2.1 Strategy Guide (suggestions welcome!)

[Mr Changsha]

Here are some thoughts on large 2.1 games (no cards and flat rate to a point...). I truly believe that it is possible to progress well (and win) from pretty much any opening position in a 2.1 8 man no cards game. The trick is knowing how to develop from all of the possible first bonuses. I am assuming the reader has a good basic understanding of the game and so am only giving tips and hints directly related to 2.1 play.

1. Consider that 2.1 involves continent bonuses, territory bonuses and territories. Good 2.1 play is not so simple as just thinking that you want North America or Europe. Maybe China, India, Middle East and The Horn would be more effective?
2. Play 'Strength in Depth' with territory bonuses i.e US and Canada, but then fort to a standard defence once you have the North American continent. Same with Scandinavia and Western Europe, leave stacks everywhere until you have the full Europe and then fort more traditionally.
3. EVERY starting positon i.e a single territory bonus, can lead to a strong position but the method of getting to it might well be very different. Therefore, don't discount any player in a 2.1 game as they might well expand suddenly and very effectively. One must learn how to develop from Scandinavia, or Australia, or The Horn or The US (to name a few) correctly, taking the board into account. All things being equal, is it better to go from The US to Central America and then up to Canada or the other way around? Or should you merely take part of Canada and then spread in the Amazonas? This kind of thing should be considered on round 1 or round 2 of a game. For example, in a game I am currently playing I started in Parana, took Central America, then US, then Amazonas and, though unusual, it was the correct way for that game.
4. Large numbers: 2.1 is interesting in that a winning position (in a no cards game) is probably getting around 35 to 40 troops a round - of course this is only a rough estimate, it does also depend on the board - and players should be working to reach that kind of number. How to get it? Classic spreads include Australasia, China and India while working on Russia for an almost lock (still probably need the Middle East) or Europe, Middle East and down into The Horn while also plunging into Canada. North America + Scandinavia while working into South America is another. With these kinds of large empires, remember to have your defences LOCKED before moving any further. There are so many ways into any Empire in a 2.1 game and most of your oppoenents will be able to create at least a 15 stack at will. All routes of attack must be completely blocked up before moving forward. I have seen many a winning position collapse very quickly due to the mistake of pushing too fast, even comparatively late in the game.
5. Never be afraid to completely change position in a 2.1 game. I have, for example, moved from Scandinavia to taking the whole of Australasia (and holding) in one move before mopping up China/India in the second. Feeling surrounded in Australasia with a mighty Asia on one side and a cocky North America on the other. Jump into South Africa/The Horn, fort everything out of Australasia and let those guys sort themselves out. This is dependent on playing 2.1 with unlimited forts, though similar moves can be made with chained forts too...just a fair bit more difficult.

Finally, some thoughts on the various starting positions...

1. Scandinavia: Great defensive spot to hang around in until round 20. Easy to defend with the possibilty of claiming the full Europe bonus (one of the best spots in the game). Go for it, but remember that one or even two other players might have the same plan. It is a popular spot. Route: Scandinavia, Middle East, The Horn, India.

2. Western Europe: If you have a very good opening spread in there play it hard and quickly take Scandinavia. Unless a good position, avoid it as you might well be overwhelmed by another player in the long run. Route: Western Europe, Scandinavia, Europe, Middle East

3. Mahgreb: In Mr C's humble opinion an absolute waste of energy as a first position, however it is quite a popular opening spot and has produced a strong position before. Entertain it with caution. Route: Mahgred to Africa? Happy to be corrected on this one. *revised* Though I have seen it played badly many times, I recently had success from here by seeing Mahgreb as the 'African China'. Large force in Algeria and then pushed for the full SA bonus.

4. The Horn: A good spot to begin. However, be aware that it can end up in an understrength mid.game position. The Horn, South Africa and The Middle East is fine, but no Middle East and you are highly unlikely to create a winning position. Route: The Horn, Middle East (see?), South Africa, Scandinavia (really!) or India.

5. South Africa: Tricky postion to begin from an not one to aim for. Connecting up with The Horn is a must.

6. Parana: Fine position, easy to defend. However, there is a lot of work to do if you want the full South America bonus, hence one often sees Parana players attempting the split position (parana + scandinavia for example) to generate income. Not a great idea. Route: Parana, Amazonas, into Mahgreg. Either push into Africa or North America.

7. Amazonas: Horrible first position. If someone reading likes it please write why!

8. Central: If there is no player in US jump for it. If there is a player in Canada, still think about it. Route: Central, US (stack in Amazonas) up to Canada.

9. US: Great position. Always play it with HUGE strength in depth and slowly work into Canada and Central America. Route: US,North America, Scandinavia...

10. Canada: Hard starting position with a similar route as US. However, as an alternative...Route: Canada, Scandinavia (they won't see it coming) Europe!

11. Russia: Nightmarish starting position unless you are lucky enough to have no player in China (highly unlikey). So many borders, so many threats. You'll end up with 20,20,20,20,20 in Russia with no place to go, assuming you hold it. Route: Russia, China (within the first few rounds).

12. China: Personal favourite: Keys are to keep Australasia quiet (or take it if you can) and as you take India and Russia make China itself just ridiculously HUGE. It defends everything. Route: (there are many) China, India, Russia, Middle East, Scandinavia.

13. India: Fine if you are starting early and can scare off anyone playing into China. Then take China and repeat. Alternative route: India, China, Middle East, Horn. Also fun.

