Dude.....if everyone sits around collecting cards and amassing troops the game goes on forever....that's not a "strategy".
Games like that always end the same way, somebody gets bored and suicides or quits and bots out.
There literally is no strategy to sitting there and waiting for someone else to do something. And a "long game' is fine but most people don't have 5 hours to sit and play a game of Risk where people just attack one Asian territory over and over to collect cards.
It's the biggest flaw in the online version....no communication. In a board game of Risk you can talk to other players....online everyone just sits there waiting for someone else to do something.
In my experience most games aren't won or lost because of skill, they're won or lost because of luck, be it good or bad and whether or not you get suicided on or whether or not a player doesn't confirm or just quits and bots out in game.
I've won and lost many games just because other players got fed up and quit or suicided on some other player.
I go through phases with online Risk where I play if for like a week and then don't play again for months and the reason is it's just not that fun because it's so random and too many players sit around doing nothing.
OK Sam, thanks.
You know what else has "never been part of the game"? Not being able to communicate with the other players.
I don't get why people like you act like the traditional boardgame and the online version are the same or why you wouldn't want improvements.
When you play the online version enough you find out that many player's "strategy" is to just sit there and wait for the other players to do all the dirty work.
That's boring, especially if you have multiple players in a single game using that "strategy".
There either needs to be a better communication system....(it's actually gotten worse since I started playing, the emoticon selection is terrible.....the "confused" emoticon is gone for instance. Why?
If there were a limit on the number of players in a territory and it doesn't have to be a hard limit, maybe the limit kicks in after 3 turns of the player doing nothing......and they start losing 2 men per round or something.
That or a timer should be optional. The game just doesn't work without communication between players.
Jason Allen
I prefer playing fixed card games with 6 players but holy lord, there are so many players that just get control of a continent and then collect cards.
If there's a Mexican standoff between 3-4 players and everyone just sits collecting cards because no one has an advantage.....guess what? 20 turns from now you'll still be collecting cards and no on will have an advantage. The game will last forever if no one makes a move!
I swear I lose more games because of sheer boredom than skill or bad luck. I don't know how or why people sit there attacking the same territory over and over to build up troops when their opponents are doing the exact same thing.
Players that sit and build up troops in Australia by attacking, collecting a card and then retreating are the worst. They end up with a massive amount of troops in that one area. They won't attack and nobody dares attack them. What's the point of playing if you're going to do that crap?
There really needs to be a timer on games or rules that set a limit on the number of troops you can have on one territory.
The game is called RISK not CARD COLLECTING.
8 people like this idea