#The Cowardice of Breaking Alliances in Risk

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

visual silo
#

Alliances in Risk are not vague, nor open to whimsical interpretation — they have an objective meaning: mutual non-aggression and, often, coordinated action toward a shared benefit. When players violate alliances, they are not demonstrating “strategy,” but rather exposing weakness, dishonor, and opportunism.

Claiming betrayal as a legitimate “tactic” is a shallow excuse, because strategy requires trust, foresight, and calculated coordination — not deceit. Other players enter alliances in good faith, and when that trust is broken, the betrayer is not outsmarting anyone; they are simply dismantling the very framework that allows intelligent play to exist.

At the end of the day, breaking alliances in Risk is not clever — it’s cowardly. It is the refuge of those who cannot win with skill, and instead exploit trust like parasites feeding on credibility.

❌ What Violating Alliances Really Means

Breaking agreements in Risk exposes:

Weakness → fear of competing fairly without backstabbing.

Cowardice → hiding behind false promises instead of facing direct conflict.

Short-sightedness → trading long-term credibility for a momentary advantage.

Lack of ethics → eroding the social foundation of the game itself.

Loss of respect → no one admires a player who relies on treachery to survive.

Absence of real strategy → showing inability to win through legitimate tactical planning.

In conclusion, alliances in Risk carry a clear and universal definition — one that demands respect, trust, and consistency. To violate them is not an act of cunning, but of cowardice. Those who betray their commitments do not demonstrate mastery of the game; they reveal their lack of strength, foresight, and integrity. True strategy lies in winning with honor, not in eroding the very foundations that make the game worth playing.

noble perch
#

Or perhaps great point. It depends what you mean by alliance. The mere existence of an offered and accepted alliance is only the commitment to communicate to try to work together or the feint that that is what you intend (pretending to want an alliance is a strategy I don’t use, but certainly it’s a legitimate use of the alliance system).

I’m gonna leave that communication open almost no matter how badly the “Ally” is acting: demanding that I do things against my interest, hitting my positions pointlessly more than 1s or when they don’t need to route through me to make a necessary move or attack, ignoring good opportunities for mutual benefit etc. I’m gonna continue to try to find a way to work with anyone willing to communicate.

When I eventually kill that player with no warning and no notice is not any sort of betrayal it is a good and should be expected move in a game called RISK.

If you instead mean that I have an alliance either in alliance chat or just by agreement on the board (when alliances are off) where we have established a good working relationship and then I attack without notice on that person without a clear line to the win or some other really pressing reason (need to make a kill not to die) then sure I agree that would be a betrayal and a bad move.

visual silo
#

My point is this: what makes a move unfair is not simply attacking an ally, but exploiting the fact that some players genuinely believe an alliance means non-aggression and act accordingly. They take the word at face value, and that trust is what’s being abused.

You can argue that experienced Risk players know alliances mean nothing — fine, I accept that. But you also know that many players don’t share that view. That’s why I call it unfair.

If everyone understood alliances the same way you do, then the playing field would be level. In that case, betrayal wouldn’t exist, because no trust would be violated.

noble perch
#

It’s also unfair that I know to steer clear of Australia in most games and many noobs don’t. I cry for them every time I see it.

Most people even noobs seem to understand that the alliances are not binding. In the rare games where I’ve seen noobs that seem to actually think they are not allowed to hit me it is extremely annoying and dangerous since when they need to hit me small and I want them to they think they have to end the alliance first (shutting off our communication) and that they have now made an enemy so they tend to hit more than they need to. Assuming that any attack must surely trigger retaliation.

Seems to me that their miss-understanding of the nature of alliances in Risk is more unfair to me than to them.

visual silo
#

I see your point, but I think you’re stretching it. Comparing “don’t take Australia” to “don’t break alliances” isn’t the same thing — one is a tactical choice, the other is a social contract.

Most players — especially newer ones — interpret “alliance” literally: a commitment to non-aggression. If you exploit that misunderstanding, you’re not showing superior strategy, you’re taking advantage of an asymmetry of expectations. That’s what makes it unfair.

And honestly, when we start over-analyzing these situations and bending definitions to justify betrayal, it feels less like solid reasoning and more like trying too hard to rationalize bad faith. A strategy should stand on its own merit, not depend on reinterpreting basic terms to fit the outcome.

In short: if everyone agreed that alliances mean nothing, fine — no unfairness. But until then, breaking them isn’t clever, it’s just exploiting trust.

noble perch
# visual silo I see your point, but I think you’re stretching it. Comparing “don’t take Austra...

Alliances in the real world only exist so long as they are mutually beneficial and both parties are strong enough to defend themselves from mutual enemies and allies alike. Allies regularly spy quite heavily on each other secretly, a violation of any perfect 😍 world view of alliances, and often an actual by the letter violation of the alliance as written, but it is that mutual check and balance that is the very thing that allows many alliances to last and thrive for many years. While a child’s view of things would lead to all out war with every minor misstep… BUT WE HAD AN ALLIANCE!!!! 😭🤯😤

Instead a nuanced understanding and pragmatic thinking always redirecting one’s self back to the path that gets you to what you really want is best.

Justice, honor, etc are all children’s dreams. While what is actually the least bad for me and my neighbor in this moment may actually be attainable.

Anyway my example citing Australia was not any kind of comparison. They are both unfair and if unfairness matters to you why should it matter how or to what degree any two things are unfair. If they are unfair they are unfair, right. To me they just are unfair and that is how it is.

Lack of knowledge of the dangers of Australian noob slams was the most humorous example to speak for the litany of things that are unfair. This game is unfair and life is unfair.

visual silo
#

I think you’re oversimplifying alliances when you describe them as just “mutual checks and balances” that exist only so long as both parties are equally strong. In reality, history is full of alliances where strength is not balanced at all. Strong nations often ally with weaker ones for reasons that go beyond military leverage — historic ties, geography, diplomacy, economics, cultural affinity, or even as a way to extend influence into a region.

