Initial layout - how important is it?

[eewilliams]

How important is the initial placement of your armies in your success rate? What is the value of your layout on your first turn? Can you give it a percent value?

[pancakemix]

I saw a screenshot once where a player started with SA and most of NA (Classic)

[john1099]

I determine my strategy based upon my drop.
I do not consider any drop poor, as it all depends on the players, not the drop

[DiM]

i'd say 25-75%.
it all depends on your opponents. for example a general with poor army placement should win against a noob with good placement but if the players are of fairly equal value the initial placement can go up to 75% importance.

in a recent game a player had the oportunity to take south america and australia in the first turn and dominate the game. poor player he did not take his chance and made some really huge mistakes and lost. if that was a general then it would have been game over in 3-4 turns.

then it also depends on the type of fortifications. i usualy play unlimited and sometimes people get all their terits linked. it's really easy to build a large army this way and take a continent in the first 2 rounds. while other people get all their terits scattered in odd places with absolutely no chance of getting a continent until later in the game. by that time the army gap is too big to make a comeback.

I do not consider any drop poor, as it all depends on the players, not the drop

if the players are equal in skill then the drop means everything. i'm also assuming all of them have decent rolls.


i play a lot with my friends on the real cardboard game and after some many years of playing together we know eachother very well and all have similar skills. the games are usually decided by the initial deployment or the dice. that's why we rarely play normal standard risk. there's not much surprise and in most cases we know from the start who's going to win. we mostly play nuclear risk mission risk or recently play on my aom map.

[poo-maker]

I picked 0-25%, i actually dont mind about my drop. As long as its relatively spread out. You're also usually screwed if noone goes for ausi, when you havent got a country in ausi.

[DAZMCFC]

i think the drop is very important if your one of the last to go and you have no links to any of your others. especially when you have 1 in aus and sa and they get taken out. also when you have say 3 in europe (especially a 3 or 4 player game) you will find it hard to hold on to that.

[Kahless]

What I hate most is getting most of my initial armies in large continents, that aren't going to be obtainable early on in the game.

[Molacole]

in standard it's not as big of a deal, but in team games wioth only two teams it usually has a big factor say about 40-65% with the dice being the dice and card cash ins being the rest of the factor.

If you have a complete shit start in a standard game you can just fort out of the way for people if somebody else is destined to gain a quick bonus to force them to burn troops out on keeping the power on their side. In the meantime you can sit back as their tempers flare towards each other and take advantage of the best opportunity available as soon as it comes your way. Usually with noobs this works great because they just keep attacking each other to proove a point while you just pick off territories with 1's and such while streangthening your borders. Some times this doesn't work with noobs because a super power usually emerges and the game is decided by the 3rd - 5th round...

in escilating games it doesn't matter where I start because I just try to build some type of bridge to my armies for a mass fort or something like that while I'm getting ready to eliminate somebody for cards.

Although if I get australia bonus reward in the second or third round I'll win every single time so depends a lot on the maps also.

[podge]

I think I've had more success when I don't have to try to get a conti. people tend to leave you alone and not see you as a threat while you slowly build on each territory you own. Let the others fight it out amongst themselves while I grow stronger.

[helmut]

i'd say 25-75%.
it all depends on your opponents. for example a general with poor army placement should win against a noob with good placement but if the players are of fairly equal value the initial placement can go up to 75% importance.

in a recent game a player had the oportunity to take south america and australia in the first turn and dominate the game. poor player he did not take his chance and made some really huge mistakes and lost. if that was a general then it would have been game over in 3-4 turns.

then it also depends on the type of fortifications. i usualy play unlimited and sometimes people get all their terits linked. it's really easy to build a large army this way and take a continent in the first 2 rounds. while other people get all their terits scattered in odd places with absolutely no chance of getting a continent until later in the game. by that time the army gap is too big to make a comeback.

I do not consider any drop poor, as it all depends on the players, not the drop

if the players are equal in skill then the drop means everything. i'm also assuming all of them have decent rolls.


i play a lot with my friends on the real cardboard game and after some many years of playing together we know eachother very well and all have similar skills. the games are usually decided by the initial deployment or the dice. that's why we rarely play normal standard risk. there's not much surprise and in most cases we know from the start who's going to win. we mostly play nuclear risk mission risk or recently play on my aom map.

You make some good points here DiM. I went with 25-50%

[jiminski]

It is quite important; i went 26-50%

For me the most important factor, regarding the level of its importance, is the card format.
A good board in Flat rate can be the opposite in Escalator and the starting board in Escalator is slightly less decisive.

[eewilliams]

I love this website!

[firth4eva]

or if you have 1 in oz and someone has the other three.

