SMG Studio

I have often seen fixed bonus players claim that games using that bonus require more strategy than progressive bonus games. I don't agree. There is strategy to both but as for which is more strategic I argue it is progressive. A lot of people say that risk, and especially progressive, is game decided by random chance with dice, cards, starting position, etc, but how can that be the case when going up against five opponents I win a majority of my games? I must be really lucky lol. Certainly luck is a factor but that in itself is part of the strategy of the game. Progressive bonus is very strategic and every detail matters. Each turn is crucial. Each battle matters. Where you're troops are is very important. You need to think who you can eliminate turns in advance. It takes judgement to decide where to try an elimination and to know when it is best just to throw down your troops and wait. You need to see all possible eliminations (the ones that will get you your next set, the ones that are too easy to pass on, and those where you have enough troops to eliminate two or more opponents with no sets in between). You need to do all you can to prevent anyone having a good shot at you and you need to think what each opponent will do on their turn. Managing the psychology of opponents is important (although I think this matters even more in fixed). In progressive bonus you need to seize the day to win but in fixed there is little incentive to attack. I have played much more progressive than fixed. My progressive accounts are grandmaster but my one fixed account has master rank so it's not like I don't know about it. As far as I can see fixed is just about stacking as many men as you can and hoping for/manipulating others to fight. So while both are strategic I think progressive is at least as strategic if not more so. I have always thought fixed is more of an art and progressive more of a science. Because fixed is about mostly about people is mostly about geography and numbers.

That is where I disagree. The cards and chances of sets are part of the strategy of progressive. Three cards will be a set almost half the time four is a set the great majority of the time. Sure luck is a factor but there is still as much strategy as fixed. I grew up on progressive risk and not until recently have I seen risk board games with fixed bonus. I always play the best opponents I can get. I never play novices and play few beginners so my winning so many games is definitely a major anomaly from the idea that progressive is mostly decided by luck. I agree I win so much because I use better tactics than most opponents, but that is just my point. The players I play against know how to play progressive risk well. But I make better decisions than they do in many cases and that is called strategy. And of course you don't necessarily need a set at the beginning of a turn to get one later that same turn as long as your armies are well positioned (strategy). Progressive has a whole apsect of strategy that is largely absent from fixed in that you should position your troops to strike in as many directions as possible and also you can use your men to block eliminations or use others as shields for yourself. Also keep in mind that many games are decided (or at least significantly altered) in the sixth round when the 10, 15, and 20 set come down. At that time most players have five cards so there is absolutely no luck there except the dice which fixed has also. At least in progressive you have to plan how you will eliminate your opponents, take the risk, and seize the day. as opposed to fixed where the only real strategy that I have observed are to take as many continents as you can and then just stack while hoping others fight. Granted I don't have that much experience with fixed but I do hold master rank on my fixed account.

In my opinion fixed is more strategic, for the following reason; fixed and progressive have the same strategic requirements and are played very similarly, except fixed is a slower speed, allowing the "politics" amongst the players to shift in unexpected ways. You will be unable to sweep the board in a single turn during a fixed game (early on at least), and are likely to become the sole target of the remaining opponents.

Fixed and progressive have the same objective and in both versions you want as many armies as possible. It's how the armies are obtained that differentiates them. Progressive is all about the cards. Cards still matter in fixed but so do continents and the number of territories a player controls. So the games are very different and the strategy involved is different even if the objective is the same. The biggest difference is that progressive does more to encourage eliminating opponents because the reward for doing so is much greater than fixed. So in progressive strategy normally revolves around positioning your armies to kill off opponent(s) who have enough cards. I think progressive has (or should have) much more thought put into each action and detail compared to fixed which is more of a turtling and waiting game.

To an extent I agree with you but I must point out that you've mentioned turtling a couple times now. There are players that recognize the effectiveness of this strategy and will team up to take you out quickly, even when you're out of cards - simply to make sure that you do not place. With so few troops dealt out in fixed, one is required to look much further than a 3 - 4 turns in advance to be consecutively victorious. After playing a few matches with you secta, I have no problem saying that you are an exceptional player, and you aren't necessarily wrong with the turtle statement - but with the speed of the game being slowed way down in fixed - emotions are given time to flare and strategies to change directions. Eliminating a player is great and all, but while it is fortuitous in progressive - it has the remarkable ability of making the eliminator a pariah amongst the remaining opponents. Furthermore one will never see a triumphant comeback from a single territory in fixed as one might occasionally encounter in progressive. I maintain that while there is considerable strategy required in progressive (hence the enormous popularity of the game), it does not quite stand up to fixed. A losing game cannot easily be turned around from a single set of cards

Progressive and fixed are different so they need different strategies. In fixed it might be important how many territories a player has but in progressive thinges are different. Once the set value has moved up it is just about how many cards and troops they have as well as where their territories are. So sure sometimes a player may come back from one territory, especially if they have a lot of armies there, but in progressive the number of territories isn't all that important except in a few cases like one on one at the end of the game.

I feel like you guys care more about the game than SMG

I think secta, that we should call it a case of apples and oranges lol, with little point in comparing them. Both versions bring joy and aggravation to people all over the world. Personally I'm still excited that there's a mobile version, my original risk board hasn't moved in over two years lol.

Yes whatever problems it may have the mobile version is very fun. The actual board game is much worse by comparison because it takes so much longer and most people who play have little skill.