So no, alliances are not necessarily based on both sides being able to hold each other in check. Sometimes a weaker country is protected precisely because of the alliance, and the stronger country benefits in different, non-military ways.

That’s why reducing “alliance” to just “temporary balance of power” misses the broader definition. And in the context of Risk, that’s the crux of the problem: if one group of players understands “alliance” as a literal non-aggression pact and another sees it as just a flexible balance-of-power tool, then there’s a mismatch in expectations. That mismatch is what creates the sense of unfairness, not the word itself.

obtuse barn
# visual silo Alliances in Risk are not vague, nor open to whimsical interpretation — they hav...

This is your opinion and should be respected as such. But in respect to reality what you're saying remains merely fan fiction. It's neither what alliances have been designed for, nor is it the established use of them. They're rather a nice tool for better communication and you'd be a fool if you took them more seriously than that. You come to the understanding of temporary mutual agreements for mutual profits with another player through alliances, but there's always a higher priority that is the win. And "the win" in Risk is defined by standards such as coming out on top as the sole winner/survivor, or reaching your best possible placement. Now personally I would - and I'm sure others would share my opinion to an extent - define "the true win" in any game as more than that. The one that wins is not necessarily the one that wins by the defined standard, it's the one that had (the most) fun. And that you can reach through many different ways.
Though to me it sounds like you're not able to achieve either consistently. So it makes sense why you would complain. And I hear you, I respect that. I've seen a lot of people with a similar opinion as yours here.
Games are, in my opinion, an oversimplification of reality. You can minimize or even remove certain aspects of reality from your game and highlight other aspects to play in the environment you like. And it sounds like that is what you want to do with Risk as we know it. You cannot replace it. There are lots of people that enjoy Risk as it is. You speak of "unfair". Well, it would be just as unfair for them, would you implement your rules into their game.

What I'd recommend you do instead is this:

  1. Find a different game that already exists and that suits you better. Even a different version of Risk might be good for you. May I introduce you to "Team Risk"?
  2. You push for the creation of another game (mode) that suits your wants and needs.
noble perch
# visual silo I think you’re oversimplifying alliances when you describe them as just “mutual ...

No, “mutual check and balance” is not a description of an alliance, merely a description of a process through which an alliance can survive for a long time. (Tiresome to read at least twice now either deliberate or sloppy misstatement of what I wrote and your answer to that instead of what I actually wrote.*)

Your other point is good. You caught me in an oversimplification, of course in the real world alliances can be on many different basis, (economic alliances for example) but some of what you describe is not really alliance at all but usury or vassal statehood disguised as alliance.

  • [ I too am sloppy and I reserve the right to disagree later with what I wrote as it is both quick and sloppy and not a carefully crafted argument, but is rather just thinking aloud as an exploration of an idea. If you wish to attack the actual flaws then so be it but if you attack instead imagined ones then that is end of the conversation.]
visual silo
# obtuse barn This is your opinion and should be respected as such. But in respect to reality ...

I appreciate your detailed response, but there are a few flaws in your logic that I’d like to highlight:

Redefining “alliances” into something else.
You say alliances are “just communication tools,” but that’s not what the word means, either in real life or in the game context. By definition, an alliance implies non-aggression for a period of time. Dismissing that and treating it only as “talk until I decide otherwise” is a reinterpretation, not an inherent truth.

Shifting the discussion to “fun.”
Claiming that the real winner is whoever had the most fun is convenient, but irrelevant. Risk (like any competitive game) has explicit victory conditions, and alliances are used as a tool to help reach those. Otherwise, every betrayal could be justified as “fun for me,” which collapses the structure of fair play.

Straw man on “new rules.”
I’m not asking to rewrite Risk. I’m pointing out that when players have different understandings of what “alliance” means, it creates an unbalanced field. That’s not about inventing a new version of the game—it’s about clarity and consistency so everyone plays by the same expectations.

Contradiction in fairness.
You argue that alliances shouldn’t be taken seriously, yet in the same breath you admit they are used for “temporary mutual profit.” If they’re useful for that, then there is a shared expectation—otherwise they wouldn’t function at all. That expectation is precisely why betrayal feels unfair to many players.

The “find another game” dismissal.
Suggesting that anyone who disagrees should “go play something else” avoids the point. Games evolve through community norms. Risk is already played in different ways by different groups, and discussing fairness is part of that evolution.

royal mason
#

This argument has been made time and time again over the history of this game. At the end of the day, it is the community that sets the definition of what is fair and unfair. Having an alliance broken is the risk you take for having alliances on, but at the end of the day, FFA alliances are used for communication and hearts.
Now if you want alliances that won't get broken, I encourage you to check out team risk. We'd love to have you! There is a sizable community where that's pretty much all we play at this point.

noble perch
royal mason
noble perch
#

If these conditions are met… then we have an alliance 😂

royal mason
#

Mutually agreed upon destruction

visual silo
# royal mason This argument has been made time and time again over the history of this game. ...

I understand your point, but I think there’s a flaw in leaning too much on “the community sets the definition.” Not all Risk players are part of the community you’re referring to. Many people play Risk casually, online or offline, without being engaged in forums or dedicated groups.

For those players, the word “alliance” carries its common-sense meaning: a pact of non-aggression, not just “communication and hearts.” To dismiss that interpretation as invalid because a subset of the community agrees otherwise feels exclusive.

That’s why I believe the clearest and fairest approach is to respect the actual definition of alliance, rather than assuming everyone has absorbed the same community-driven reinterpretation. Otherwise, you’re not outsmarting your opponent—you’re simply exploiting the fact that they’re not “in the club.”

royal mason
#

But also, basing it on interpretation takes away from it. The definition of alliance is "a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations.", not a commitment to non-aggression. That would be a non-aggression pact.

#

Plus, I feel like me winning on turn 1 in ranked 1v1s is more likely to be scaring off players than someone breaking an alliance

visual silo
noble perch
visual silo
glad gust
visual silo
obtuse barn
# visual silo I appreciate your detailed response, but there are a few flaws in your logic tha...

