App Store risk players think they good but it’s so easy board is much harder even harder than that is axis and Allie’s risk players get humbled when looking at the axis and Allie’s board😂
I'm getting together with friends to play later so I wanted to brush up on my strategies and this was perfect! I used to play on the app so alot of the things you said reminded me of learning those lessons. Thanks for the video!
myself and a group of lads were unemployed one summer ( maybe two) many years ago Risk was the game of choice , we played for money the fights we had the betrayals the alliances all good fun 30 years later ...
Ill reply to myself. Mind you im not talking about the AI or other random BS on that line on a PC game or such i understand the AI can be dumb at times.
After a some rounds I had Australia and North America. I took over South America and that all by just attacking one of my friends I played with. The other one felt comfortable with me on his borders by then because I also let him controll Africa without bugging him. The other had Europe and both of them fought for Asia Then after stocking up a few rounds I rolled over borders, took away their Europe and Africa Bonus. Marched into Asia and took major parts away from them closing my borders to all Continental Territory's. And then I rolled over both of them leaving them no chance. They both where too focused on Asia. To their defence, they didn't even fear me before the game and they played badly. I love that Game
What’s cool is the special editions use the same basic features and gameplay just a few tweaks. Star Wars is really the only one that uses it’s own mechanics
The other thing about North America is how useful it is for the occasional tactical play. With three access points for defending Greenland and two for Alaska and Mexico.
Depends on deployment but I use different strategies based on the starting positions I look at where I have the most clusters and try to manage them into two or three armies to take a continent then reinforce my borders and expand slowly into Asia if I hold Australia or North America if I'm in Africa I will try to invade South America and vica versa if I am a pkayer with no continent I keep all my armies together in one large force and wait for a chance to invade a continent North Asia or Ukraine is a good hiding place for that strategy or Afghanistan and perhaps the middle east
Progressive cards don't override the strategy, it changes it, continents no longer matter much, you want to be spread out in a few locations, be hard to kill, but make it easy for you to kill others. Make kills only when it will put you at or over 5 cards, so that you can trade in again and do some more killing
A friend plays an almost undefeated strategy, which is attack until he can not attack. Which is hard to beat, because after his turn it is difficult to take back territories with exhausted forces. Then next turn he gets way more troops through the 3 divide system and dominates. Is this a factor that ruins playing Risk, or is it possible to survive against it and to contradict the strategy?
Beard TheDog First Answer:No. Second Answer: Yes. Provided other players take quick, strategically significant action to address the emerging situation it can be stopped quite effectively.
How I counter people like that is strengthen somewhere little with 2 or less places to be attacked from like South America or Australia then when you have that you get a troop bonus from the continent and you can become more powerful
Honestly that strategy sounds awful. If I understand correctly, you mean that at the end of his turn he has no more than ONE ARMY IN EVERY TERRITORY HE OWNS. So long as you do not employ the same strategy he doesn't stand a chance. he would never be able to break down a reasonable, hell even a flimsy defense unless he gets cards, which you can prevent by effectively defending.
I played Risk a lot until I discovered real strategy games such as Axis & Allies, Shogun or Conquest of the Empire. A game that is based so much on dice rolling and good luck with cards for resupply is hardly a strategy game. I would consider different types of units, logistics and movement limits as essential parts of any strategy game. Thus Risk is a lot of fun, but definitely not a strategy game.
very interesting. During Covid-19 lockdowns I decided to make my own version of Risk. Decided to incorporate a handful of things from Axis/Allies, and one or two things from a couple of other games. Created a larger game board ( 36x48 inches) so naval units and Bombers have room to roam, and using prexisting oil fields so players can pump oil and sell oil for money to manufacture more military hardware in their factories.
Well it was in school so people ended up playing for me since I wasn’t able to play with my classes and I ended up being the first out but I’m surprised I stayed in that long.
I just bought the game, but I have one question can I move some units from my own adjacent territories to attack, after an attack for example, I have attacked Asia from North America and now want to move some army back to N.A to attack Europe at the same turn can I do it?