14. Indonesia: Not a starting position. Really. Route...Indonesia, Australia, China...

15. Australia: Popular position. The trick is to secure Australasia BEFORE China can get India. Some of the most enjoyable battles come from these two positions. Route: Australia, Indonesia, China, India.

16. Middle East: While it is a major catch for the Africa player, the Europe player and the Asia player, the Middle East is sometimes held as an independent entity. Iraq is the key spot and arm it heavily just as you would China in the Far East position.

A lot of this is of course dependent on the individual player's ability to make the right decisions at the correct times.

[Joodoo]

I personally think Mexico is quite important, it's a convenient connection between NA, SA, Asia (through Hawaii), and Oceania...

[Mr Changsha]

I personally think Mexico is quite important, it's a convenient connection between NA, SA, Asia (through Hawaii), and Oceania...

As a key point on the board, true. The border between Mexico and Hawaii is pretty much a test of strength between Australasia and the North Amercica/South Amercia player occupying Mexico.

As an attacking route? Australasia wants to border up Hawaii and probably maintain peace with the player in Mexico, so that he is able to push into China comfortably. If Mexico is held by South America he is probably going North or into Africa...not into Australasia, while North America would be unlikely to push into Asia through Mexcio...though he might!

If one starts in Mexico, there is the danger of getting a bit stuck between a strong US and a strong Parana.

[Geger]

4. The Horn: A good spot to begin. However, be aware that it can end up in an understrength mid.game position. The Horn, South Africa and The Middle East is fine, but no Middle East and you are highly unlikely to create a winning position. Route: The Horn, Middle East (see?), South Africa, Scandinavia (really!) or India.

If I have 2 regions in Horn at the beginning, I usually try to take it. Agree it's not a good position to expand, but as long nobody owns Southern Africa, Horn gives some extra troops to build another stronghold.

[Mr Changsha]

4. The Horn: A good spot to begin. However, be aware that it can end up in an understrength mid.game position. The Horn, South Africa and The Middle East is fine, but no Middle East and you are highly unlikely to create a winning position. Route: The Horn, Middle East (see?), South Africa, Scandinavia (really!) or India.

If I have 2 regions in Horn at the beginning, I usually try to take it. Agree it's not a good position to expand, but as long nobody owns Southern Africa, Horn gives some extra troops to build another stronghold.

Well, it has the advantage of being fairly easy to take and hold in the early game. Therefore you are making sure of a place at the table for the middle to end game. However, I haven't seen it prove to be a FINISHING position. The player ends up with Horn/South Africa and the Middle East if he is going well - assuming you agree with me that trying to hold the full Africa position is just asking to get smashed. The problem is where to go from there. By the time The Horn has developed that far,Europe is usually formed and has probably broken the Middle East. There will be a force in Asia as well as threats from the South. At that point, the player usually ends up merely stacking up and hoping for a break.

So I don't think it is a winning position. However, in one game at the moment where I have this exact position and am struggling with the inherent weaknessses within it as a good position to expand from. I'll be there at the end to be sure, but I probably won't win.

Areas I am hoping to start in would include China, Scandinavia, Australia, US and Parana. Not The Horn.

[MarathonMax]

Mr Changsha,

I read your post and I find it very insightful. Tks for tips.

Ok, here's my position (with no spoils and adjacent fort):

Although you wrote that South Africa (ZA) was a position to avoid, I had but no choice to start there. Then you go on and mention that connecting to The Horn is a must, well, I didn't do that - yet. I went for Parana as I had an opportunity there. I hope I will hold until my next turn.

I have an opponent that has captured Central America and USA. He appears to be aiming for Canada but is meeting some resistance.

As you can see I have sort of an hybrid position.

I am not going to post where I will strike next but I will keep you updated on the progress of this strategy.

Any coaching thoughts maybe you want to share?

Tks

Max

[Mr Changsha]

Mr Changsha,

I read your post and I find it very insightful. Tks for tips.

Ok, here's my position (with no spoils and adjacent fort):

Although you wrote that South Africa (ZA) was a position to avoid, I had but no choice to start there. Then you go on and mention that connecting to The Horn is a must, well, I didn't do that - yet. I went for Parana as I had an opportunity there. I hope I will hold until my next turn.

I have an opponent that has captured Central America and USA. He appears to be aiming for Canada but is meeting some resistance.

As you can see I have sort of an hybrid position.

I am not going to post where I will strike next but I will keep you updated on the progress of this strategy.

Any coaching thoughts maybe you want to share?

Tks

Max

In my office we talk about 'making a snake' when playing 2.1. The idea is to create a connected empire that even if broken in part, is still generating income. Take for example China, India, Middle East, Horn. Even if a player breaks The Horn, you are still getting the other bonuses. Forting in depth (not just laying your troops on the outskirts of your empire) also helps to make you pretty hard to defeat. Now playing Parana and The Horn is, in a sense, giving you the same advantage. The big difference though is that if (in the first example) The Horn is broken you can fort depth forces from the Middle East or India BACK to The Horn to defend it. However, in your situation if, say, Parana is broken you can't very well send forces from the Horn to arm it back up again. You also mentioned you are playing adjacent forts and I would say my strategies are based on unlimited or at least chained forts. 2.1 is a bloody huge map to play adjacent forts on and a different way of playing would be required.

Send me the game no: if you want me to have a look at the specific game.

