um...
I don't think these statements are opposing each other. The first pair, the first comment is about whether to attack 4 vs 3, or 4 vs 1. If lowering territories is your goal, go for the 1. If you want to take both, you have to attack the 3, in order to have sufficient troops to take both at all. The second comment is about attack with your 3 stacks, on their 1 stack for 2 v 1 die roll, in the hopes of connecting for reinforcements. So... As for the second pair, the two are not opposing sides really at all. But again its all contextual so... If your goal is to lower territory by one, take the 1 stack. If reducing counter play does result from that, then you have also reduced counter play. If he is going to get a set amount of troops regardless, and you want to try lowering is 3 stack, then go for it so he has less automatic troops to work with.
No spoils this would work. Taking territories is not so important for gaining cards. Really, in no spoils... its killing troops you want to do. Because only bonuses and extra territories help bring in more.
The essential idea is simply: use a single stack to attack multiple stacks nearby without invading. I actually used this tonight twice in two of my games. I used a 7 stack to take three 3 stacks, and was successful. 7 troops took 9, with 2-3 losses. And surprisingly enough, I used a 5 stack to do the same thing in a different game. 5 took 9 as well... with no losses.
The clincher is always in the risk management. My 7 stack took a bonus. My 5 stack cleared an opponent from a particular region.
The odds were by no means in my favour. It's in deciding to not invade, to take the risk, and so on.
Game settings are always an influence. I never stated other wise. In fact my posts include ideas like going for it mostly in unlimited, and mostly not in chained/adjacent.
I have played many of the actual hasbro risk games, 2210, godstorm, lofr, multiple classics, halo, etc. I am always in favour of going for the attack, instead of relying on defensive dice. And I never underestimate the attacking turn my opponent is about to make. I expect his dice to be just as good as the dice I want. Odds in my opinion are always in the attacker's favour. My experience over the years has shown me this repeatedly. The defender's six will inevitably be rolled, and can't be opposed. The one ultimate downfall the attacker will inevitably meet.
I find it odd that people try to refute this by bringing up different settings. Of course different settings will change tactics. We don't use universal settings anywhere over these games. If you play Manual, Automatic, Unlimited, No spoil, Nuclear, Chained, Adjacent, Freestyle, Sequential, 1 v 1, 8 player standard, doubles or triples, flat rate and escalating and more... any tactic anyone brings up you could just say.. oh X works for 7 of the above, BUT WAIT! IT DOESN'T WORK FOR ALL THE REST!
well, *light bulb* let me just write this guy a note letting this guy know that. Because I think he think's his advise works 100% of times in 300% of all possible scenarios.
My reason for writing this thread at all, is specifically for those who would never think of trying to attack three 3 stacks with a 5 stack.. because it just wouldn't work. Especially if they think, even with no kills on my part, if I take the first one with no kills, then I'm left with 4, after I take the second, I'm left with 3, and 3 vs 3 won't even get me to that third one. Now obviously the content of the thread in that context is somewhat self-evident. And really, it's just as much as seeing yes, attack each reducing to one first, then invade after, as it is to decide to actually risk these attacks at all. Sometimes they fail, and you stop dead in your tracks. The clincher is when they are halfway done to success, and you are on a roll of double kills... how far will you take it?