I'm afraid not. You could move them back at the end of your turn and then attack with them next turn, but you can't attack, move them back, and attack again on the same turn. Think about it this way-you do all your attacking in Phase 1. When you are completely done with attacking, you move on to Phase 2. During Phase 2, you can pick one territory and move extra units from there to an adjacent territory. However, you can't go back to Phase 1 because Phase 1 has already been completed.
@Jonathan Meyer When you say "defend from" or "defended from", do you mean that a territory/continent is defending against opposing territories or that it just defends another territory/continent? I ask this because i'm a little confused on how taking Ukraine with Asia will benefit, I mean would taking Ukraine just have more attackers against you than you supporting your defense for Asia? By the way, great job finding ways to exploit this game, I learned plenty of tips from you, thanks.
Hi Jon! I'm glad you enjoyed this video. When it comes to defending Asia (or any continent really), the fewer territories you have to defend simultaneously, the more concentrated you can make your armies and the more difficult it will be for your rivals to take a piece of your continent. Let's walk through a real life example in which you control Australia and Asia. Rival players could attempt to prevent you from getting 7 armies for controlling Asia on your next turn by attacking in Ural, Afghanistan, Middle East and/or Kamchatka. You don't know which direction the attack/s will come from. Let's say you have 24 armies which could be used so you decide you try to defend everything equally, 6 armies in each. However, if you take Ukraine now you can only be attacked from three territories rather than from four-Ukraine, Middle East and Kamchatka. With Ukraine in your pocket, you can still defend all your border territories equally, but with 8 armies in each rather than 6 making it that much harder for a rival to break through your front.
Okay, but what if taking Ukraine leads into consequences, say your European rival has built up more troops in Scandinavia than your Ukraine and the goes for an attack on you right after you've just took Ukraine. Would it be best to wait for your rival to attack you somewhere else than cause this problem for attacking Ukraine? Would it be sort of like Chess where I take a pawn with my Knight but then my Knight gets taken by a Rook?
There's an age old maxim that is apt in many situations, but especially holds true here. "Be aware of your surroundings." In the case of Ukraine, the player attempting to take Asia has one advantage and it's a big one. Europe is the toughest continent to hold. If a player wants to hold Europe, they must successfully defend four territories. This is the same number of territories as the Asian player must defend, assuming the Asian player controls Australia...and for 5 armies as opposed to 9 for Asia/Australia. If attempting an Australia/Asia strategy, I strongly recommend expanding slowly. Take Australia on Turn 1, then expand out into Asia just one or two territories at a time. Enough to ensure you get a card every turn, always have any possible path through the front and into Australia heavily protected and, at the same time, not attract unnecessary attention. When you make your grand move, you will attract everyone's attention. It's imperative to keep an eye on the forces arrayed in Europe, North Africa, and North America. You'll want to bide your time until you have enough armies to sweep out from a China/Indian front, sweeping from India into the Middle East, Afghanistan, Ural and finally Ukraine (noncombating some of your force from Ukraine into the Middle East at the end of your turn), and sweeping from China northward, taking all the remaining Asian territories and ending either in Kamchatka if North America is not under a single dominion, or pushing into Alaska if it is thereby depriving that player of their 5 bonus North American armies. This sweeping move will instantly attract the attention of all other players and you have to have enough armies before making it that you'll still be in a strong defensive position afterward. On the upside, if done well your rivals can only count on bonus armies from South America and Africa to arraign against you since you'll control Australia/Asia and have at least one territory in Europe and N America.
I started this game today in school and I took South America and I’m currently in Africa. 5 in the top of South America, 3 in Brazil, Peru and Argentina. In Africa I have 3 in North Africa and 3 in Congo. Me and the person that has North America made a mutual agreement to not attack one another. What would be a good strategy for me to continue?
Thank you! It sounds like you have a solid foothold, especially since you don't have to watch your northern flank (at least for now). If the player to your north controls all of North America, be careful. He'll be collecting 5 armies for his continent per turn compared to your 2. That doesn't mean you should attack him, just keep an eye on him and make sure his military strength doesn't start to significantly outpace yours. As long as you don't need to take action there, I'd focus on Africa. Attack and take one territory per turn to get your card, then non-combat your forces back to North Africa. When you have a big enough military, sweep through Africa on a single turn taking the entire continent with ending force concentrations in North Africa-Egypt-East Africa to protect your interior. If it makes sense, you can hit the Middle East and set your army wall as North Africa-Egypt-Middle East. Europe is a real pain to take and hold. Assuming another player isn't strong in Australia/Asia, now will be the time to attack North America (if you haven't already had to do so). You'll want to take him by surprise (probably wait to attack until a turn you trade in cards).
