#RISK: GD STRATEGIC THEORY

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

hidden radish
#

Did you ever wonder why Chess are considered as serious thing, while RISK: GD is seen as just a game for fun, while both of them have comparible potential of developing your strategic wisdom? I see the answer in chess culture giving you a Clear Path for Development with its structured, developed and functional Theory. In our case, this idea is seen as unrealistic, mostly due to overrating factor of luck. But I want to change that. I have an offer to whole RISK: GD community. We can together create RISK: GD STRATEGIC THEORY. I offer to do it in such order:

  1. Choosing type, conditions and a map. Going from simpler to more complicated.
  2. Structuring stages of the game and point out key moments in each of them (in Chess we have opengame, middlegame and endgame).
  3. Analysing and concluding what moves are right and what are wrong and making scale on how strong mistake/wise move are.
  4. Adding some extra stuff like analysing strategic style of the game and short comment on how both sides are playing After this one finished, cycle repeats until we cover the most played, important and fundamental cases. As you see, we are just copying chess. Also, it may set patterns for functional AI players.
#

Stages of RISK GD games #1
1v1 Auto fixed Classic map

#

Concept will be sent a bit later

hidden radish
#

Sorry for absence, was preparing for exams

#

Stages of 1v1 Auto fixed classic map

snow locust
#

Imo 1v1 is just about using as many of your troops as possible to make +EV rolls
most of the time that means rolling ones (while of course breaking any continents)

There is a bit of skill in keeping troops active while also guarding I guess
so, eg you don't make your last attack into Argentina leaving a 2 there
apart from that it seems pretty random who wins