I was just playing a game where it was down to 3 of us. Blue, Green, and me.
Green had most of Europe and all of Africa. Blue and I had generally been ignoring him because he was no threat.
Blue had North America and South America but only had 5 troops at the European entrance after I had attacked him there the last turn.
I had Australia and a lot of Asia but I only had 1-2 troops in my Asian territories and 20 men at the entrance of Australia and few spread across Europe. I was the weakest but was getting ready to trade in cards my next turn.
So what does green do instead of attack blue to keep him from holding NA? He attacks my few guys to secure Europe even though there was NO POSSIBLE WAY HE COULD HOLD IT lol.
So next turn Blue secures NA, gets his card and secures NA. I traded in my cards and attacked NA and broke through but only had a few troops there so blue was just going to take it back the next turn.
So his next turn.....what does Green do instead of attacking Blue when he was vulnerable? He takes back Europe even though THERE IS NO WAY HE COULD HOLD IT and lets Blue keep NA.
So next turn I'm out of options, I can't stop Blue from holding NA, I get a card and retreat to Australia. Blue starts attacking Asia and what does Green do? He attacks Asia too....but just to collect a card...... while blue fortifies NA and SA.
I ended up just attacking Green and taking away his Europe and Africa bonus for getting us both killed but it's infuriating how clueless some players are. I mean the green player was either godawful or the Blue player was just using two accounts. I didn't stick around to find out which it was but these numbskulls who sit there and let a player right next to them take over territory after territory just baffle me. It's like they're not even trying to win, they're just collecting cards. What good does taking over a territory do if you only have a few troops?
Create your own games or set the filter to one rank below yours That helps a lot with toxic players. Only problem is when you're an Expert playing Inters. The latter are like ruthless VPs gunning for promotion.
I'm ranked Expert now and it is amazing how many idiots attack you when you reach that rank. I just lost a game because I was surrounded by 2 novice players and a bot.
The two novice players attacked territories of mine that had 6 and 7 men in them in the first 2 turns. There was no tactical reason to do this, I assume they did it because I was an Expert or they were someone's sock account. All it did was weaken all of us.
A bot just kept spawning right next to me and wiped out my territories with the few survivors from the two novice player attacks.
By the time I got three cards I was down to 7 men in on territory and one of the novice players who attacked me was next to me with 4 men, he got to turn his cards in first and finished me off.
So much of this game is just dumb random chance but it's maddening to lose to an idiot just because they got to turn their cards in first.
I've noticed the higher your rank though the more you get attacked by these dummies. It's hard to tell if it's someone cheating or if they're really just that stupid.
I was barred from Discord because I said I thought progressive was like Bingo. People lost their shit over that and acted like i'd insulted their mother.
I mean, you say "maybe they had an alliance"....they weren't attacking me either because they knew if they attacked me even though they could take me out it would weaken them and would be suicide.
The other two players were just sitting there letting the purple player control two continents.......did they all have an alliance? Was I the only one in the game not a part of the alliance?
You would have to be an idiot to have an "alliance" with a guy controlling two continents if you only had one and he wasn't attacking any other players lol.
Yeah, it's always been about alliances but in the real world game you can see who is making an alliance and you can communicate with other players to make alliances in retaliation.
"AND" if EVERYONE in the game has an "alliance" with each other........what's the point of playing?
If nobody is attacking.....if everyone in the game is just sitting around collecting cards........remind me what the point is? To see who has no life and can outlast everyone else?
OBVIOUSLY the people you play with online aren't friends of family which is my whole point lol.
Too many people just sit around scared to make a move because there is no incentive to make a move. In fact the OPPOSITE is true. There is an incentive NOT to make a move because if there's a 3-4 way Mexican standoff if you attack someone all you're doing is weakening yourself. The other players will just wait and finish you off.
Which is why everyone sits around waiting for someone to make a move and why so many times the winner is just the guy that sits back and does nothing. It's a serious flaw in the online version of the game.
Progressive games are mostly luck, if the other players get to turn in cards after 3 turns and you have to wait 5 you're screwed.
I've ran the table or close to it many times in progressive games. Once the card value starts going up if you're lucky enough to be able to take someone out who hasn't been able to trade their cards in it can start a chain reaction where you can take multiple players out.
Fixed is much more skill based unfortunately......like I said, too many players don't play the game. They just sit and wait.
In a real world game of RISK communication is a huge part of the game, making alliances, breaking alliances, coordinating attacks.
In online RISK that aspect of the game is gone.
It's an incredibly fun game if everyone is playing to win. If people just sit around and collect cards it's incredibly boring and takes forever.
Like I've said, I think a timer would help......I think a troop limit would help.....and I think having random large card bonuses would help because it would break stalemates and incentivize keeping other players from collecting cards.