There are no "flaws in my logic", just because you disagree with what I'm saying, my good arrogant friend. I'm perfectly fine with a disagreement, I don't think that's a bad thing.

I don't think a discussion about semantics has any weight here. We give things all sorts of names that don't exactly apply in their most true meaning. Alliances in Risk are precisely what people use them for. Some do it differently than others, but inevitably there'll be an established predominant use for them.

You disagree with my need for fun, that's fine. You may be the most serious about this very serious matter.

I know that's not what you were asking. It's what I was suggesting, as you seemed very unhappy with the way this game works the way it currently does. I'm all for clarity and openly accessible knowledge for everyone, it's what improves the experience of the entire playing field, if that's what you truly want.

If you can only see black and white on this matter (either they mean everything or nothing at all), then I don't see the fruits that this conversation can bring. I'd recommend opening yourself up to a whole new horizon of things that you couldn't even imagine before. The root of your argument is based on a misunderstanding on how this game should be played. This exists in every game. Some people understand the game better than others. It's no reason to change the game entirely, but basis for better education on how the game could be played (although no one is forced to play it "correctly"). So let's focus on that.

Again, that was a genuine suggestion, one I've followed many times before. The ways in which strategy games or even Risk itself can be played is great in variety. Not every games is something for everyone. One realization one might come to is that a specific game isn't the best for them - rather sooner than later. There are so many versions of Risk alone. I'd seriously recommend you check out "team risk". Alliances are taken VERY seriously there.

obtuse barn
# visual silo For a certain type of players, i guess it is. Playing unfairly is part of the ga...

Only that it's not playing unfairly. There's no rule or mechanic that prevents you from attacking your ally. Everyone knows it's possible, so if you're oblivious to it, then you're not a very good player.

Playing unfairly means either breaking rules, exploitig loopholes, or taking advantage of an "out-of-game force". (Like lost internet connection, bugs, etc)

But everything that concerns playing the actual game is all fair. You've decided to play this game and in doing so agreed to all its intricacies.

noble perch
# visual silo Alliances in Risk are not vague, nor open to whimsical interpretation — they hav...

What the alliance means to the player on one side or the other is never clear in the current mechanic. Assuming that your alliance means what you think it means ignoring the thoughts of your ally is shortsighted at best.

If we had a way to negotiate complex contracts in game and a court to adjudicate any disagreements then the meaning and extent of any deal would be knowable. As it is it is unclear.

You may negotiate on the board by breaking certain bonuses and leaving others intact to show the extent of what they may hold and still have an alliance with you, but then of course that would involve attacking some of their territories and we know 😉 that means the alliance is over. The alliance means we must never attack each other at all. Don’t even look at my bonus or 👎 end alliance.

#

Are you looking at my bonus?

obtuse barn
#

"Would you still be my ally if I was a worm?"
🥹 👉 👈

#

Sorry, that was distasteful.

noble perch
#

It depends… on if you are looking at my bonus or not.

obtuse barn
#

Worms don't have eyes, so I'm safe.

noble perch
#

If worm don’t have eyes they would make good allies

visual silo
# obtuse barn Only that it's not playing unfairly. There's no rule or mechanic that prevents y...

I appreciate your detailed response, and I understand that different people play Risk differently. My point isn’t about breaking rules or exploiting loopholes—it’s about the mismatch in expectations around the concept of “alliances.”

The concern is that when players use the word “alliance,” there’s a commonly understood implication of mutual support or non-aggression. If someone interprets it differently—treating alliances purely as a temporary tactical convenience—it creates a situation where one party expects certain behavior while the other does not, even though both are technically “playing within the rules.”

This isn’t about being serious or not having fun; it’s about clarity and fairness in communication. Two players can follow the rules perfectly yet experience frustration or feel betrayed because their expectations of what an alliance entails were different. That’s the kind of “unfairness” I’m highlighting—not rule-breaking, but conflicting assumptions about a shared concept.

So while I agree that the game allows flexibility, I think there’s value in acknowledging that “alliances” carry social expectations. Without that shared understanding, the game can feel inconsistent or unfair even when no rules are broken.

Thanks for considering this perspective—this is the specific nuance I was trying to raise.

visual silo
obtuse barn
# visual silo I appreciate your detailed response, and I understand that different people play...

I get what you're saying, I truly appreciate your persistence on this matter.

While I believe that there's simply a matter of "good" vs "bad" players at hand here, I see your point that this specific misunderstanding could turn away a certain part of the player base. Is that what this is leading to?

If it is so, then I'm asking what you would suggest?

  • Change the name of the "alliance" tool?
  • Provide more clear education on this feature?

Because the way you've addressed this feels unique to all the other kinds of "skill issues" a player might have. Not knowing how to play for cards, troops, bonuses etc can feel wrong if you're doing it (apparently) incorrectly, but alliances carry that certain expectation on how they should work is what you're saying.
That's not unfair, that's just bad game design then. If that is truly the issue, then we might want to change the game design to something that makes it more obvious what alliances are about. E.g. my potential suggestions above.

However, if we're personally getting into a discussion on how alliances should work, then I'm on the side that likes them the way they are currently. No alliance - even in the real world - is 100% honest and forever. You're always giving and taking something for mutual benefit, but only so long as you both profit from it. As soon as at least one of you realizes that is no longer the case, then it's all fair game to be the first to break the alliance.

visual silo
noble perch
# obtuse barn I get what you're saying, I truly appreciate your persistence on this matter. ...

“Offer alliance communication” might be a better option. It is up to the player to negotiate the nature and extent of their alliance once communication is open or with their moves on the board. Instead of break alliance it could be “End alliance communication”.

The alliances themselves are in the eye of the beholder, maybe you have a solid one maybe you don’t. There simply is not enough communication to be sure of anyone’s meaning or intentions but even if we had full vc all the time people could still lie, bluff or go back on their word.

noble perch
# visual silo I see what you’re saying, but it seems your logic often works backwards from the...