Jonathan Meyer Thank you! Australia (one half) and Indonesia are controlled by person T and person J controls the other half of Australia. Person G has Europe but I’m more focused on North America and Europe because of what you said and Europe because I don’t think he is that good. At the beginning I sort of banded my troops together in South America while everyone else spread theirs out. North America is my main priority other than not losing my armies because he is really good. But again thank you.
Would taking Taking South America, Africa, Australia, Siam, Middle East, Southern Europe, Western Europe, and Central America be a good strategy for getting all or most of the contention?
Hi Jon, I wouldn't recommend explicitly going after the trifecta South America, Africa and Australia as a strategy. However, odd things can happen in Risk. Should you find yourself in this position, I do recommend taking Central America as it does not increase the number of territories you have to defend simultaneously and it will prevent a rival from getting 5 bonus armies for controlling all of North America. You could push into Southern Europe, Western Europe and the Middle East from Africa. Unless a rival is threatening to take over Europe, there's no advantage to this compared to defending North Africa, Egypt, and West Africa. The number of territories you must defend from is the same either way. If a rival is threatening to take Asia, you could create a North Africa, Egypt, Middle East front. However, if you already control Siam, you don't need to control the Middle East to keep Asia out of contention. I'd lean more in favor of taking Siam for this purpose rather than the Middle East. If you have the necessary armies to adequately defend Western Europe, Southern Europe, and the Middle East, you might want to consider attacking northward from Western Europe all the way to Iceland and have your army in Southern Europe gobble up the rest of Europe, ending movement in Ukraine. You'll still defend three territories over there (Iceland, Ukraine, and the Middle East) and you'll have another continent under your control.
Jon Kiesel I think you chose these continents because they are below the equator and are the bottom portion of the map. Idk what is has to do with anything though
If one of the cards you are turning in shows a territory you control, you get an automatic 2 additional armies. Those extra armies have to be placed on the territory on the card.
U missed explaining balance, if a player has North America then you want a player in Europe. Also holding Europe is not hard, just keep a monster army in northern Europe, and a army in Iceland.
In my 30 years of playing this game, the winner is usually the person that takes Australia early on and has a split force either in Europe or North America to cleanup opponents when a mistake is made. It's a bad idea to expand deep into Asia from Australia because you'll have to defend many borders - pile up in Siam instead and use your other force to expand instead. 2nd best strat is to take South America and have a split force in Asia. Although South America is 2nd best, you'll always run into issues with someone in Africa and eventually North America. Africa is probably the 3rd best option followed by North America. Never shoot for Europe or Asia until the end of the game... it never pans out early on.
Taking Asia requires Australia first. It also requires the right combination of patience and intuition, as well as being able to identify and exploit bottlenecks. An example of the latter-by taking Ukraine, the player controlling Australia/Asia has reduced the territories they need to defend to to maintain their empire to 3 (Ukraine, Middle East, and Kam), whereas otherwise they would have to defend 4 (Ural, Afghanistan, Middle East, and Kam). In my 20ish years of playing this game, I've won many matches against many different opponents using an Australia to Asia strategy.
I've beat my father only once whilst playing since 1997.
Funny... Me too. Dad taught me to play. We had many games, one of which I won
The opposite for me. My father has only beat me once since I started playing.
Family: let’s play a game
Me twenty minutes before: watching this video
Haha nice! I hope the video helped.
Jonathan McConnell exactly
Thats legit what im doing XD
me2
Same
Mom just beat me at risk so imma surprise her with some strats
Haha get the mobile game
@@jamesporter6288 haha board game is better
App Store risk players think they good but it’s so easy board is much harder even harder than that is axis and Allie’s risk players get humbled when looking at the axis and Allie’s board😂
I Played this in the Caribbean in 1968 when the pieces were Wood Squares !!!
