Risk, the board game -- how to end

[Quasqueton]

I played a game of Risk this past weekend on our normal D&D night. We played enough turns to run out of territory cards; we had worked up to 45 bonus armies. The game didn't look to be nearing completion, so we just all (3 of us) agreed to call it a draw.

The LotR Risk game has a good built-in game end mechanic (the Fellowship reach Mt. Doom). What is a good game end for standard Risk?

Call it after X-number of turns? But then you have a situation where everyone "goes for broke" on their last turn, or the last player has an advantage.

I thought about maybe each player rolling a d20 at the end of their turn. If the die comes up 20, the war ends "at the negotiating table" and the players then just count up their territories for a winner of the game.

Something else? What interesting, and Risk-appropriate, ending could keep a Risk game from going on indefinitely?

Quasqueton

 

[HellHound]

Honestly, I HEARTILY recommend RISK2210 - it is well-balanced, much quicker in pacing, and only plays for five 'turns'.

Makes it a lot quicker and less painful to play, in my experience.

That said, i haven't actually played classic RISK since 2210 was released, because of the issues with gameplay that I had with RISK back in the old days. I'd go for a turn limiter, and increase the number of conquests to get a card from 1 in a turn to 3 in a turn.

 

[Dark Jezter]

It's been a very long time since I've seen a game of Risk (or Axis & Allies) actually go until there was only 1 player remaining. Usually when it becomes clear who the winner is going to be, the losing player(s) concede defeat.

Of course, sometimes a losing player will hang on until the bitter end rather than admit defeat. They can drag the game out for another hour or more fortifying huge stacks of troops into every territory still under their control.

 

[Warrior Poet]

I like to end a good Risk game by grabbing the game table in both hands and upending it with a cry of rage as I leap to my feet, scattering pieces and players alike in sudden turmoil as I reach for my six guns while uttering terrible oaths and calling for the hide of the low-down, no-good, lyin' in the dirt, cheatenest sumbitch what ever walked the earth.

But then, I don't play Risk much.

Warrior Poet

 

[Quasqueton]

It's been a very long time since I've seen a game of Risk (or Axis & Allies) actually go until there was only 1 player remaining. Usually when it becomes clear who the winner is going to be, the losing player(s) concede defeat.

Of course, sometimes a losing player will hang on until the bitter end rather than admit defeat. They can drag the game out for another hour or more fortifying huge stacks of troops into every territory still under their control.

I wish I had thought to try talking the other two guys into concedeing this game. I played careful and slow.

I had undisputed control of Australia, Africa, and Asia with secure border territories. Player B had a solid "Fortress Europe". Player C had a bare and constantly slipping grasp on South America and North America. The talk around the table was that I had the game wrapped up. I was slowly going to take everything. I should have offered to let them concede at that moment.

Then I made a mistake of being too aggressive. I marched across the northern territories of N.A. and took Iceland from Europe. So on his next turn, Mr. Europe said he had nothing to loose now, and had his built-up armies in Europe make a break out attempt through my Asian borders. He made it through too (barely), and proceeded to march forces through my weak interior territories right down to Australia. That action, we then called "Mickey's Gambit", completely destabalized my control of the board (in a mutual-destruction kind of way).

The other player followed up on Mickey's Gambit and made courageous grabs at some of my other territories. In two rounds around the board, my inevitable victory crumbled, and it was again a close three-way war with me in the underdog position.

It was soon after that we agreed to end the game a draw. Essentially "resetting" the game 20-some rounds (and 3.5 hours) into it didn't give us reason to beleive it was going to ever end.

Two lessons from that game:

1- Never back someone into a corner until you are ready and able to crush them immediately. "Nothing to loose" actions can be devistating for shaking up the balance of power.

2- Always offer to let the other players concede when you have a strong advantage. You may not have it next round.

Quasqueton

 

[mojo1701]

It's been a very long time since I've seen a game of Risk (or Axis & Allies) actually go until there was only 1 player remaining. Usually when it becomes clear who the winner is going to be, the losing player(s) concede defeat.

Myself and generally 3 other friends used to play Risk every first period back in grade 12 (about 1 1/2 years ago), and we usually played teams: 2 vs. 2. It ended the games a lot quicker.

Having said that, we've also played LotR risk, which we played the same way: good vs. evil. We've played both original and trilogy editions. We never play with Fellowship. It detracts from the game.

 

[Angcuru]

Risk? Bah. Real men play Stratego. In the dark. In misty forests. Wearing chainmail and playing Norwegian folk music waaay too loud. Just because no one expects it.

 

[IamTheTest]

Nuclear Risk. If you control a nuclear power you can send a one missle (for every 10 armies in the your territory) to one territory. The missle immediatley devastates all armies in that territory and no other army may enter that territory for 3 more rounds (fallout). In my experience this has worked wonders for our game.

btw...Stratego rocks my socks.

 

[Finster]

My friends and I have been playing for around 30+years. In order to avoid becoming bored with the game we have heavily modified the rules to suit our needs.
In your case I would try making the game end as soon as the first person is eliminated. The winner is the player controlling the most territories. This has some pretty cool effects on game play, and really shortens the game. The first person out doesn't have to watch the last three hours of game either.

 

[Quasqueton]

In your case I would try making the game end as soon as the first person is eliminated.

Our recent game went 3.5 hours without anyone (of 3 players) being eliminated.

Quasqueton