You should probably go find yourself a nice philosophy forum. But you will need to clearly define and agree upon definitions before you start. You cannot simply insist that alliance means what you say it means and insist that everyone else must accept your definition. Nor can you claim that you are the arbiter of what is and isn’t fair or the dictator of what that word means either.

But we aren’t here to have a philosophy nor a semantic debate. Maybe you are.

Alliance chat in Risk global Domination simply isn’t binding under current rules. Play accordingly.

visual silo
noble perch
# visual silo I’m not imposing my rules—I’m just pointing out that different expectations abou...

Yes it is called offer alliance for the reason that they didn’t think to call it “offer alliance communication”. The fact that the devs used the wrong word for a thing doesn’t redefine the game. Words can have all kinds of different meanings.
Because of its usage in Risk G. D. alliance in this context simply doesn’t mean what some people might think it means. That makes them wrong not the game.

visual silo
obtuse barn
noble perch
visual silo
# noble perch I have no idea about the extent of different expectations. Of course they could ...

You’re ignoring the core of the argument: this isn’t about “skills” like rolling dice or trading cards—it’s about the social contract and the meaning of a word that the game itself uses.

The button isn’t called “maybe-don’t-attack-for-a-while”; it’s explicitly labeled “alliance”, and that carries an inherent, universally recognized meaning: non-aggression. When players interpret that word in wildly different ways, it stops being about skill and starts being about misaligned expectations. That’s not strategy—that’s miscommunication.

If one side treats an alliance as sacred and the other as disposable, the outcome doesn’t reflect tactical ability, it reflects asymmetry in how rules and social contracts are understood. That’s fundamentally different from adapting to dice rolls or card trades, because those mechanics are clear and shared by all.

To dismiss this as “just part of the game” is to sidestep the actual issue: when the system itself uses a word like “alliance,” it creates a baseline of trust. Ignoring that baseline undermines fair play.

#

At this point, it feels less like you’re trying to solve the problem and more like you’re just trying to win the debate. Kill the ego, look at the logic, and admit the flaw instead of defending it for the sake of being right.

noble perch
# visual silo You’re ignoring the core of the argument: this isn’t about “skills” like rolling...

Most of what you are saying here has already been answered.

You may fundamentally misunderstand the game of Risk if you believe the outcome should be dictated strictly by tactical or technical ability. Of course those have a part, but they are the least interesting part of the game.

Navigating things such as “misaligned expectations”, unpredictable levels of ability, unknown volatility of character etc. are where the game really happens. With very little information you attempt to read what each player will do next and manipulate those behaviors to your ultimate victory.

visual silo
# noble perch Most of what you are saying here has already been answered. You may fundamenta...

This is flat-out wrong. One thing is to outplay someone tactically—positioning better, trading cards at the right time, or anticipating troop movements. That’s fair game.

Something entirely different is to exploit someone who trusted the social contract created by the word alliance. If a player lowers their guard because they believed in that shared meaning, and you use that as a loophole to strike, it’s not clever play—it’s abusing misaligned definitions.

Strategy should come from skillful moves and anticipation, not from twisting the meaning of a word everyone else reasonably interprets as non-aggression.

#

It’s the same as in chess. Outsmarting someone by trapping their queen with a clever fork is pure skill. But imagine if, before the match, you shook hands and said, “Let’s not use our queens against each other so we can focus on pawns and knights,” and then the moment they move their queen out of position, you capture it.

That’s not clever chess—it’s betraying the agreement that shaped how the other player approached the game. You didn’t win because of superior tactics, you won because you abused trust in a mutual understanding. That’s exactly what happens in Risk when “alliance” is twisted away from its common meaning of non-aggression.

noble perch
visual silo
#

It’s about leveling the playing field so Risk remains a true game of skill.

keen elm
#

an alliance is a communication tool. it doesn't mean "hey, let's never attack each other".
what do you expect to happen if everyone allies everyone? stalemate forever?

noble perch
#

Also a special message going out to all my Risk playing homies: “Hey, let’s never attack each other.” And now back to the oldies 🎶🎶🎶

#

🎶🎶🎶this infinite loop of classic rock is brought to you this century by Stalemate Forever Hair Gel. Try Stalemate Forever just once and your hair will never be unruly again.

#

🎶🎶🎶If you can’t hear the music, it’s probably because you need to turn the volume all the way up. ⬆️ 🆙 also> ||this is jive and I’m not really a DJ||

visual silo
keen elm
#

you feel betrayed if someone with an alliance attacks you, but not if they cancel the alliance just before attacking you?

#

you'd think the attack is enough of a clue that they don't want to work with you any more

visual silo
# keen elm you feel betrayed if someone with an alliance attacks you, but not if they cance...

When I cancel an alliance, I do it before their turn begins, not right before I attack. Canceling just moments before striking is no different from betrayal—it gives them no chance to adjust, and that’s exactly the kind of unfair edge we’re talking about.

It’s about fair play and mutual respect. The whole point of the alliance button is to create clarity and trust. If you want to change course, you give the other player notice by canceling in advance, so they have a full turn cycle to respond. That’s how you keep the game skill-based rather than exploit-based.

At the end of the day, manipulating definitions just to justify surprise attacks doesn’t make you a better strategist—it just makes the mechanic meaningless. If alliances are to have any value at all, then the way they are broken should be as clear and fair as the way they are formed.

keen elm
#

there is nothing unfair about it

visual silo
#

read my post before and you probably make some valid argumentation

#

or maybe not

keen elm
#

The whole point of the alliance button is to create clarity and trust.
It's not.

You just misunderstand what the alliance feature does and then complain that no one else shares your arbitrary interpretation

visual silo
#

ask 100 random people what does alliance mean, is it non-aggression or just communication ?

#

if the majority believes it's non aggression, then you are exploiting trust

keen elm
#

yes, asking people without any context is certainly helping

visual silo
#

ask them in the context of a board game such as Risk, i don't care

keen elm
#

in the context of risk you'll have a hard time finding anyone to agree with you

#

(you found zero in this thread, as far as I can tell)

visual silo
#

i've replied to that already.

