Have been playing on and off for a couple of years, currently back at it again. Yours is the first youtube video that ive watched, Never imagined that a Video on a Risk match would be this entertaining to watch . And to have the inner commentary of a really good player is very educational to my game. I play exclusively on Fixed Classic 4-5 player matches so this video was great for me. I do actually have a similar play style to yours but the way you grow your stack in siberia and Mongolia is a ballsy strategy but it definitely worked this time. Great Vid again
I don't get the blue player. He makes enemies with you as he could get Europe for free but decides to strengthen black player. As you turned in cards and black player was guarding Australia with only 10 troops, you might ve tried conquering it to leave him with South America. But the bot might ve been dangerous afterwards. I usually prefer north America over Australia though
The double edged sword I wield of making so much content means that a lot of people know a whole lot more about me then I do about them. I'm guessing that he was confident I wouldn't retaliate.
@@petkras that's how 99% of the stale positions end. Someone has to do something, and it very rarely leaves them world domination. They would have to act on a big blunder. As Pete mentioned, the best way for them is to group up on him. Preferably on the same turn.
Some where around 28:28 black needed to move its 82 SA stack north on a fortifty. It then takes NA on the next turn and holds in Alaska. You have the troops to crush the stack and take it back, but if you do, you are too weak to hold against red or blue making a move. Black is also then left in Aus, and neither red or blue would invest the cost to take aus at that moment in the game, so even if you counter-sucide, black doesn't die before you. I don't know that the play wins black the game, but what other play could there be?
I agree, I felt the same thing. Also at 17:26 when red breaks into black. Why not take an extra territory, say "I'm sorry, attack white" and then move back. That would have open up for black to retake and head into NA. That would also have forced Petes hand a little bit.
Late reply i know. But i just watched the vid. I think Black did exactly the right thing. Trying to keep Red out of Asia and provoking him into clashing with Blue. However, she also had to be carefull with that as Red did notice this provocation and also went against her when he broke SA. And there was literally nothing she could do against Pete besides hoping that Blue would suicide into him. Which didnt happen after Blue did the best thing he could do in his position and that was taking #3. The only thing which could ve lost Pete the game would ve been Black and Blue teaming up against him. But we all know how this usually goes... Player 1: "Attack him!" Player 2: "Yeah, ill take on that threatening 1 there of him. Now you do strike the big stacks!" Player 1 after also taking a 1: "I want YOU to strike the big stacks!" And thats how the leading players often take the win. Cause everyone else hopes someone else does the heavy-lifting.
I like Black's play, playing for 2nd. Red is weak, Blue is impatiently taking territories in Asia repeatedly that only reduce his troop count. Secures more points w/ 2nd
When I get NA right away, I ally EU by default. I only have 3 borders they have 5. I offer them to leave greenland/ iceland unfortified and I‘ve never seen a EU player that didn‘t appreciate this.
I like fixed card, but I wish there was some tweak that could be made to prevent these stalemates. Maybe you rank up for getting bounties? I get bored in the stalemates as well and will make an effort to shake up the board, which is rewarded with.. everyone else doing nothing. I mean I get why people do it from a gameplay perspective. But god it's boring.
It's structural to the game. Game timers or kill timers have also been suggested in addition to bounty points. We use bounties in tournaments to create and incentive to help break stalemates. Another thing I've been enjoying doing is playing in VC more competitively. A little more communication can go a long way to breaking a stalemate.
@@TheKillPeteStrategy my entire risk game happens when I talk to people. When I play risk on the board, I kickass, risk in vc? Great at it, second I’m sitting behind the computer alone, die so quick
There needs to be a progressive version where cards ramp up slower so that continent and total territory bonuses are still relevant. I used to play with card sets starting at 4 and then +1 each additional set with my brothers many years ago, but that is probably too slow, as our games also took hours.
At 25:29, I don’t think blue was bored. I’m pretty sure he was deliberately opening reds stack while making it appear like he was just annihilating single stacks.
