Is it better to....

killza666jrr · Post by **killza666jrr** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:14 pm

I was just wondering about the stratedgys sorry i cant spell

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:29 pm

It always depends on the situation.

The only case when it's definitely better to attack is when there are only 2 players left. You and the other one.

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:19 pm

MeDeFe wrote: The only case when it's definitely better to attack is when there are only 2 players left. You and the other one.

Not necessarily, I just won a game because I restricted myself from attacking certain areas which would have freed up the other players troops in an adjacent fortification game.

Drakkon · Post by **Drakkon** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:51 pm

yeah you can't just make a simple answer... it all has to do with what is going on in the game, also what type of player your opponent is. You need to be able to react to what he does.

HotShot53 · Post by **HotShot53** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:03 pm

I seem to play aggressively... I'm either the first one out, or I have a good chance of winning. Others seem to do well building up their borders, and only attacking when they think the time is right. In either case though, you have to attack eventually

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:27 am

qeee1 wrote:
MeDeFe wrote: The only case when it's definitely better to attack is when there are only 2 players left. You and the other one.
Not necessarily, I just won a game because I restricted myself from attacking certain areas which would have freed up the other players troops in an adjacent fortification game.

I saw "attacking" and "defending" as general strats, not as clicking a button.

Blackadder · Post by **Blackadder** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:04 am

Attack or defense depending on the situation

Shade · Post by **Shade** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:08 pm

Blackadder wrote:Attack or defense depending on the situation

True, but I practice the attack phase during the game...When someone controls the entire continent, you don't sit back and enjoy in the continent you control, but attack him so he can't get more troops...
At the beginning of the game I agree with Blackadder but later on think it's better to attack...anyway...that's my opinion

adragons · Post by **adragons** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:33 pm

I definitely think that (all out)attacking near the beginning of the game is suicide.

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:39 pm

adragons wrote:I definitely think that (all out)attacking near the beginning of the game is suicide.

Yep - I've seen some of those games where one player (usually a noob) attacks everything and ends up with 1 army in a lot of territories. In a few rounds, they are out.

Myself: I am probably too agressive for my own good (which is probably why i'm still a seargent). With a choice between attack and just sitting and deploying, I usually choose attack - more fun (when you win) and more RISK. This either wins me the game or slowly ends up in defeat because i'm too spread out. I have seen quite a few players who have gained control of one continent and then deployed until breaking out and winning the game in an instant. Needless to say, most of these players are quite highly ranked. (And I still won't learn!)

Shade · Post by **Shade** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:37 am

RobinJ wrote:
adragons wrote:I definitely think that (all out)attacking near the beginning of the game is suicide.
Yep - I've seen some of those games where one player (usually a noob) attacks everything and ends up with 1 army in a lot of territories. In a few rounds, they are out.

Myself: I am probably too agressive for my own good (which is probably why i'm still a seargent). With a choice between attack and just sitting and deploying, I usually choose attack - more fun (when you win) and more RISK. This either wins me the game or slowly ends up in defeat because i'm too spread out. I have seen quite a few players who have gained control of one continent and then deployed until breaking out and winning the game in an instant. Needless to say, most of these players are quite highly ranked. (And I still won't learn!)

Yea, know the feeling

Who knows, maybe in a while we will learn how to play it to win 100%...but then it wouldn't be a RISK, would it?

As long as I'm alive, I wont learn a thing...whether it's my own native language, Risk, Minesweeper, English grammar, Civilisation 1, 2 or 3...why do people jump from one building to another just4fun...oh oh...we're talking about the attack or defend...well I've posted my comment bout that earlier, so this one means s%&t...
I wonder where I was going with all that....

joeyjordison · Post by **joeyjordison** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:10 pm

question is WAY too open. u obviously can't just attack coz then u would hav all 1s. u can't just defend coz then u would just let people walk all over u so i said both but u need to look at the situation. predict ur oponents moves. thats the most important advice i can giv.

HaveABanana · Post by **HaveABanana** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:43 pm

You certainly need to try and keep what you get, but you can't win the game without attacking. It's that simple. You just have to know when to attack and try to set up a reasonable defense in the meantime.

TravelingAngel · Post by **TravelingAngel** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:05 pm

I ran an "experiment" on excel, and there is a advantage to the attacker, as long as he rolls 3 dice.

HaveABanana · Post by **HaveABanana** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:01 pm

Probability dictates that the attacker will have the advantage with 3 dice. Whether the advantage makes that much difference is up for debate.

Is it better to....

Is it better to attack or defend

Is it better to....