#

"I understand your point, but I think there’s a flaw in leaning too much on “the community sets the definition.” Not all Risk players are part of the community you’re referring to. Many people play Risk casually, online or offline, without being engaged in forums or dedicated groups."

#

"For those players, the word “alliance” carries its common-sense meaning: a pact of non-aggression, not just “communication and hearts.” To dismiss that interpretation as invalid because a subset of the community agrees otherwise feels exclusive."

#

"That’s why I believe the clearest and fairest approach is to respect the actual definition of alliance, rather than assuming everyone has absorbed the same community-driven reinterpretation. Otherwise, you’re not outsmarting your opponent—you’re simply exploiting the fact that they’re not “in the club.”"

keen elm
#

it's really just you. or maybe 0.1% of the players. not enough to matter.

visual silo
#

yeah sure... that's why this topic appears everytime

glad gust
#

No need to fight, avoid games when alliances are on and you will be fine my friend

visual silo
#

It’s not about fighting—it’s about contributing to a fairer game where outcomes are decided by skill, not by betrayals or exploiting trust. This is ultimately a moral debate: if the “alliance” button is there, it should mean what the word means everywhere else—non-aggression.

Most of the justifications I see are simply ways of fitting the fact that some exploit this loophole to win games. And honestly, maybe that’s because they don’t have enough actual skill to win otherwise.

glad gust
#

This discussion will never end my good friend, game is built like this, anyone can use any tool like they want

keen elm
#

ah yes, an "exploit"
is breaking a bonus an "exploit", too?

#

it's a secret loophole to unfairly reduce the income of other players

visual silo
#

why would breaking a bonus be exploit?

keen elm
#

don't know, you are the one calling normal gameplay "exploit" here

visual silo
#

please do me a favour read the thread. You are just lowering the level of the debate even more

keen elm
#

this discussion is ridiculous, I'm out.

visual silo
#

I would too

compact oracle
# visual silo Alliances in Risk are not vague, nor open to whimsical interpretation — they hav...

This is a whimsical interpretation of the alliance feature 😄
RISK very much has a long history of betrayal as a factor because there can be but 1 winner

Also "alliances in risk carry a clear universal definition" is bs - it's very much open to interpretation. How people respond to a broken alliance is dependent on personal interpretation. If you break one person's bonus for a card they can retaliate or they can ignore it or they can take it back. That's universal. What you can't do is dictate how people play the game / use the feature outside of the established fair play rules. And how people use alliances is entirely up to themselves.
Even "alliances in fog to eliminate them" is a valid, underhanded strategy - but it's not a fair play violation so if you wanna use it to, the only people that may punish you for it are the people you try to do it towards.

visual silo
# compact oracle This is a whimsical interpretation of the alliance feature 😄 RISK very much has...

Betrayal as a tactic is part of Risk, sure — but there’s a big difference between outplaying someone and exploiting a loophole in trust. A button called “Alliance” universally means non-aggression. Saying it’s “open to interpretation” just lets experienced players twist the meaning in their favor. That’s not skill, that’s exploiting semantics.

If you want to end an alliance, there’s a button for that — transparent and fair. True strategy should come from troops, timing, and diplomacy, not from bending the meaning of words to justify surprise attacks.

compact oracle
#

As someone that doesn't like alliances already, we'll agree to disagree - a lot of more experienced members would define alliances as extended communication - as it's purpose/description - it adds better communication, but if you treat it as "don't betray each other" you're just going to continually disappoint yourself, because it's not the wider community's interpretation. If you don't like how alliances can be used, it might not be the mode for you either

obtuse barn
visual silo
# compact oracle As someone that doesn't **like** alliances already, we'll agree to disagree - a ...

i've replied to that already.
"I understand your point, but I think there’s a flaw in leaning too much on “the community sets the definition.” Not all Risk players are part of the community you’re referring to. Many people play Risk casually, online or offline, without being engaged in forums or dedicated groups."
"For those players, the word “alliance” carries its common-sense meaning: a pact of non-aggression, not just “communication and hearts.” To dismiss that interpretation as invalid because a subset of the community agrees otherwise feels exclusive."
"That’s why I believe the clearest and fairest approach is to respect the actual definition of alliance, rather than assuming everyone has absorbed the same community-driven reinterpretation. Otherwise, you’re not outsmarting your opponent—you’re simply exploiting the fact that they’re not “in the club.”"

visual silo
compact oracle
#

Maybe a better description would be that how alliances are used, as long as it's not in violation of the fair play rules for the app - is entirely up to each player

visual silo
#

that's why the title of this thread...

compact oracle
#

It's an opinion piece still regardless^^

obtuse barn
# visual silo This is contadictory. I remember I once said that this replicates war and some "...

To be honest, I don't know anymore. I'm quite confused, which leads me to think you are just as confused. I thought you had a point up there. Then you began ranting again and lost me again. There's nothing unfair going on here. You treat us like we're gatekeeping anything while we're not. We're simply "better" at this game than others and you seem to take offense in that. You've been told by a lot of people, yet you continue repeating yourself. I don't think it makes much sense to continue this conversation.

#

I have much sympathy for your "sticking up for the weak" and also your alternative thinking, but I don't think you're onto anything here.

visual silo
#

If you’re truly the better player, show it through strategy — not by exploiting the trust of newcomers. And let’s be honest: if it’s the newbies who don’t know about this particular interpretation of “alliance” as just “communication” instead of non-aggression, then it’s actually easier for you to beat them anyway. That would prove you’re as “experienced” and “skilled” as you say you are, without needing to lean on a loophole.

obtuse barn
visual silo
#

Just like a chess player who wins only by distracting their opponent instead of planning several moves ahead, a Risk player who relies on exploiting trust rather than tactical skill is showing weakness, not mastery.

obtuse barn
#

I should probably leave this discussion before it gets worse. You seem to be onto nothing.

visual silo
#

It's quite frustratating to see that you say im onto nothing, I think i have shown enough argumentation to state that there is something wrong with the meaning of the word "alliance". There’s none so blind as those who will not see

obtuse barn
noble perch
visual silo
#

I appreciate it guys, I hope devs can consider this

flint perch
#

I've enjoyed reading through this conversation. As a player who rarely ever plays with alliances turned on, I regularly form allies in game. We form that alliance through trust building exercises, not breaking each other bonuses, not putting guards on shared borders.
Also possibly through the use of emotes, like fist bump.
Often I end up going 1st and 2nd with these unofficial allies.
I also sometimes betray the alliance because I don't see a path to victory without doing it.
I've also been on the receiving end of a broken alliance many times when my ally felt they had an advantage in striking me first.

