He writes, "And there it is, one half of the winning strategy: Roll the dice as little as possible. You can’t lose armies that never fight." This is the exact opposite thing you should do in Risk. Risk is a really simple game. The attacker can roll 3 dice and the defender can only roll 2.
Desu, I spent 5 seconds skimming the article and he very clearly states that the reason to not attack is there are more than 2 players. So yes, A may get a local advantage against B by attacking but in so doing weakens both A and B relative to C. This would be - surprise - SYSTEM thinking.
Your 'system thinking' only works if the people you play against are literal retards. You think they won't notice the second you start to have the biggest army simply because you didn't attack last turn? All of his points about not attacking only work against complete morons. His point 1 is "Consolidate most of your armies on a handful of adjacent countries that are strong enough that no one wants to attack them." No one wants to attack them? How is that suppose to work? His next point is about 'looking weak' as if the opponent can't figure out how to count how many armies you have. His whole argument rests on the idea that his opponents can't figure out he needs to be attacked at some point.
And my point is that he got caught up in his 'system thinking' that he forgot his opponents aren't just going to wildly attack each other and forget his army exists.
(post is archived)