Talk:Risk (game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unnamed Talk Header

GO IRKUTSK!!!

I prefer Yak Stick :) Surely the rules for the most common version of the game should be more fully included? :porge 14:05, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What rules are you referring to? If you are referring to the section I removed (below), feel free to clean it up and then re-add it. Of course, you are free to add them if you like, as long as they are not copyvios. —Frecklefoot 14:14, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Opinion/Experience throughout Strategy section

There is a lot of (as already indicated) unsupported opinion throughout the strategy section. I'm just as guilty of this as previous contributors because I just added a bunch more. How should this be handled? For example, in my experience the following claim isn't true, but I can easily see how it could be true for other players: "Many games degenerate into stalemates between North America, South America, and Africa vs Australia, Asia, and Ukraine, with Europe split between them." Dslotman 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S., who is Gabriel Cerda Balderas? Google's got nothing. Dslotman 17:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stalemates happen pretty easily if you don't play with cards for some reason. But in general, it's hard to see how stalemates are a part of this game. ErikHaugen 09:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the strategies section, other than the dice probabilities. I strongly suspect that it is all original research, and not very good at that. ErikHaugen 09:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. By allowing any strategy, we leave the door open to various terrible pet strategies. Personally I thought that the bullet list was good, do you think we could restore that without this same problem reoccuring? Dan Slotman 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we provide sources? I mean, if I just write down a list of things that I think are good advice, that is "original research," right? I saw an article by a statistician that ran some kind of models to find out the best strategy for Monopoly; the conclusion was you should go for orange or green, get 3 houses on each property, etc. So on the Monopoly page you could say that is a strategy and cite the article. But we can't just write what we think is good strategy off the top of our heads here, right? I suppose you could list things that are suggested by the game instructions or something? ErikHaugen 05:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are right of course. A fast Google search pulled up a couple board game webpages offering strategy advice, but even summarizing their advice would be plagerism and waste of time. If someone really wants to improve their game they can undoubtedly do their own search just as easily. Dan Slotman 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the strategy section needs a little bit more. I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure my manual for RISK mentions the creation of alliances and cross-boarding in strategy and what not. Even if it isn't in the manual, which I'm pretty sure it is, I still think it needs to be added. As the strategy section stands right now, it is really quite an understatement of basic strategy for anyone who has ever played. Furthermore, everyone knows that you should go after a weaker player to collect his country cards and be able to cash your own in sooner. Perhaps, I'll do some adding of my own in the future. b_cubed 05:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if you could add anything found in your manual. The current strategy section is covered in the 1993 edition, and as you say, it is very basic. The problem with adding strategies without citing them is that the article ends up with too many strategies and a lot of terrible strategies. Here is a version that had a lot of strategies which were later removed due to original research. This is an article about Risk, not a strategy guide for Risk. Thanks, Dan Slotman 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor addition

I removed the following section since it was:

1. Poorly written
2. Didn't even attempt to follow wiki-formatting standards
3. Seemed to rely on some assumptions not made clear in the rest of the article
4. In short, detracted from the article rather than enhancing it

If you like, you can fix it and add it back into the article. I removed it from the end of the "Risk strategy for the basic Board game with common rules" section, but you can re-add it where ever you feel it is most appropriate. It was added by anonymous user 32.106.194.149. —Frecklefoot 14:14, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Here are the most common differences found throughout history:

- The connection between the Middle East and Africa does not exist or does exist on the board or as a house-rule does exist or does not exist

- Way to win :

 * domination so capture all 42 territories on the map [old US rules]
 * mission (if checked mission part applies) [old and new UK rules] often
   (e.g. on Microsoft Zone) this is combined with increasing value of card
   sets to increase the speed of the game.
 * capitals [new US rules] (each player chooses one of his territories to
   be his capital. The choices are revealed simultaneously. The objective is 
   to capture all (or some number of) capitals. If you lose your capital, 
   you are not out of the game. (But you aren't doing very well!) ) 

- When are the missions delt (if using mission)?

 * After colors are chosen and before territory cards are delt [new US rules]
 * After territory cards are delt
 * After territory cards are delt and all have placed all armies 

- The leftover missions (if using missions):

 * can be viewed by any player [older rules leave it open]
 * are not revealed and hidden [newer rules]

- If a player gets eliminated

 * his mission is revealed [older rules leave it open]
 * his mission is not revealed and must remain secret [newer rules]

- The following missions are (or arent) being used:

 * Conquer Asia and South America
 * Conquer Asia and Africa
 * Conquer North America and Africa
 * Conquer North America and Australa
 * Conquer Europe and South America and a 3rd continent of your choice
 * Conquer Europe and Australasia and a 3rd continent of your choice
 * Occupy 18 territories with at least 2 armies in each territory
   (often taken out)
 * Occupy 24 territories (no restriction to 2 or more armies in each)
   (often taken out)
 * kill black
 * kill purple
 * kill red
 * kill yellow
 * kill blue
 * kill green

 When using only the "kill" missions it is often used so that if player
 gets killed the one who had this mission wins, this is also called
 paranoia risk.

- If fewer than 6 colours are going to be used in the game then the cards

 corresponding to the unused colours are removed from the deck before 
 missions are given out.

- If you draw your own colour

 * then your mission changes to conquer 24 territories [standard]
 * All mission cards are delt again [houserule]

- if someone else kills the colour you should be killing according to your

 mission:
 * your mission changes to 'conquer 24 territories' [old and new UK rules]
 * you have won, the other player helped you out. [new US rules]

- You can only win:

 * At the beginning of your go
 * At the end of your go [new UK rules]
 * a full turn after revealing your mission and maintaining its conditions in
   the interim
 * At any point, you don't have to be in your go, someone solves your problem!

- the territories are divided among the players:

 * by shuffling the cards and giving each player in turn a card (with 4 or 5
   players 2 players get an extra card) (be sure to exclude the jokers)
 * letting each player in turn choose 1 territory not owned by another player 
   in turn 

- The amount of players decides the amount of armies each player gets:

 * [2 players:40][3 players:35][4 players:30][5 players:25][6 players:20] 
   [ALL newer and older rules except 1959 US rules]
 * every player gets 1 army/territory [1959 US rules]

- On FIRST placement:

 * there is a maximum of 4 armies on 1 territory to place [old UK rules]
 * there is no maximum on how many armies to place in one territory [newer 
   UK and US rules]

- There is always a minimum of 1 army per territory

 Armies are placed:
 * by each player until all say they are done (no special rules) [old rules
   leave it open]
 * in turn, each player may put 1 army on 1 territory that he owns, until 
   all armies are placed [many old and new rules]
 * in turn, each player may put 1 army on 1 territory that he owns, until 
   all armies are placed but the empty territories must be filled first 
   [many old and new rules]

- The turns in a game are :

 * Defend phase and then Attack phase [new UK and all US rules]
 * Attack phases and then Defend phases (all players first do an attack 
   round and then a defend round) [houserule]
 * Defend phase OR Attack phase [old UK and Dutch rules] (this makes owing  
   continents much more important)

- You get armies in the following ways:

 * The total amount of your territories divided by 3, with a minimum of 3 
   and rounded down (14=4) [all versions]
 * Cashed in cards (see below)
   + If you own South America an extra 2
   + If you own North America an extra 5
   + If you own Europe an extra 5
   + If you own Africa an extra 3
   + If you own Asia an extra 7
   + If you own Australia an extra 2

- Where should the armies that you get from owning a continent be placed ?

 * anywhere you like [not stated in rules]
 * in the continent you got the armies from [houserule]

- You must say from which country you attack and which country you are

 attacking.
 * The attacker can attack with the amount of dice that is equal or less 
   than the amount of armies in the attacking country minus 1.
 * The defender can defend with the amount of dice that is equal or less 
   than the amount of armies in the defending country.

- the attacker:

 * when using 3 dices the attacker doesn't have to state anything and after 
   he won he has to move a minimum of 3
 * when using 3 dices the attacker has to say the amount of armies he is
   attacking with and he has to move this amount of armies after he won

- the defender:

 * Has to say before the battle with how many dices he will defend as well 
   as the attacker [US and new UK rules] 
 * Has to use 2 dices except when he has only one army left
 * Has to use 1 dice if he owns less than 3 armies in the defending 
   territory [New Zealand and U.K. rules circa 1990]
 * Can choose AFTER the attacker threw his dices if he wants to defend with 
   1 or 2 dice(s) [old UK rules]

- The dices of both attacker and defender are ranked according to value and

 are compared for each rank. If, in one rank comparison, the dices are the
 same, the defender wins in this rank. If there are ranks comparisons where  
 there is only 1 dice the rank isn't counted. The defender and attacker loose  
 the amount of armies equal to the rank comparisons they lost

- Redeployment

 * There is no redeployment
 * After your turn you may transport 7 armies across your own territories,
   each border-crossing is 1 transportation, the territories should be
   connected, provided that after all such movement there is at least one army
   per territory
 * After your turn you may move armies from 1 country to another country,
   provided that after all such movement there is at least one army per 
   territory
 * ONLY after an attack phase you may transport 7 armies across your own 
   territories, each border-crossing is 1 transportation, the territories 
   should be connected, provided that after all such movement there is at 
   least one army per territory [old UK rules]
 * ONLY after an attack phase you may move armies from 1 country to another 
   country, provided that after all such movement there is at least one army 
   per territory
 * After you turn you may move an unlimited amount of armies across your own 
   connected territories, provided that after all such movement there is at 
   least one army per territory [US and new UK rules]
 * Only after an attack you may move an unlimited amount of armies across your 
   own connected territories, provided that after all such movement there is 
   at least one army per territory
 * After you turn you may move a group of 7 (or another predefined limited   
   number of armies) through an unlimited number of connected, controlled 
   territories , provided that after all such movement there is at least one 
   army per territory [houserule]
 * Only after an attack you may move a group of 7 (or another predefined 
   limited number of armies) through an unlimited number of connected, 
   controlled territories , provided that after all such movement there is at 
   least one army per territory [houserule]
 * After your turn each single army is allowed to move to an adjacent 
   controlled territory, provided that after all such movement there is at 
   least one army per territory [houserule]
 * After an attack each single army is allowed to move to an adjacent 
   controlled territory, provided that after all such movement there is at 
   least one army per territory [houserule]

- take a card

 * You may take 1 card if you have conquered a country, only one card per 
   turn. 

