Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4064490" data-attributes="member: 4937">Played with a sufficiently experienced and smart group of people (and assuming non-random starts), Australia is not a winning strategy in and of itself.&nbsp; However, that doesn't mean Risk is a good game.a) Played as a 'Pen and Paper' game, six player risk might take 8-12 hours.&nbsp; Played on a computer, six player risk takes about 45 minutes.&nbsp; Too much of the game is pointless dice rolling.b) It sucks that players can be easily put out of the game.&nbsp; When playing risk, you need two player and four player games on hand for the participants that get put out of the game early.c) At the end of the game, it comes down to almost complete luck, as the ability to turn in sets immediately if you have more than 5 cards becomes a cascading effect.&nbsp; This not only acts to end the game immediately based on a random draw of cards, but forces everyone else to gamble on ending the game immediately to stop it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4064490, member: 4937"] Played with a sufficiently experienced and smart group of people (and assuming non-random starts), Australia is not a winning strategy in and of itself. However, that doesn't mean Risk is a good game. a) Played as a 'Pen and Paper' game, six player risk might take 8-12 hours. Played on a computer, six player risk takes about 45 minutes. Too much of the game is pointless dice rolling. b) It sucks that players can be easily put out of the game. When playing risk, you need two player and four player games on hand for the participants that get put out of the game early. c) At the end of the game, it comes down to almost complete luck, as the ability to turn in sets immediately if you have more than 5 cards becomes a cascading effect. This not only acts to end the game immediately based on a random draw of cards, but forces everyone else to gamble on ending the game immediately to stop it. [/QUOTE]

Verification