My point is that an alliance only lasts as long as it's beneficial to both parties. Maybe that's to the 1v1. Maybe only for a few turns.
Thie is a core mechanic of risk. There is no "honor code" being broken.

If you turn on the alliance option, the game remains unchanged except you now can send private emotes to your partners and see what they see.

True alliance remains unchanged. Each turn you either work together or you don't. Turn by turn.

Any expectation more than that is self applied. You will be sorely disappointed if you expect this to change.

New players who misunderstand this mechanic will learn quickly that alliance game option is for private communication and sharing fog. That's it.

Good luck!

visual silo
# flint perch I've enjoyed reading through this conversation. As a player who rarely ever play...

Puddle first of all thanks for your input.

However, I still disagree

I think we’re still circling around personal interpretations of what an alliance really means, and as far as I can tell, there are at least three different interpretations in this discussion. Because alliances are inherently based on trust, your phrasing—“an alliance only lasts as long as it's beneficial to both parties”—basically boils down to saying, *I can break you anytime I want, I don’t give a **. In practice, this often means the alliance exists so your partner focuses on other fronts while you take advantage of that trust to strike when they’re exposed.

To be honest, having your ally’s continent held on 1–2 troops, while also breaking their bonus and knowing they’re fighting other players, is in my experience probably the most beneficial scenario for you in 90% of cases. Strategically, this interpretation almost guarantees a better outcome than maintaining “honor” in the alliance. That’s why I don’t see the logic in reducing alliances to a purely opportunistic tool.

Regarding your point—“If you turn on the alliance option, the game remains unchanged except you now can send private emotes to your partners and see what they see”—I would respectfully disagree. Alliances entail more than communication; they imply a social contract and trust. The very existence of a “cancel alliance” button supports this—it wasn’t put there just to stop chatting. It was made for a reason, which suggests alliances are meant to be more than a mere communication tool.

So yes, alliances are temporary and conditional, but reducing them to just “communication” ignores the social and strategic layers they introduce, which are central to the Risk experience.

flint perch
#

I think you missed my larger point. You don't need to turn on the alliance option to have an alliance.
An alliance is determined by action, not by communication.
The game does not, can not and will not force a player to act a certain way, so don't expect that.
Keep playing with honor. Respect your alliance. There will be games where that alliance will result in an exciting finish.
But don't expect an alliance to mean something it doesn't just because you want it to.
Have fun!

#

One minor addendum. Id recommend playing with alliance turned off for a while and see how to build alliances still.

visual silo
#

I would respectfully disagree. You can have alliance by actions, but also turning on the option which is also an action. I would say one of the most powerful actions for allying with someone. I hate when they break my trust. But i would still believe it means something, the button exists for reason at the end of the day! you can cancel alliances too! Also the word "alliance" has a clear meaning. Maybe there should be a Risk dictionary the redefines words to other meanings or maybe changing the button name as it was agreed earlier

#

usually the simpler the explanation the better one

flint perch
#

I see you're really hung up on the word alliance.
Even in the real world alliances are not as cut and dry as you are reducing them to.
Allies spy on each other. They can manipulate each other. There can be tension between them. That tension can be resolved peacefully or it can resort into minor skirmishes or it can become full out war.
This plays out in the game very similarly. It's one of risks defining features.
This game is very psychological. Approaching it with a rigid mentality and wanting concrete behavior is a huge mistake.
The better approach is to learn how players behave. See how they betray. Understand their motivations. Use that understanding to navigate the game and eventually exert control on it.
Don't get fixated on the word alliance. Focus on how players use their alliance and how you can too.

Best of luck

visual silo
#

I think the key point you’re missing is that focusing on the flaws and betrayals of real-world alliances doesn’t change the fact that betrayal is betrayal. Spying, manipulating, or breaking trust—even in the real world—is still considered a breach of the agreement. By using these flaws as the rule, you risk distorting the actual intention of an alliance, which is to create a framework of conditional trust.

That’s why the fair play issue comes into question here. If we treat every alliance as just a temporary convenience to be exploited at will, we’re ignoring the purpose of the mechanic itself and turning what’s meant to be a strategic social contract into a purely opportunistic tool. Recognizing the difference between acknowledged trust and exploitative convenience is essential to understanding the game at its core.

flint perch
#

There is no fair play issue. The purpose you are ascribing to the mechanic is your own, not the developers.
I see your point of view and understand what you want, but it is in direct conflict of how the game is designed and is intended to work.
My advice is to embrace it.

visual silo
#

On the contrary, i think the devs wanted to give the universal meaning to it. Why?

  1. They called it "alliance" with the universal meaning of the word for a reason. Not to confuse people. Games are designed for mutual understanding, not for "community driven" definitions.
  2. There is a button for "cancel alliance" for the same reason. It is intended for a purpose other than sending "thumbs up or down or hearts". Whats the purpose of having a "cancel alliance" button then if you can just attack your ally anytime anywhere?
storm temple
#

you are reading into the word alliance way too much. its the natural word to use for a war game, nothing more. it really ought to be called a non aggression pact, or 'open a direct communication channel' but thats needlessly verbose and complicated.

visual silo
#

or maybe "Communicate" button could work?

storm temple
#

"Diplomacy" actually would be a good fit

#

either way though, is it kinda scummy to betray an alliance agreement? sure. but its part of the game. frankly interpersonal manipulation is the most important part of the game.

