To begin with, let us assume we are playing a classic, flat rate game with more than four players. Let us also assume that the fortifications might either be adjacent, chained or unlimited. Let us assume that the player in Australia has captured it and held it for a round with a large enough force in Siam to be sure of holding it for another round at least. Let us finally assume that the player is good enough not to weaken Siam thus allowing another player to steal Australia over the next few rounds.
With that understood, we would now naturally discuss how Australia would go about winning the game from here and these plans could in general be summarised as:
A) Use Siam as a base and apply extra forces around the board to disrupt and eventually conquer other territories.
B) Build from Siam and gradually conquer territories in Asia before finally either taking Asia and holding or attacking in strength later using the extra armies built up to hold the territories taken.
While it can be taken for granted that a number of players on CC on are already gearing up to savagely attack the simplicity of A and B, might I suggest that A and B are merely meant to be very general guides.
What should be discussed and to my knowledge hasn't been discussed in any depth on CC before is how to defeat Australia once Australia has been comfortably held. Some quick points need to be made now to flesh out the reasons behind the topic. First, it must be said that I have been a keen Risk player for years and once on CC quickly devoted a fairly large number of games to the form I described above. I play 6 player, flat rate, chained (in general) Classic Risk. Someone might decide to correct me, but I imagine my win rate on this style would be about 45%. If you are wondering how I could have held Australia so many times, this is due to my absolute determination to get it, from often very unlikely positions. Second, I have not lost a game on CC once Australia has been held by me for one round and have only managed to win once from another position (Europe). In all games I have lost, the player in Australia has won every time. My memory might be faulty here, but I don't believe it to be so.
This is really an incredible thing, suggesting that if you have Australia and know what you are doing you WILL WIN in the end.
Now, there are some really excellent players on CC and I wonder if they are prepared to divulge any strategies for beating Australia in the kind of game I am suggesting.
Some thoughts spring to mind...
A) Quick diplomacy to make sure no one secures Australia early, with an early coordinated invasion.
B) Players waiting to strike if Australia even slightly over-extends (which is how I won from Europe)
C) A player managing to achieve considerably more income than Australia (say SA + NA), but this is difficult to do in a large game.
To conclude, I am well aware that one can win from Europe or South America or even Africa but this is often achieved because the player in Australia isn't playing well. What I want to discuss is how to beat a player in Australia who is playing well.
Mr C
) would put pressure on oceania. Most of the time, BOTH team members of the other team would try to keep it - in the mean time, my partner would be building in SA/NA.
.
