2.1 Strategy Guide (suggestions welcome!)

[Mr Changsha]

Here are some thoughts on large 2.1 games (no cards and flat rate to a point...). I truly believe that it is possible to progress well (and win) from pretty much any opening position in a 2.1 8 man no cards game. The trick is knowing how to develop from all of the possible first bonuses. I am assuming the reader has a good basic understanding of the game and so am only giving tips and hints directly related to 2.1 play.

1. Consider that 2.1 involves continent bonuses, territory bonuses and territories. Good 2.1 play is not so simple as just thinking that you want North America or Europe. Maybe China, India, Middle East and The Horn would be more effective?
2. Play 'Strength in Depth' with territory bonuses i.e US and Canada, but then fort to a standard defence once you have the North American continent. Same with Scandinavia and Western Europe, leave stacks everywhere until you have the full Europe and then fort more traditionally.
3. EVERY starting positon i.e a single territory bonus, can lead to a strong position but the method of getting to it might well be very different. Therefore, don't discount any player in a 2.1 game as they might well expand suddenly and very effectively. One must learn how to develop from Scandinavia, or Australia, or The Horn or The US (to name a few) correctly, taking the board into account. All things being equal, is it better to go from The US to Central America and then up to Canada or the other way around? Or should you merely take part of Canada and then spread in the Amazonas? This kind of thing should be considered on round 1 or round 2 of a game. For example, in a game I am currently playing I started in Parana, took Central America, then US, then Amazonas and, though unusual, it was the correct way for that game.
4. Large numbers: 2.1 is interesting in that a winning position (in a no cards game) is probably getting around 35 to 40 troops a round - of course this is only a rough estimate, it does also depend on the board - and players should be working to reach that kind of number. How to get it? Classic spreads include Australasia, China and India while working on Russia for an almost lock (still probably need the Middle East) or Europe, Middle East and down into The Horn while also plunging into Canada. North America + Scandinavia while working into South America is another. With these kinds of large empires, remember to have your defences LOCKED before moving any further. There are so many ways into any Empire in a 2.1 game and most of your oppoenents will be able to create at least a 15 stack at will. All routes of attack must be completely blocked up before moving forward. I have seen many a winning position collapse very quickly due to the mistake of pushing too fast, even comparatively late in the game.
5. Never be afraid to completely change position in a 2.1 game. I have, for example, moved from Scandinavia to taking the whole of Australasia (and holding) in one move before mopping up China/India in the second. Feeling surrounded in Australasia with a mighty Asia on one side and a cocky North America on the other. Jump into South Africa/The Horn, fort everything out of Australasia and let those guys sort themselves out. This is dependent on playing 2.1 with unlimited forts, though similar moves can be made with chained forts too...just a fair bit more difficult.

Finally, some thoughts on the various starting positions...

1. Scandinavia: Great defensive spot to hang around in until round 20. Easy to defend with the possibilty of claiming the full Europe bonus (one of the best spots in the game). Go for it, but remember that one or even two other players might have the same plan. It is a popular spot. Route: Scandinavia, Middle East, The Horn, India.

2. Western Europe: If you have a very good opening spread in there play it hard and quickly take Scandinavia. Unless a good position, avoid it as you might well be overwhelmed by another player in the long run. Route: Western Europe, Scandinavia, Europe, Middle East

3. Mahgreb: In Mr C's humble opinion an absolute waste of energy as a first position, however it is quite a popular opening spot and has produced a strong position before. Entertain it with caution. Route: Mahgred to Africa? Happy to be corrected on this one. *revised* Though I have seen it played badly many times, I recently had success from here by seeing Mahgreb as the 'African China'. Large force in Algeria and then pushed for the full SA bonus.

4. The Horn: A good spot to begin. However, be aware that it can end up in an understrength mid.game position. The Horn, South Africa and The Middle East is fine, but no Middle East and you are highly unlikely to create a winning position. Route: The Horn, Middle East (see?), South Africa, Scandinavia (really!) or India.