#

if you dont like alliances being betrayed with no concequence, join the competitive scene. where if you betray an alliance, everyone knows, and is suddenly that much less likely to want to work with you in the future.

#

in one off games on the ladder, always assume that someone could at any point betray you for any reason at all, or no reason, whos to say. blindly taking the little handshake icon at face value is just objectively not smart, even if you do trust the other player

#

theres also times in those one off games where its INCREDIBLY stupid to betray your ally (official or not) other players will notice. sucks for the ally who probably ended up dying because of it, but everyone else watched it happen, and thats gonna dictate how they playa the rest of the game.

flint perch
#

Diplomacy is a great way to think about it. It's just another avenue for building alliances.

glad gust
visual silo
#

Yes I agree, "diplomacy" is a much better word. I hope devs take notes on this.

little stream
#

hi

nimble river
river parcel
#

The goal of the game isn't friendship; rather, it's world domination. Your post suggests this game isn't for you, as you seem too emotional. I've been betrayed by many grandmasters. It's part of the game. But I don't come here and try to manipulate others to adopt my views by calling them cowards. Grow up and play the game that obviously has betrayal. Afterall, only 1 can win.

visual silo
river parcel
#

I sure did read it. I'm just not playing your silly and manipulatuve game. I'm going to root of the issue here rather than dancing around with your word play. You spoke your mind and others have respectfully disagreed, and then you insulted them by saying they have flawed logic. The whole issue, however, isn't the definition of the word "alliance" but that you're butt hurt about being betrayed. You then come here to define alliance in an attempt to educate others on what you think it means and how it should therefore be implemented into this game so you aren't betrayed again by using alliances. It's your defensive mechanism to prevent yourself from the pain of feeling betrayred, but it's an unhealthy reaction. The problem though is you just don't understand the game of RISK. You're manipulative and combative rather than honest about (1) the reality of the game and, more importantly, (2) your own feelings in reaction to being betrayed. Again, I'm not playing your silly game and am instead calling you out for it since you've decided to attack others. You should have just had the courage, humility, and self-awareness to say what you really mean: you're offended by being betrayed because you wholeheartedly believed in your alliance whereas your "ally" never did. We can all sympathize with that.

#

And the whole reason I spoke up wasn't to be a jerk but to put you in your place so you can actually deal with your real issue of being bratrayed, and so you stop insulting others. I don't like when someone tries to manipulate others and then insults them when he doesn't get his way. Just admit you're offended for being betrayed, and stop insulting everyone's ability to think, or the way others play the game.

#

@visual silo ^

#

You're clearly an intelligent person. But intelligence isn't wisdom, and the heart is different than the mind. Your issue is with the heart, but you're trying to deal with it using your mind. You're going nowhere with this approach. Sure, you can eventually solve the emotional issue of being betrayed through thinking your way through it, but it's more of a heart issue. You're still too offended by being betrayed that you refuse to see how you are your own worst enemy here. Stop making everyone else the problem. Deal with yourself. Being betrayed sucks. But you need to look inward to solve this issue of yours. Good luck.

noble perch
#

🤔 maybe this guy can talk some sense into that fellow who had an emotional melt down all over this discord yesterday over multiple bans including an ongoing two month suspension from the game. And then continued to rant and lash out even at those who were sympathetic to his position.

river parcel
#

@noble perch I blocked you but can still see your X'd out / blocked posts. This is unfortunate because you chime in for the wrong reasons, I think. You are unhelpful and troll-like. You seek drama and enjoy argueing with others and I don't know why but I imagine it has something to with being bored and wanting to be noticed. That's not a terrible thing. There are, however, better ways for others to appreciate you, and it involves you appreciating others rather than trying to steal the spotlight while twisting another's words and being rude in the process. Moving on...

In response to my stern, rather than emotional (but still slightly emotional) response yesterday, you have completely missed the target I setup. And you've been shooting arrows at me, while misrepresenting what I said. I don't take it personally (that's not why I blocked you. I blocked you to get your attention, hoping it would smarten you up, and also because I honestly don't enjoy reading most of what you say. As I said, I think you just want attention, and don't mind being rude to get it. Sorry, that was just me being polite. I think you actually do enjoy being a problem, and that's terrible behaviour which can lead to serious issues, so you best control yourself.)

But, if I'm wrong about you, and for the sake of others who may not know what you're talking about, I'll explain what I said once more...

#

This discord is blocking me from speaking truth, even though nothing is illegal or harmful.

#

Web postimg (period) cc/qhC5fHn5

noble perch
#

Not blocking you. You’re typing right now.

river parcel
#

That's a link to an image of what discord is blocking me from saying

#

Ugh... Censorship grrr

#

I don't have the energy to explain it again to you, and typing this on my phone is a challenge, so Nvm.

#

https:// postimg .cc /qhC5fHn5

noble perch
#

If that’s more of the same conspiracy theory that SMG is banning your account to somehow get more money out of you then anyone can find that expressed in lengthy detail multiple places here. Your claims of censorship are obvious nonsense. All any one has to do to look at Luci’s lengthy, reasonable careful and compassionate response to you. You could have been banned from the discord not for what you were saying but from spamming it over at least nine different channels.

As I said before if you are actually serious that you have been unfairly suspended from the game then file a ticket and I truly hope that they shorten or end your ban, but if you are just trolling here then it is boring and a waste of everyone’s time.

storm temple
#

does SMG even own the server? lol.

#

regardless. its a forum. not a government. nobody is censoring you

river parcel
#

Arguing with you, Dred, is like arguing with a random customer in a store when all I was doing was doing was entering different rooms and warning fellow customers what just happened to me, and it's a waste of both of our time and solves nothing. Back to ignoring you....

storm temple
#

all I was doing was doing was entering different rooms and telling other fellow customers what just happened to me.
aka being an insufferable customer bothering the other customers? causing the store manager to ask you to leave?

noble perch
storm temple
#

doesnt matter if you were banned wrongfully, you are bothering other people,

river parcel
#

Perhaps, Catnip. But if I think a store is scamming it's customers then I'm not going to remain silent or let other customers and paid actors try to bully me into submission. And I'm perfectly ok with "bothering" a few idiots and eating a few arrows if it protects others from being scammed.