[Ham]

For some reason Iv noticed that on the older maps if I get bad position I can salvage the game and probably have a good chance of winning.

In the newer maps (with the exception fo teh phillipines) Iv found that everyone gets a foothold rather fast and if you are very seperated then your screwed.

[detlef]

I think I've had more success when I don't have to try to get a conti. people tend to leave you alone and not see you as a threat while you slowly build on each territory you own. Let the others fight it out amongst themselves while I grow stronger.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Depending on the players, getting hooked up out the gate can really suck because everyone goes after you. I've actually made a point of not bothering to go after anything, consolidate my forces, and grab easy cards for the first few rounds. 9 times of 10, I'm either in 1st or 2nd in total armies after the first 5 or so rounds. Meanwhile, nobody is going after me because there's little to gain attacking a 15-20 army country that isn't guarding anything. Then, when the time is ripe, you've got all your armies at your disposal rather than having them spread out defending borders.

Of course, if you get territory right away, that's likely the way to play it. However, I don't see that as an advantage at all. Thus, I voted 0-25%

[civver]

I think I've had more success when I don't have to try to get a conti. people tend to leave you alone and not see you as a threat while you slowly build on each territory you own. Let the others fight it out amongst themselves while I grow stronger.

I beg to differ. On British Isles, I had a lot of territories on Ireland, and I tried to hold it, despite being attacked several times. I won the game.

[Steel Panzer]

id say about 25%-50% it counts. if you have a good initial deployment you could easily win the game. i alwaysbase my tactic on my initial deployment.
an advise: always go where you have the most armies and go for the smaller continents, they are easily to protect ,dont go for asia even if you have 8 out of 12 territories go for oceania then expand

[miestersean]

I also went with 26-50%. I think factoring in opponents' moves, dice rolls, and cards (if you're in a card game) makes the deployment important, but not overwhelmingly so.

[Scott-Land]

i chose 0-25% -- i wish there were 0-10 %, i wouldve chosen that option. i play mostly in escalating games so this is in reference to those games. i think dropping to get SA or Aussie increases your chances of winning-- but you dont necessarily need a continent to win. as long as your drop doesnt shut you out of a continent then i consider it to be a good drop. thats why i would choose 0-10% just for those instances where you have no access to an opponent/ continent or vice versa.

[RobinJ]

I think I've had more success when I don't have to try to get a conti. people tend to leave you alone and not see you as a threat while you slowly build on each territory you own. Let the others fight it out amongst themselves while I grow stronger.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Depending on the players, getting hooked up out the gate can really suck because everyone goes after you. I've actually made a point of not bothering to go after anything, consolidate my forces, and grab easy cards for the first few rounds. 9 times of 10, I'm either in 1st or 2nd in total armies after the first 5 or so rounds. Meanwhile, nobody is going after me because there's little to gain attacking a 15-20 army country that isn't guarding anything. Then, when the time is ripe, you've got all your armies at your disposal rather than having them spread out defending borders.

Of course, if you get territory right away, that's likely the way to play it. However, I don't see that as an advantage at all. Thus, I voted 0-25%

Agree almost entirely but I do believe army placement is relatively important as it is nice to have somewhere to build from, whether it be in an attempt to go for a continent or not. Thus, I voted 26-50%

[Shadic]

Stuff like Game 452891 wouldn't happen if the drop didn't have a huge amount to do with the game.

In my experience, getting dropped Australia/near Australia seems to be for the best. Even if you don't have it at first, the ability to consolidate your forces and just wipe somebody out of there after they've struggled to take it is totally worth it.

Excluding terrible players, drops and dice seem to be about 75-80% of this game... And yet, I love it.

[plysprtz]

it all depends on drop but not really you could get luck then get cocky in an escalating game and lose but then again i have had some impossible games to come back from because i did not have a single connecting army within 2 attacking armies so yea most of it is depending on place

[fishhook]

people who start with a continent (like oceania on the classic map) have an inbuilt advantage and a stratagy layed out there ready infront of them.
Its the luck of the game though - just like the dice

[RobinJ]

people who start with a continent (like oceania on the classic map) have an inbuilt advantage and a stratagy layed out there ready infront of them.
Its the luck of the game though - just like the dice

On the other hand, it is asking for the rest to attack you

[Luke035]

Game 440999, I started out owning all of the Midlands in the Ireland map and I was the first to play. It gave me a heck of an advantage to get that bonus right off before the other players could hack away at it. That didn't WIN me the game, because I ultimately had to relinquish that control and work my way south to only have one active front. I also had to make use of other players' cards as I elliminated them.

It was still more a factor of my dice rolls and ongoing strategy than initial placement that won me the game.