RISK Domination IV: Finished!

[Gustaf]

All of it in Massachusetts.

[Gustaf]

2 in Iowa.  One in Tennessee.

Just so you know, you're allowed to post your attacking orders right away too...it kind of saves time since the turns take long enough as it is.

[Gustaf]

I'll never really quite understand why people have a tendency to spread their reinforcements across multiple disconnected states... that pretty much makes it a certainty that they will not win; rather, they will merely serve as a hindrance for the advancement of those who don't do that.

Not necessarily. And the first time we played I don't remember you doing very well either.

Jas: I wont comment much on an ongoing game, espcially one that I'm in myself, but if I could pick any position on the board it would definitely be Fezzy's. There are really no strong concentrations along his border, we're all crowded into the East.

[Gustaf]

I'll never really quite understand why people have a tendency to spread their reinforcements across multiple disconnected states... that pretty much makes it a certainty that they will not win; rather, they will merely serve as a hindrance for the advancement of those who don't do that.

Not necessarily. And the first time we played I don't remember you doing very well either.

IIRC, Gabu was doing just fine until Yates - for reasons known only to himself - decided to perform a kamikaze dive right into the heart of Gabu's empire.  Both armies were weakened so badly that you picked them both off at the same time on your next turn.

I never said anything else...my point was simply that there isn't a single way to victory. It depends very much on the circumstances.

[Gustaf]

I'll never really quite understand why people have a tendency to spread their reinforcements across multiple disconnected states... that pretty much makes it a certainty that they will not win; rather, they will merely serve as a hindrance for the advancement of those who don't do that.

Not necessarily. And the first time we played I don't remember you doing very well either.

Well sure you can still win if the other players self-destruct, but it still doesn't seem like a terribly good idea from a strategic standpoint.  You're screwed if you can't make a substantial foothold at the start, and while spreading your forces out doesn't ensure that that won't happen, it at the very least increases its likelihood.

Just look at the results from previous games:

RISK Domination I: Jas won, who loaded all of his guys in Alaska.

RISK Domination II: You won, and you loaded most of your guys in the Pacific.

RISK Domination III: You won, and you loaded most of your guys in Texas.

RISK Mission I: I won, and I loaded all of my guys in the Southeast.

RISK Mission II: Ernest won, and he loaded most of his guys in Texas.

RISK Capital I: Everett won, and she loaded all of her guys in Washington and Montana.

In fact, I can't find a single RISK game played on this forum in which someone won who didn't go down this route of initial deployments.

But that's because everyone here on the forum (until this game at least) pretty much played like that. In my second game it almost became ridiculous. As I recall it Jas, TN, Ernest and MAS all "loaded" their troops into one state. It's a kind of prisoners dilemma. If everyone else does it, you're better off doing it yourself too. I'll point out though that when I won the first time I put troops in every state I had. Basically, spreading out is better from a defensive stand-point while concentrating is better from an offensive stand point. It is usually better in Risk to be on the offense but it is occassionally better to be on defense.

[Gustaf]

Put all in MA and attack MA-->RI do or die. If I take it put minimum number of troops there and await further orders.

[Gustaf]

Really quick, I would like to predict a winner: Fezzy. The unity of his states and the location of his men allows him some serious opportunity.

I definitely agree with that assessment.

Now, attack MA-->ME-->NH-->VT as long as I have double-digit attacking armies and await further orders.

[Gustaf]

That was fast... :S Let's go Vermont-->New York as well and see where that leads us then.

[Gustaf]

Phew...Ok, now do New York-->Connecticut as long as I have 3 attacking. Put minimum number in Connecticut if I take it.

[Gustaf]

Wow, thanks Joe, good work on the dice there.

Tactical move all available from Rhode Island to Connecticut and end turn.

[Gustaf]

Ooo boy, Gustaf's not gonna be pleased.

No, the Gustaf is in a rage.

I'm basically just displeased with myself. This is one of the few times where I lose a Risk game solely due to my own ineptitude and not thanks to dice or weird moves by other players. This was the correct play by Lewis and I should have wiped him out on my turn instead of wasting myself on New England. But since that would have put me in a poor position I lulled myself into thinking I could get away with what I did. It wa a gamble that in retrospect was pretty bad.

[Gustaf]

Well, what can I say...really, Lewis setup put me in a very poor position. Wiping him out could have worked but in the long run I don't know that it would have helped. I hope he at least makes me proud and wins.

