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

Jason is right. The new AI from a week or two ago does not attack anyone. So I quit playing because it's so boring.

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

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
I disagree. That's the benefit of free will and it is a strategy. It's called risk because you take the chance of losing your army Everytime you attack. If it was supposed to be easy then they would have called it something else. I've been playing the original risk board game for many years before I downloaded it on my phone. This has never been a quick game and for those that do like a quicker game, the smg studios have made many quicker versions and maps for the attempt of Making everyone happy. Try a different version.
Also, if there was a limit to how many troops can be on one territory-(say fifty for example), then what do you think would happen if every enemy next to you maxed out. It would be the same problem if not worse. Like in history, when two powerful entities collide, EVERYONE dies.
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
Hey is anyone else feeling like the bot has a vendetta against only you?? Ive had bots on different games seem to single me out when im in doing ok.. But everyone else is doing better then me and doesn't make sense why bot would even come at me when it could do more damage to someone else that would benefit the bot to not single me out.. Especially when playing against a person using 2 accounts..

The bots have changed their behaviour recently. They used not to attack defending armies if they had fewer armies. Now they use their bonus armies to build up their armies and as soon as they have advantage they attack.  So, it is not safe anymore to barricade in Australia or SA and have bots on the borders. And yes, once the bots pick on someone they relentlessly attack. I found out that the best way to control the bots is to get rid of them in vicinity of your major forces early in the game even at high cost. If you do so, they usually become someone else's problem, if you do not, they keep building up until they finally attack you all of the sudden.

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

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