[Bootsmann Rommel]

Great suggestions! I agree with you mostly but I do like Amazons, I think that I would rather get the upper hand in S.A by taking Amazons before Parana, and then Mexico. Chile is KEY to keeping Amazons tho.

[MarathonMax]

Game number is 4121459

I was able to keep both South Africa and Parana. I then moved up Central. then USA.

The snake is definetly the key here.

Max

Mr Changsha,

I read your post and I find it very insightful. Tks for tips.

Ok, here's my position (with no spoils and adjacent fort):

Although you wrote that South Africa (ZA) was a position to avoid, I had but no choice to start there. Then you go on and mention that connecting to The Horn is a must, well, I didn't do that - yet. I went for Parana as I had an opportunity there. I hope I will hold until my next turn.

I have an opponent that has captured Central America and USA. He appears to be aiming for Canada but is meeting some resistance.

As you can see I have sort of an hybrid position.

I am not going to post where I will strike next but I will keep you updated on the progress of this strategy.

Any coaching thoughts maybe you want to share?

Tks

Max

In my office we talk about 'making a snake' when playing 2.1. The idea is to create a connected empire that even if broken in part, is still generating income. Take for example China, India, Middle East, Horn. Even if a player breaks The Horn, you are still getting the other bonuses. Forting in depth (not just laying your troops on the outskirts of your empire) also helps to make you pretty hard to defeat. Now playing Parana and The Horn is, in a sense, giving you the same advantage. The big difference though is that if (in the first example) The Horn is broken you can fort depth forces from the Middle East or India BACK to The Horn to defend it. However, in your situation if, say, Parana is broken you can't very well send forces from the Horn to arm it back up again. You also mentioned you are playing adjacent forts and I would say my strategies are based on unlimited or at least chained forts. 2.1 is a bloody huge map to play adjacent forts on and a different way of playing would be required.

Send me the game no: if you want me to have a look at the specific game.

[kratos644]

Looks good

[HZ514]

Thank you Mr Changsha, your advice helped me win a couple games! Your idea about "making a snake" is very insightful.

In my (limited) experience, your views on Africa are very valid. It offers a comfortable early game base, but it definitely suffers late game, unless you can somehow hold all of Africa consistently.

China and US served me very well as quality starting positions. I haven't had a chance to claim Europe at the beginning, but it does seem like it would work.

Australia is a deathtrap for those who want to play 2.1 like real risk, because it really doesn't generate enough economy, so a strong Asia player and/or a strong NA player can wreak havoc on Oceania's defenses.

[AAFitz]

World 2.1 Lieutenant124 +676 15 from 33(45%) 72 Tyrant (77%)13 Equalitarian (0.842)

I am not knocking this in any way, however, i was rather surprised to find you only played it 33 times.
Not to say you arent qualified, i was just not sure what to expect. Your point gain on it is impressive however for such few games on it.

Myself, I have found world to be a unique board, its size does change the way you have to play it. I consider it the most fair map, because despite the big drop, its big enough to come back from a bad round or two. Many of the smaller maps are impossible to do that on.

[Mr Changsha]

World 2.1 Lieutenant124 +676 15 from 33(45%) 72 Tyrant (77%)13 Equalitarian (0.842)

I am not knocking this in any way, however, i was rather surprised to find you only played it 33 times.
Not to say you arent qualified, i was just not sure what to expect. Your point gain on it is impressive however for such few games on it.

Myself, I have found world to be a unique board, its size does change the way you have to play it. I consider it the most fair map, because despite the big drop, its big enough to come back from a bad round or two. Many of the smaller maps are impossible to do that on.

Well, I tend to play large singles games on it and, as I am sure you know Fitz, they can take a while. I also refuse to play more than 12 games at once. 33 games in 9 months (finished) seems about right. I would think I might make 100 games after 2 years of play on CC! So, by your standard, I guess I'll never reach the level of 'experienced'. Of course, if one considers that my games have probably averaged 50 rounds, then I have played 1650 rounds on 2.1 in 9 months - which would be a hell of a lot of 1on1!

I know it sounds a little strange, but I just 'got' 2.1 from the moment I started playing it. Suits my style of play perfectly. I've noticed some elementary mistakes from my opponents in that time, so I decided to try and write some good ground rules for, at least, playing 2.1 well. Notice I'm not showing anyone how to win, just how to get into a winning position.

Still if you want to test me out (not in 1on1 you'd surely wipe me) PM me and I'll add you to my next private game invite list!

[Mr Changsha]

Thank you Mr Changsha, your advice helped me win a couple games! Your idea about "making a snake" is very insightful.

In my (limited) experience, your views on Africa are very valid. It offers a comfortable early game base, but it definitely suffers late game, unless you can somehow hold all of Africa consistently.

China and US served me very well as quality starting positions. I haven't had a chance to claim Europe at the beginning, but it does seem like it would work.

Australia is a deathtrap for those who want to play 2.1 like real risk, because it really doesn't generate enough economy, so a strong Asia player and/or a strong NA player can wreak havoc on Oceania's defenses.

Well as firm advocate of playing classic Risk from Aussie I can't agree with your last statement. Aussie IS also a good opening position on 2.1. Consider a few points...

1. Aussie can just be played as aussie for a very long time. Sometimes you just can't expand wonderfully and in those situation you need to boringly stack for many, many rounds. Aussie is a great place to do that. Just remember to keep Indonesia split!