- cashing in cards

 * You HAVE to turn in cards if you have more than 5 cards so u can defend 
   with 5 cards

- When do you have to cash in cards:

 * You must turn in at the beginning of your turn but you have to attack
 * You must turn in at the beginning of your turn but you don't have to attack
 * You must turn in at the end of your turn
 * You may either turn in at the beginning or at the end of your turn
 * You may turn in at any point during your turn but you have to attack and   
   all should be placed at once
 * You may turn in at any point during your turn but you have to attack and 
   the gained armies can be placed gradually during your turn
 * You may turn in at any point during your turn but you don't have to attack 
   but all should be placed at once
 * You may turn in at any point during your turn but you don't have to attack 
   and the gained armies can be placed gradually during your turn

Note: the last two options leave it open to attack or not attack, in case of not attacking obviously all are placed at once

- If you trade in a card with a country on it you own:

 * nothing happens
 * you get an extra 2 armies which u may place anywhere with a maximum of 2 
   gained by this mechanism
 * you get an extra 2 armies which u may place anywhere with no maximum gained 
   by this mechanism
 * you get an extra 2 armies which u must place in that territory with a 
   maximum of 2 gained by this mechanism [1980 US rules]
 * you get an extra 2 armies which u must place in that territory with no 
   maximum gained by this mechanism

- The card-combinations have the following values:

 * [3*art.=4][3*inf.=6][3*cav.=8][3 diff. ones=10] (a joker can be used as 
   art,inf or cav-card) [standard scheme]
 * [3*art.=6][3*inf.=9][3*cav.=12][3 diff. ones=15] (a joker can be used as 
   art,inf or cav-card) [houserule scheme]
 * first set 4, second set 6, third set 8, fourth set 10 , fifth set 12, sixth 
   set 15, seventh set 20, eight set 25, and so on with each time and extra 5 
  [increasing, UK and US rules] (makes card-sets very important)
 * first set 4, second 5, and then each time 1 more [1980 US rules and new US 
   rules suggestion]
 * the sets pay 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, but then the payoffs decrease 
   again: 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 6, 8, etc. [houserule]
 * the sets pay 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20 but after 20 the next payoff is 4, 
   then 6, 8, etc. [houserules] (This can make it more important to be able to 
   cash in sets of cards at the right time)

- If player A kills player B:

 * nothing happens, the cards from player B get on the bottom of the stack 
   [older rules]
 * player A gets all cards from player B and player A has to wait until the 
   next turn to cash in all combinations[new UK rules] (so when a player has 
   weakened himself by killing another he can be killed in turn)
 * player A gets all cards from player B and if player A owns more than 6 
   cards he has to turn in combinations until he has 4 or less [US rules after 
   1970] (this opens a lot of loopholes, see RISK-FAQ)
 * player A gets all cards from player B and if player A owns more than 5 
   cards he has to turn in combinations until he has 4 or fewer [most US 
   editions]
 * player A gets all cards from player B and can now trade in anything he wants
   player A gets all cards from player B but has to wait for the next turns to 
   cash in, he may only cash in 1 set per turn. After he has dropped to less 
   than 5 the normal conditions are valid again. [DESDA]

- Some extra rules are:

 * If an attacker holds the card that shows the territory that is attack from 
   or being attacked he may re-roll any one die on each battle involving that 
   territory. The card is not used up and goes back into the player's hand. 
 * You cannot use more than one card per battle, but may use more than one 
   card during a single turn. Again, this is only for the attacker, not the 
   defender. [1980 US variation]
 * You may donate cards to other players
 * You may trade cards with other players
 * You may throw cards away
 * Only 12 armies per territory are allowed. If during placement you are 
   unable to place some armies, then you lose them [1980 US variation]
 * Use the influence of commanders, or great generals being at a particular 
   battle. Once per turn, each player may change one of the dice he rolled to 
   a six. Thus a roll of 1, 2, and 3 may become a roll of 6, 2, and 3. The 
   rules are clear in stating that this may only be performed by an attacking 
   army [1980 US variation]
 * When there are no armies left in your box you HAVE to attack [houserule]
 * When u have attacked and u receive a sixth card you must put that card back 
   on the bottom of the stack [houseule] 
 * When u have attacked, receive a sixth card (or more) and that is put 
   between your cards, u must put ALL your cards back on the bottom of the 
   stack [houserule]
 * the cards you have saved MUST be visible for ALL players [houserule]
 * You have to throw again all YOUR dices if a dice drops on the floor 
   [houserule]
 * You have to throw again all YOUR dices if a dice lies not in such a 
   postition that the value is obvious (e.g. against the playboard) [houserule]
 * You have to throw again all YOUR dices when you throw more dices than is  
   permitted [houserule]

---

The article is inaccurate

Risk has been around since 1959 and has seen many different rules and incarnations. ALL the rules setup of board, as described are incorrect, it should be written in a total different way.

Rules have changed during the times, affecting gameplay.

I tried adding the additional rules to at least specify that there are a zillion more things around risk than your simple home board game with a specific set of rule you have at home in your specific country. In another country from risk in another year (going back to 1959) the rules and setup of the board can be very different, ALL official from Hasbro affecting gameplay etc...

Then there are the computer versions which are also from Hasbro and add many additional ways of playing, there are many people playing on the Zone and e.g. it changes the way and some rules.

I could go through the sentences one by one, maybe i should :

"Overview and most common rules"

a) originally the title was overview and rules, i changed it to "most common"

"Risk is a turn-based game for 2 to 6 players. "

a) Risk II of Hasbro makes it NOT turn based but real time b) obviously many extensions have been made to allow many more players c) obviously computer versions allow you to play the game alone

"It is played on a board depicting a stylised political map of the world, divided into 42 territories, which are grouped into 6 continents."

a) many maps played on e.g. Zone (Hasbro) let you use any map you like even create, furthermore there people connect boards, there is castlerisk, lotr risk, whatever other risk.

"To start, each player rolls one die. The player who rolls the highest number plays first and the sequence goes clockwise. etc... "

a) Look in http://risk.pagina.nl at the right side there are links to all rulebooks. There were many different ways and obviously in future versions it will again change.

The part of the strategies is inaccurate and based on the american rules of this version and possibly very cliche. "A common strategy is to secure Australia or South America early in the game and sit back and build up armies" yes...for beginning risk players of the Board Game and using Domination and the current US rules and the current default map and if your are allowed to build up armies. I dont understand why there are only strategies for a specific setup of version it is inacurate. Specifically on this point i would e.g. at least mention "capitals" from the official US Hasbro rules.

The article should be much more specific as in which case, with which version, which year, and with which rules and type of game played.

also (first line): "Risk is a copyrighted board game produced by Parker Brothers, a division of Hasbro."

a) A. Lamorisse "invented" the game in 1957 then it was called "La conquette du monde" (if you have version let me know, i have the maps), 2 years later he sold the concept to Parker Brothers who named it Risk and changed several things ( in the original US rules you just had 1 army on each country to start with). Parker Brothers then was bought by Hasbo and it is not a division but now simply Hasbro Risk. Parker Brothers does not exist any more ( i think, well at least for Risk)

I also would mention the excellent book written about Risk (+500 pages on maps and history etc...)

Wasn't there a game based on Risk called Dr. Hell or something along those lines? Perhaps someone would know better, it was developed between the early-mid 90s. I think it would be a good addition to the Alternate Version section.

It is named "War" in Brazil

I don't know where to put this information, so I put here and hope someone add it to article.

In Brazil, the Risk board game was released as "War" by Grow (a very well known publisher/company, it also sells many puzzle, strategy and board games). There were "War", "War Junior", "War 2" and I'm not sure, but maybe "War 3".

I never had this board game, and until now I only played it once. So, unfortunately, I don't have details these versions.

addition

I added the game box and moved the picture inside of it, I have a problem with the gap in the beginning of the page though if someone could fix that. -Damien Vryce 19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

RISK variants?

Should there be at least a mention of the many weird and wonderful RISK variants? I mean, the individual chess variants sometimes have whole articles dedicated to them. Borisblue 07:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Photos of pieces

Nice photos of the infantry, cannon, and cavalry pieces. For completeness, pictures of the various versions of the pieces should be included at some point, to show how the look of the game has changed. If someone gets around to it, I'd suggest the above mentioned three pieces could be shown in one photo, all together. Another photo could show the original colored wooden block pieces, which are the best (the plastic infantry piece doesn't remain standing very well). And those awful plastic roman numeral pieces (circa 1980s) could be pictured as well. If you're reading this page, you could probably round up these editions of the game by searching your closets and asking your friends to do the same. --K

Die vs. dice and repeated incorrect edits

Die is the singular of dice. Proper grammar is "one die, two dice" in the same way that one might say, "One goose, two geese." Please use "die" when the article is refering to a single die; in the same way, please use "dice" when the article refers to more than a single die. Dslotman 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Gabo Tactic

I can feel why you chose to delete the strategy, but it isn't bogus. There really is a Gabriel Cerda Balderas, maybe he's a nobody, but he applies a lot the strategy and it works for him. I personally know more people who have applied it and has worked a lot more times. So practically, I'm saying that I feel it deserves to be in the strategy section. Maybe you could change its name, but I feel that it should state who started using it.