Simple and to the point! I watched multiple videos on Risk strategies and this was the best one I came across!
Cents of Time Thank you!
The game of my youth. Played 100 games easy. Thought about taking a set to a high school reunion for a huge laugh
I'm getting together with friends to play later so I wanted to brush up on my strategies and this was perfect! I used to play on the app so alot of the things you said reminded me of learning those lessons. Thanks for the video!
Anytime! I'm glad you found my video helpful.
myself and a group of lads were unemployed one summer ( maybe two) many years ago Risk was the game of choice , we played for money the fights we had the betrayals the alliances all good fun 30 years later ...
I have an older version that doesn’t have a line connecting the middles east to Africa and it makes Africa a much better continent to control
The middle east is connected to Africa by land ?????
Justin Mackay yeah it’s connected by land u been playing wrong 😂
@@therion8469 I think they meant the line that isn't the land connection
The old trivial pursuit game said North America is the easiest to defend.
It is very interesting to look at world events as if it were a game of Risk
Thumbs up and saved so I can watch again
Just found your channel today and I see you talk a lot about board games. That’s awesome, I subbed. Can’t wait to binge out on your board game stuff.
Awesome! Glad to hear it.
I just started playing Risk a few days ago and this very helpful! Great information!
You are welcome!
Same but everyone was playing so cautious that when we finally start to attack it is never ending in taking one of the highly contested area.
I'm not beaten yet. I still have armies in the Ukraine.
Ukraine is a weak country!
"The Ukraine is not weak!!" ~Seinfield (The Risk episode lmao)
😆😆😆
Some of my favorite childhood memories are playing risk all summer with
My pals
This is AWSOME.You gave every strategies of this game i won every game except i lost a few but good job dude😁😀😀
You are welcome!
The first time I played risk, I went for the biggest one, and almost got it... I lost the game though.
I always play this game by taking Australia and then pushing into Asia
Yo tambien
Not smart then you will get a smaller supply of troops
Oliver Ledek you get 2 more than everyone else within the first few turns 😂
every single game ive ever played where someone did that they where the first or second player to lose
South America strat is over-all better.
Ill reply to myself.
Mind you im not talking about the AI or other random BS on that line on a PC game or such i understand the AI can be dumb at times.
I started playing my first race game 20 years ago and still playing it
Three words: Turtle in Australia.
After a some rounds I had Australia and North America. I took over South America and that all by just attacking one of my friends I played with. The other one felt comfortable with me on his borders by then because I also let him controll Africa without bugging him. The other had Europe and both of them fought for Asia Then after stocking up a few rounds I rolled over borders, took away their Europe and Africa Bonus. Marched into Asia and took major parts away from them closing my borders to all Continental Territory's. And then I rolled over both of them leaving them no chance.
They both where too focused on Asia.
To their defence, they didn't even fear me before the game and they played badly.
I love that Game
Still, a win is a win. Congratulations!
@@JonathanMeyer84 Thank you, I never played with both of them again though they hated me afterwards. 🤣
What’s cool is the special editions use the same basic features and gameplay just a few tweaks. Star Wars is really the only one that uses it’s own mechanics
Personally Africa’s my favourite
The other thing about North America is how useful it is for the occasional tactical play. With three access points for defending Greenland and two for Alaska and Mexico.
Depends on deployment but I use different strategies based on the starting positions I look at where I have the most clusters and try to manage them into two or three armies to take a continent then reinforce my borders and expand slowly into Asia if I hold Australia or North America if I'm in Africa I will try to invade South America and vica versa if I am a pkayer with no continent I keep all my armies together in one large force and wait for a chance to invade a continent North Asia or Ukraine is a good hiding place for that strategy or Afghanistan and perhaps the middle east
Progressive cards don't override the strategy, it changes it, continents no longer matter much, you want to be spread out in a few locations, be hard to kill, but make it easy for you to kill others. Make kills only when it will put you at or over 5 cards, so that you can trade in again and do some more killing
Played Risk with my family yesterday, but Im beating em' today!
Good luck!