[Gustaf]

All Lewis really has to do is to leave Josh alone and allow for Josh to attack with the reinforcements he'll get from the Midwest. Then the game could be balanced out. Of course, if Lewis and Josh don't act in concert against Fezzy it's probably over. If I were Lewis I'd put my forces in one of the Dakotas and attack through Wyoming into Fezzy's area.

[Gustaf]

Still, Lewis definitely paved the way for Josh. If he puts all his forces in Iowa and goes all out he can easily cripple Fezzy by attacking in Lewis's footsteps. At least that's what I'd do.

[Gustaf]

Josh...why not attack through a path that could actually lead you to Fezzy
s vital states? Like South dakota for instance.

[Gustaf]

Don't you see that Fezzy will easily wipe you out next turn unless you get into the Southwest?

[Gustaf]

This honestly was just sad to see. Talk about giving a game away.

[Gustaf]

Sensei can actually do some good if puts his forces in Tennessee and attacks Missouri-Oklahoma-New Mexico.

[Gustaf]

Guys,

There's a very vague boundary between spectators providing general commentary on the state of play, and openly criticizing certain players for perceived mistakes or trying to influence them one way or another.  As you can imagine, the latter type of comments do not make things particularly fun for the players.

As vague as that definition is, nevertheless, I think that comments like these...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

... are of that latter type, and I'd really prefer it if they were left out of this game.

I think "guys", must have been a typo as every quote was from me. I'm sorry, I guess having been part of the game I felt more emotionally invested in it or something. Also, I thought, given previous discussions, that comments were very much allowed. I will refrain from influencing in the future (though I would like to note that no one has ever followed any recommendation I've given, so it hasn't affected anything so far).

Finally, congratulations to Fezzy. I'm sorry if I made you sweat with my comments, but I that's a reasonable price to pay for the win.

[Gustaf]

I must say, when I first saw your decisions Sensei, I was a bit wary, but the dice gods have surely shown in your favor, and you have set yourself up in a very positive situation. Well played.

I disagree though. Josh was pretty damaged already - weakening him further serves little purpose. The imperative should have been putting up some kind of defence against Fezzy, instead of moving the majority of his forces away from that frontier. But we'll see. Fezzy has so many options right now that predicting his next move is hard.

[Gustaf]

Before I carry out HW's latest orders, I need to say this.  I've received a second complaint from another player about the direction that the commentary from non-players has been taking.  Specifically; the criticism is increasingly unconstructive, and the 'tactical advice' is becoming more and more prejudicial, and seems more like browbeating.

I'm not going to start defining exactly what is acceptable and what is not, so I think it would probably be better if all commentary from those who aren't actually playing the game was kept out of this thread for now.

Thanks.

Now, THIS cannot be me. It feels good to not be alone.

[Gustaf]

If I cannot comment on this I have to just say that my head is exploding, because otherwise my head will explode.

[Gustaf]

Good job, Josh. I hope it wil pay off, but I suspect it wont. Right thing regardless, though.

[Gustaf]

I think he expect you to have cards and he wants Sensei to wipe you out first and get them so that he can then kill Sensei. Not that anything matters much at this stage of the game.

[Gustaf]

Woohoo!!  And by the way, all you spazzes, it's called manipulation.  I had everyone in that game wrapped around my finger except for Lewis and Gustaf.  Chill out, sheesh.  You'd think people so obsessed with every move in the game would at least know the first thing about it...is it really surprising that I used negotiation to get what I wanted?  You couldn't figure that out?  And it's really insulting to the other players that you just assumed they were too stupid to attack me when I have one unit in Texas or whatever.  They knew what they were doing, too.  Sorry, but I've been bursting since like, page 6 or something.  I really liked most of the commentary but a lot of it was just obnoxious and inconsiderate, particularly the posts with explicit plans of where, when, and how to attack me and the ones belittling other players for not following that exact advice.  Thanks Joe for a great game, and also thanks to HappyWarrior, Gustaf, Lewis, Josh, and Sensei for a lot of fun!

Fezzy, I don't think anyone had anything against your game play. I got stuck with unmanipulatiable Lewis, but otherwise I would have done the same. Where you're wrong is in saying that the others knew what they were doing...when an alliance benefits only one part the other should withdraw, that's all.