Mauricio Porte Santos Alonso Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

P.S. I was the anonimous user that added it for thae first time, then I decided to make an account.

Is this someone who participates in tournaments, or someone who just plays at home? bibliomaniac15 23:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While the strategy section is currently basically a list of common strategies, ideally they would be cited. I can't speak for the greater masses, but I have never played a game in which anything like the Gabo Tactic was tried successfully. In my opinion, the other strategies are very commonly used (i.e. in any typical Risk game you would see two or more of them followed), so without being able to cite a professional-level Risk player, the more uncommon Gabo Tactic should remain excluded from the article. Dslotman 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You can sign your name automatically by placing for tildes (~) at the end of your comments. Dslotman 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Strike Force Strategy

In the standard rules, you get only a single Risk card per turn, assuming you conquer at least one territory. The strike force strategy advocated in the linked section relies entirely on Risk cards. In point of fact, nearly everyone will be able to gain a Risk card each turn, making this strategy weaker than any other strategy. The real benefit to a strategy like this is the large number of total territories it is possible to hold. For instance, if a player holds twenty-one countries, that player gets seven reinforcements each turn, which is one more than that player would get for holding Africa. (The Africa continent bonus is three, and you get a minimum of three for territories owned, and Africa does not have twelve territories. Hence a sum of six for reinforcements.) The downside, pointed out in the contribution, is that your undefended territories are very easily conquered. This strategy relies entirely on the passiveness of one's opponents. In my opinion, this strategy is doomed to failure in any game with several competent players, and I recommend it be removed. However, if others have found this strategy to be effective, I will not remove it. Dan Slotman 16:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've heard this, or something similar, called the "Nomad Strategy" - Put a large number of armies on one territory. - Stick to attacking one weakly defended territory per turn. - Don't worry about any territory you've left. The idea is to have one territory strong enough to discourage anybody else from trying to attack it, and to avoid depleting that territory in the usual attrition. It usually requires an alliance to defeat. Ralphmerridew 03:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

House Rules

The standard rules give ample subject matter for this article. If alternate rules are to be added to this article they should be limited to the variations found in the official rule book. Dan Slotman 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Linked online sites: NPOV

"Netrisk - Simply the best completely free online risk game for multiple players. No downloads required" Can we get even a bare semblance of NPOV on the off-site link descriptions? This is not a place for advertising, let's just stay informative, eh? --Leperflesh 07:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links especially Risk 2

I think we should remove all non-Hasbro links from this article. Online variants is out of control with link-vandalism. There have been several additions pointing to malware sites. It is tedious to validate the links and irresponsible not to do so. If an enthusiast wants to find online variants, I expect they can use a simple Google search. The lion's share of edits in the last month have been to the variant links and a high percentage have been vandalism. I'll give a couple of days for feedback before I remove them. Dan Slotman 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dan,

I think it's really sad that you consider the addition of the online links and especially the Risk II links to be vandalism. So I have removed them.

In your profile you list Risk as one of your favorite games. If you have ever played Risk II, you would realize that it is the only official Hasbro release of the modern internet age.

I notice that you have a link for the wiki vandalism link in your profile. So I will quote...

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

At any rate, I realize that the risk game entry may not be the perfect place on wiki to place an article about the computer game Risk II. So with the help of many others we are in the process of creating a wiki entry specifically for the computer game Risk II.

If you feel the need to delete any online variants or computer versions of Risk, please consider moving them to the newer Risk II page on wiki.

Just because you don't understand something does not make it vandalism. In fact, I consider deleting something that you do no understand/do not agree with, vandalism.

By the way, if you want to play Risk II online, of course you are invited to join us at www.risk2zone.com

Have a really nice day.

Sincerely, BrandonPPP

Hi BrandonPPP, thanks for taking the time to respond. I should clarify my position, since I notice that my intent was misunderstood. First, Risk 2 is the most-vandalized link and was pointing to a non-Hasbro URL. I could not find a legitimate URL with either a Google search or a search of Hasbro's website. I have no problem with retaining this link with a legitimate URL.

Secondly, (and this is of course a matter of opinion) I don't feel that I was jumping to a conclusion regarding the edits to the links, many of which I have alleged were vandalism. If you inspect the page history of the last month or so, you will note that many of the edits have been reverted as vandalism. It is this fact that I am basing my recommendation upon.

In regards to your last point, it was for this very reason that I did not remove the links and instead used the Talk page. In my understanding, a discussion on the Talk page is the prefered approach to this sort of edit. If you feel that the 3rd party links can be maintained, then I don't have any real problem with them remaining a part of this article. However, I would hate to have a guest of Wikipedia be infected with a virus or malware because of a link on this website.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my suggestion, Dan Slotman 15:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Risk II version of Risk definately belongs on this article. That is just my opinion and I sincerely hope that it is allowed to stay. Thanks for listeningDedicatedRisker 17:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the linked Risk II (http://www.risk2.koreru.com/RiskII-Setup.exe) is a pirate binary. Can someone confirm that this is or is not the case? I'm basing my assessment on the site's unofficial character and talk of no-CD cracks. According to WP:EL, linking to such materials is not allowed. Thanks, Dan Slotman 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to apologize for adding an external link to Conquer Club (http://www.conquerclub.com) in violation of WP:EL. I just read it and point #3 says you shouldn't link to a page that you own or maintain. Now, I understand why you would want to restrict external links to Risk variants that have articles, but at least consider linking to the Online Risk Games on the Open Directory. There are some great web games out there that deliver the Risk experience without having to purchase or pirate a copy of Risk II. Giving readers a clue about their existence does contribute to this article, in my opinion. Thanks, Black001 04:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

External links were valuable, but they are gone!

I have just realised that the external links sections of Risk Game Wiki has been deleted. This was a great source of information on where to find all Risk variants, clubs, strategy guides and so on.

I think they were very valuable and I am sure there must be others who feel the same.

I understand that link vandalism is an issue, however I dont think that should stop us from having any links. Its as if because someone is going to put grafiti on the wall, we are going to demolish the wall altogether. There must be better ways to do this.

I think, as a minimum, the potential links (starting from those that were on the site) should be discussed and handpicked by the community and then put on the wiki for the benefit of all. New link can be treated the same. After all we want the wiki to be a source of information discovery on all aspects of Risk Game. External links can be very effective.

Any ideas to resolve this? Thanks --Spline101 13:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue with this was that they violated the WP:EL guidelines, not that they were subject to vandalism. Dan Slotman 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that WP:EL is only a guidline and is subject to interpretation by the community. I had a quick look at the external links that still reside on answers.com. For example there are a few links that provide alternative versions of online Risks. I dont think the primary purpose of some of these sites is only to sell a product. Some of them provide a whole lot of information from strategies to gameplay, etc. In short, for someone who wants to know what the status of Risk is, they are a valuable source. Finding them is not as easy as just googling them. I do research on games, and I always find these links valuable. For example look at chess, it has a number of links similar to what used to be here that are quite valuable. Either our interpretation of the guidelines need to be updated, or the guideline itself needs to be challenged. --Spline101 07:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the interpretation of WP:EL that I'm going by:

"The article about Risk should contain only external links to official websites and reliable sources that can be used as references. Any other external link should be removed." (Paraphrased from User_talk:Mushroom#External_Links_and_Verifiability)

If the links you've found are to reliable sources that provide good resources for Risk, then they can be linked. Dan Slotman 16:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Having read the difinition of reliable sources, i think the interpretation can depend on the subject of the article. For example an article on history should certainly rely on reliable sources. Hence, a source that is someone personal website may not be suitable as it is not peer reviewed. This is perfectly understandable.

However, suppose the subject matter is how to play a game. There is no historically accurate way to do this. Everybody may play it differently and may suggest their own unique gameplay. The information they provide can be valuable, but verifiability is meaningless. This suggests that those sites that provide a personal opinion on topics that have no right or wrong answer can still be treated as a good source of information as they show different aspect of a certain concept. Isnt that the whole point of information dissemination. I think the following links satisfy this (and no, i am not trying to suggest them because they are my links):

• Risk FAQ at http://www.kent.ac.uk/IMS/personal/odl/riskfaq.htm provides information and has been around for a long time.
• There are a variety of online Risk games such as Lux Delux http://sillysoft.net/lux/ as an example that contain valuable guides on how to play the particualr online games. Online games are an important aspect of Risk game. Best place to know most about a particular online game, is of course their website.
• Sites that explain strategies such as Risk, Startgies Explained http://riskgame.8m.com/ provide a guideline that can be valuable but dont necessarily need to be peer reviewed to support the article.