Super new to upper level Risk. It seems to me that Red missed their opportunity to shift into a winning position around 18:44. I might have started consolidating troops in the western most territory of Africa immediately after blue completed their soft guard. They would have consolidated 49 troops and could then drive straight up through Europe, to Greenland, and then plop down in Alaska. It's super aggressive, but with the 5 cards red had at the time, they could have been just about as large as Pete's 50 stack, then slowly took over NA. Thoughts?
I'm usually scared to be first place in these sorts of games; it sometimes makes you the target! What number advantage were you originally aiming for before you were going to move to the Chinese two front strategy?
I don't really think of it in terms of numbers as much as ratios If it's an end game with three players once Im big enough to kill one of them and go into a fair 1v1 with the other I'll take it and trust my ability in the endgame.
Immensely entertaining video's, love you Pete. I would love to compete too, but dont know how to go about it. Where do i go to, and sign up? Do i need to download or buy something? What site do i go to, etc. Could you please explain it in detail for dummy's (like me lol)....
Sorry in advance for the long comment, but it looks like you respond to all of them so I'm going to take the opportunity to ask a question. I've pretty much always been a fan of this game, and also pretty much only ever played OTB. After watching this play out, it seems like this isn't a very good game to play competitively at all. My reasoning is that in this video, there were 30-40 turns of everybody trading the same few territories to earn cards while you were growing your armies slightly faster than everybody else was. I was watching a whole lot of nothing basically. There was the odd time when someone would "break their alliance" and just poke their head into somebody else's bonus, but the other person would immediately just take back and do the same to them so that it's an "even trade." Either way, It was clear that with enough time you would have taken the victory unless they teamed up against you. That of course didn't happen because one of the other players just expedited the end of the game by killing one of the other players, and basically himself in the process. You had a solid 60 troop lead on the newly established 2nd place opponent, so you were able to win on that exact turn. I just feel like the majority of games will end with this very similar result. The early-mid game seems to always be an exciting combination of tactics and strategy, but once everybody gets settled into their setup, it's simply a draw until something unorthodox happens. So I guess I have more than 1 question for you now that I think about it. 1. Is my analysis accurate? 2. How do you find enjoyment in a tactics/strategy game with very little tactics/strategy involved? It just seems like once you have the basics down it's just a matter of not messing up and finding decent dice rolls in the early game.
A lot of fixed games play out in a lot of different ways. It's a strategically deep format. Risk in general has a wide variety of modes so there's lots to learn and keep me interested.
I don't think I've seen any games you post with big mistakes (players blocking their own big armies or completely messing up a split for examples). My question is how many games do you play before you get a game good enough to post? Especially in the public lobbies I would think it would take quite sometime.
Sure. I don't have an analysis per se but this video goes over a number of different top players' opinions on how to fix it. th-cam.com/video/5L5kXZUiLi0/w-d-xo.html
So, in a perfect play situation, would this game have been a draw in the end? I mean the strongest player would never have been able to take out the weakest without weakening themselves too much compared to the remaining player. Or does something always happen in the long run?
The problem you're bringing up is ultimately one of intersubjectivity. If nobody quits and everyone plays optimally the way the game ends is people 'agreeing' to target someone until they die with the mutual goal of reachibg the end of the game.
@@TheKillPeteStrategy don't defenders have a higher chance to win? given that if they roll the same numbers defender wins. Or does this game have different rules?
@@NoOne-tg3xb the attacker rolls 3 dice and the defenders 2 Highest pairs are checked The defender wins in a tie The odds skew in favour of the attacker.
Blue really should have gone in and hollowed out Red's territory. Leaving just the one stack. Red would then have to retake all that territory, and wouldn't get the bonus, and Blue could have just kept doing this time and again. Red wasn't really in a position to retaliate.
I would've taken NA from you when you were protecting Asia with three stacks. (You wouldn't have been able to retake if I piled in Alaska without losing all your troops). It wouldn't have cost more than 10 troops to do and you would've been trapped in a weird situation. Red for example should've broke to get NA and give up Africa to someone else, and the main reason would've been because you had a strong lead but were not protecting NA at all.
@@TheKillPeteStrategy I think red just happened to be in a fourth place anyway situation. I do love that instead of breaking NA red went for taking out third place player instead though. I think everyone was too cozy in accepting how the board was and didn't move fast enough to try and create a new parity.