2. Assuming you want to have some progression in the early game (and you probably do) the trick is to gain indonesia double quick. Even if you have aussie on, say, round 3 you have to consider how much you own of indonesia from the beginning. If you are unlucky enough to have none of it, the China player is likely to gain India/Russia BEFORE you gain indonesia. At this point aussie can be a deathtrap.

3. As I mentioned earlier Hawaii is a key spot for aussie. It completes the oceana bonus and defends you against North America. Now this is tricky and to some extent demands the foresight of nostradamus, but you have to judge from the beginning of the game if you will be able to at least hold Hawaii from North America on, say, round 10. The previous point about indonesia is key here. Remember however, that North America is unlikely to want to expand into your territory. Therefore a deal can usually be reached over Hawaii. i.e fort behind Hawaii and leave a 3. North America will usually be content with this and will send his forces elsewhere. Usually...

4. You're now set for your game deciding battle with China. In the end Aussie HAS TO DEFEAT CHINA to win the game. China, however, doesn't have to defeat Aussie to win the game. He can, if he is very good, hold parity with Aussie, (huge China behind the lines for example) and go after Europe or North America. But Aussie has to defeat China. Whether Aussie can do this before round 25, or has to wait until China overstretches himself around round 40 depends on the board. However, if Aussie can secure China and India he will become the main man on the board. Russia is in striking distance, the Moskva/Iran/Sakha/Hawaii/Australian Claim borders are within sight and the game is very, very winnable.

[AAFitz]

World 2.1 Lieutenant124 +676 15 from 33(45%) 72 Tyrant (77%)13 Equalitarian (0.842)

I am not knocking this in any way, however, i was rather surprised to find you only played it 33 times.
Not to say you arent qualified, i was just not sure what to expect. Your point gain on it is impressive however for such few games on it.

Myself, I have found world to be a unique board, its size does change the way you have to play it. I consider it the most fair map, because despite the big drop, its big enough to come back from a bad round or two. Many of the smaller maps are impossible to do that on.

Well, I tend to play large singles games on it and, as I am sure you know Fitz, they can take a while. I also refuse to play more than 12 games at once. 33 games in 9 months (finished) seems about right. I would think I might make 100 games after 2 years of play on CC! So, by your standard, I guess I'll never reach the level of 'experienced'. Of course, if one considers that my games have probably averaged 50 rounds, then I have played 1650 rounds on 2.1 in 9 months - which would be a hell of a lot of 1on1!

I know it sounds a little strange, but I just 'got' 2.1 from the moment I started playing it. Suits my style of play perfectly. I've noticed some elementary mistakes from my opponents in that time, so I decided to try and write some good ground rules for, at least, playing 2.1 well. Notice I'm not showing anyone how to win, just how to get into a winning position.

Still if you want to test me out (not in 1on1 you'd surely wipe me) PM me and I'll add you to my next private game invite list!

It doesnt sound wierd at all. It was my favorite map, the day it came out. And I hope its obvious, im not questioning your prowess on it, just that I expected to see lots of games. Further, ive played over 1000 on the puppy, but you dont see much advice from me. On 1v1, youd fare as good a chance as I would I expect, and though i love the big games on them, my map rank on it will show im a little lacking. My doubles game is where ive really refined my play. Triples too, though I cant claim to be a master of quads. By all means add me to the list though. I feel bad for posting, its just I know many of the players that play world regularly, and was expecting to stumble on some big numbers. I never for a second questioned your skill on it though. I knew right away you were talking about the big games.

[Robinette]

World 2.1 Lieutenant124 +676 15 from 33(45%) 72 Tyrant (77%)13 Equalitarian (0.842)

I am not knocking this in any way, however, i was rather surprised to find you only played it 33 times.
Not to say you arent qualified, i was just not sure what to expect. Your point gain on it is impressive however for such few games on it.

Myself, I have found world to be a unique board, its size does change the way you have to play it. I consider it the most fair map, because despite the big drop, its big enough to come back from a bad round or two. Many of the smaller maps are impossible to do that on.

Well, I tend to play large singles games on it and, as I am sure you know Fitz, they can take a while. I also refuse to play more than 12 games at once. 33 games in 9 months (finished) seems about right. I would think I might make 100 games after 2 years of play on CC! So, by your standard, I guess I'll never reach the level of 'experienced'. Of course, if one considers that my games have probably averaged 50 rounds, then I have played 1650 rounds on 2.1 in 9 months - which would be a hell of a lot of 1on1!

I know it sounds a little strange, but I just 'got' 2.1 from the moment I started playing it. Suits my style of play perfectly. I've noticed some elementary mistakes from my opponents in that time, so I decided to try and write some good ground rules for, at least, playing 2.1 well. Notice I'm not showing anyone how to win, just how to get into a winning position.

Still if you want to test me out (not in 1on1 you'd surely wipe me) PM me and I'll add you to my next private game invite list!

It doesnt sound wierd at all. It was my favorite map, the day it came out. And I hope its obvious, im not questioning your prowess on it, just that I expected to see lots of games. Further, ive played over 1000 on the puppy, but you dont see much advice from me. On 1v1, youd fare as good a chance as I would I expect, and though i love the big games on them, my map rank on it will show im a little lacking. My doubles game is where ive really refined my play. Triples too, though I cant claim to be a master of quads. By all means add me to the list though. I feel bad for posting, its just I know many of the players that play world regularly, and was expecting to stumble on some big numbers. I never for a second questioned your skill on it though. I knew right away you were talking about the big games.

lol... i think that's a lot of games fitz...

oh boy... now i suppose you're gonna look up my record on world... heheee


Oh heck... i'll post a teaser portion... just to get you interested

Grim Reaper (93%) Equalitarian (1.006)

[Mr Changsha]

World 2.1 Lieutenant124 +676 15 from 33(45%) 72 Tyrant (77%)13 Equalitarian (0.842)

I am not knocking this in any way, however, i was rather surprised to find you only played it 33 times.
Not to say you arent qualified, i was just not sure what to expect. Your point gain on it is impressive however for such few games on it.