These links can be reviewed here and added to the site as see fit.--Spline101 18:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggested links fall under Self-published sources. However, as you may have noted, WP:RS is a guideline that is to be used with common sense. I agree that "Risk, Strategies Explained" seems like a valuable resource for those interested in Risk. It has the added benefit to linking to many of the more-popular resources and clubs that were necessarily removed from this article. If no one objects in the next day or four, I think you could add the link to http://riskgame.8m.com/ as it would benefit the article. Be sure to reference the Talk page in the edit summary so that it doesn't get immediately reverted. Dan Slotman 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right. "Risk, Strategies Explained" does link to other similar sites. Ok, I shall add the link in a few days time as suggested. --Spline101 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense to follow the letter of the law of WP:EL and forbid the linking of the major online risk gaming sites. It really just borders on mindless, pedantic rule mongering. There are a number of reasons to link these sites (1) If I am your average joe who is reading this gaming article, then chances are I wouldn't mind actually playing the game. So why not link to somewhere that the user can play. (2) The nature of the gaming sites requires that they in turn require registration from the user prior to playing the game. Online Risk when played by a number people by its very nature is a slow game that requires thought and diplomacy. That means the games can take days of time to finish. That requires the players to be registered. (3) The no-linking when registering rule was intended to prevent other types of sites from being linked: sites that actually contain information, not provide a gaming service for the very game that an article discusses. (4) Many of the sites are completely free. How exactly are they encouraging the sale of a product when they are giving it away? (5) I can point you to a multitude of gaming articles in Wikipedia that link to sites to play the game that require registration. Why exactly is the Risk article some different those? Bryan Brunton

I don't see anyone here saying the links CAN'T be added back, only that they have to be valid, decent links. Not like some of the ones from before, including at least one that lead to an adware/trojan or whatever it was, that I nearly downloaded and then soon after removed the link. There's no issue with the good links, just not when they're full of useless adware/trojans/dead/spam etc. links. WP:EL are only guidelines and no one here is saying that good links aren't valuable/useful to this particular article.

Feel free to add some links back, just make sure they are good links to relevant resources. I'd also recommend noting on the links if they require registration so people know before clicking the link.

It might also be a good idea to split external links into subsections "Official" and "Unofficial", putting all the Hasbro links into "Official" and other good links into "Unofficial". —B33R^{(talk • contribs)} 03:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Bryan, I'm afraid that I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. I think that WP:EL specifically prohibits links to registration sites so that wikipedia doesn't make links to services. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, the flavor of information it collects is different than a typical website and that is reflected in its link policy. If you were to pull a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica off the shelf, you might note that it only includes references to source material and does not include references to related services. In Wikipedia's case, the source material is limited to secondary sources to prevent original research. If a website does not provide relevant information about the subject of an article, it should not be linked. Links to websites providing services related to an article turns Wikipedia into an advertising agent rather than an information source. People interested in such services can find them in another manner such as newsgroups or hobby sites. Dan Slotman 19:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I too don't agree with you. I don't believe comparing an online, community driven encyclopedia to some book I pull off the shelf is valid for a myriad of reasons. Furthermore, this article is about a game. If linking to a site where you can play that game is against these pristine and holy source material rules, then the rules are simply broken as they greatly diminish the utility of the encyclopedia. Now, your point is that the purpose of the encyclopedia is not to provide that utility. My point is that particular rule is too strict when applied to games. And you will find that the vast majority of game articles agree with this point. Go to the Wikipedia chess article. Oops, what do you find there? A link to somewhere you can play chess. Go to the Axis and Allies article, oops, there's a link to somewhere you can play that game. Go to the Stratego article, etc, etc, etc. Where exactly does your definition of "advertising" begin and the "relevant information" you can gain about a game by actually playing it end? I think you'll find separating the two is again pedantic rule mongering.

Rather than linking directly to gaming services, I prefer the solution of linking to sites providing solid information, advice, and strategy about a game. These sites usually have a links section to online services. Additionally, as I said before, it is trivial to find these services by using newsgroups and hobby sites. To summarize: WP:EL supports linking to informational sites but not services. As B33R pointed out above, such links would be welcomed.

• I'm curious why you don't think comparing Wikipedia to the most highly respected traditional encyclopedia is valid. Perhaps you could pick three or four reasons as I don't think we've got space for a myriad.
• This isn't the forum to disagree the rules themselves. Posting on the WP:EL talk page would be a better choice if you desire a different set of standards for game articles.
• Please don't drift toward ad hominem arguments by characterizing my interpretation as pedantic. I assure you that while I may occasionally bloviate, I am by no means a pedant. I do like seeing Wikipedia articles stay clean and concise, which includes prefering three to four very good external links over a couple dozen unvetted links.

Thanks, Dan Slotman 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You know I think we do have space for a myriad. I think the issue is opening your mind up to allow that myriad inside. But in this case we don't need a myrid, just two. The two most obvious, shed-some-light-into-your-gloomy-pedantic-closet reason for not comparing an online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to the dusty book that I pull off a shelf is that Wikipedia is (1) living every changing state that can easily be updated, adapted and fixed. You don't put links to smallish, hobby gaming sites that might change over night into books for obvious reasons. Dan, that's what Internet is for. The second reason for putting these external gaming links into Wikipedia as compared to your book is even more simple: what happened last time you tried clicking on a link in a book? Not much. You haven't noticed how well this whole hypertext link thing is working on your computer have you? You go Dan! Keep your Risk page clean while the rest of the Wikipedia gaming articles follow an entirely different sensible approach. Bryan Brunton

Shucks, I thought the reason that Wikipedia didn't link to "smallish, hobby gaming sites that might change over night" was that they aren't good references.

As to your second reason, traditional printed media such as newspapers, magazines, refereed journals, trade manuals, and novels all routinely publish URLs despite the inability to click on them. To beat the proverbial dead horse, the reason that encyclopedias do not publish URLs is that they are reference works which are required to hold a higher standard. By now it is self-evident that we have a dramatic diffence of opinion on whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.

I thank you for your good wishes, but I feel I must point out that I've not been editing Wikipedia for any great length of time, and my contributions to Risk are insignificant when compared to the bulk of work already present when I began. Probably the other anonymous gaming articles you keep refering to are handling their external links incorrectly. In fact, if I looked at your contributions, I could probably figure out which they were and start a big ol' ruckus. However, I have no axe to grind and frankly don't care, so I won't. Have a nice day, Dan Slotman 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. What this article really needs is not more external links, but rather a well-written, succinct explaination of the rules and general idea of Risk including good references and source citation. Dan Slotman 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dan, you were fairly good about staying on topic. But what was this whole paragraph you have written about your and my contributions? Utter nonsense. This is relevant to what? Maybe you could just not type that stuff in, because if you don't care, chances are, no one else does.

The higher standard, as purely a reference work, to which you hold Wikipedia is self-defeating and limits the utility of the content. Perhaps at some future date users of Wikipedia will have the ability to toggle off the "Only See Reference Material" limitation? These practical people will realize that only reading reference material can be quite limiting. These will be the people who actually want to play the game of Risk rather than simply reading the rules.Bryan Brunton

It was a post script. This is a fast, jaunty aside with little or no bearing on the previous writing. I did not intend it to reflect on either of our contributions at the time. Rather, it was a gentle suggestion pointing out the largest weaknesses of that version of the article. Dan Slotman 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Risk for FA?

I think we should have a peer reveiw, and then try to fix up the article. This is Risk, the classic strategy board game; I'm quite surprised it isn't already Featured or Good. Also, there's a new wikiproject for strategy games; we mainly have comuter game fans right now, and there's room for board game players too. Here's the link if you're interested. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are the main points I would like to see addressed:

1. The rules are poorly summarized. The gist of the game gets lost in unnecessary details.
2. There isn't actually an overview of the game.
3. There are too many "Computer implementations" linked. In my opinion this should be limited to just the Hasbro implementation rather than including the dozens of others, but concensus is against me.
4. In my opinion, there is too much trivia. I'm unfamiliar with the amount of trivia usually listed; perhaps this could be moved into a page Risk in Popular Culture or something like that.

Thanks, Dan Slotman 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion that there are too many "computer implementations." I've studied similar pages such as Monopoly and Cluedo and I see that when they mention variants, they stick to the official games or notably variants (e.g. Monopoly mentions (Anti-Monopoly). I can't see any reason for keeping all of these "unofficial" games, especially since they all link to external websites. So, I feel they must be deleted. Thunderforge 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think that looks very bad, and is almost useless. Most people never hear about those minor versions. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

A no point of view tag was added to the article by an anonymous editor with IP 71.251.125.43. They gave no justification for this addition, and in my opinion it is baseless. I have removed the tag. If you believe that the article suffers from a point of view problem, please justify your position here. Dan Slotman 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Territories?