Sorry again for not being able to ready up. :/ Pretty embarassing lol. On the bright side, at least Ive found out how to avoid that issue in the future
Have been playing on and off for a couple of years, currently back at it again. Yours is the first youtube video that ive watched, Never imagined that a Video on a Risk match would be this entertaining to watch . And to have the inner commentary of a really good player is very educational to my game. I play exclusively on Fixed Classic 4-5 player matches so this video was great for me. I do actually have a similar play style to yours but the way you grow your stack in siberia and Mongolia is a ballsy strategy but it definitely worked this time. Great Vid again
Cheers Brandon! Welcome to the show.
44:50 that devil face got me🤣
Already learned so much from watching ur vids, keep up the good work❤️
That's what I'm here for my friend!
"red is going to have to do something creative" well said :D
The red player made the climax so worth the wait 😂👏
I enjoyed!
its been 3 days ive been addicted to your videos
Eyyy
Glad you're enjoying!
Good game Pete, thanks for sharing. Thanks to your videos I am On my way! To become a Grand master this month. Greeting from 🇵🇦!
I like to watch your videos when I'm eating something 😁 so please don't stop making the videos As long as you're enjoying uploading, thank you 🙏
Definitely. As long as I'm having fun I'm gonna keep going. So glad you're enjoying the show.
HA same, every time I watch a video im eating 😭…. I eat alot
I don't get the blue player. He makes enemies with you as he could get Europe for free but decides to strengthen black player. As you turned in cards and black player was guarding Australia with only 10 troops, you might ve tried conquering it to leave him with South America. But the bot might ve been dangerous afterwards. I usually prefer north America over Australia though
The double edged sword I wield of making so much content means that a lot of people know a whole lot more about me then I do about them. I'm guessing that he was confident I wouldn't retaliate.
@@TheKillPeteStrategy never thought of that
If I was blue I would put a few more in Iceland to keep you honest.
I think he just got bored, and accepted losing in order to make something happen.
@@petkras that's how 99% of the stale positions end. Someone has to do something, and it very rarely leaves them world domination.
They would have to act on a big blunder.
As Pete mentioned, the best way for them is to group up on him. Preferably on the same turn.
This is the earliest I’ve ever been to a Pete vid. Gonna rewatch back to basics after this.
Well done!
Some where around 28:28 black needed to move its 82 SA stack north on a fortifty. It then takes NA on the next turn and holds in Alaska. You have the troops to crush the stack and take it back, but if you do, you are too weak to hold against red or blue making a move. Black is also then left in Aus, and neither red or blue would invest the cost to take aus at that moment in the game, so even if you counter-sucide, black doesn't die before you.
I don't know that the play wins black the game, but what other play could there be?
I agree, I felt the same thing. Also at 17:26 when red breaks into black. Why not take an extra territory, say "I'm sorry, attack white" and then move back. That would have open up for black to retake and head into NA. That would also have forced Petes hand a little bit.
Late reply i know. But i just watched the vid. I think Black did exactly the right thing. Trying to keep Red out of Asia and provoking him into clashing with Blue. However, she also had to be carefull with that as Red did notice this provocation and also went against her when he broke SA. And there was literally nothing she could do against Pete besides hoping that Blue would suicide into him. Which didnt happen after Blue did the best thing he could do in his position and that was taking #3.
The only thing which could ve lost Pete the game would ve been Black and Blue teaming up against him.
But we all know how this usually goes...
Player 1: "Attack him!"
Player 2: "Yeah, ill take on that threatening 1 there of him. Now you do strike the big stacks!"
Player 1 after also taking a 1: "I want YOU to strike the big stacks!"
And thats how the leading players often take the win. Cause everyone else hopes someone else does the heavy-lifting.
I like Black's play, playing for 2nd. Red is weak, Blue is impatiently taking territories in Asia repeatedly that only reduce his troop count. Secures more points w/ 2nd
The USA has 3 boarders. You didn't have to defend 3 borders the entire game. That's lucky
When I get NA right away, I ally EU by default.
I only have 3 borders they have 5.
