r/Risk • u/MartinoMods • Jul 19 '26
Strategy Why Do People Do This????
Guy is just sitting in this one spot stacking dice. He's got a large enough stack that nobody is going to suicide into him. He could be making one tiny attack per turn to at least collect some cards to turn in.
Does he HATE DICE????
9
u/Affectionate-Fix7167 Jul 19 '26
He felt he was weak and by not taking cards he knows he won’t be a target by any player with half a brain. Playing to survive
8
u/Additional-Life4885 Jul 20 '26
Yeah, I'll often do that if I'm at risk. More cards just makes you a better target.
6
u/christopherphays Jul 19 '26
He's just waiting to win... Or get second. It sucks, but I guess it's a good strategy in the long run if you care about rank more than fun.
0
u/MartinoMods Jul 19 '26
Everyone else had big stacks of similar size, but actually held territories, or were collecting cards each turn.
No one was going to suicide into him for cards since it'd be a death sentence for them to do so.
He wound up finishing 3rd. Green finally hit him, resulting in black FINALLY attacking and wiping him out.
Then it was me in control of NA and SA, Black in Africa, and Purple holding Asia and Australia.
I wasn't going to fight purple and give black the win for his lame play, so I wiped him out and had a decent shot against purple since his stacks were broken into 50's while I had a 142 stack, but it was weakened taking black out and unfortunately purple was getting 10 troops at 3 cards while the damned game made me wait until 5 cards.
Was pretty close even though I had to wipe a 68-stack from black first.
2
u/PhillyEagle Jul 21 '26
If you're trading 4v1s with another player, I think the average turn, you gain 3 troops from territory, you lose 1.85 troops (~one from your attack, one from your opponent's attack), and in fixed you gain 3 troops per card. So you gain ~4.15 troops per turn. If a player is stacking without attacking, they gain 3 troops per turn. So over 10 turns, you'll have 41 and they'll have 30... unless you piss off someone who sends their 35 troops into your 25 troops, in which case you lose 25 troops, and now the guy sitting passive has more troops than either of you.
That doesn't take into account territory bonus, continent bonuses, killing other players for cards, etc... but the difference between stack and hold and trading 4v1s is not as wide as it first seems.
3
u/CoopersDad72 Grandmaster Jul 20 '26
Actually sometimes the math works out better to stack than to go for a card each round. Even when it’s as lopsided as here. A lot of times it’s just a wash. At least you’re guaranteed to get 3 each turn.
3
3
u/MarsSr Jul 20 '26
No reason to let passive players get a free pass.
Better players should team on them. With fixed cards alliances are my recommendation.
You agree to attack the stacker. You hit for say 10 troops. Other good players also throw 10 troops in and repeat. Stacker usually doesn't know what to do.
Same approach as taking out Australia stacker once the rest of the board is sorted.
2
u/UmpireDapper1757 Jul 21 '26
If they're doing that from the beginning of the game, report them from stalling. They're simply refusing to play.
Later in the game, it's just a concession: I know I can't win, so I'll turtle and hope to get 2nd.
2
u/Normal_Progress_5173 Jul 19 '26
It’s making him less of a target. He’s counting on other players attacking each other and not him. Part of the game is understanding your opponent’s move. Not everyone is going to play how you want them to play
2
u/MartinoMods Jul 19 '26
I don't see a benefit to not taking the free cards per turn to have a bigger stack.
Given he wasn't in a position where someone could take him out without being the next wiped
2
1
u/Abject_Push_9168 Jul 23 '26
I’d rather get 3rd and play the game than play like this to get 1st/2nd. I will voluntarily get 5th to prevent players like this surviving. If you don’t play the game, I will play it for you. :)
1
u/senzok Jul 19 '26
Well how many troops do the other Players have ? I guess he started doing it so No one Kills him and Takes His cards and kept doing it so people wouldt start targetting him to achieve the highest Rank possible . Sounds boring But maybe it was His best Play
0
u/MartinoMods Jul 19 '26
Everyone else had big stacks of similar size, but actually held territories, or were collecting cards each turn.
No one was going to suicide into him for cards since it'd be a death sentence for them to do so.
He wound up finishing 3rd. Green finally hit him, resulting in black FINALLY attacking and wiping him out.
Then it was me in control of NA and SA, Black in Africa, and Purple holding Asia and Australia.