5. South Africa: Tricky postion to begin from an not one to aim for. Connecting up with The Horn is a must.

6. Parana: Fine position, easy to defend. However, there is a lot of work to do if you want the full South America bonus, hence one often sees Parana players attempting the split position (parana + scandinavia for example) to generate income. Not a great idea. Route: Parana, Amazonas, into Mahgreg. Either push into Africa or North America.

7. Amazonas: Horrible first position. If someone reading likes it please write why!

8. Central: If there is no player in US jump for it. If there is a player in Canada, still think about it. Route: Central, US (stack in Amazonas) up to Canada.

9. US: Great position. Always play it with HUGE strength in depth and slowly work into Canada and Central America. Route: US,North America, Scandinavia...

10. Canada: Hard starting position with a similar route as US. However, as an alternative...Route: Canada, Scandinavia (they won't see it coming) Europe!

11. Russia: Nightmarish starting position unless you are lucky enough to have no player in China (highly unlikey). So many borders, so many threats. You'll end up with 20,20,20,20,20 in Russia with no place to go, assuming you hold it. Route: Russia, China (within the first few rounds).

12. China: Personal favourite: Keys are to keep Australasia quiet (or take it if you can) and as you take India and Russia make China itself just ridiculously HUGE. It defends everything. Route: (there are many) China, India, Russia, Middle East, Scandinavia.

13. India: Fine if you are starting early and can scare off anyone playing into China. Then take China and repeat. Alternative route: India, China, Middle East, Horn. Also fun.

14. Indonesia: Not a starting position. Really. Route...Indonesia, Australia, China...

15. Australia: Popular position. The trick is to secure Australasia BEFORE China can get India. Some of the most enjoyable battles come from these two positions. Route: Australia, Indonesia, China, India.

16. Middle East: While it is a major catch for the Africa player, the Europe player and the Asia player, the Middle East is sometimes held as an independent entity. Iraq is the key spot and arm it heavily just as you would China in the Far East position.

A lot of this is of course dependent on the individual player's ability to make the right decisions at the correct times.

[Joodoo]

I personally think Mexico is quite important, it's a convenient connection between NA, SA, Asia (through Hawaii), and Oceania...

[Mr Changsha]

I personally think Mexico is quite important, it's a convenient connection between NA, SA, Asia (through Hawaii), and Oceania...

As a key point on the board, true. The border between Mexico and Hawaii is pretty much a test of strength between Australasia and the North Amercica/South Amercia player occupying Mexico.

As an attacking route? Australasia wants to border up Hawaii and probably maintain peace with the player in Mexico, so that he is able to push into China comfortably. If Mexico is held by South America he is probably going North or into Africa...not into Australasia, while North America would be unlikely to push into Asia through Mexcio...though he might!

If one starts in Mexico, there is the danger of getting a bit stuck between a strong US and a strong Parana.

[Geger]

4. The Horn: A good spot to begin. However, be aware that it can end up in an understrength mid.game position. The Horn, South Africa and The Middle East is fine, but no Middle East and you are highly unlikely to create a winning position. Route: The Horn, Middle East (see?), South Africa, Scandinavia (really!) or India.

If I have 2 regions in Horn at the beginning, I usually try to take it. Agree it's not a good position to expand, but as long nobody owns Southern Africa, Horn gives some extra troops to build another stronghold.

[Mr Changsha]

4. The Horn: A good spot to begin. However, be aware that it can end up in an understrength mid.game position. The Horn, South Africa and The Middle East is fine, but no Middle East and you are highly unlikely to create a winning position. Route: The Horn, Middle East (see?), South Africa, Scandinavia (really!) or India.

If I have 2 regions in Horn at the beginning, I usually try to take it. Agree it's not a good position to expand, but as long nobody owns Southern Africa, Horn gives some extra troops to build another stronghold.

