corkysru wrote:Besides.. normally (not always) once one person is removed from the game a domino effect happens until there is a clear victor in the making.
That has only been my experience in three player games, and even then not that much. Especially the more people you have, the more likely someone can get booted out early- which means that they'll have to wait around even longer, since the more people in a game the slower it goes.
corkysru wrote:I wouldn't say boring.. slightly time consuming.. and what is Risk other than conflict resolution. If you wanted a game that wasn't about fighting...why are you playing risk?
You're missing my point. I like games about fighting- but I prefer games where determining who wins a fight is quick and lets the rest of the game continue. There's nothing exciting about repeatedly rolling dice to determine something that you can code a calculator program to do within a second. Once you get into the later stages of the game, Risk plays like a bad dice game instead of a board game.
corkysry wrote:Its a simple game.. that's partly why it holds appeal.. yeah holding a hold continent makes no sense.. but it works...
It causes marginal income spikes which screw with strategy, so while it might 'work' I find it makes for a poor strategic experience. There are a very limited number of playable strategies which are obvious to determine.
corkysry wrote:There is a lesson to be taken from this. DON'T HOLD EUROPE! Any person who has played risk more than twice can tell you this simple technique. Also.. don't forget that if America or Africa spreads themselves to thin one turn they may be at risk of attack from you or their other neighbors...
But the point is that defense grows much more slowly than offense. The North American will only have two less people on defense on Alaska or Mexico- hardly a serious cost for invading me through Greenland.
corkysry wrote:Now... don't get me wrong..there are a lot of games that are more challenging, or more complex or quicker than Risk.. but few that combine all of those. Yes its long... don't play it if you don't like long games. Yes people get knocked out.. don't play it if everyone has to play until the end.
Seriously? If it whats you like its what you like but 'Eurogames' are far from better.
So... this is where I have to ask. Have you played any Eurogames? How many board games have you played? Because, as telcontar42 pointed out, a lot of the most famous Eurogames beat Risk at your criteria. And so if you haven't even played Settlers of Catan or Puerto Rico, how can you seriously compare the two genres?
folkhero wrote:Risk might not be the best game out there, but it does have a big advantage over pretty much all other strategy board games: all but the most casual gamers already know how to play it. For example, you're going around your dorm asking people you don't know very well, "would you like to play (game that you don't know how to play)? I promise it's fun," or "would you like to join us for a game of Risk?" In my experience, you're gonna have more luck with the game that people already know how to play.
That's an argument for Risk is a good tool for finding a gaming group, not that Risk is a good game. If you did that, you'd be best off ending the game with "hey guys, I have this game called Puerto Rico that we ought to try out."
xkcijik wrote:board games...anyone play the game of go ?
I do, or as I ought to call it, the game of figuring out all the stupid mistakes I can make so hopefully I won't make them again.