You see someone making a scene and foolishly think that making a scene is in and of itself a horrible thing. Therefore, you don't even consider the reasons for the commotion, nor any of the methods used by the manager to remove the "problem". It's as foolish as a Librarian saying "shh" to the one yelling "the library is on fire," as their yelling breaks the decible level set forth in the Library's policy, except you're not even the Librarian but a random person in the building who's choosing to make themself look dumb. And where the actual librarian is so offended at me making noise about their beloved library that they threaten to kick me out....even willing to lie about things I did, such as reviving dormant posts (which were actually commented on by others that very same day, and prior to my comment) , as well as posting in irrelevant channels (yet I stayed on topic). And they did so while ignoring the entire reason I was making noise. Like, you can't make this crap up. It's crazy!

I, however, ask why they're making a scene. I also consider if the managers tactics used to remove the customer are justified, or are they false excuses... Like a corrupt cop who plants evidence on another.

Look. If it turns out I'm wrong about the fire, then I'll deal with that. But I'm confortable in taking the risk of humiliating myself, since if I'm right it will save others. And yes, a mod admitted that their system is so flawed that innocent people (like myself) are wrongfully punished, and perhaps regularly. Their admission of guilt has earned some of my trust.. So good on them for that. But I won't be satisfied until innocent people stop being punished for SMG's incompetence.

storm temple
#

go shop somewhere else

river parcel
#

Or just mute me as it doesn't concern you. You're blocked too

storm temple
#

do i get to claim censorship?

#

i think i get to claim censorship right?

river parcel
#

That was somewhat clever of you and it gave me a smile, but it's a perversion of reality and the truth, so I can't actually credit you with anything other than being a nosey smart ass, with faulty morals, who inserts themselves into issues for.... what reason, exactly? As you're not coming with a solution. Anyway, I'm done with you both. Enjoy your day.

noble perch
storm temple
#

i actually think that this time it really is soon. not soon™

noble perch
#

Talk about “the cowardice of breaking alliances” perfectly by blocking and muting while claiming censorship.

river parcel
#

SMG, you caused this. Stop punishing innocent people. You're dealing with people's real world dollars. You owe it to them to do right by them. Do better. I'll get anyone involved I need to, to legally stop you, if I find out you're doing shady stuff. I'll leave it there. Now I have work to do concerning this company. Sorry to disrupt others, if I actually did (cough trolls). Still, I'll never understand how being warned of a potential scam would ever offend anyone, except, perhaps, the one being accused. Even then, the accused shouldn't take offense (if they're innocent); rather, they should feel both embarrassed for treating their paying customers this way, and proud to see someone standing up in defense of themself and others in order to stop possible criminal behaviour. But, I've said my part and will leave it there.

blazing gate
#

I cant believe I missed another smoothbrain crying about alliances thread

#

😔

flint perch
visual silo
blazing gate
visual silo
# blazing gate

Bless the guy who sent you that! he was so right!. Thanks for sharing

lone elm
# visual silo Alliances in Risk are not vague, nor open to whimsical interpretation — they hav...

Dude I been saying this. You’re spot on. I think the alliance feature is bs . It’s not in the original risk . Granted if u wanted to arrange u could but the other players would have knowledge & react accordingly. The worst is when you don’t even play with them but get people with unguarded borders . I think if they only gave points to the winner it would make the game better & a lot of these weanie strategies would be obsolete.

storm temple
#

it 100% is in the original risk. its a social game played over the table with other people. of COURSE alliances were made. of COURSE people backstabbed.

#

and even so, this is NOT the over the table version of risk. its a videogame with its own set of rules and social expectations. if you cant adapt, thats on you

#

In OTT games you learn which friends you can trust and which ones words are worthless. so to in this online version, you learn that backstabbing people can sometimes lead to higher placement in the short term, and can also make other players not trust you in that same game when it gets down to the 3 player part. you also learn that by not backstabbing and placing nice, you win more games on average

#

the highest ranked players generally dont backstab, in fact they generally play nice until someone starts a war, and THEN they fight

noble perch
# storm temple it 100% is in the original risk. its a social game played over the table with ot...

Card swapping between allies was even allowed in certain versions or variations of over the board risk. (That one was new to me I just read about it two days ago when doing some research on the history of risiko in relation to risk.)

Certainly all kinds of open discussions took place over the board. “If you attack him here and here. I’ll attack him here.” Alliance and then betrayal and much laughter happened over the board all the time. The primary variations in the main game (setting aside zombies and fog etc.) are secrecy of alliance communication and the limitations of other communication to just a few emotes and your board movements. For some this is an unacceptable loss and they will only play in VC, but many of us think this is just another interesting variation in the history and evolution of the game.

Limited overall, communication and limited knowledge of your opponents skill level or intentions (with or with out secret alliance communications turned on) makes for a challenging and fascinating version so good that I personally have little interest in returning to over the board play at least until I have fully explored this variation.

flint perch
# noble perch Card swapping between allies was even allowed in certain versions or variations ...

This is so true. Playing the board game tracks closest to playing online with voice chat. I hate this game when playing with VC. The dynamic completely changes into verbal manipulation. Do this or I'm going to slam you next turn. If you'll slam this guy, I'll give you 2nd. etc. Board position and strategy go out the window. In game alliances allow for private communication channels (which don't exist on playing on a real board).
All in all, my favorite way to play is with alliances turned off and find players that understand the game and still find a way to work together. I still occasionally play with alliances, but I typically use them to try to manipulate the other players as if it were a VC game.

storm temple
#

ya, thats the main reason tournement games dont make sense to me. its a skill, but its not the skill that should matter in this game

#

handshake agreements to get higher placement in spite of all else is just wrong lol