I offer them to leave greenland/ iceland unfortified and I‘ve never seen a EU player that didn‘t appreciate this.
Keep up the good work! Love your vids!
I will! Thank you Jochem.
I like fixed card, but I wish there was some tweak that could be made to prevent these stalemates. Maybe you rank up for getting bounties?
I get bored in the stalemates as well and will make an effort to shake up the board, which is rewarded with.. everyone else doing nothing.
I mean I get why people do it from a gameplay perspective. But god it's boring.
It's structural to the game. Game timers or kill timers have also been suggested in addition to bounty points. We use bounties in tournaments to create and incentive to help break stalemates.
Another thing I've been enjoying doing is playing in VC more competitively. A little more communication can go a long way to breaking a stalemate.
@@TheKillPeteStrategy my entire risk game happens when I talk to people. When I play risk on the board, I kickass, risk in vc? Great at it, second I’m sitting behind the computer alone, die so quick
@@magnusblitz2311 I see it as the higher order skill. Ability to negotiate an advantageous position > ability to play a given position optimally.
There needs to be a progressive version where cards ramp up slower so that continent and total territory bonuses are still relevant. I used to play with card sets starting at 4 and then +1 each additional set with my brothers many years ago, but that is probably too slow, as our games also took hours.
At 25:29, I don’t think blue was bored. I’m pretty sure he was deliberately opening reds stack while making it appear like he was just annihilating single stacks.
The hand flourish while finishing off the final opponent is getting more and more pronounced through the weeks.
Really nice watching u man
Awesome to hear! Enjoy the show Satario :)
Super new to upper level Risk.
It seems to me that Red missed their opportunity to shift into a winning position around 18:44. I might have started consolidating troops in the western most territory of Africa immediately after blue completed their soft guard. They would have consolidated 49 troops and could then drive straight up through Europe, to Greenland, and then plop down in Alaska. It's super aggressive, but with the 5 cards red had at the time, they could have been just about as large as Pete's 50 stack, then slowly took over NA.
Thoughts?
bro you've grown a lot in the last two weeks lol
Why do you not put any troops in Mexico? I'm new to the game and trying to learn.
I'm usually scared to be first place in these sorts of games; it sometimes makes you the target!
What number advantage were you originally aiming for before you were going to move to the Chinese two front strategy?
I don't really think of it in terms of numbers as much as ratios
If it's an end game with three players once Im big enough to kill one of them and go into a fair 1v1 with the other I'll take it and trust my ability in the endgame.
@@TheKillPeteStrategy makes sense
When Pete is away, the Blue will play ;)
😍
Red got mad good rolls to not only beat blues stack, but have enough left to finish him off
Patience break the deadlock!
Yes Sir!
Immensely entertaining video's, love you Pete. I would love to compete too, but dont know how to go about it. Where do i go to, and sign up? Do i need to download or buy something? What site do i go to, etc. Could you please explain it in detail for dummy's (like me lol)....
I will promote the next tournament when sign ups open.
Sorry in advance for the long comment, but it looks like you respond to all of them so I'm going to take the opportunity to ask a question.
I've pretty much always been a fan of this game, and also pretty much only ever played OTB. After watching this play out, it seems like this isn't a very good game to play competitively at all. My reasoning is that in this video, there were 30-40 turns of everybody trading the same few territories to earn cards while you were growing your armies slightly faster than everybody else was. I was watching a whole lot of nothing basically. There was the odd time when someone would "break their alliance" and just poke their head into somebody else's bonus, but the other person would immediately just take back and do the same to them so that it's an "even trade." Either way, It was clear that with enough time you would have taken the victory unless they teamed up against you. That of course didn't happen because one of the other players just expedited the end of the game by killing one of the other players, and basically himself in the process. You had a solid 60 troop lead on the newly established 2nd place opponent, so you were able to win on that exact turn.
I just feel like the majority of games will end with this very similar result. The early-mid game seems to always be an exciting combination of tactics and strategy, but once everybody gets settled into their setup, it's simply a draw until something unorthodox happens.
So I guess I have more than 1 question for you now that I think about it.
1. Is my analysis accurate?
2. How do you find enjoyment in a tactics/strategy game with very little tactics/strategy involved? It just seems like once you have the basics down it's just a matter of not messing up and finding decent dice rolls in the early game.
