Start a new topic

What is the point of playing if you're just going to sit on a territory and collect cards? There needs to a troop limit on territories

 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

Recently the bots started to attack grouped armies at their borders. They perceive then as threat, but only if the numbers are similar to their own. They never attack much larger armies. Most often they would leave alone a single army in a completely undefended continents. They tend to spread through weakly defended areas and they leave several armies in each conquered territory.  Once bots "decide" to take over a continent, you better leave or you will be involved in unwinnable fight with them.  Bots can be used as good allies. One of my favourite tactics if I happen to get Australia and a bot is close by in Europe or Asia is to allow the bot to close me from South Asia. I keep adding a few troops in Australia just enough to discourage the bot of attacking me and I place my troops elsewhere in the world. That way I effectively use the bot to shield my Australian troops from other players.  I generally let bots grow in strength and I encourage other players to fight them.


1 person likes this
When you have 3 players with a large amount of armies I'm beginning to think most people here are contempt to play all night in a boring take a country retreat collect a card and amass a huge amount of armies . They will do this until I get fed up and attack taking one out then the other wipes me out or if I don't quite take the other guy out to then take him out and collect the cards that I fought for. People this is such a chicken shite way of playing. Either play the game but this crap of time attrition is boring.

1 person likes this
We play the board game where 12 armies are the limit on any country in a progressive group allotment . If you don’t have enough countries to support all of your troops you lose them . The games were highly competitive and some lasted 12 hours . I found this to be more fun than somebody loading 150 troops on one country and just steam rolling everyone.

1 person likes this

Sam, I understand the game.  I've been playing it for decades just like most people here.  The problem in the online version is there is no communication.  In the board game you can communicate with a weak player next to you to team up and weaken or take out the strongest player.


In the online version you don't know anyone so nobody trusts anyone else.  Even if you make an alliance with someone they might stab you in the back the first chance they get.


Maybe you enjoy playing 5 hour games where people just sit and collect cards, everyone attacking the same territory over and over but I don't.  I don't have that kind of time.


I enjoy playing the game but I can't sit there and dedicate 5 hours to collecting cards.  And what inevitably happens in those games is people bot out from boredom or they suicide.  So then you just wasted 2 hours playing a game and were defeated because some random person suicided on you.


Risk is a great game but there is room for improvement, plenty of room.  You can't apply the same rules for a game with no communication or face to face interaction as you do for the board game.




1 person likes this

The AI attacks sometimes but it's totally random.  Sometimes the bot will randomly attack anything near it but there is no strategy behind it and I've seen bots ignore taking away continent bonuses from players a million times when it would have been easy and made sense to do it.  There doesn't seem to be any logic or tactical sense behind the way bots attack at all. 


It also seems bots respond to the biggest number of troops as far as where it puts new troops.  If you're trying to take a continent over early on and a bot has  a few troops there you better get rid of that bot quick because as soon as you start building troops the bot will respond and do the same.


I was playing a game the other day where I was trying to take over SA and 2 turns in I had 9 troops in one territory there getting ready to take out the small number of troops other players had, a bot had a territory with 3 troops there and the bot's next turn it started building up troops there and just kept putting troops there every turn to match me even though it made zero tactical sense. 


In this game SA was blocked off from NA and the bot kept building up troops in SA blocking me off from Africa.  It kept putting troops in SA even though it made zero tactical sense since most of it's troops were in other places when it started the troop buildup.


So I was trapped in SA and pinned in by a bot who just kept adding troops and fortifying while it's troops were decimated everywhere else. I couldn't attack the bot because it would have been suicide and it didn't attack me so I had to sit there and wait for the bot to leave.  If finally did after about 5 turns of just sitting there but it ruined my chances of winning the game because everyone else was building up troops and securing continents while I was stuck next to the stupid bot.  And after the bot finally left it tried to take over Africa but attacked until it didn't have any troops left so it was then easily taken out.  A human would have never done that if they were trying to win but bots do dumb crap like that constantly.


