Rule on throwing game...

[multilis]

I have game #6087644 that seems doomed to stalemate unless something is done. (Everyone sitting on their ever growing army stacks)

Is it acceptable that after several turns warning I all out attack the other guy in South America to help break the deadlock, if he refuses to leave? Or would that be throwing the game?

[AndyDufresne]

Throwing games is never a good thing. Play to win the game, or position yourself to empower yourself for future rounds.


--Andy

[The Neon Peon]

It's escalating, that's not a stalemate position yet. I was in a game recently, Game 6172010, where we had a similar setup, although with 3 players instead of 4. On round 44, one of them decided to auto the other, leaving me ahead of both of them and the ability to win.

As for the game you mentioned, red can win it in a round or two, if he knows what he's doing and nothing major changes.

[72o]

I hate build games. There is nothing more boring or infuriating than people who are perfectly content to let a game go to round 100+ with no activity whatsoever.

Telling your opponent to act, or feel your wrath, is not throwing the game. It's another form of strategy. If he gets scared and leaves, you become stronger, if he calls your bluff, you have to either attack like you said you would, or continue stacking. I use this technique from time to time. I usually attack like I said I would. No one's ever accused me of throwing the game. Hell, noobs often become vindictive and suicide into you because you're blocking a +2 bonus in an escalating game with cards at 20, but they don't get in trouble for throwing games. So bust him up, make the game interesting.

EDIT: All of the above was before I looked at the game. It's escalating. This game should have been over a while ago.

You are the noob I'm talking about above. It's a +2 bonus. Cards are at 85. If you hit green's huge stack on S3 (he's only got 3 spots), you better be positioned to take out the two 1s that red is blocking you from getting to at F1, or you are handing the game to red. Use your 8 in Europe. As a matter of fact, since you have 4 cards, as long as neither red or green cashes a 3 carder, you should cash (I assume you don't have 2 pair) and take out green, who will hopefully have 4 cards at that point, and you can cash mid turn. Drop the proceeds where you can get to red, but don't attack red yet, because you won't be able to kill him, and if you weaken him blue will kill him. Hopefully that troop advantage will allow you to lean on red until he's dead, then the same with blue.

It will be interesting to see if green tries to move given your threat. He may try to move to NA, which would be fine, as you can still kill him there.

[natty dread]

Deploy on e4, then kill those two green 1:s with them, then auto that stack on s3 from s2. That should do away with green, and you get to cash again...

Unless green has a set right now, in which case, you're probably screwed...

Also, blue is before you and has 4 cards, but even if he cashes, he can't kill green as he has his troops positioned all wrong...

[multilis]

Green has 177 armies, cards are worth 85. His 4 cards are worth perhaps 140 at best. It will cost 160+ armies to kill him, giving generous numbers.

So whoever kills him falls behind the other two guys by 20+ armies. (more likely 30+, perhaps even loses 40+ depending on layout on my next turn.)

I am #3 right now, killing #4 at a loss will *weaken* my position. (Though may be needed to prevent a stalemate if no one else will act, thus the original question)

[72o]

I have game #Game 6087644 that seems doomed to stalemate unless something is done. (Everyone sitting on their ever growing army stacks)

Is it acceptable that after several turns warning I all out attack the other guy in South America to help break the deadlock, if he refuses to leave? Or would that be throwing the game?

Linked the game.

[72o]

Green has 177 armies, cards are worth 85. His 4 cards are worth perhaps 140 at best. It will cost 160+ armies to kill him, giving generous numbers.

So whoever kills him falls behind the other two guys by 20+ armies. (more likely 30+, perhaps even loses 40+ depending on layout on my next turn.)

I am #3 right now, killing #4 at a loss will *weaken* my position. (Though may be needed to prevent a stalemate if no one else will act, thus the original question)

At the moment red and blue are outdropping you. If you don't take out green when you have the opportunity, you will be bled out slowly. That's just my opinion, anyway, but as I said before this game should have been over ages ago. I wouldn't have let it get this far, I would have tried to kill someone by now.

[natty dread]

Green has 177 armies, cards are worth 85. His 4 cards are worth perhaps 140 at best. It will cost 160+ armies to kill him

Nah, not that much, you'll probably lose more like 120. The higher the stacks the bigger advantage to the attacker.

[multilis]

based on exact odds at http://www.plainsboro.com/~lemke/risk/, I lose over 150 on average, so I do fall behind.

I was the weakest guy earlier this game, had crippling bad luck early, so it being dragged out and others blocking for me so that the biggest power wouldn't steamroll me and them, allowed me to survive and have a shot now.

If nothing happens, the income from cards now exceeds the small edge from territories enough that the stacks will grow to unwinnable stalemate. (Unless green can't cash his cards till 5 in next round which would make it profitable to kill him)

Here is a link to previous suggestion discussing the problem: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=50629&hilit=escalating