I’m playing this game with my family rn. I currently have 2 countries and I need these tips
A friend plays an almost undefeated strategy, which is attack until he can not attack. Which is hard to beat, because after his turn it is difficult to take back territories with exhausted forces. Then next turn he gets way more troops through the 3 divide system and dominates. Is this a factor that ruins playing Risk, or is it possible to survive against it and to contradict the strategy?
Beard TheDog First Answer:No. Second Answer: Yes. Provided other players take quick, strategically significant action to address the emerging situation it can be stopped quite effectively.
Jonathan Meyer What type of action are you recommending and have you ever played against that type of strategy? Thanks!
How I counter people like that is strengthen somewhere little with 2 or less places to be attacked from like South America or Australia then when you have that you get a troop bonus from the continent and you can become more powerful
This strategy will surely getting you taken out early if you do not get a run of good cards, players I play with would eat this person alive!
Honestly that strategy sounds awful. If I understand correctly, you mean that at the end of his turn he has no more than ONE ARMY IN EVERY TERRITORY HE OWNS.
So long as you do not employ the same strategy he doesn't stand a chance. he would never be able to break down a reasonable, hell even a flimsy defense unless he gets cards, which you can prevent by effectively defending.
I played Risk a lot until I discovered real strategy games such as Axis & Allies, Shogun or Conquest of the Empire. A game that is based so much on dice rolling and good luck with cards for resupply is hardly a strategy game. I would consider different types of units, logistics and movement limits as essential parts of any strategy game. Thus Risk is a lot of fun, but definitely not a strategy game.
You must be fun at party’s...
War takes luck
Christoph Neuschaeffer but you can get territories and continents to improve your chances
Risk is trategy to.
Your correct once everyone is skilled and has a lot of games under their belts, it comes down to chance
Can you name the six colors of the game Risk?
Don't mind me, just hoping to get south east asia territories
very interesting. During Covid-19 lockdowns I decided to make my own version of Risk. Decided to incorporate a handful of things from Axis/Allies, and one or two things from a couple of other games. Created a larger game board ( 36x48 inches) so naval units and Bombers have room to roam, and using prexisting oil fields so players can pump oil and sell oil for money to manufacture more military hardware in their factories.
Nice! Sounds interesting.
Well it was in school so people ended up playing for me since I wasn’t able to play with my classes and I ended up being the first out but I’m surprised I stayed in that long.
what does the golden calvary piece do?
Great video, very helpful
Thank you!
I just bought the game, but I have one question
can I move some units from my own adjacent territories to attack, after an attack
for example, I have attacked Asia from North America and now want to move some army back to N.A to attack Europe at the same turn
can I do it?
I'm afraid not. You could move them back at the end of your turn and then attack with them next turn, but you can't attack, move them back, and attack again on the same turn. Think about it this way-you do all your attacking in Phase 1. When you are completely done with attacking, you move on to Phase 2. During Phase 2, you can pick one territory and move extra units from there to an adjacent territory. However, you can't go back to Phase 1 because Phase 1 has already been completed.
@@JonathanMeyer84
Thank you so much
@@AaryanRKO You are welcome!
If you are defending all of Europe then I advice to go for Africa and the middle East to limit the amount of territories to defend
LOL... yeah right. You must play with scrubs if they let you take Europe.
@Jonathan Meyer When you say "defend from" or "defended from", do you mean that a territory/continent is defending against opposing territories or that it just defends another territory/continent? I ask this because i'm a little confused on how taking Ukraine with Asia will benefit, I mean would taking Ukraine just have more attackers against you than you supporting your defense for Asia? By the way, great job finding ways to exploit this game, I learned plenty of tips from you, thanks.
Hi Jon! I'm glad you enjoyed this video. When it comes to defending Asia (or any continent really), the fewer territories you have to defend simultaneously, the more concentrated you can make your armies and the more difficult it will be for your rivals to take a piece of your continent. Let's walk through a real life example in which you control Australia and Asia. Rival players could attempt to prevent you from getting 7 armies for controlling Asia on your next turn by attacking in Ural, Afghanistan, Middle East and/or Kamchatka. You don't know which direction the attack/s will come from. Let's say you have 24 armies which could be used so you decide you try to defend everything equally, 6 armies in each. However, if you take Ukraine now you can only be attacked from three territories rather than from four-Ukraine, Middle East and Kamchatka. With Ukraine in your pocket, you can still defend all your border territories equally, but with 8 armies in each rather than 6 making it that much harder for a rival to break through your front.
