Fruitcake wrote:-It is impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond.
-The idea of this is far more strategic.
-You have to think not just about this move, but the turn next, the turn after that and so on.
-Because of this one still makes errors of judgement.
-One can think something is going to happen, but then the enemy turns and does something completely different, this then changes the whole face of the game
Explain again which of those does not describe checkers or Connect Four.
I made the analogy because all three fall under the domain of combinatorial game theory, so you can apply the same decision structures to any of them. Because it can be shown that the first player can, by taking 3 territories, create an advantage (unless someone drops a bonus, then the game depends on the starting position), the first player should win, as long as they don't make any mistakes.
Maybe you just play against bad players who make illogical moves, so the games don't SEEM to be determined... but they are. At any given time, there is a best move to make (because you can only put your deployment in a finite number of places and make a finite set of attacks to take adjacent territories, so the one which leaves you in the best position is the best move [Risk doesn't fall victim to this, because the attacks are probabilistic, you only know with certain odds which move is best]), so it's not impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond if you assume they will make their best move. If they don't make their best move, then that's even better, because they're in a worse position than they could be.
Let's play a game right now. Since you don't need dice, the entire game can be done by writing down your moves, once you know the starting position. You could play by mail! (like Diplomacy, but with fewer rules)