Well, it has the advantage of being fairly easy to take and hold in the early game. Therefore you are making sure of a place at the table for the middle to end game. However, I haven't seen it prove to be a FINISHING position. The player ends up with Horn/South Africa and the Middle East if he is going well - assuming you agree with me that trying to hold the full Africa position is just asking to get smashed. The problem is where to go from there. By the time The Horn has developed that far,Europe is usually formed and has probably broken the Middle East. There will be a force in Asia as well as threats from the South. At that point, the player usually ends up merely stacking up and hoping for a break.

So I don't think it is a winning position. However, in one game at the moment where I have this exact position and am struggling with the inherent weaknessses within it as a good position to expand from. I'll be there at the end to be sure, but I probably won't win.

Areas I am hoping to start in would include China, Scandinavia, Australia, US and Parana. Not The Horn.

[MarathonMax]

Mr Changsha,

I read your post and I find it very insightful. Tks for tips.

Ok, here's my position (with no spoils and adjacent fort):

Although you wrote that South Africa (ZA) was a position to avoid, I had but no choice to start there. Then you go on and mention that connecting to The Horn is a must, well, I didn't do that - yet. I went for Parana as I had an opportunity there. I hope I will hold until my next turn.

I have an opponent that has captured Central America and USA. He appears to be aiming for Canada but is meeting some resistance.

As you can see I have sort of an hybrid position.

I am not going to post where I will strike next but I will keep you updated on the progress of this strategy.

Any coaching thoughts maybe you want to share?

Tks

Max

[Mr Changsha]

Mr Changsha,

I read your post and I find it very insightful. Tks for tips.

Ok, here's my position (with no spoils and adjacent fort):

Although you wrote that South Africa (ZA) was a position to avoid, I had but no choice to start there. Then you go on and mention that connecting to The Horn is a must, well, I didn't do that - yet. I went for Parana as I had an opportunity there. I hope I will hold until my next turn.

I have an opponent that has captured Central America and USA. He appears to be aiming for Canada but is meeting some resistance.

As you can see I have sort of an hybrid position.

I am not going to post where I will strike next but I will keep you updated on the progress of this strategy.

Any coaching thoughts maybe you want to share?

Tks

Max

In my office we talk about 'making a snake' when playing 2.1. The idea is to create a connected empire that even if broken in part, is still generating income. Take for example China, India, Middle East, Horn. Even if a player breaks The Horn, you are still getting the other bonuses. Forting in depth (not just laying your troops on the outskirts of your empire) also helps to make you pretty hard to defeat. Now playing Parana and The Horn is, in a sense, giving you the same advantage. The big difference though is that if (in the first example) The Horn is broken you can fort depth forces from the Middle East or India BACK to The Horn to defend it. However, in your situation if, say, Parana is broken you can't very well send forces from the Horn to arm it back up again. You also mentioned you are playing adjacent forts and I would say my strategies are based on unlimited or at least chained forts. 2.1 is a bloody huge map to play adjacent forts on and a different way of playing would be required.

Send me the game no: if you want me to have a look at the specific game.

[Bootsmann Rommel]

Great suggestions! I agree with you mostly but I do like Amazons, I think that I would rather get the upper hand in S.A by taking Amazons before Parana, and then Mexico. Chile is KEY to keeping Amazons tho.

[MarathonMax]

Game number is 4121459

I was able to keep both South Africa and Parana. I then moved up Central. then USA.

The snake is definetly the key here.

Max

Mr Changsha,

I read your post and I find it very insightful. Tks for tips.

Ok, here's my position (with no spoils and adjacent fort):

Although you wrote that South Africa (ZA) was a position to avoid, I had but no choice to start there. Then you go on and mention that connecting to The Horn is a must, well, I didn't do that - yet. I went for Parana as I had an opportunity there. I hope I will hold until my next turn.

I have an opponent that has captured Central America and USA. He appears to be aiming for Canada but is meeting some resistance.

As you can see I have sort of an hybrid position.

I am not going to post where I will strike next but I will keep you updated on the progress of this strategy.

Any coaching thoughts maybe you want to share?