Okay, but what if taking Ukraine leads into consequences, say your European rival has built up more troops in Scandinavia than your Ukraine and the goes for an attack on you right after you've just took Ukraine. Would it be best to wait for your rival to attack you somewhere else than cause this problem for attacking Ukraine? Would it be sort of like Chess where I take a pawn with my Knight but then my Knight gets taken by a Rook?
There's an age old maxim that is apt in many situations, but especially holds true here. "Be aware of your surroundings." In the case of Ukraine, the player attempting to take Asia has one advantage and it's a big one. Europe is the toughest continent to hold. If a player wants to hold Europe, they must successfully defend four territories. This is the same number of territories as the Asian player must defend, assuming the Asian player controls Australia...and for 5 armies as opposed to 9 for Asia/Australia. If attempting an Australia/Asia strategy, I strongly recommend expanding slowly. Take Australia on Turn 1, then expand out into Asia just one or two territories at a time. Enough to ensure you get a card every turn, always have any possible path through the front and into Australia heavily protected and, at the same time, not attract unnecessary attention. When you make your grand move, you will attract everyone's attention. It's imperative to keep an eye on the forces arrayed in Europe, North Africa, and North America. You'll want to bide your time until you have enough armies to sweep out from a China/Indian front, sweeping from India into the Middle East, Afghanistan, Ural and finally Ukraine (noncombating some of your force from Ukraine into the Middle East at the end of your turn), and sweeping from China northward, taking all the remaining Asian territories and ending either in Kamchatka if North America is not under a single dominion, or pushing into Alaska if it is thereby depriving that player of their 5 bonus North American armies.
This sweeping move will instantly attract the attention of all other players and you have to have enough armies before making it that you'll still be in a strong defensive position afterward. On the upside, if done well your rivals can only count on bonus armies from South America and Africa to arraign against you since you'll control Australia/Asia and have at least one territory in Europe and N America.
I started this game today in school and I took South America and I’m currently in Africa. 5 in the top of South America, 3 in Brazil, Peru and Argentina. In Africa I have 3 in North Africa and 3 in Congo. Me and the person that has North America made a mutual agreement to not attack one another. What would be a good strategy for me to continue?
Also I love your video!
Thank you! It sounds like you have a solid foothold, especially since you don't have to watch your northern flank (at least for now). If the player to your north controls all of North America, be careful. He'll be collecting 5 armies for his continent per turn compared to your 2. That doesn't mean you should attack him, just keep an eye on him and make sure his military strength doesn't start to significantly outpace yours. As long as you don't need to take action there, I'd focus on Africa. Attack and take one territory per turn to get your card, then non-combat your forces back to North Africa. When you have a big enough military, sweep through Africa on a single turn taking the entire continent with ending force concentrations in North Africa-Egypt-East Africa to protect your interior. If it makes sense, you can hit the Middle East and set your army wall as North Africa-Egypt-Middle East. Europe is a real pain to take and hold. Assuming another player isn't strong in Australia/Asia, now will be the time to attack North America (if you haven't already had to do so). You'll want to take him by surprise (probably wait to attack until a turn you trade in cards).
Jonathan Meyer Thank you! Australia (one half) and Indonesia are controlled by person T and person J controls the other half of Australia. Person G has Europe but I’m more focused on North America and Europe because of what you said and Europe because I don’t think he is that good. At the beginning I sort of banded my troops together in South America while everyone else spread theirs out. North America is my main priority other than not losing my armies because he is really good. But again thank you.
Katherine Evermore tell us how your game end
Katherine Evermore how'd it go?
North America is actually the best as long as you can persuade 1 player to ally with you either asia euro or south america
great video, however all you learn even noobs know now online. If everyone goes for Australia what happens then?
You let them duke it out and take South America, and possible North America as well, with ease.