Myself, I have found world to be a unique board, its size does change the way you have to play it. I consider it the most fair map, because despite the big drop, its big enough to come back from a bad round or two. Many of the smaller maps are impossible to do that on.

Well, I tend to play large singles games on it and, as I am sure you know Fitz, they can take a while. I also refuse to play more than 12 games at once. 33 games in 9 months (finished) seems about right. I would think I might make 100 games after 2 years of play on CC! So, by your standard, I guess I'll never reach the level of 'experienced'. Of course, if one considers that my games have probably averaged 50 rounds, then I have played 1650 rounds on 2.1 in 9 months - which would be a hell of a lot of 1on1!

I know it sounds a little strange, but I just 'got' 2.1 from the moment I started playing it. Suits my style of play perfectly. I've noticed some elementary mistakes from my opponents in that time, so I decided to try and write some good ground rules for, at least, playing 2.1 well. Notice I'm not showing anyone how to win, just how to get into a winning position.

Still if you want to test me out (not in 1on1 you'd surely wipe me) PM me and I'll add you to my next private game invite list!

It doesnt sound wierd at all. It was my favorite map, the day it came out. And I hope its obvious, im not questioning your prowess on it, just that I expected to see lots of games. Further, ive played over 1000 on the puppy, but you dont see much advice from me. On 1v1, youd fare as good a chance as I would I expect, and though i love the big games on them, my map rank on it will show im a little lacking. My doubles game is where ive really refined my play. Triples too, though I cant claim to be a master of quads. By all means add me to the list though. I feel bad for posting, its just I know many of the players that play world regularly, and was expecting to stumble on some big numbers. I never for a second questioned your skill on it though. I knew right away you were talking about the big games.

I often think that with Risk you've either got it or you haven't. Also, with 8 man no cards it is as much about psychology as it is about play. So on that basis I feel I am qualified to at least host a thread about how to play large 2.1 singles games well. Notice (again) that I am not suggesting I can tell other players how to win (for that comes from within) but merely pointing the way for other players to put themselves in a postion to win. I believe there is a big difference between those two concepts. To be perfectly honest with you, I am always looking for those players that can school me on this map as I also want to get better at it. Hence, I find the best players I can for the private games I set up. I am looking forward to players reading this that feel they are hot stuff on 2,1 no cards (large games) contacting me to join some games. Like you, I feel 2.1 is Risk at it's best and I want to play the best players at it.

[Mr Changsha]

So far we have considered the value of individual bonus territories, how to link them together and when to avoid the traditional continental push. However, while games can be won from more unorthodox positions i.e China/India/Middle East/Horn as a basis (and a very good one it is too), one more often than not sees more traditional Empires being formed. The question is: do some have more inherent value than others? If we go back to classic Risk and consider a six man no cards game, most reading this would have fairly set notions with regards to the comparative value of, say, SA and Africa. I think we can also consider the various continents of 2.1 on this basis. Remember though, we are merely looking at large single no cards games with unlimited (ideally) fort.

Europe is a continent which really has to form for the simple reason that uniting it gains the player such a large increase in income. Scandinavia = +2 while Western Europe = +3. Europe as a whole = +11. Europe has two main threats - North America and Africa. However, the Africa player is often weak and unable to unite Africa (through Mahgreb) thus leaving a lot less pressure on Europe's Iberia border. The greater threat comes from North America. A key flashpoint on the board is the greenland/iceland border. Europe must not allow North America to gain Iceland and should ideally make greenland its border. A good player with a favourable opening position should be able to handle North America and Africa and thus secure position. From there, a large force in Moskva (with Iran and thus the Middle East which should be Europe's first target), a subdued North America and an abiity to put a bare minimum of 15 on the board should ensure excellent expansionist opportunities. Finally, Europe has one last advantage. The China player (assume that China/India/Russia empire) is most likely to ignore Europe and concentrate on breaking/gaining Australasia. A matching force in Moskva and China usually ensures peace on the Western border. So to conclude, I would rate Europe as the 2nd best continent to hold on World 2.1.

We will look at Africa next...

[Mr Changsha]

Africa might well be the most challenging position to play on 2.1, however it does have some advantages. Firstly, a fully united Africa gains the player an income of 24. Very tasty compared to, for example, North America's 17. Secondly, Africa often allows the player a relatively unmolested early game. Assuming he starts well in The Horn (which is arguably the best spot to begin) and has some 3's in Mahgreb and South Africa, the player is likely to get a reasonably clear run at South Africa. Thirdly, the full Africa has only 5 borders with that 24 income. If one again compares it with North America (4 borders for 17), it would appear to be at least as easy to defend. Fourth, if Africa can be gained relatively early and held, it is certainly possible to do something that is very difficult to on 2.1 8 man no cards, which is to sweep the board before round 30.