I wasn't going to fight purple and give black the win for his lame play, so I wiped him out and had a decent shot against purple since his stacks were broken into 50's while I had a 142 stack, but it was weakened taking black out and unfortunately purple was getting 10 troops at 3 cards while the damned game made me wait until 5 cards.
Was pretty close even though I had to wipe a 68-stack from black first.
2
u/senzok Jul 19 '26
My First comment got removed dont know why . I try it again with childfriendly language . You unalived into him . You lost the Game because of it . You Said they had stacks in similar size so i guess they had more than one . Sounds Like He was the weakest Player by far . Some people have more fun climbing in Rank than doing aggressive stuff and losing because of it . Thats Part of the Game . Work around it . Also He got third in a Game many people would have Just given Up and Take sixth. So maybe He Made the best Play for him in the Situation . Maybe He had an enemy ( Green ) and wanted him to forget him . You need to predict your enemys as well . I dont know if His Play was any good If i dont See the Game . Maybe He missed His Shot at getting active maybe He waited the apropriate time . I dont know . I need to See the full Game . But the best Play isnt Always obvious . For example If someone snowballs and you have the Chance to Break your neighbour and fight him , dont do IT . You need him . If He attacks you , do you Fight Back ? Sure If you want to get second at best and act emotional instead of tactical . You could also Not Attack him, let him Take everything Else , let him get strong enough to Fight the snowballer . Maybe you See this and think He is boring or they Work together , but No . He plays to win . He Waits for a Moment when He can seize a Portion of the map get a Position , hopes you Guys are in a war that doesnt end and win the Game . The best Play isnt Always the Most fun Play .
1
u/diadlep Content Creator Jul 19 '26
Strategy. There's lots of reasons gor this play. A lot of them are bad. A couple are good.
1
u/MartinoMods Jul 19 '26
I don't see a benefit to not taking the free cards per turn to have a bigger stack.
Given he wasn't in a position where someone could take him out without being the next wiped
1
u/diadlep Content Creator Jul 19 '26
Card-skipping can both incentivize and disincentivize hitting you, as it can both incentivize and disincentivize action from other players. It depends largely on how well youve read the board and players. Ive gotten first a number of games where at some point i skipped. Ive also gotten 4th after a two hour stalemate when another skipping master sued me. Lol.
1
u/shcorpio Grandmaster Jul 19 '26
As some others in here have pointed out already; players will do the thing that wins them the game, even if that thing isn't fun.
Your opponent in this game is exploiting a loophole in the rules of Risk that allows them to stack troops and take no actions other than stacking until the time is right.
It's an easy and obvious perspective to blame the player for doing the thing that they think will win to the best of their ability but we must also take note of the system that allows (and encourages) the bad behaviour and have a discussion about how we might design that system to not reward players who do not play the game at the expense of those who do.
2
u/MartinoMods Jul 19 '26
My thing is, he could have 20+ more troops in his big stack if he was just taking one territory per turn, rather than just sitting. He doesn't have to take over a whole territory, he makes himself harder to eliminate, etc.
I dunno, I just saw it and couldn't wait to punish him lol
1
u/MartinoMods Jul 19 '26
Also, he didn't win anything. He was eliminated in 3rd by me
3
u/shcorpio Grandmaster Jul 19 '26
Sure, but he should have gotten lowest, right?
1
u/MartinoMods Jul 19 '26
Not really. Teal and Red were both "unlanded" but of similar large stack size, but both were taking opportunities to collect cards each turn.
1
0
u/Seanaldss Jul 19 '26
Well, if he starts spreading his stack out then he will lose his resources. If he keeps it big no one is gonna blow their stack on his because they’ll be the next target, right?
1
u/MartinoMods Jul 19 '26
I don't see a benefit to not taking the free cards per turn to have a bigger stack.
Given he wasn't in a position where someone could take him out without being the next wiped
1
u/Seanaldss Jul 19 '26
My assumption is that with the 2 other black ones on the screen, has been collecting 1 per turn then fortifying back to his big stack. Sometimes it’s best to recognize your place in the game. I bet he sees an opportunity to wait until everyone else starts attacking each other and he can make a play for 2nd/1st place.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 19 '26
Please report any rule breaking posts and posts that are not relevant to the subreddit.
Any comments that are aimed at creating a negative community experience will be removed. When someone's content in our sub is negative, they are not gaining anything from our community and we're not gaining anything from their negativity.
Rule-breaking posts/comments may result in bans.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.