Anyone else hate when people use the stockpiling strategy?

[Woodruff]

In real Risk you can pick to defend with 1 or 2 dice based on the rolls the attacker had... my money's on the defender.

I thought they had to pick their number of dice BEFORE they were rolled? I don't think they got to pick AFTER they were rolled.

I found a statistical analysis on it, http://www.few.vu.nl/~koole/articles/naw94/art.pdf, where the person talks about the Dutch Rules (choice between one or two defender dice after seeing attacker rolls) and British rules (rolling concurrently), so I guess both are acceptable versions of the rules. I'm not Dutch, but apparently I've been playing the Dutch rules for quite some time.

Very interesting. I've never heard of the Dutch variant.

[rdsrds2120]

In real Risk you can pick to defend with 1 or 2 dice based on the rolls the attacker had... my money's on the defender.

Mine isn't. Lowering yourself to one die will just lower any chance that you'll even decrease the other players stack. Using two will follow the normal distribution that we've so clearly defined

[Commander62890]

No actually, that's not what I'm saying at all, and yes the dice are random and yes the odds are the same every time. Sorry that I can't make what I was saying any clearer but I probably wasted too much time writing that post as it is, I just wanted to encourage players who get frustrated by rather mindless stockpiling.

OK, let me emphasize what I was trying (and obviously failing) to get across:
attacking 4 vs. 12, the potential loss on both sides is uneven.
Truly random dice have streaks (no surprise).
Thus, the potential to do a great deal of harm to a large stack exists.
In no way do I say it is likely, or expected. But if you're behind, there's no harm to yourself except the loss of 2 troops, and the upside, however unlikely or far-fetched is enormous... so why not? It can be a game-turning tactic, and people who are wont to complain about the 'lucky' dice of their opponents probably miss these kinds of opportunities because they're too afraid to even try a 4 vs. 12- even though they really aren't risking much.

The distinction between a stack of 12 and a string of six 2's should also be clear. With the stack, a player can wipe it out (again POTENTIALLY) with a minimum of 4, if they have the right luck. With a string of 2's, it's impossible at one point, because you lose a troop every time even if you don't lose any rolls.

All right, fair enough!

4v12 = 0.8% chance of success

But, it's worth noting that, if you try 4v12 five times (or whatever that number is), you are risking the same amount as if you were attempting a 12v12.

You only have less to lose because you statistically have less to gain. However often you win that 4v12, you will also lose 2 about 6 times in a row.

If you're trying a single 4v12, like you're saying... sure, I guess anything can happen. But I wouldn't bank on those 0.8% chances.

[MarshalNey]

If you're trying a single 4v12, like you're saying... sure, I guess anything can happen. But I wouldn't bank on those 0.8% chances.

Of course not, if you're banking on those odds you should get out of the banking business (or join the geniuses at Bank of America, whichever)

And if it's important to have 4 troops on that tert for whatever reason (protecting a teammate, etc), well again not worth it. But fairly often I observe stacks just 'floating' out in the middle of nowhere, begging for me to put a whopping 1 troop on my adjacent 3-stack and see what I can get away with. It's practically win-win from my end as those 3 troops are usually useless otherwise (thus the term 'middle of nowhere') and the cost is very minimal with great potential benefit. Also, I don't need to beat the 99.2% odds in order to get a benefit- if I take down 2 and lose 2, I break even... anything else is pure gravy from an attritional standpoint and also by limiting the opponent's flexibility on the offense.

I call it 'luck exploitation', even though that's probably not an accurate term.

[Commander62890]

Is it smart to do attacks like that when you are facing 7 opponents? What types of games are you talking about?


Stockpiling sounds like a much more effective strategy if you're facing a lot of opponents.

[MarshalNey]

Is it smart to do attacks like that when you are facing 7 opponents? What types of games are you talking about?


Stockpiling sounds like a much more effective strategy if you're facing a lot of opponents.

Agreed. In my original post, I was offering various anti-stacking possibilites for different maps and situations. The 'luck exploitation' idea I generally use for team games and/or large maps.

[40kguy]

There are ways to beat this strategy. 1.) you stock up until you get to like 100 or something around that and attack them you will most likely win this way. 2.) play esc when you have about 4 cards and you dont cash and its freestyle you can take it out and then end and you get 20 guys to deploy neaxt turn. I hoped this helped

--40kkguy

[Onefistjel]

The only plan that I can fathom in this case is that one player will eventually lose patience and leave himself or herself vulnerable- which again isn't really due to skill or strategy but reptilian patience. As far as I'm concerned, I may as well go join a staring contest

You don't think patience is a strategy?