So there are certainly advantages. Now the conservative player (and players who happen to play this style usually are pretty conservative) would realise that attempting to unite Africa early to mid. game will very likely unleash the very forces of damnation upon the reckless player's head. Assuming the player is up against decent players, they will target Africa and probably work together to do so. Africa cannot defend against, for example, Europe and South America and consequently the player will often find himself broken, broken again (if he tries it a second time) and finally invaded. Yet this push CAN work well in the right hands. Maybe the player should try The Horn/Middle East(break Europe)/South Africa/Mahgreb(defend two borders)? The trick must be to defeat one of the main threats before attempting the hold. One might also consider the opposition. I would be far more likely to play the ultra-aggressive Mahgreb(break either Europe or SA)/Horn/Middle East/South Africa sweep against players obviously not using gamechat or playing that intelligently.

So the conservative player would usually play The Horn/Middle East/South Africa and take as much as he can get away with in Mahgreb. That gives a 20 income empire and, more often than not, a position at the end game table. The poor (or unlucky) player will merely have The Horn and South Africa and possibly part of the Middle East which is surely one of the most depressing places to sit for 60 rounds waiting for a highly unlikely break.

I would rate Africa 6th overall, as while it can provide a very fast win indeed, it is more likely to end in a 14 income 'waiting to die' pointlessness, or in a completely defeated empire caused by a far too optimistic early push. The best bet is The Horn/Middle East/South Africa position, however that is still a challenging undertaking and not one that will easily lead to the 35 income required to push for victory.

[AAFitz]

I often think that with Risk you've either got it or you haven't. Also, with 8 man no cards it is as much about psychology as it is about play. So on that basis I feel I am qualified to at least host a thread about how to play large 2.1 singles games well. Notice (again) that I am not suggesting I can tell other players how to win (for that comes from within) but merely pointing the way for other players to put themselves in a postion to win. I believe there is a big difference between those two concepts. To be perfectly honest with you, I am always looking for those players that can school me on this map as I also want to get better at it. Hence, I find the best players I can for the private games I set up. I am looking forward to players reading this that feel they are hot stuff on 2,1 no cards (large games) contacting me to join some games. Like you, I feel 2.1 is Risk at it's best and I want to play the best players at it.

Indeed, but as you know world 2.1's size really does change some things. But im mostly talking about 1v1, dubs, trips and quads. The basic strategy for the big ones is very consistent with the original board, and I do not question your prowess at all. As far as no cards games on it, im still in some that are over a year old, and have had many, many even escalating ones that went on forever. I myself will read your strat guide on the world big games, and still am forming my strategy on trips and quads...though I have played alot...Its harder to test them. The 1v1s ive tested over and over, and though my strategy doesnt always work...over time, it works the best, especially if implemented correctly.

[Robinette]

well... i just can't resist...
you ignored it the 1st time, so i just HAVE to point this out...

my results on this map are simply stellar...

Map Rank shows me to be a Grim Reaper with (93%) kill rate on this map...
and i'm not playing noobs... i'm an Equalitarian (1.006) on this map.

which means my average opponent is wearing a hat...
and 93% of those hats have been run through by my razor sharp sword...


Now that we've established that i have superior results, i am now willing to share my strategy secrets...

The number one, most important SECRET thing to do...
which will DOUBLE your success on this map,

is to..........

aggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh




Days later... i look out my window and this is what i see.... (gasp)






Soooo... before i share my secrets, i will test your geography knowledge...
Where on the World 2.1 map am i? (remember, I am looking at the above scene out my window)
And the 2nd question... where on the World 2.1 map will I be if I were the same person in the 21st century?

Answer both, and I'll tell you everything I know about winning on World 2.1

[Mr Changsha]

I often think that with Risk you've either got it or you haven't. Also, with 8 man no cards it is as much about psychology as it is about play. So on that basis I feel I am qualified to at least host a thread about how to play large 2.1 singles games well. Notice (again) that I am not suggesting I can tell other players how to win (for that comes from within) but merely pointing the way for other players to put themselves in a postion to win. I believe there is a big difference between those two concepts. To be perfectly honest with you, I am always looking for those players that can school me on this map as I also want to get better at it. Hence, I find the best players I can for the private games I set up. I am looking forward to players reading this that feel they are hot stuff on 2,1 no cards (large games) contacting me to join some games. Like you, I feel 2.1 is Risk at it's best and I want to play the best players at it.

Indeed, but as you know world 2.1's size really does change some things. But im mostly talking about 1v1, dubs, trips and quads. The basic strategy for the big ones is very consistent with the original board, and I do not question your prowess at all. As far as no cards games on it, im still in some that are over a year old, and have had many, many even escalating ones that went on forever. I myself will read your strat guide on the world big games, and still am forming my strategy on trips and quads...though I have played alot...Its harder to test them. The 1v1s ive tested over and over, and though my strategy doesnt always work...over time, it works the best, especially if implemented correctly.

I like to play trips and 8 man dubs, but just one or two, to keep my tactics sharp - for the kinds of games I am writing about are often much more about placement of men, forting and very long-term plans. However, once I do trigger the end game I need to be able to finish it correctly. Your 1 on 1 guide could certainly help a player to finish a long game just as much as it could help a player to maintain a good record at 1 on 1.

I'm looking at how to near enough ENSURE that a player can begin an 8 man and make it into the early middle game (first posts) and also how to develop from that good position into a strong last 4 or 5 player position (current posts). As I wrote at the end of my first post, my suggestions do depend on the player actually having a) some ability b) some patience and c) a willingness to really think about the game carefully.