Is it really necessary to have a table listing all of the territories? I feel that it would be better to delete the table and make a note in the rule differences that the Canadian versions rename three of the territories. Wikipedia isn't a game guide and I feel like a table of territories cross the line, but I wanted to get other opinions first. Thunderforge 02:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The only advantage to the table that I see is that it illustrates why certain continents are worth more than others. I agree with your point that this seems like trivial information. Dan Slotman 06:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that how the Risk chops up the world is certainly encyclopedic enough for the article. The table is an efficient way to organize this information, the links to the related real-world territories are interesting, and its not wasting space since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see an expansion of that table, to see which real world countries and regions that belongs to each territory. I think it's difficult to understand the borders in the Asian part of Russia. --Boivie 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But would doing all that really be beneficial to somebody who has never played the game (Which is our target audience, isn't it? After all, an encyclopedia is intended to educate those about new topics). I still feel that as it is, the territory table is unnecessary BUT I think that it could potentially be okay if it was expanded with more useful information that doesn't detract from the article. Thunderforge 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are for anybody who wants to learn more about a topic, not just people learning the basics for the first time. I first played risk three decades ago, and I found the continents table usefull enough to want to improve its layout. I would imagine that readers of this article are also a mix of those who want only to know the basics about the game, and those looking for more detailed background information. "What is Irkutsk?" for example. —MJBurrage • TALK • 10:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed, since tables are frowned upon in articles. We could change it to text, but would that make it seem even more like a game guide? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the table isn't adding any useful info, nor is it explaining what the territories have to do with the game. What about this: we scrap the territories table, and add a subsection about the territories under overview. We put it in prose, we might explain territories vs. real countries, setup, differences, then we make a couple sentences that includes a list of the complete territories. We can't get rid of the territory section, but I don't think we should leave it as is either. Thoughts?--Clyde (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that we've had such great discussion about this. While MJBurrage makes a good point about helping people to discover more topics (admittedly, I don't know what Irkutsk really is), myself and others still feel that territories in a table form are unnecessary. What if we created a list article about the territories which would explain them in more depth? This way, the information is presented to those who want it, but it is not in this form on the Risk page? Thunderforge 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Clyde's idea was better, because it would be in the article, rather than somewhere else. By the way, it's really easy to learn about Irkutsk. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what we should do. I don't know why I didn't think of it before but I'm sure that we could find someone to draw us up a Risk map, just as they do for country articles. Over the summer I worked a bit on random countries fixing up their administrative divisions. Check out the administrative divisions of Libya here. We could do the exact same thing on this article. b_cubed 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Roman World

Is there a board game version of risk based on the roman empire? Does any type of risk still come with the old roman numeral peices?

I don't believe so. b_cubed 17:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be thinking of "Castle Risk" which was a variation released with older editions of Risk, though this was set in medieval Europe rather than the Roman Empire. Even older versions of classic Risk used plastic Roman numerals to denote the number of armies. Dan Slotman 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

History

I am not a man of plowing a new path to FAs, and I find that Monopoly is a FA and also a board game. It seems that we are missing an important section for this article: history. It's really the only section that is completly missing from the article. I'll help if I can. Clyde (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently added what I feel is an adequate history section. Comments? Thunderforge 05:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dice table

Why was the Dice probability table removed? I thought it fit well, and conveyed information that many could find useful. —MJBurrage • TALK • 10:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Even though I didn't remove it, I think the table is something unecessary for the article, since probablilities, however useful, don't fit in. I believe there is a link that gives you the probablilities somewhere in the article. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it under the rationale that it wasn't something necessarily beneficial to people who have never before heard of the game. Wikipedia is designed to educate people on new topics. Additionally, I felt it didn't flow well with the article (it sort of stood out). I probably should have put a note about it in the talk page after I removed it. Thunderforge 05:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The dice table was extremely useful. I'm confused as to why it was removed without any discussion on the talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.205.125 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the dice table made sense. The dice probability is important in any Risk game for selecting strategies. --Boivie 06:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The link to the dice table does not work. If the table was removed then there should at least be a link to it. It is a very useful piece of information for a popular game. I did a search on google and on wikipedia unable to find this info that was once here. Jonmc12 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

I propose to move the contents of this section into its own article. I see it as largely trivial information detracting from the game itself. The monopoly article has done the same thing and is a FA. I plan on doing this in the next day or two as long as noone has any serious qualms. Usually I would just go ahead but there is a fair amount of mutual respect inherent to the maintainence in this article and I would hate to be the one to destroy that aura. b_cubed 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see this happen. Dan Slotman 00:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Our peer reviewers disliked the dump-article for popular culture references to list, while this is how our model article Monopoly handles its numerous references in popular culture. Clearly such a list won't prevent FA status, but I doubt that its inclusion strengthens the article's status. Is there any consensus on whether we would prefer to follow the monopoly path or the deletion path? Dan Slotman 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

List of official Risk game boards

I went ahead and created this article. It needs mega work and unfortunately I'm not too familiar with all the different variants. I've only briefly played 2210, and moderately played Lord of the Rings versions. If you know anything about them and can slide them into the template, and or include pictures of the boxes that would be great. Thanks. b_cubed 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates/Years

Are all the years supposed to be linked? I began doing that, but I'll stop until someone clarifies. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Full dates should be linked to allow user preferences to work. Years by themselves should almost never be linked. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) —MJBurrage • TALK • 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Area movement

Removed this sentence as it didn't make sense gramatically or where it was placed. I still think someone should rephrase it and put it in the article though. b_cubed 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

 *Risk is played in turns, and uses a form of area movement to regulate them.

I found a place to mention area movement, but it adds another comma-bounded phrase to a sentence that already has too many. Hopefully a better spot can eventually be found. Dan Slotman 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Standard setup

I have two small comments.

• Right now, the exact number of starting units is specified for every number of players. I think this drifts toward too much detail; in other words, it is important that you start with units, but less important how many that is. This is especially true since the article gives little context as to whether the starting units are many or few in comparison to future reinforcements.
• What are Army Cards? I'm sure this means RISK cards unless more recent editions differ from my own.

Thanks, Dan Slotman 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the army cards; I have a relativly new version, and they are called Risk cards. Should the number of units also be removed? I think we should wait and see if it can get through the GA nomination; Thunderforge will be nominating it soon. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I nominate this article for Good Article status. I've got to say that you guys could have done it. I'm not some super-strict guy who wants to do everything himself. I just prefer to see them done period. Anyways, the nomination is up. Thunderforge 04:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Italics

I'm not so sure I like the italics. I think they need to stay for the french version (la conquete du monde) but it just looks awkward for the english RISK in my opinion. Additionally, the monopoly article doesn't italicise monopoly at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B cubed (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

It should actually. Every time the article name, or it's equivalent, is mentioned, it's italicized. Shouldn't RISK be lower case though? It might look better. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

GA evaluation

What is a good article? Let's go down the list of good article attributes and see if this article qualifies...

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

I'm not sure about compelling, but yes it is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers PASS

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

PASS

(c) It generally complies with the Wikipedia Manual of style; specifically, it follows the Article lead guideline, Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation.

PASS

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

PASS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

It would nice to see some references to a games encyclopedia or reference book, but overall PASS.

(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and while the use of inline citations are not mandatory, they are highly desirable, in particular for longer articles. Unambiguous citations of reliable sources are necessary for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline.

PASS

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

The reliability of some of the sources is challengable, but I think it might be impossible to find better sources for some of the info. PASS

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

PASS

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

Could maybe expand into criticle comparison with similar games. Overall, PASS

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

Trivia has been moved to a separate page PASS

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

PASS

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

PASS

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

Not exactly stable but no conflict PASS

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

PASS

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale

Looks good! I'll promote it. ike9898 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dice Probablities

Hey guy's just a head's up, I'm removing the dice probablity table. On the peer review, Plek said it had to go. He and Trebor said Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, so I'm removing it. I think these guys know a thing or two about FAs, so it might be good to listen.--Clyde (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you get the chance you should check out the peer review. Our reviewers have provided excellent suggestions. Dan Slotman 01:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I knew it would have to go eventually. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to re-open the discussion on this point. That table is not an instruction manual. It does not tell anyone how to roll the dice or how to win the game. It does not tell how many artmies you need in attacking, when to turn in your Risk cards, it is not a strategy manual. It is factual informaiton about the game and how the game works. For reference, the table is:

Probabilities of winning a dice roll in Risk (various dice combinations)			Attacker
			one die	two dice	three dice
Defender	one die	Attacker wins	15/36 = 41.67%	125/216 = 57.87%	855/1296 = 65.97%
		Defender wins	21/36 = 58.33%	91/216 = 42.13%	441/1296 = 34.03%
	two dice	Attacker wins	55/216 = 25.46%	295/1296 = 22.76%	2890/7776 = 37.17%
		Defender wins	161/216 = 74.54%	581/1296 = 44.83%	2275/7776 = 29.26%
		Both win one	n/a	420/1296 = 32.41%	2611/7776 = 33.58%

I believe it should be added back to the article. It is clearly not outside the scope of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, and it is valuable information for the reader. Johntex\^talk 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is needed. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love this chart. There is something extremely pleasing to be able to see the dice probabilities. However, I think it would be more fitting to merely leave the chart out and sum up what it shows. b_cubed 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This table should be put back up. It's giving legitamit facts about the game and this is what wikipedia is supose to give out. You can't take in down just becuase of one dumbass' opinion without discussing it first. This chart is a great tool for people such as myself, who are programing a recreation of risk.