Tks

Max

In my office we talk about 'making a snake' when playing 2.1. The idea is to create a connected empire that even if broken in part, is still generating income. Take for example China, India, Middle East, Horn. Even if a player breaks The Horn, you are still getting the other bonuses. Forting in depth (not just laying your troops on the outskirts of your empire) also helps to make you pretty hard to defeat. Now playing Parana and The Horn is, in a sense, giving you the same advantage. The big difference though is that if (in the first example) The Horn is broken you can fort depth forces from the Middle East or India BACK to The Horn to defend it. However, in your situation if, say, Parana is broken you can't very well send forces from the Horn to arm it back up again. You also mentioned you are playing adjacent forts and I would say my strategies are based on unlimited or at least chained forts. 2.1 is a bloody huge map to play adjacent forts on and a different way of playing would be required.

Send me the game no: if you want me to have a look at the specific game.

[kratos644]

Looks good

[HZ514]

Thank you Mr Changsha, your advice helped me win a couple games! Your idea about "making a snake" is very insightful.

In my (limited) experience, your views on Africa are very valid. It offers a comfortable early game base, but it definitely suffers late game, unless you can somehow hold all of Africa consistently.

China and US served me very well as quality starting positions. I haven't had a chance to claim Europe at the beginning, but it does seem like it would work.

Australia is a deathtrap for those who want to play 2.1 like real risk, because it really doesn't generate enough economy, so a strong Asia player and/or a strong NA player can wreak havoc on Oceania's defenses.

[AAFitz]

World 2.1 Lieutenant124 +676 15 from 33(45%) 72 Tyrant (77%)13 Equalitarian (0.842)

I am not knocking this in any way, however, i was rather surprised to find you only played it 33 times.
Not to say you arent qualified, i was just not sure what to expect. Your point gain on it is impressive however for such few games on it.

Myself, I have found world to be a unique board, its size does change the way you have to play it. I consider it the most fair map, because despite the big drop, its big enough to come back from a bad round or two. Many of the smaller maps are impossible to do that on.

[Mr Changsha]

World 2.1 Lieutenant124 +676 15 from 33(45%) 72 Tyrant (77%)13 Equalitarian (0.842)

I am not knocking this in any way, however, i was rather surprised to find you only played it 33 times.
Not to say you arent qualified, i was just not sure what to expect. Your point gain on it is impressive however for such few games on it.

Myself, I have found world to be a unique board, its size does change the way you have to play it. I consider it the most fair map, because despite the big drop, its big enough to come back from a bad round or two. Many of the smaller maps are impossible to do that on.

Well, I tend to play large singles games on it and, as I am sure you know Fitz, they can take a while. I also refuse to play more than 12 games at once. 33 games in 9 months (finished) seems about right. I would think I might make 100 games after 2 years of play on CC! So, by your standard, I guess I'll never reach the level of 'experienced'. Of course, if one considers that my games have probably averaged 50 rounds, then I have played 1650 rounds on 2.1 in 9 months - which would be a hell of a lot of 1on1!

I know it sounds a little strange, but I just 'got' 2.1 from the moment I started playing it. Suits my style of play perfectly. I've noticed some elementary mistakes from my opponents in that time, so I decided to try and write some good ground rules for, at least, playing 2.1 well. Notice I'm not showing anyone how to win, just how to get into a winning position.

Still if you want to test me out (not in 1on1 you'd surely wipe me) PM me and I'll add you to my next private game invite list!

[Mr Changsha]

Thank you Mr Changsha, your advice helped me win a couple games! Your idea about "making a snake" is very insightful.

In my (limited) experience, your views on Africa are very valid. It offers a comfortable early game base, but it definitely suffers late game, unless you can somehow hold all of Africa consistently.

China and US served me very well as quality starting positions. I haven't had a chance to claim Europe at the beginning, but it does seem like it would work.