First of all, and I think you've probably covered this, these points about random standoffs have little to do with games of multiple single players. When you have five-eight players and you just suffered a major blow from several enemies at once, sometimes it's your only choice: find a corner, stay out of the way and build. The other players hate that you're there and it's annoying, because they can't expend their resources and risk making themselves vulnerable to the rest of the board. So yeah, it's damn annoying, but it's gotten me through some tough spots, BECAUSE I'm patient. I've seen tons of players fight "tooth-and-nail" to get back their claim in the world, and it killed them real quick - usually it's all against one player, and they complain there's nothing else they could have done. But if they retreated and allowed that player to make major gains, they would have changed the dynamic of the game, because the other players would have ganged up on the new powerhouse, leaving the retreating player to rebuild.

Any general will tell you that patience is essential ti winning a war. Some of the greatest generals throughout history have been patient men who waited until just the right moments to make their moves.

Granted, some stockpilers don't know how to find the right moment, and they just go on building until someone comes after them, and that can be pretty foolish. I don't know if they think the whole board will eventually clear itself out for them, but it's rather silly.

All that being said, I agree there are definitely ways to deal with stockpilers. I've had to deal with a couple myself. I played one game where there were four of us, and one guy kept building and building and then he would wait until I was a little too strong and just a bit vulnerable, and then he would attack me. I would strike back, but without enough force to take him out and then he'd do it again. Eventually, I started to devote all my resources to taking him down. I attacked him a little bit each turn. I allowed myself to be just a bit weaker than the other two players, but strong enough that neither of them wanted to attack me and risk the other won cleaning up. Eventually I beat the stockpiler, and by that time, the other two players were at each other's throats, and I was able to scoop in, take the lead, and win. I don't mind the 4 vs.12 idea, because you devote your resources slowly, and the other players feel free to leave you alone, because you're not becoming too strong. It's easier without the fog-of-war, because people tend to make more stupid attacks. That's why I like to play "no spoils" "no fog-of-war," to make better use of the full group dynamic.

On the flip side of that, it might be best not to piss off the same guy three times in a row with your stockpile, or he'll use his more continual resources to bring you down. Use your stockpile to carve out a kingdom at the right moment, not just to keep another player from gaining a small advantage over the others. Stock-piling is not a strategy in and of itself: it all comes down to how you utilize it, and when and where.

That's what I have to say about it.

[General Roy]

/me heads home to MarshalNey, pulls out the ol' risk board and makes two 150 stacks, one for MarshalNey, one for Arama86n. Arama86n then hands MarshalNey TWO blue dice, and takes THREE red dice for himself.

Do you think I only have a 50% chance of beating you 150v150?

who are you asking? I think someone mentioned the phrase "attacker's advantage".

Anyway, chances of winning 150v150 is 87%, in case someone is interested, i.e. 6 time out of 7. and there is a 50% chance the attacker is left with at least 23 troops in the end.

[Commander62890]

Obviously, he was asking MarshalNey

[WorldCup4James]

If you've played Risk in person, stockpiling is a common feature. Stockpiling is designed (on Classic) to prepare you to take out the weakest player, get their spoils, and then sweep the board. It's good on some maps, but bad on others. It definitely is a strategy and CAN be defeated with diplomacy and other methods.

[Jatekos]

Stockpiling is definitely a strategy, especially in nuclear games.

[SaviorShot]

usually i only stock pile when ever im behind and the other player(s) are doing it to. What i will do tho is use the assault button when im behind in the stockpile wars..... for instance... i have 20 he has 34... i just assault and go from there... taking it 1 dice roll at a time. Helps me thin him out/keep him from attackin me & i can stop b4 my troop gets to the point where he will press auto-assault his next turn. Im the type that just wants to keep a balence of power on a border that does not have strategic value at the moment. and if he keeps building aganist me then they tend to be more agreesive on that border and i might have 1-3 rounds 2 prepare for his auto assault.
New to CC.com but not to the games. with the streak things.... i think its fully random with each dice roll.... being fully random means u can lose 20vs4 battle. But i do hate when that happens ^.^ but can also win the 4v20. who would attack 4v10+ tho 4 real. i would rather take my chances on Dfence. I seem to have more luck on defense but i am a truly aggressive player & and use the odds of assault. When the dice go in ur favor awesome and if not..... well GG that risk. I stopped using auto assault for any battle i dont have x2 the troops + 1 for the space. Still a free member. would love to get invited to any games... no nuke/fog tho. GL on the boards. PS i am sgt 1st class (ATM) with under 30 games & i perfer GOLD members... they dont suicide as much... some dont even rage u if u know what i mean by that.

[phantomzero]

Stockpiling is a strategy. Especially on the maps you mentioned like Feudal. There are a large number of neutrals between yourself and your opponents. It would be folly to try and knock them down each round, slowly making it to your opponent knocking down all of the neutrals closest to them only to be left with a 3 against their 50 stack. How else would you play Feudal?