As I count them, the votes were something like 3 for removal to 3 for inclusion (including you). Secondly, please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. Thirdly, if you are implementing your own version of risk, you should implement dice rolling, rather than scaling a random number into the win/lose percentages or something equally ridiculous. (I.e. the chart shouldn't matter to your program—your program's output will automatically match the chart over many runs if it implements dice rolling correctly.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dslotman (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Three to three is not a consensus for removal. It isn't even a majority for removal. Therefore, according to Wikipedia rules, the table should stay. So I've added it back in, but in the "Strategy" section. Val42 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my main problem is that the chart doesn't explain anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't charts included in articles to help explain something significant (or at least a difficult concept to grasp)? In this particular article it is merely thrown in and doesn't really add anything to the article except for a neat chart to look at. Thus, I don't really think it belongs. I looked at the link that the chart came from and the person who created it didn't make any substancial conclusions from it. Feel free to check it out: chart b_cubed 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't given an opinion on this previously, but I think the table should be removed. First, for new players, I don't think the table clarifies how dice rolling works. Second, the table sort of "stands alone" in the article now—it doesn't have enough context for interpretation. Third, an advanced player will have a good idea what these numbers are&mdashthere are no surprises. Fourth, pragmatically speaking, a decision to attack in an individual case is very rarely based on the odds. People don't say, "I'd attack, but I only have a 49.3% chance of success." Fifth and finally, a link to the chart will be enough for people who want to pursue this sort of Risk knowledge. Thanks, Dan Slotman 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the problem with the table seems to be that there is no text explaining the table, I've added an explanation for people new to the game. As has been stated above, this isn't needed for the experienced players. Val42 03:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone who came to this article out of an interest to the game I greatly appreciated seeing the probablity table and thought that it was very cool that someone actually put it in. It seems to me to be very appropriate to the article and an integral part of the game - especially if one wants to enter into an academic account of the game. Jklsc 20:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for fun, I've created this RISK calculator [1] Should I add it to the page? --Wng z3r0 07:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The table is fine, but I think the rest of the Strategy section up to the bit on alliances needs to go - remember folks, Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. L337 kybldmstr 00:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The table is illustrative so should stay. I added a sentence and references to technical articles which studied the probabilities of winning territories for people with a taste for statistics, which seem to complement the Hasbro strategy guides. Markjoeling (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Stub sections

I'm not really sure how much I like just leaving blank sections with a stub marker. I think they should be deleted but I think it will only be fair to wait a week and see if anything comes of them. If nothing is added after a week I propose we delete them. Additionally, in regards to the stub in the history section--I spent many many hours poring over web pages via google and that is all the information I got. Personally, I really don't consider that section to be a stub due to the lack of information available. If someone has a book on RISK with historical information, now that would be a different story. b_cubed 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is ugly and not likely to be recitified soon. Also, by convention we don't let a lot of 'placeholders' like this around. If the information turn up it can be added, but the article doesn't have to look like a construction site in the meantime. ike9898 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I added them, and I am personally removing them, but the peer review people made it pretty clear that they think the article is "a paraphrase of the manual." They also said the history needs to be expanded, but you say that isn't happpening, so maybe adding these sections at least lets you know that other people think more content is needed. I'm not sure how that's going to happen since I'm trying to do two peer reviews, and it sounds like you've exhausted all your resources.--Clyde (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

References

References, refs, refs, refs, refs, refs, refs, refs, refs, etc...

What i am trying to get at is that if possible, there needs to be some references to this article if it wants to go any stage further. :) Simply south 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen some FAs with one reference every one or two sentences. :-O | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

List of licensed Risk games

Here is a workspace for a page about all the various offshoots of Risk; once it is complete we can create an article for it. This is similar to what Monopoly has done for their derivative games. Dan Slotman 04:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Popular Culture?

In the peer review, User:Plek said in answer to my question whether to delete the pop cult section:

I would suggest asking yourself the question: "Is there a better, more interesting way to illustrate the popularity of XXX than showing an endless list of books/movies/TV shows in which XXX is mentioned?" If the answer is "yes", than write about it in brilliant prose. If "no", then delete the section altogether. Said endless lists are just magnets for trivial, dull, unverifiable and non-notable edits, that really add nothing of value to the subject (i.e. who cares if Risk was played by this-and-this character in that-and-that TV show?). --Plek 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll change it for now to prose, but suggest it's deletion. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's already prose, I was confused with the article, which should, IMHO, be deleted as well. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Risk_box.jpg

I took a picture of the box. Should it should go at the top, and the other moved down, or go in the "Official board games" section? · AndonicO ^Talk 16:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

References to the board game Risk in popular culture up for deletion

Hey, I was wondering if any of you could speak on behalf of keeping the Risk in pop culture article alive. It is important that it is not deleted otherwise the trivia will creep back into the main article and it will be impossible to make this article reach FA status; if not jeopardize the GA status of this article. Check out the argument here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to the board game Risk in popular culture b_cubed 04:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

I decided that Seinfeld should be the quote unquote representative pop culture reference. A)The episode more or less focuses on a game of Risk B)It was an emmy award winning sitcom, hence it has some level of fame (for lack of a better word, notoriety?). I removed the R.E.M. reference because as far as I could see it only mentioned Risk in passing. Furthermore I'm not sure as many people are as familiar with R.E.M. as there are people who are familiar with Seinfeld. b_cubed 05:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue for the inclusion of the R.E.M. reference, though not passionately. --Guinnog 06:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

RISKTOC

I removed this because after googling it I only came up with 315 results. I'm not sure that is notable enough to be included. Any thoughts? b_cubed 05:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be there. It is the only officially sanctioned Risk tournament in the world. Their google page rank is 4, which is significant. --Black001 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A drive for FA

I would like to submit this article to another peer review in a week or two. After that I would like to submit this article for FA status. However, before this can happen the official board games section needs work. As far as I know, that's the only section that really needs serious attention. Feel free to add any information to the main page or on this workspace, which I plan to have as a separate article once it is complete. Thanks b_cubed 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Computer implementations and video games

I added the commodore 64 game from 1988 to this section and a reference. I have it and I played it in 1988 (before the 1989 Mac version which was mentioned). I also added a reference to a site that backs this up. Jklsc 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to help out in any other way, we can always use more references, esp. if we want to get this article FA status. b_cubed 21:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also a version of Risk that was released for Mac in 1986. Written by Antoine J. Engel as show in the animated Gif screenshots on http://www.d4.dion.ne.jp/~motohiko/gamedock/riskshow.gif This predates the Commodore 64 version by two years. It features computer AI players, whose "personality" could be chosen between three different presets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.100.19 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

If I remember correctly this famous painting was on at least one version's box. If so could we include it in the article?

Napoleon

I just googled some of the box covers and as far as I can tell the painting of Napoleon crossing the Alps was never on a Risk box cover. However, there are plenty of box-covers with a cavalry unit whose horse is rearing just as in the picture of Napoleon. I'm not sure if any comparison was intended as that appears to me to be a fairly common thing to do artistically with riders on horses. b_cubed 05:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more last night, I think you are right. Seeing the painting always reminds me of Risk however. :-) Steve Dufour 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Any one know Italian?

Apparently there is a book by the title of La storia di risiko (2002) by Roberto Convenevole and Francesco Bottone about the history of Risk. From what I could tell, I'm pretty sure it's 194 pages long. I would buy it but I don't know Italian. I searched for an English equivalent but couldn't find one. Just thought I'd throw that out there. b_cubed 05:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Section 4.3-Fortifying--suggest update to include new rules

Newer rules (Risk rulebook-copyright 2003 & hasbro.com) allow moving of troops from one territory to any 'connected' territory (not just adjacent territories). A territory is considered 'connected' if you can trace a path to it through areas under your control.

Since I am new to Wikipedia I am submitting this to the discussion page rather than editing the article myself. --Rob 65.100.203.88 12:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, welcome to Wikipedia. As far as I know that's under the additional "Expert" rules for more advanced play. I just looked over our section that deals with it and althought we have it already it isn't too terribly clear about the fortification rule you were talking about. I plan on clearing it up in the next day or two but for now I was just wondering in the 2003 rulebook, does it only mention altering the value of risk card sets, the fortification rule, and limiting armies per territory or are any other ones included? Thanks. b_cubed 16:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

New picture?

I created a more accurate game refrence, but I don't know if it is good enough? Riskgamenut 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a nice map. My only problem with it is the fact that it is too difficult to read the names of countries. Perhaps you could substitute the same numbers as the current picture? b_cubed 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Risk logo.png

Image:Risk logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Profanity in Children's game

My Izzard citation was just modified to replace my "couldn't <expletive> hold it" with the redacted word. I intentionally left that out as Risk, being a game popular with young children, doesn't need the profanity connected to it. (Plus you got the fun link to Wikipedia's "expletive" page.) I can't see how this is a useful addition and will revert, pending some legitimate argument in favor of including the profanity.Czrisher 21:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on general policy, Wikipedia is not censored. Specifically, Wikipedia:Profanity makes it clear that either we include an accurate quote, or nothing at all. Given the subject, that means that as editors we must weigh the importance of the quote to the subject against any other appropriate concerns, such as the expected audience for the article. Since this article is about a game commonly played by children, and the quote does not add anything especially important about the subject (that last bit being my editorial judgment), I will remove the quote. If others believe that the quote should stay, they are free to restore it, but not in an bowdlerized form. —MJBurrage • TALK • 21:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Violence

I've read that Risk is the eighth leading cause of domestic violence in the US. This may be worth mentioning in the article. 12va34 03:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh...right. If you have an intelligent comment to make with a legitimate source, please feel free. Otherwise, stick to your blog. Duckingham 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Surrendering

Risk version 1999: Rules state you have unlimited ability of placing as many troops as you can on one country.