As it is in a fixed card game there is no incentive to attack after everyone has settled in. Which is why so many people just sit around collecting cards waiting for someone else to attack.
I love the game of RISK, and I love playing online but there are serious flaws in the way SMG has set it up.
I mean, often the best strategy is "patience" lol? Yeah, just sitting around doing nothing waiting for people with lives to lose interest or have to attend to the real world responsibilities seems to be a good strategy lol.
Unfortunately I have a life and job, GF, etc so I can't really play Risk for 5 hours with strangers.
"AND" the game would still be going on if I hadn't made a move.
"AND" my point is too many people don't play the game to win.....they just sit around and wait.
"AND" that makes games last forever and totally negates the point of playing a game....which is to have fun.
"AND" alliances suck because they just drag games out forever.
"AND" NONE OF THEM were attacking.
"AND" it speaks to my point about how there should be a limit on troops in a territory.
"AND" I've reported several cheaters "AND" only one resulted in a banning. The others were given a warning.
"AND" I literally said I didn't know I suspected they were the same player but wasn't sure.
"AND" the yellow player DID NOTHING THE ENTIRE GAME.
You do remember it's a game right? And the point of the game is to take over the world by beating everyone else? Because there's no communication between players and because of alliances too many players sit around waiting for someone else to do something. If everyone does that a game could go on literally FOREVER.
"AND" that's not fun.
"AND" progressive card games are a lot quicker but there's a lot less skill. I much prefer fixed games IF PEOPLE ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME AND DON'T JUST COLLECT CARDS.
This is the crap I'm talking about.
I just played a game where I was orange, my troops were spread out at the beginning of the game so I couldn't secure a continent while the other players could (blue had all but one territory in Europe before he ever even got a turn and Yellow had 15 men all around Australia, so those two had secured continents after their first turn and purple secured SA in a 2-3 turns).
Anyway, I built up troops in NA and was fighting with red who was also in NA.....but then I guess the red player quit and his account became a robot. It kept spawning in NA and I couldn't finish him off without completely wiping myself out too so I built up a mass of troops to invade SA with.
Green also was supposedly a human player but made zero attempt to conquer anything and actually just sat and fortified for most of his turns. I don't know if it was a player using two accounts or what but the green player just put troops in the way of other players. He was wiped out pretty quick but he slowed players down in NA and Asia. I had troops in Asia that I was trying to get to NA but green blocked the entrance and just sat there.
Yellow did NOTHING the entire game except build up troops in Australia. When I quit watching he had 200 troops in Australia.
Blue had Europe from the start. and just built up troops there. That's all he did the entire game until I finally made a move.
All the players except purple were beginners or novices. Purple was a master and took over both SA and Africa. He only had 1 troop on every single territory except 1 in SA where he had close to 100 troops. He had both SA and Africa for 3-4 turns when I finally invaded SA. I only had about 3/4 the troops he did but I could damage him so badly he would lose the game so he couldn't attack me to get me out of SA but instead of retreating to Africa he just sat there in SA. In Africa purple only had 1 troop in every territory but still blue and yellow wouldn't attack him to take away his bonus. Turn after turn they let purple keep Africa. I kept him from controlling SA for a few turns but couldn't reach Africa and purple wouldn't leave SA.
It got to the point where I suspected blue and purple were the same player, I don't know why you would allow a player to control two continents when he only has 1 troop on every territory but blue wouldn't attack purple.
So out of sheer boredom (an hour of blue, purple and yellow not attacking each other) and not wanting to wait for purple to build up enough troops to wipe me out I attacked him first and wiped out over half his troops leaving him the weakest player left. Red then finally attacked in Africa and purple ended up going on a suicide run against blue and red.
Yellow probably ended up winning but did nothing all game but build up troops in Australia. He beat me because I got bored watching him blue and purple just collecting cards. So skill had nothing to do with who won that game. The guy who just sat there doing nothing turn after turn probably ended up winning.
I lose more games from boredom and not having time to sit and play for 5 hours than I do from lack of skill. That's what I mean when I say there should be a limit on the number of troops in a territory. Or some kind of wild card card bonus that's random that gives players a lot of troops. Otherwise these games devolve into Mexican standoffs almost every time.
I never make alliances and I wish they weren't allowed. I really wish in fixed card games there was a limit on how many troops you could place in one area.
I just finished an 1 1/2 game and I got so fed up I just ran through all the other players to damage them equally. Everyone just sat there collecting cards. One play had 200 men in the middle of Europe. That's not my idea of fun.
I don't like progressive because it's a lot more luck based, if you can finish someone off and get to cash in cards at the right time you can run the table etc but the fixed card games are no fun nobody attacks.
An 1 1/2 Mexican standoff just is no fun.