With regards to long games on this map I also have two of the oldest ones (I think no.11 and no.12) though one of those is almost finished on round 100 and will go in my favour. The other is looking to me like it might well go very, very long - though I have shifted continent 3 times(!) in my efforts to get it moving. All to no avail, sadly. However, beyond my 40 singles games on this map I have also followed about 30 more involving two friends of mine. Only one looks like it is descending into pointlesness (and I do believe it is fairly pointless once the board hasn't moved in an age) and that is one of the reasons I consider 2.1 to be an excellent map to play no cards on. Classic and the original Europe map are for more likely to end in 'just stacking stalemates'. However, the new Europa map has provided an excellent open 8 man no cards for me and I am following 3 more (again pals games) that are also looking like they will stay open, attacking and interesting.

[Mr Changsha]

So we come to North America. If we consider it as a place to begin (say US) then it must surely be one of the best. If you are starting early in the running order, have a reasonable amount of it (2 in US, 2 in Central and 2 in Canada for example) and drop in, it is unlikely another player will follow you. Though they might...Whether you play central or US first is rather position-dependent, however securing US must be your first priority IF central is nicely split. Remember to not be too 'continent-centric'. If you can secure US/central and face a weak to negligible opponent in SA (not uncommon as it often splits between a Mahgreb and a Parana player) then consider merely claiming Canada, say a nice stack of 8 in the middle, and pushing South into SA.

Now this nicely leads us to North America's strategic weakness: just how one-dimensional it is in the sense of all real invasions lay South. While I grant you that the good NA player should as swiftly as possible nobble Europe (and Europe should do the same to NA if it can) it is rarely viable to actually take Europe (assuming there is a reasonably competent and strong player there) as while NA's initial attacks might well be successful, they will quickly run out of steam if SA starts arming up or Asia starts pushing through Hawaii or from Sakha. So the good NA player takes Iceland and, from a position of strength, makes a deal. From here, NA can look at Asia, Oceana or SA. Oceana is out purely on how ludicrous and empire it would be to control as China looms ever larger on the horizon. Asia is possible, but NA would need to cut through Russia + China + India and hold against Oceana, assuming Europe is thoroughly nobbled and just holding its breath. So all routes lead South. An understanding must be reached with Asia/Oceana and combined with the one-sided Iceland deal (and you really have to nobble Europe) before finally smashing through and holding SA. However, if SA is allowed to develop (hence my suggestion to get in there BEFORE you take NA) then the invasion will be a very, very, difficult job.

So good NA play relies on fast development, good dice, a broken SA, a nobbled Europe and an understanding from Asia/Oceana. Assuming all that can't be achieved, then NA must merely sit and wait. However, NA is a very, very good place to do just that. Consider the NA/SA border. SA must take three territories before it even gets to the US. Cleverly armed, even a strong SA wil be shy of attacking. Consider the Sakha/Alaska border. How often is Russia a player in 2.1? How often does the China/India/Russia player lay large numbers in Sakha rather than China? Look at Hawaii too. The natural position is a stalemate between Oceana/NA and Asia with Oceana holding Hawaii with a token force. As long as NA doesn't come in (and NA must think about if it really worth doing it) then there is also peace there. So only Europe is an obvious threat, however as we have already discussed, Europe and NA get this battle over early. No one is coming in.

Finally therefore, NA has the ability (with a bit of luck) to do the 30 round sweep and it also is a great place to sit it out if the game is heading for a 60-70 round battle as it is nigh on unbeatable if forted correctly. NA is therefore 3rd.

[Mr Changsha]

Reading through the numerous strategy guides currently being developed in the ad-hoc group, it is apparent that it is often the mere technicalities of Risk play under discussion, rather than the essential, fundamental strategies that can lead to victory in a hard fought game. Those with access might consider AA Fitz's aborted attempt (after my own) to create a guide to cover 2.1. As he himself admitted, he could write a book on 2.1, yet found himself attempting to condense a very deep topic indeed into a bullet point form. The arguments with Bald Adonis rise from the fact that it is ludicrous to even think that a map with as much depth as 2.1 (as well as the many styles that can be played on it very effectively) could be written in bullet point form. Hence, the rather petty disagreements. Too much, far too much was left unsaid by AA Fitz, hence his opponent was able to exploit GAPS in AA Fitz's prose. I don't doubt AA Fitz could write a very nice little book on 2.1 strategy and I hope he now understands my decision to abandon my own guide for that group. There is a place for brevity in many a situation, however looking for it in a strategy guide seems, to me at least, to be a mistake. But then again, god forbid we talk up to our reader and assume he or she has a good education, a broadened mind and an attention span greater than your average five year old on the sugar. AA Fitz, if you would like to post your thoughts on 2.1 in this thread then you are most welcome to. Some chap will eventually write the 'official' guide to 2.1 and, if they are warm-hearted enough, they may decide to link this thread to it.

So my guide will continue to meander around the World 2.1 board in no particular rush or hurry and will continue to assume the reader can manage an 800 word text over their morning coffee.

