I’m sure this subject has been covered over and over again on this forum, so if I’m beating a dead horse please shut me down. Just trying to learn from the group and lose the nOOb status.
In my limited experience with Risk I have always found that at almost all costs it is advisable to conquer a country to gain a card. So many of the games I play come down to a one-card advantage and cashing in sets to enable the winner to wipe the board. I find myself going to great lengths, and “risking” many of my armies in order to conquer a country and get a card. However, I’m seeing many more skilled players choose, especially in the first round, to place their armies and fortify without attacking to gain a card. I’m speaking of Standard games, Sequential play order, Classic maps, Escalating bonus cards, and Unlimited fortifications.
Under what circumstances do members feel it appropriate to forgo conquering a country to gain a card in favor of simply building an army? How much stock do you take in gaining cards? Any input is appreciated…
I can appreciate that train of thought, DeCaptain...but it still seems to me that cashing in for the 'lame 4' allows you to gain additional armies faster than, or as fast as, your opponents as long as you get a card every turn. Perhaps this is a personal preference issue. Since I understand the concept, I think I'll try this strategy next time it might seem prudent and see how it works for me. Thanks for contributing.
in escalating you dont want to have to cash with 5 so you wont grab one occasionally...typically in 6 player you dont want to cash for 4 unless you will die if you dont
sometimes you dont want to get one because the other team is going to take you out
sometimes you dont want to have the card to try to keep someone else from taking you out...if you dont have enough for them to cash, it may not be worth it for them to get you....
and finally, your dice just may be horrible...and it isnt worth the risk to keep attacking to try to get one
AAFitz wrote:in escalating you dont want to have to cash with 5 so you wont grab one occasionally...typically in 6 player you dont want to cash for 4 unless you will die if you dont
AAFitz wrote:in escalating you dont want to have to cash with 5 so you wont grab one occasionally...typically in 6 player you dont want to cash for 4 unless you will die if you dont
Why wouldn't you hold until you had 5 cards?
The 4 mentioned is bonus armies, not cards. Most will hold on till 5 cards, but not at the expense of having to be the 1st to cash in and get a measly 4 armies extra
I feel if you are first in an escalating cards game, it is usually best not to take a card first go, because of reasons listed above, as well as the fact that there generally is no easy card to get in the first turn. All countries have 3's on them making it difficult given the "randomness" of the dice.
Therefore by not taking a card, and fortifying, you strenthen your position, generally raise your first cash in bonus, and set yourself up to get easier cards such as countries with ones on them, in later rounds.
the main reason is because it is not worth the amount of armies you may lose in the first round to capture a territory with three armies on when more often than not by the second round that territory only has one army on it.
Also not gaining the card could mean that (in esalating) you have the advantage of trading cards in last meaning you gain more armies for the same amount of cards. However i still try and gain a card most of the time.
In esc games most exp players are trying to time when they cashed their cards. This because in esc games when the cards hit 15 and then start to jump by 5 each time a set is cashed you have a good chance of taking out another player and getting their cards.
Most exp players spend all the early rounds positioning their armies and getting cards just to be in a position to take advantage of when the set values increase. Where as most new players go all out to get a conti and by doing this weaken themselves or other players. Therefore making easy targets for the exp players.
mbohn2: f*ck you steve....now try and defend yourself against pink
mbohn2: and I meant that in a non personally offensive way....more directed towards your mongol hoard.....
Even in a flat-rate game, it can make sense to not go for a card on the first turn, especially if you are the one who starts the game. It just puts you at the theoretical end of the line when it comes to the first cash-in. I say theoretical because who's to say that you won't make your first set after 3 cards while others may need 4 or 5. Even still, being last to cash in your cards can actually work to your advantage. If you aren't on the verge of elimination or haven't managed to secure a bonus continent, everyone may ignore you and beat up on each other. Then the net change in the board is negligable only everyone has already spent their cards. Then, you play yours, make your bonus continent and nobody has the juice to break it up.
While I don't go so far as fortify and not even make an attack when I go first, I certainly stop if I lose 2 right off the bat and don't have an easy 3 on 1 in an area that I don't care about and won't miss the troops if get bad dice and deplete myself.
sometimes the armies aren't worth battling for a card. unless its extreme circumstances (ie esc and cards worth 50) i don't try to get cards with countries with only 2 on. odds r against u. cards aren't all that important. look at it this way. a 10 set (flat rate) is 3 cards. each card therefore is 3.3 recuring armies. problem is that u don't get those armies until u can cash so u may end up weakening urself.
if its a choice between a card or holdin ur cont then the cont is probably better