At the start of the game a player (let's call them blue) therefore places one troop on each of the countries stated by the RISK cards selected and continues to place the rest of the troops all on one country where he/she knows she/he will be heavily attacked (by let's say yellow). Assuming the game begins and the first player (yellow) does attack the blue player and conquers the country. The blue player then has only one troop on the rest of the countries, when the blues turn comes there cannot be a roll of dice as not one country has enough troops therefore do they "miss a turn"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.37.179 (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

However, at the beginning of each turn, a player gets new armies. The minimum that you will receive is three armies. Unless you put them where they are surrounded by your own forces, you will be able to attack someone. — Val42 04:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Escalation of reinforcements of Risk Card armies

Hi guys, I've just read my old old old rule book, and I'm not having no joy on this article neither. Say if u have 2 players, and player 1 is the 1st person to trade his cards in he gets 2 armies right? If player 2 is the next person to trade in his cards, does he get 4 armies or 2, like player 1 did? Hope you guys understand me Ryan4314 (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

According to my rulebook (1990), the first set of reinforcements gives 4, and then each set increases the number by 2 up to 12, then the sixth set yields 15, and every subsequent set gives 5 more (so the order is 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, etc.) TSMagus (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The intro

the beginning says the aim is to conquer the world but you get mission cards and you win once you complete your mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.216.35 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the default goal. With the newest games, you can get mission cards. However, this should be updated. — Val42 (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Continent Advantages and Disadvantages

This section is poorly written, and I'm not sure whether it really is necessary. Most of it seems like personal opinion and should be revised or possibly deleted? It could be helpful to new players, maybe a reference from an official strategy guide? Shakawkaw (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I decided to remove it as OR. bibliomaniac15 01:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Castle Risk

I'll first off say that I'm not very talented at editing Wikipedia, but I would like to help some. I own a gameboard released in 1990 that is both Risk and Castle Risk (Risk map on one side of the board, Castle Risk on the other side). I have all the plastic triangles and stars, as well as the rulebooks for each (1990 revisions), and I'd love to supply information or photographs if anyone is interested in them. (TSMagus (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Redeployment

In the 1999 Edition´s rules about redeployment, say: "To fortify your position, move as many armies as you´d like from one (and only one) of your territories into one (and only one) of your adjacent territories." I know too about the option of redeployment on non-adjacent territories if exist a continuous way. Now, my question is: How many redeployments can I make in a turn? In my opinion, it is only one redeploy per turn, That is correct?

Greetings! Demonaire Rai 20/04/2008 13:37 UTC-5

One, and only one. At the end of your turn. I believe this is covered in the article. ~~ DaRkAgE7 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Risk_%28game%29#Fortifying

Area linkages

The sentence before the schematic map says the following:

It should be noted that there is one significant flaw in this graphical depiction: On a normal Risk board, East Africa is not connected to the Middle East. This is evidenced by the above image on this page (the Italian version of the board shows that there is not a connection here). Several old boards used to have this (hence the first image on this page), but this has since been modified on modern boards.

Now, I have two Risk sets, 20 years apart, and both link East Africa and Middle East. Also the map depiction doesn't link Southern Europe and North Africa, also linked in both sets - that I would think was a flaw in the depiction. Maybe a sentence saying some areas are linked slightly differently in different versions. To me, also whether an area is linked by land or sea matters, and the latest version actually has a mission card that makes whether a move is over sea or land matter, but then has Middle East/Southern Europe and Southern Europe/North Africa, as well as North Africa/Western Europe as land boundaries, which is a little odd. East Africa/Middle East is a land boundary on my old map, as is Ontario/Greenland and Northwest Territory/Greenland. Seems the map makers just can't get it straight. :| Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already removed that sentence at least twice, I guess I missed the most recent addition. If someone owns a board without those linkages, it is due to an error in making the board. I seem to recall reading there was an error in a reprinting of the board of one edition, but I'm not sure. I'll be removing it. (even if there is a board without those linkages, it needs to be referenced by a reliable source, just like any other debatable claim.) DaRkAgE7 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As the Risk article itself says earlier: "The 40th Anniversary Collector's Edition contained the same troop pieces, but made of metal rather than plastic. Additionally, the movement route between the territories of East Africa and Middle East was removed; this was later confirmed as a manufacturing error. Subsequent editions reverted to plastic pieces, and replaced the missing route" (the statement references this. So it was correct to remove that sentence; the Middle East link ought to be there and only one version did not have it, which was confirmed to be a manufacturing error. Thunderforge (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree the sentence should go - but is the depiction accurate? Looking at the depiction the Southern Europe/North Africa link is missing. On the latest board they've parked Sicily right next to Tunisia to imply a 'land' link between the two (I think that's an error, as it should be a sea link, and the type of link is important for their mission cards). Stevebritgimp (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any official explanation, I'm just all for stating, as Stevebritgimp suggested, something to the effect of "while all versions of Risk have the same territory connections, some versions depict certain connections as land connections rather than sea connections." Thunderforge (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Countries

Last time I checked the Urals was Ukraine...in fact, that had been a rallying cry "Ukraine is not weak!" when when my friends and I played. Nicholastarwin (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a very odd decision for the creators to name Russia as Ukraine. Probably just a jab at those "evil commies".

-G

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Risk (game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article is insufficiently referenced – a lot of the rules are not referenced. Please find and add references to them. Gary King (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Because no effort has been made to address these issues, the article has been delisted. Gary King (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Errors/Corrections in Manuals

In the Risk Collector's 40th Edition, in describing outcomes of die rolls, page 6, Example 3 is incorrect. In this example, attacker's dice rolls 3; defender's dice is 4. followed by attacker's dice as 3 with defender's dice also being 3. The stated outcome is that attacker loses one army, but clearly this is incorrect. The defender's 4 beats the attacker's 3, and the tie goes to the defender. Attacker loses TWO armies, not one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrandolph (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Added back in official variations and computer versions

Alright, so I was really surprised to look the history and found that back in December, the list of official variations of Risk (e.g. Godstorm) were removed without the editing user giving a reason. The official computer versions section was arbitrarily deleted too (and the current version just talked about Risk II and all the Facebook apps, which certainly don't merit being included). So I put them back. My rationale is that both are important sections that need to be included because they show just how popular and extensive the franchise is. -Thunderforge (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Card set probability question

Okay, so I could be completely off base here, but something about the card set probabilities table rings false to me. The only way you would be 100% assured of having a risk set is either by acquiring 5 additional cards or by having seven in the first place (assuming a set is three cards with matching symbols, you could have a set of 6 cards but no risk sets). However, there is a chance of getting a risk set by acquiring just one additional card, so I don't see how those two numbers correspond. Can someone who knows probability check this out? SnetskyCM (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The five is correct. Consider the possible sets of five cards, and conclude that there is no set which you cannot make a full trio from. With four, a player could hold two of one type and two of another - for example, two Infantry and two Calvary - with the fifth guaranteed to complete a trio: 1) if it is an Infantry, the player can trade in III, 2) if it is a Calvary, the player can trade in CCC, 3) if it is Artillery, the player can trade in ACI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.27.19 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, what SnetskyCM is missing is that an all-mixed set also counts (your final example). This makes four the maximum you can have before you definitely have a set -- two each of two types. Any fifth card will either complete a trio of the same type, or make a mixed set. --86.159.240.118 (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why 1963 vs 1959?

Why prefer the 1963 rules rather then the 1959?--Work permit (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the refs refers to something in the 1963 rules which, as far as I recall, wasn't in the 1959 rules. Changing one ref to 1959 makes the other ref invalid. Gimmetrow 01:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

got it, thanks--Work permit (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Added review site

I added a link to a site that seemed to give impartial reviews to a bunch of different risk sites. It seems it only reviewed unofficial versions but since it wasn't an actual game site, I added it as its own heading. I suppose it can be moved to the Unofficial Version link section as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.201.254 (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Video games- restriction on unofficial implementations

The section "computer implementations and video games" has a rather firm warning against posting any unofficial Risk variants. What's the rationale for this? Doesn't this deny any coverage of any community-developed versions? This would be like Britannica refusing to acknowledge the existence of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMuld (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Rule Variations

I shall be added rule variations that I have created during the years I've played Risk ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 17:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC) user:Assyrio

)please contact me before you change my rule variations; please and thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talk • contribs) 13:54, July 10, 2010

Just make sure the variations are sourced and not just rules that you and your friends made up, or they will be reverted, and you will not be contacted. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 18:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by sourced? ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 20:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talk • contribs)

Click on the link on the word "sourced" in my comment above, or just read this one: WP:RS. And sign your posts with four tildes. SnottyWong ^babble 02:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Difficulty of Secret Missions

I doubt that Europe+Australia+x is harder to get than Europe+S-America+x. There are two borders for S-America vs. only one border for Australia. What is the source for this section? 95.115.220.49 (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Europe+S-America+x would likely have either N-America or Africa as X, to keep connected continents and a continuous front. The only valid X for Europe+Austrailia+x is Asia. Never get into a land war in Asia.--70.73.43.101 (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New RISK game coming to the Xbox LIVE Arcade

http://kotaku.com/5445821/risk-coming-to-xbox-live-arcade-early-this-year —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.64.40 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for the inclusion of the unofficial versions section

I had tried to remove the unofficial versions section, I was then reverted by 69.123.8.189. Thus I want to establish whether there is consensus for this. As per WP:EL, I believe that these links violate "Is the site content proper in the context of the article?", they are games. Their primary function is not to inform, and they pages there linked do not specificly qualify as informative. I would also argue that the links violate the paragraph reading "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the work's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light". on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright."

I personally do not feel that they are usefull. Wikipedia is (as far as I know) not intended to be a directory. I think that a comment is needed to state that there is a community of unofficial versions, but I do not agree with the inclusion of a list thereof. -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 20:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I used to play one of these versions (Conquer Club) and I remember that it was said on their forums that as long as they don't use the name "Risk" and don't use the exact original map, it's not a copyright violation. I personally think that at least some of the links should stay. If we mention a webpage (and you say we should mention them), we should also provide a link. Svick (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That is to say; you are of the opinion that we should give links only to those websites of which we have given mention in the article? -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 21:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. If we mention certain website, we should link to it. If we mention a group of websites, we should link to some representatives. But if we don't mention a website, it doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't link to it. Svick (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the current state we have a list of websites, that have comments by them which denotes a similarity to adverts. How would it sound to you if the comments such as "Excellent interface with in-game armaments that modify the game-play even further" were removed?-- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, many of them sound like ads. I guess the notes can be completely removed. I think the list could be also shortened, but I don't know how to decide which ones to keep. Svick (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the comments. Howabout creating a list "Unofficial Online Risk Versions" and adding a "see also" link to said list? -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 22:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I feel the list has value but agree it's prior incarnation was more like an advertising hoarding.