I had a star wars and a old collictable board and my little brother smashed it with his autistic adhd
Would taking Taking South America, Africa, Australia, Siam, Middle East, Southern Europe, Western Europe, and Central America be a good strategy for getting all or most of the contention?
Hi Jon,
I wouldn't recommend explicitly going after the trifecta South America, Africa and Australia as a strategy. However, odd things can happen in Risk. Should you find yourself in this position, I do recommend taking Central America as it does not increase the number of territories you have to defend simultaneously and it will prevent a rival from getting 5 bonus armies for controlling all of North America. You could push into Southern Europe, Western Europe and the Middle East from Africa. Unless a rival is threatening to take over Europe, there's no advantage to this compared to defending North Africa, Egypt, and West Africa. The number of territories you must defend from is the same either way. If a rival is threatening to take Asia, you could create a North Africa, Egypt, Middle East front. However, if you already control Siam, you don't need to control the Middle East to keep Asia out of contention. I'd lean more in favor of taking Siam for this purpose rather than the Middle East.
If you have the necessary armies to adequately defend Western Europe, Southern Europe, and the Middle East, you might want to consider attacking northward from Western Europe all the way to Iceland and have your army in Southern Europe gobble up the rest of Europe, ending movement in Ukraine. You'll still defend three territories over there (Iceland, Ukraine, and the Middle East) and you'll have another continent under your control.
Thanks mate.
Jon Kiesel I think you chose these continents because they are below the equator and are the bottom portion of the map. Idk what is has to do with anything though
The key to the game is the middle East ;)
Yeah untill someone tries to take it 24 7 which happend to me yesterday
Thanks cause I fucking destroyed so thanks for this great strategy
Nice! You are welcome.
If you have three of a kind of the same country doesent that count too
If one of the cards you are turning in shows a territory you control, you get an automatic 2 additional armies. Those extra armies have to be placed on the territory on the card.
@@JonathanMeyer84 ok thanks but if I have 3 asia cards could I trade that in
@@aidan.christman No
Ukraine is actually just Russia
U missed explaining balance, if a player has North America then you want a player in Europe. Also holding Europe is not hard, just keep a monster army in northern Europe, and a army in Iceland.
its more fun to play online
Lets be real here. Want to win Risk? Take Australia and just make sure you get a card every turn. Win every time.
Role a 2 and a 5
Asia is 3 holds ukraine middle east kamachka
phatmemes Ukraine isn't in Asia.
Jonathan Meyer thats how you hold asia easier. Chances are europe is weak if they let you grab most of asia
Yep, I believe I mention that in the video. If you want to hold Asia, you'll have an easier time of it if you take Ukraine.
By the way why isn't Venezuela above the equator?
Jon Gamer Hi John. The equator is not illustrated on the board. The horizontal line through the middle is simply where two folds in the board connect.
If anything, I would notice how unrealistically close africa and south america are to each other.
@YouMake MeReal 😂 lmao
Me and my friend have ligit created a way cooler way to play the game it has nothing to do with this
The thing about risk is that you can make up your own version of the game
Where is the best place to start playing the American way. Not French way
Inventory or infantry ? Xd
I've been playing since I was 6 yeet
The Ukraine is weak
Ukraine is strong country!
In my 30 years of playing this game, the winner is usually the person that takes Australia early on and has a split force either in Europe or North America to cleanup opponents when a mistake is made. It's a bad idea to expand deep into Asia from Australia because you'll have to defend many borders - pile up in Siam instead and use your other force to expand instead. 2nd best strat is to take South America and have a split force in Asia. Although South America is 2nd best, you'll always run into issues with someone in Africa and eventually North America. Africa is probably the 3rd best option followed by North America. Never shoot for Europe or Asia until the end of the game... it never pans out early on.
Taking Asia requires Australia first. It also requires the right combination of patience and intuition, as well as being able to identify and exploit bottlenecks. An example of the latter-by taking Ukraine, the player controlling Australia/Asia has reduced the territories they need to defend to to maintain their empire to 3 (Ukraine, Middle East, and Kam), whereas otherwise they would have to defend 4 (Ural, Afghanistan, Middle East, and Kam). In my 20ish years of playing this game, I've won many matches against many different opponents using an Australia to Asia strategy.