Having considered the relative merits of Europe, Africa (Game 3928869 is a good and current example how to build Africa into something viable) and North America, we now come to Asia. There are a few key points to take into account and we will look at them in no particular order. The first concerns the most important territory in the continent and one of the most crucial territories on the whole map - that of China. China is the basis of the whole Asian position and the player in it has the power (once the bonus is held) to invade his two main neighbours (India/Russia) as quickly as the US can gain the whole of North America. Also in China's favour is that in a typical 8 man game it is unlikely that there will be seperate players in Russia, India and China. So assume a strong China that, at worst, must defeat one other player to gain those three bonus areas. Three bonus areas that add up to an additional 11 troops not including extra territories no less... The second player is also more likely to be in India rather than Russia, as the five border Russia is something of a nightmare on the board and something of a last resort position too. So if China does have competition from an Indian player it can either attempt to defeat India quickly, or take Russia and wait ten rounds, before either forcing the India player out or taking India by force. However, such a position is certainly on the pessimistic side. Once China is formed (say round 3) other players tend to move away from the fight. China simply has too many strategic advantages over Russia and India. So assume China/Russia/India on round 9 - 12.

However, the budding Chinese empire may turn it's back on Russia and instead aim for that juicy spot Australasia. We won't go into this fight too much now (again, one of AA Fitz's books could be written on this fight alone), however whether China pushes for Australasia or not is probably the most important decision the player involved will have to make through the whole game. He must consider if it is split or whole, how fast Indonesia is being taken, if he wants to make a deal over Thailand/Phillipines and turn his fire elsewhere, or if he wants to take it for the Australasia/China/India (maybe Russia) position. It is a very good position and represents the best way for Asia to expand into a game-winning position relatively early in the game. All players should be, at the very least, looking to expand from Asia in this way.

The alternative route is to accept another player in Australasia and look to block him in over 30 or more rounds, while also looking to develop elsewhere. The options are actually quite simple. The player can either push to North America or take the Middle East. Assuming there is an established North America the best option (assuming the player cannot win the war quickly and effectively) is to accept a rough truce over Sakha/Alaska and Taiwan/Hawaii. One of the advantages of leaving Australasia alone is that it helps to contain North America (3 way stalemate) thus allowing the player to push West. So to the Middle East it is. When looking at the Middle East, remember that truly holding it also involves owning Moskva. The correct play (usually) would be to take and hold Iran and Moskva first in strength before pushing through the Middle East. Why? Because by doing so it leaves the player with a mere 4 borders - Sakha, China (it defends the South from behind quite effectively), Moskva and Iran. Once Moskva is broken it will be war with Europe. However, Europe is beatable if just left with Western Europe and Scandinavia while our Asian player mops up the full Asia continent to achieve 26 a turn. Finally with regards to the Middle East, notice the strategic value of Iraq and arm it up as its real usefulness requires you to do so.

To conclude, I would rate Asia as a (possibly surprisingly) 1st. One large China force has the ability to hold Russia, China and India alone and this fact alone makes it an incredibly useful spot. Because China can usually develop quicker than the Australia player, the player will, more often than not, have the option to spread South and create a real game winning position early in the game. Finally, the player always has the option to bottle Australasia up and spread West into the Middle East and then into Europe or Africa before dealing with Australasia for the big finish.

[AAFitz]

I understood your reason for leaving immediately...and my reason for leaving was the same in the end...my original guide was longer than any four of the other guides, and covered only 1v1s at that point. the guide in the suggested format was not going to be a strategy guide at all, it really was more of a description of the map...so I simply wasnt going to put my name on it. I think it was the suggestion that I should perhaps use the doodle strategy guide as an example of how to write the world guide that really pointed out how silly the whole argument was( I think doodle is smaller than europe on world 2.1...to suggest that the guide be the same, or really that there even is any strategy on doodle in comparison, was just too much to take)....besides... I enjoy my win rate on world, I spent a lot of time developing my strategies...which Ive had some fun and won some tourney medals proving...

I wrote an actual strategy guide for a relative beginner, to read through quickly and be able to compete very easily on world 2.1 on the next game... its nearly the same guide I use when teaching new partners on dubs, with which Ive shown many, and who many were some of the top players on the site...some accept it right away...others dont, until we keep winning, and after a game, or three tops nearly all come around...they all use it to varying degrees...and others use it exactly(hint...we won 3 tourneys together). I do admit, it didnt mention which territories connected to other territories, or highlight some territories in different colors, or point out that some connected to may territories...since really most of that is obvious by simply looking at the map..and also since I know in the end they really dont matter...but it was the most overall guide for winning the most on world, especially on the settings I usually choose, especially for some new to the map, or to the site.

I even posted it in here, but decided to keep it to myself in the end. I simply made it too easy easy to understand and follow, and so basic, that almost any player could follow the basics and succeed on it immediately... I woudnt post this if I didnt know it to be true...but even since Ive played many games on it, and finished 4 tourneys against some serious teams...so far I won all of them, but I may not win the fifth...tough to say. Ive also watched and analyzed how the other players played, and was almost always able to guess the winners early on, as much as anything from how they were playing.

I posted it all, and spent quite a bit of time defending it against someone who had played it a full 20 times...I beat that same person in a rather long duel too...even after having gone second a good number of times more. Of course, those were only 1v1s, which I dont give much merit to anyways... I actually happened to check recently to, and at one point, I had won 36 times in a row on trips on my settings...surely some never had a chance, but still...Im fairly confident the system works...

Im sorry I was convinced to delete the whole thing, but now I dont have much time, and almost only play on world 2.1 now..for I feel its the most fair, and fun map on CC....until a bigger one comes out..

Thank you for the respect you showed towards my efforts here, but I am sorry I cant post anything right now.