the biggest payoffs in terms of armies each round without the disadvantage of a lot of borders (like Europe and Asia).  The combination of NA and SA is very nice and allows for expansion into Africa, Europe and Asia for several countries without opening up a lot of new borders.  If you already control NA, SA is a better option for immediate expansion than Asia or Europe.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 26, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> What *are* the other Risk variants out there?




In addition to the ones you mentioned, I know of Star Wars: Clone Wars Edition.  I believe there were two versions of LotR Risk: an early edition that had a slightly smaller map, and the full version.

As mentioned, the LotR full version is by faaaaaaar my favorite.  It has the best map, the best cards, the best everythng.  My two complaints with it are that it only has pieces for 4 players (the size makes it much more ideal for a 6 player game than the original, so I've played games where we steal pieces from others sets to make it 6 player), and the color scheme of the continents.  As a colorblind person, I can tell you that the numbers of browns, greens, and reds on that board all blend together.

I never really liked Godstorm.  Especially the special variant where there are a limited number of rounds in the game.  Blah.  Godstorm and 2210 both also have a variant where you have to "bid" for play order, instead of playing in a fixed order.  I don't like that at all, or any variation of Risk that involves "money" for that matter.  If I wanted to have to buy different types of units, I would be playing Axis and Allies.  I also think the Moon base of 2210 was done much better that the Underworld in Godstorm.  I've only played SW: Clone Wars, not original trilogy.  It was ok, but nothing too new.  I'm planning on buying the Transformers version soon.

There's always a lot to be said for standard Risk, but after you've played it enough times, the map is just too simple.  The number of stragies is fairly limited.  The size and variation on the new boards help a bit, but, as I keep saying, LotR is the best.


----------



## SWBaxter (Jul 27, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Yes and no.  Australia is a great strategic area to hold, but the only way to expand from Australia is into Asia.  Asia is one of the toughest continents to hold onto in the early game because of its many borders with NA, Europe, Africa and Australia.  If you have other "bases" beside Australia to expand from it's great.  If Australia is your only real stronghold you have to be very careful about how fast you expand and in what direction.




Really, all you have to be careful about is holding Siam. Once you've got Australia, you just want to win one battle each turn to get a risk card and wait until the reward for a set gets so high that bonus armies for controlling continents and territories don't really matter. Expansion before then is usually counter-productive.



> In the early game, Asia is one of the least attractive continents to control.  Asia becomes much easier to hold if you control NA and Australia too.




By which time you don't really care that much about the bonus armies, because you're most likely turning in sets for 20+ armies by then. Asia's value by that point in the game is that Ukraine-Middle East makes a good defensive/staging line.

It'll come as no surprise that my favourite variants are the ones that tone down the number of armies you get for a set of cards. Makes acquisition of territory much more important, and continent bonuses remain significant throughout the game.


----------



## Bloosquig (Aug 2, 2007)

I really like the 2210 version since it goes quickly and can have quite a difference game from game depending on whether you strike out for land, sea, or space.  Plus the different cards can cause some chaos such as when we were playing a game with my uncle who was losing and on the last turn he dumped a crap load of nuclear cards to just about wipe every army off the map allowing him to sneak into the lead just barely.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Aug 7, 2007)

Deset Gled, would you mind expanding on why you don't like Godstorm? I've been seriously considering buying it, 'cause it _looks_ darn cool, and I'd love to get the opinion of someone who's actually played


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 6, 2007)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Deset Gled, would you mind expanding on why you don't like Godstorm? I've been seriously considering buying it, 'cause it _looks_ darn cool, and I'd love to get the opinion of someone who's actually played




Sorry for the delay, John.  I don't come down of OT much.

Anyway, my displeasure with Godstorm can be summed up quickly by simply saying that it's too much like 2210.  This is problematic 1) because they released to very similar games that seem to differ mainly in packaging, and 2) I didn't like 2210 to begin with.

The biggest issue I have with both Godstorm and 2210 is the fact that they have money.  If I want a board game with resource management, I'll play Axis and Allies, or something similar.  It's just not Risk.  You even bid money to determine turn order each round, which is just not fun.  Speaking of turn problems, Godstorm actually limits the number of turns that each player has.  No more games that last forever.  Again, not fun, and just not Risk.  The underworld part of Godstorm also seems needlessly complicated and time consuming to me.  

In the end, if you want fantasy based Risk, play the LotR version.


----------



## Tiberius (Sep 6, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> The biggest issue I have with both Godstorm and 2210 is the fact that they have money.  If I want a board game with resource management, I'll play Axis and Allies, or something similar.  It's just not Risk.  You even bid money to determine turn order each round, which is just not fun.  Speaking of turn problems, Godstorm actually limits the number of turns that each player has.  No more games that last forever.




Interesting. Your reasons here for disliking Godstorm/2210 are the same ones that make me so highly regard them. I like the resource management and the fact that you have a limited timeframe in which to accomplish your goals. My main issue with Godstorm is what I perceive to be a lack of balance between card types and the comparative uselessness of the Underworld, and hold 2210 as the pinnacle of Risk development.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 6, 2007)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Interesting. Your reasons here for disliking Godstorm/2210 are the same ones that make me so highly regard them.  I like the resource management and the fact that you have a limited timeframe in which to accomplish your goals.



To each his own, I suppose.  I can definetally understand how these things could be fun, but, as I said before, they're just not Risk to me.  It's like D+D with Magic cards instead of dice.  I honestly think resource management games are much more fun when played on a computer.  In games like 2210 and Godstorm, there's not enough of it to make it fun, and games like the Civilization board game are just too complex.

As to the turn limitations, I would have to say that LotR Risk has a much better mechanic.  The movement of the One Ring means that the game will have to end *eventually*, but it doesn't lock play into a fixed numbers of turns (which I absolutely despise).

Regardless of your opinions of the money and turns, I think we at least agree that the other aspects of Godstorm still leave something to be desired.  The cards are not very good, and the underworld is an interesting idea with horrible execution.  I honestly didn't like the cards in 2210 very much either, although one of my biggest complaints is that they needed a much better editing job.  For example, some cards that have you remove armies from a territory are ambiguous about what happens if the territory is brought to zero armies; standard Risk protocol is that at least 1 army is always left behind so you can't have an empty territory, but the cards don't state that.


----------

