You reach maximum defence probability when you minimise the number of times someone attacks you while you are defending with 1 army. Dice calculation for the attacker is always based on throwing three dice. Hence, you need to have two armies in each territory with the rest in the last one. For ...

One man's mistake is another man's fortune.

You can use this as a strategy, wait for someone to make a mistake in the end game scenario and exploit it. Just make sure you don't make mistakes yourself as there is no room for error at this point.

Another key is that most people have more experience ...

kingpin01 explained this well so I will just add. To win in these games is to create some sort of a chain reaction. In other words, eliminate one, cash in, use it on the next and so on. That's the most ideal, but of course it is not always easy to do. As cards are escalated, eliminating and not ...

Very interesting way to put the question. Indeed the wait-until-attack strategy seem to be dominant in esclating game as indicated by many in this thread. Online Risk games like CC have helped to evolve the game strategy of far more rapidly. While here most are familiar with this kind of strategy to ...

I think the reason most people suddenly start complaining about bad luck is because the luck turns against them in a couple of games (or moves) in a row and they get frustrated. All you have to do is to be patient and follow with your strategy.

This is what usually happens. There is a critical ...

It's just as unlikely to be unlucky all the time as it is to be lucky all the time. So, just ignore the luck factor. Over the long term, it doesn't really matter. What matters is how you play to win over as many games as possible.

Nice comment.

Please hide your website, I don't want my ...

This is actually a well-defined strategy, called Turtling . A player simply collect 3 every turn, no fighting and no card, so in a sense he stays from conflicts and would not become a target for cards either. As he grows, the cost of removing him becomes more and more expensive for any single player ...

It's just as unlikely to be unlucky all the time as it is to be lucky all the time. So, just ignore the luck factor. Over the long term, it doesn't really matter. What matters is how you play to win over as many games as possible.

Well for starters, it is not my intention to get emotional. I should say, however, that the tenor of some of your posts have gotten my dander up. Perhaps it is because I am leery of your motives for posting here. You've played but 3 games, all against primarily low ranked players and lost all three ...

You need to rethink your math a little, we're talking about 3 and 4 player games, and in those it takes longer for the sets to become worth more than continents, also you need 3 rounds to get three cards, in that time Europe has already given you 15 armies, that's what the 6th trade in is worth; I ...

Now, perhaps I came in late and didn't realize we were talking specifically about 3 player games. Obviously, the less players, the easier it is to grab a continent, so they're a higher priority. However, don't for a minute claim that your thoughts on continent grabbing are limited to just those ...

If you manage to get a small continent on the drop and can take it without losses, it can be handy. However, those that fight for continents, deplete themselves and end up being targets for elimination because a) they haven't gained back the troops and b) they've had to disregard dropping men on ...

In a competitive game with escalating cards, the early game is all about preservation and maintaining enough armies to avoid being the first guy taken out. Since the best way to achieve this is to avoid attacking countries with more than one army, the notion of taking bonus areas becomes obsolete ...

Exactly that's the problem Pluto, "once taken", you have to be quick in order to do it. And if you go for NA you can be sure someone will get Africa, and if you go for Africa... well, you get my point. With your 5 armies you can take on one other player who's getting only 3 per turn, but not 2. If ...

You seem to imply that you are better off, consistently, to go with no continent at all. I like to disagree, because if the other players are isolationist and don't invade each other and sit in their own continent, you will lose. No question. Not if you have escalating cards. It only takes one ...

Of course it all depends on who you are playing against. Otherwise its just a tactical game.

The question is not what is the best strategy to win the game. That doesn't fit into two paragraphs or three posts. There is a lot more to it. The question is should you go for small or larger continents ...

Initially, people are also busy preventing others from holding continents. I don't know who you're playing with, but I'm not going to just let someone take and hold Europe or NA, just because they 'get' 14 countries. Its one thing to have 14 countries, its another to hold an entire continent ...

Tell me, how many times out of 10 in a 3 way do you keep NA?

Maybe once... While you can keep SA with it's small amount of terits like 5-6 times out of 10.

And from there, you can expand, using the extra troops to dominate NA or africa, and move on.

The question is not if you keep NA, but if ...

I am almost shocked by the votes.

3 players, vast map in front of you. You can get a third of the world to start with. Why would you start from Australia? Why? what's the rational. Why do you want to be isolated, there are only two other players in the game anyway. You can have 14 countries, but ...

I specialise in escalating games simply because they are more demanding. With flat rate, you can stick to universal strategies of growth and basically stick to them until you win.

With escalation, you need to switch from early strategies of growth to later strategies of survival. That transition ...

Sun Tzu is great, those that I like are:

"The individualist without strategy who takes opponents lightly will inevitably become a captive."

"Those who are skilled in attack, their opponents do not know where to defend. Those skilled in defence, their opponents do not know where to attack."

"If ...

In my experience this comes down to higher level strategy to win the war rather than focusing on the battle.

Here are a number of parameters to consider:

Sometimes you have to stop attacking because you want to keep your armies on the map, so that you don't appear weak.

Sometime you want to ...

Well.. I'm not sure I agree. When you put 6 total somewhere and then don't attack it's like stating an intention.. this might psychologically put some people off from attacking you.

I am not sure what you mean here. Isn't this a good thing? So you are also saying that putting 6 and not attacking ...

Assassin games are truly different. It highly depends on who is playing and how experienced they are in this kind of game and if players drop out.

Ideally you should try to go for your target tough if you can guess other player's target and they are close in getting them, there is no point for you ...

Thanks BaldAdonis. The only issue I see is that you might get attacked by more than one player while you are waiting for you card, becoming really weak in the process. If you dont have a set before you get your fifth card, then you could be doomed. Although, I guess this is a Risk you might be ...