Like I said, I had Risk on my Iphone 10 years ago that had very good AI.  It wasn't as good as a human but it wasn't completely useless ether, the computer could beat you.  I don't understand how the AI in SMG Risk can be so terrible 10 years later.  I've seen bots win in SMG Risk but it was only because the other players ignored the bots and attacked each other until it was too late and the bots had just built up to overwhelming numbers.






1 person likes this
Samuel you're right these people have no idea how this game works and if they think it's long they'd never survive the board game. There is a time to attack and a time not to attack, theres also tactics to get the game moving when it stalls.
Limiting troops would ruin the game and just make them build a second stack on another territory
Sorry but I disagree with this thread so far. If you've played against Masters and GMs, this is a very common strategy. Most play the "long" game, and I've learned a lot from them. If you want to play "speed" Risk, then stick to the less global maps like France, Simple Classic, non-advanced, etc maps. When I feel a little sadistic I play noobs and watch them annihilate each other and learn from their mistakes. Stay healthy & happy, but most of all, keep calm and carry on. Cheers
What “strategy” is that? To sit around until someone else gets bored and does something? I’ve been master ranked, currently expert rank. Winning or losing often depends on who gets suicided on it if you’re next to someone who gets bored and quits and they bot out. I play the game for fun. Sitting there for hours doing nothing isn’t fun. So, sorry, I disagree with you.
This post has been going on for almost a year now if not longer. To all the people that play this game and read these post should come to realize that they are not going to put a soldier limit on countries. That's never been part of the game and hopefully they never change it. Love ya
Been there - done that, regarding ranking - I've been a master a few times, but am now "just" an expert (by choice), primarily due to playing/learning against lower ranked individuals. We can agree to disagree. The "strategy" is to build up your strength until you can get the right timing and tempo. General Norman Schwarzkopf proved that in the Persian Gulf War victory. It's exhilarating - granted after waiting tedious minutes/hours - to finally "take the leap of faith/fate" and ultimately cower your more aggressive opponent(s). Sure, it's a high to be on the all-out offensive from the git go, but more often than not, it comes down to the mostest, not the firstest. Haste makes waste. I agree with you that it's dull and boring when one sits there watching all the action. And I also agree with you that when it's a mexican stand-off (MSO), there are no winners, just bored players. But I've noted lately that in the case of a MSO, whoever blinks first and pulls the trigger to launch, usually loses in the end. So one sits and waits for the right time. Again I repeat myself, the "long game". Stay healthy & happy, most of all - keep calm and carry on. Cheers

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.

As far as the bots go I've complained endlessly about them.  it's one thing if you know it's a bot from the start but a huge problem is people not confirming or people quitting in the middle of a game.


I've lost several games in the past few days because of people quitting and the bots surrounding me while letting the other player(s) conquer territory with no resistance.


I was on Discord arguing with the mods and some SMG people about how broken the bots are and they claim they aren't broken lol.  We've all seen bots not attack to take away bonuses or instead of trying to take over territories the bots will just attack a random territory or fortify.


The bots in SMG Risk have zero tactical sense.   I use them to my advantage all the time but I've had it bite me in the ass too.  If you let a bot get too strong and it moves large numbers of troops next to you you're done unless you can break out but that often weakens you to the point that another player will take you out.  It would be one thing if the bot were actually accomplishing anything but their decisions almost never make tactical sense.


I was told the bots have different "personalities", some are aggressive, some defensive etc, but they ALL SUCK.

I think that some players who occupy Australia and who cannot manage to expand to Europe or Africa use bots to encourage other players to fight each other. They would suddenly become inactive and allow the bot which takes over to attack EU and Africa. Other players would not retaliate because they would think that an AI is attacking them and as we all know there is no point in fighting a bot unless really necessary. As a result of the bot attack the other strong 2 players start fighting each other because they want to leave the bot for the end. As soon one or both of them are weakened, the sleeping third player "wakes up" and takes control, easily beating the opponents. I find this unfair, but not as uncommon as people may think. We all lose connection and rejoin the game sometimes, but to do that deliberately and to activate at an opportune moment is not fair.

Login or Signup to post a comment