A lot of fixed games play out in a lot of different ways. It's a strategically deep format.
Risk in general has a wide variety of modes so there's lots to learn and keep me interested.
I can't believe the timing of red to break Europe. I wanted to see if blue actually were gonna go on with his threat
I don't think I've seen any games you post with big mistakes (players blocking their own big armies or completely messing up a split for examples). My question is how many games do you play before you get a game good enough to post? Especially in the public lobbies I would think it would take quite sometime.
I post most of my games. Almost every time I try to shoot a show it makes it to TH-cam. More than 90% of the time.
Do you have some video where you explain how the rank work? (or tips on how to rank up faster xD)
Sure. I don't have an analysis per se but this video goes over a number of different top players' opinions on how to fix it.
th-cam.com/video/5L5kXZUiLi0/w-d-xo.html
What is the advantage in holding China and Ural vs your earlier position? It's 17 territories vs 15. It gives the same number of troops.
It reduces the available space for the rest of the players which can potentially force the action
So, in a perfect play situation, would this game have been a draw in the end? I mean the strongest player would never have been able to take out the weakest without weakening themselves too much compared to the remaining player. Or does something always happen in the long run?
The problem you're bringing up is ultimately one of intersubjectivity.
If nobody quits and everyone plays optimally the way the game ends is people 'agreeing' to target someone until they die with the mutual goal of reachibg the end of the game.
Why is there a "good neighbor". Lol
Great video !! I have a question, how did the red killed the blue and it was 201 vs 219 and 219 is bigger?
Thx
The way the dice work in risk there is an edge to the attacker all things being equal.
209 v 219 has a very high chance of being successful.
@@TheKillPeteStrategy don't defenders have a higher chance to win? given that if they roll the same numbers defender wins. Or does this game have different rules?
@@NoOne-tg3xb the attacker rolls 3 dice and the defenders 2
Highest pairs are checked
The defender wins in a tie
The odds skew in favour of the attacker.
Blue really should have gone in and hollowed out Red's territory. Leaving just the one stack. Red would then have to retake all that territory, and wouldn't get the bonus, and Blue could have just kept doing this time and again. Red wasn't really in a position to retaliate.
Hell, Blue could have slipped into South America and hollowed out Black there, too, and still been able to return home and be relatively safe.
41:47 -- exactly like that, about time.
@@ChristopherLaHaise yea i got bored and needed to eat and i didn't think he would suicide
My only option to download appears to be Steam, but the 'I am not a Robot' is eternal - any ideas people?
nice video
Thanks Armin!
I would've taken NA from you when you were protecting Asia with three stacks. (You wouldn't have been able to retake if I piled in Alaska without losing all your troops).
It wouldn't have cost more than 10 troops to do and you would've been trapped in a weird situation.
Red for example should've broke to get NA and give up Africa to someone else, and the main reason would've been because you had a strong lead but were not protecting NA at all.
Does that weird situation include me killing myself and you and giving the game to someone else?
@@TheKillPeteStrategy I think red just happened to be in a fourth place anyway situation. I do love that instead of breaking NA red went for taking out third place player instead though.
I think everyone was too cozy in accepting how the board was and didn't move fast enough to try and create a new parity.
Is this game available for ps4?
I think there is a version of Risk for ps4 this one is on steam and mobile.
You have the power to give 2nd place to people who help you out, yet time and time again I've seen you give them 3rd. Why is this?
Sorry again for not being able to ready up. :/ Pretty embarassing lol. On the bright side, at least Ive found out how to avoid that issue in the future
No worries. We'll get a game in soon I'm sure.
I don't understand the endgame, why does everyone just stack up on troops? Why not just end the game?
How would you do it?
If only this NA strategy worked consistently!
It's the one everyone has to watch out for so they don't wanna let you win by using it
hahah i just saw this i was the blue player i got bored and needed to eat and i didn't think red was gonna suicide.
Lol!
GG man
rip to china changing governments more often in that single game than in its last two thousand years of existence
i never play 120 sec turn could u imagine a 5min turn time lol