Start a new topic
Discussions RISK Global Domination General RISK Chat

Playing for second place

Ive noticed when it becomes a 3 way battle some opoints will attact the weaker or similar strength player, it very unlikely they will defeat this player but this attack enables the other player to an easer victory, this is what l call playing of second place (some times the backfires, when this player gets defeated frist). When it comes to ranking points is this tactic worth it or the they just being a dick?
8 CommentsSorted by Oldest First
There is increasing amount of odd patterns on Risk now , most of the time it feels like your just playing a computer generated oponnent online.
1 person likes this
Yep, often times it appears that players have no idea of the situation, and that their commitment to attacking one particular player or territory will likely only hasten our death. I've seen players do this early on, which essentially is playing for 5th. Recently I had one of those assholes who, although similar to my strength, would rather help the "800 lbs gorilla" kick my ass than help us both be competitive. However, after several rounds of fending them off on two sides, I managed to break through a weakness in the stronger player's fortification and built a nice wall in the corner. Because of his mistake, the stronger player was out of position to effectively attack me, forcing the two to finally battle. Of course, the asshole then sent me a "alliance request". Lol
1 person likes this

There is a ranking reason to do this. You do gain more/ loose less points the higher your position. You could make a steady path up the ladder by coming 2nd every game. So in many ways securing second place is a viable ladder strategy. This is especially true when it is a 4-6 player game, there is a lot of points given for coming 2nd in a 6 player match if it is balanced in player ranks, there is also an acceptable number given for 3rd.


- Phillip@SMG

2 people like this
I guess it makes sense from a ranking perspective. However, I find it hard to understand why these players' goal is to lose. Surely, there is more ranking points to gain by winning ...

 If you know that you have no chance of beating the dominating player, it's better to destroy the other opponent. A lot of times, the stronger player will finish him off if he's the faster one to kill or has the most cards, etc... Sometimes I'm nice and blow away the other players before I kill the one that "helped me."


I've also been in situations where there's 5-6 players and I'm doomed because I got gangbanged, If I have 3 cards and can trade I will do so to bring myself to zero cards and then never attack anyone again. It's a guarantee to 2nd place since there is absolutely no benefit in killing me other than to finish the game. However, I can imagine there are scenarios where you may have pissed someone off so much that they will kill you regardless of whether it's beneficial or not. I don't usually end up in these situations since I only attack to kill or collect an easy card. You know it's a skilled player when someone tries to destroy him but fails and instead of retaliating, he uses his card trade to go kill someone else who will benefit him. :)


I've also been in scenarios where two weak players gang up on me, gain some ground and then they end up fighting each other when I deem myself dead. Why don't they kill me? I dont know. But the one that thinks I'm on his side for whatever reason is who I kill off as soon as both of us have cards so I can win the game.


So in a nutshell, 2nd place is a big deal and players will try for it if they are doomed or the risk is too high to attempt at taking 1st.

3 people like this
I like to become like a militia,,,,and attack when they least exspect. This becomes the only to avoid being picked on durning the game. Just pow pow pow.....run. Then pow pow pow them again!....then run once again. Then a quick pow, faster run....only to come pow pow pow again! This is how i do this! :)
1 person likes this

 Sounds like a good strategy for a fixed card trade in game. I don't touch anyone unless I'm going to kill them for cards. It's all about making them feel like they are not threatened and let them trust you and focus on other people with the little pows and runs here and there (weakening each other). Then once strategically placed, kill all of them in one turn and go to another game. Armies and cards are all that matter in games with lots of players. It's all political for the longer, low player games. Attacking someone without killing them means there's a chance of triggering emotions for a counter-attack. Even if someone hits some of my armies like you describe, I won't react.

1 person likes this
I totally understand what you are saying, Brian. In fact I've done the "trade in cards and never attack again" strategy, usually when I'm pissed that there is a dominant player and the other players aren't helping or continue attacking weaker players. It works, but it's a shitty way to play. I usually preface this strategy with a dozen requests that they all attack each other and then I retreat all my troops....I would hope they get the point that I'm done fighting their battles.
1 person likes this
Login or Signup to post a comment
More topics in General RISK Chat
See all 627 topics