Australia is a deathtrap for those who want to play 2.1 like real risk, because it really doesn't generate enough economy, so a strong Asia player and/or a strong NA player can wreak havoc on Oceania's defenses.

Well as firm advocate of playing classic Risk from Aussie I can't agree with your last statement. Aussie IS also a good opening position on 2.1. Consider a few points...

1. Aussie can just be played as aussie for a very long time. Sometimes you just can't expand wonderfully and in those situation you need to boringly stack for many, many rounds. Aussie is a great place to do that. Just remember to keep Indonesia split!

2. Assuming you want to have some progression in the early game (and you probably do) the trick is to gain indonesia double quick. Even if you have aussie on, say, round 3 you have to consider how much you own of indonesia from the beginning. If you are unlucky enough to have none of it, the China player is likely to gain India/Russia BEFORE you gain indonesia. At this point aussie can be a deathtrap.

3. As I mentioned earlier Hawaii is a key spot for aussie. It completes the oceana bonus and defends you against North America. Now this is tricky and to some extent demands the foresight of nostradamus, but you have to judge from the beginning of the game if you will be able to at least hold Hawaii from North America on, say, round 10. The previous point about indonesia is key here. Remember however, that North America is unlikely to want to expand into your territory. Therefore a deal can usually be reached over Hawaii. i.e fort behind Hawaii and leave a 3. North America will usually be content with this and will send his forces elsewhere. Usually...

4. You're now set for your game deciding battle with China. In the end Aussie HAS TO DEFEAT CHINA to win the game. China, however, doesn't have to defeat Aussie to win the game. He can, if he is very good, hold parity with Aussie, (huge China behind the lines for example) and go after Europe or North America. But Aussie has to defeat China. Whether Aussie can do this before round 25, or has to wait until China overstretches himself around round 40 depends on the board. However, if Aussie can secure China and India he will become the main man on the board. Russia is in striking distance, the Moskva/Iran/Sakha/Hawaii/Australian Claim borders are within sight and the game is very, very winnable.

[AAFitz]

World 2.1 Lieutenant124 +676 15 from 33(45%) 72 Tyrant (77%)13 Equalitarian (0.842)

I am not knocking this in any way, however, i was rather surprised to find you only played it 33 times.
Not to say you arent qualified, i was just not sure what to expect. Your point gain on it is impressive however for such few games on it.

Myself, I have found world to be a unique board, its size does change the way you have to play it. I consider it the most fair map, because despite the big drop, its big enough to come back from a bad round or two. Many of the smaller maps are impossible to do that on.

Well, I tend to play large singles games on it and, as I am sure you know Fitz, they can take a while. I also refuse to play more than 12 games at once. 33 games in 9 months (finished) seems about right. I would think I might make 100 games after 2 years of play on CC! So, by your standard, I guess I'll never reach the level of 'experienced'. Of course, if one considers that my games have probably averaged 50 rounds, then I have played 1650 rounds on 2.1 in 9 months - which would be a hell of a lot of 1on1!

I know it sounds a little strange, but I just 'got' 2.1 from the moment I started playing it. Suits my style of play perfectly. I've noticed some elementary mistakes from my opponents in that time, so I decided to try and write some good ground rules for, at least, playing 2.1 well. Notice I'm not showing anyone how to win, just how to get into a winning position.

Still if you want to test me out (not in 1on1 you'd surely wipe me) PM me and I'll add you to my next private game invite list!

It doesnt sound wierd at all. It was my favorite map, the day it came out. And I hope its obvious, im not questioning your prowess on it, just that I expected to see lots of games. Further, ive played over 1000 on the puppy, but you dont see much advice from me. On 1v1, youd fare as good a chance as I would I expect, and though i love the big games on them, my map rank on it will show im a little lacking. My doubles game is where ive really refined my play. Triples too, though I cant claim to be a master of quads. By all means add me to the list though. I feel bad for posting, its just I know many of the players that play world regularly, and was expecting to stumble on some big numbers. I never for a second questioned your skill on it though. I knew right away you were talking about the big games.