Re: copyright - as stated in the text of the article, "Due to the history of the game's creation, there are no IP protections on the game, other than a US trademark on the word RISK when written in the distinctive red font." - i.e. no copyright exists on the Risk game itself hence there is no likely copyright violation on the linked sites. Perhaps this section could instead be renamed 'Online Risk versions'.

ps: added 3 sites from www.PlayRiskOnline.net which has a pretty comprehensive list of Risk game playing sites. Fatscarab (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I previously said, I would suggest putting all of these links on a list page and then making a link to said page. Otherwise we will end up with a massive list of links.-- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 15:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have gone ahead and put these links on this list page. -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was Wikipedia not Newgrounds.com and when does this come in? Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not --Rent A Troop (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The large list of unofficial sites was an eyesore. Consensus is clearly in favour of their remaining on wikipedia. Therefore a list on a separate list was the only option. -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 01:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Link To Official Hasbro Game Demo

I recently added a link to this page for an official Hasbro game demo embedded in the Insurgency Gaming website, but had it removed. The link was to the official Hasbro flash based game demo and I believe, is a good addition to the page. I would be grateful for the input of other users before changing this back. As far as I can see this link isn't anywhere else on the page. Click here for the link in question. Meeslow (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you put the official shockwave version which is most popular on the net, here, instead of the version that you just threw up on your site. wikipedia is not a marketing tool Meeblo.70.31.36.212 (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the version I linked to doesn't have any advertising. Meeslow (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Online review sites

This section has two entries - PlayRiskOnline and a recently added site called FreeRiskOnline.com.

FreeRiskOnline.com appears to be a site set up solely to promote the board gaming Dominating12.com. This is similar to the phony review sites used to promote web hosting services. As such it has no place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.64.45 (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

However the site does have reviews, though the site gives a personal recommendation it also reviews other sites. Similar to PlayRiskOnline which gives a personal score. Though it puts ConquerClub at the top of it's top 10, it still reviews other sites. People who view that site will most likely go to conquerclub, the top of his list, does that mean we shouldn't list his site under this section? This section is for online reviews of risk sites, though both sites have a top site which people will most likely go to despite other reviews, we still put them under this category, because both sites are helpful for people looking for reviews of the possible risk clones they can be playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeRisk (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Probability table colors

Does anyone else think that the red/green colors added to the table look terrible, and are completely unnecessary to understanding the table? I think they make an already confusing table more confusing. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the color from the top probability table, because it makes the table more confusing than it already is. There were green numbers, red numbers, and black numbers, and the text description below tells us that red numbers means attackers are favored to win, and green numbers means defenders are favored to win, but says nothing of what the black numbers mean. And all of these colors are presumably there because it is too inconvenient for us to "manually" figure out which of 3 numbers is the highest? I think there is a benefit to having the colors in the bottom table, because it clearly shows where the dividing line is between attacking and defending advantages. There is no such visual pattern in the top table with which the colors helped us to see. SnottyWong ^verbalize 04:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dice Probabilities

Let aside that this seems to me to be primary research, I don't agree with the statement that it is always advantageous to roll the maximum number of dice. One has to look at the expected value of units lost instead of winning probabilities where losing two units by rolling two dice is the same as losing one unit by rolling one die.

For example: Given that the attacker gets 6 - 6 - X (might be anything) the defender will have a probability of 25/36 to lose two units (LOSS), 10/36 that both lose one (DRAW) and 1/36 that the attacker loses two units (WIN) if he or she rolls two dice. While this compares well to a probability of 5/6 = 30/36 to lose one unit (LOSS) versus 1/6 = 6/36 that the attacker loses one unit (WIN) if the defender rolls only one die, this doesn't change the fact that in the first case the defender will lose two armies compared to only one in most cases. So a player assuming the first strategy will probably lose more units than another player assuming the second strategy.

If one is interested in how the numbers of attacking versus defending troops will be altered by the choice between rolling one die or two dice, from a defender's point of view, one might assign +2 to the attacker losing two units, +1 to the attacker losing one unit, 0 to both losing one, -1 to the defender losing one unit and -2 to the defender losing two units. Again, given that the attacker rolls 6 - 6 - X the expected value of units lost rolling two dice is

5/6 * 5/6 * (-2) + 5/6 * 1/6 * 2 * (0) + 1/6 * 1/6 * (+2) = - 48/36 = - 4/3

while the expected value of units lost rolling one die is

5/6 * (-1) + 1/6 * (+1) = - 4/6 = - 2/3.

The next roll of dice will be another game and completely independent, so losing 2/3 of one unit is better than losing 2/3 of two units! The trick is that, using one die, a defender can transform an improbably good roll of the attacker (6 - 6 - X) into a more probable and weaker roll (6 - X - X) lowering his or her over-all probability to actually lose units as only as many of attacker's dice as the defender himself or herself uses will be considered.

Or is all this some error in reasoning on my part? Dtschenz (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, and I often employ this strategy. If I have only a few troops vs. an enemy army, using only one die at a time makes good sense. If I can manage to hold off the enemy for a few rounds, they usually lose hope and stop attacking. If they get a big win right away (taking 2 troops) then they usually get excited and continue the attack. I think it's more of a psychological effect than probability, though, and it can backfire if you roll nothing but 1's or 2's with that single die. However, because risk is geared to the attacker, simply playing defensively is against the odds. The more they attack, the greater possibility of winning out in the long run. By only using one defense die, you allow them more oppurtunities to continue the attack (can only take 1 instead of 2 troops) Lime in the Coconut 15:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to sum over all possible rolls, not just compare a single roll. Yes, obviously, if you were defending and you knew the attacker would always roll 6-6-X, then sure, rolling one die would mean competing with only one 6. But in general, the defender rolling one die would make the defender compete against the one best of three rolls for each unit risked. Gimmetrow 16:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The mathematical reasoning stated herein is sound. However, it does not apply under the rules of the game because the defender will not know the attacker's roll before choosing how many dice to use. The turn order goes thus: Attacker declares number of attacking armies, Defender declares number of defending armies, both players make their rolls simultaneously (the reason for differently-colored dice). Hope that helps. Sabin4232 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That was an important hint Sabin4232, thanks. I'll clarify this in the article. We always let the defender choose after he sees the result of the attackers roll. With this rule, the defender should always roll 1 die if the attacker rolls anything better than (4,4). The average losses of the attacker and the defender are then nearly identical (0.7735 vs. 0.7728 armies). See analysis at http://codepad.org/y40k8WFC with source code at http://codepad.org/iwY04MTf . Perseid alias 78.50.92.103 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Whole battle" probability table

This article originally had a table which showed the probability for winning an entire battle based on how many armies the attacker and defender starts the battle with. The table showed the probabilities for up to six attacking armies and up to five defending armies. That table was recently changed to show the probabilities for up to 30 attacking and 30 defending armies. I have reverted that change, and I think the following discussions need to happen if this table is to be included:

1. When the table is expanded to 30 attacking/defending armies, it becomes enormous and looks terrible. Is it really necessary? In other words, is the information that valuable that we need to insert a hideous table into the article?
2. The probabilities listed in the 30x30 table were drastically different than in the smaller table. Neither table was sourced. This is a big problem.
3. The 30x30 table lists a vast number of probabilities at 100% (which again begs the question of whether this information is valuable). While I presume that this was likely rounded up from 99.7% or something like that, putting "100%" as the probability implies that it is completely impossible for the attacker to lose if he starts with 8 armies and the defenders starts with 1. This is clearly not the case, as I have lost such battles in the past.

If anyone is interested in re-adding the 30x30 table into the article, let's have a discussion on the above points first. Thanks. SnottyWong ^prattle 17:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Was this your source for the 30x30 table? I believe that the smaller table's data is actually incorrect.SnottyWong ^converse 17:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I re-added the larger table, culled it down to 10x10, and added the source. I also replaced "100%" with ">99%" and "0%" with "<1%". The smaller, original table's data was completely incorrect. Hopefully this is a reasonable compromise. I don't think that 30x30 is necessary. SnottyWong ^chat 18:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought 30 was a reasonable maximum. I rounded the numbers (0.5 rounded up) to the nearest percent. The large table that was revised to 10 has correct numbers, but briefly looking at it, it looks like the probabilities have been truncated rather than rounded.

The small table that lists the "Average number of countries that can be defeated" with the exception of the first number is all incorrect. The first number is correct because this is simply 15/36*1 + 21/36*0 = 5/12 ~= 0.416667, the second number should be 125/216*15/36*2 + 125/216*21/36*1 + 91/216*15/36*1 + 91/216*21/36*0 = 625/1296 + 875/2592 + 455/2592 = 215/216 ~= 0.995370 instead of 0.8 which is currently listed. Further values can be calculated exactly, but become more tedious to write out as the number of combinations increases. Let me know if you want Java source code that calculates the correct values, not sure where a good place to post that would be. --Aeriform (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't manually round or truncate the numbers, I just copied them out of the source. The only change I made was ">99%" and "<1%" in place of 100% and 0%. Are there any other sources out there which conflict with this one? I think using your own source code would be considered WP:OR. SnottyWong ^confer 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources for probability tables

As we've already seen, the "whole battle" probability table had completely incorrect values, for who knows how long. They've been corrected, but now people are editing the values for the "average number of 1-army territories you can capture with x attacking armies" table. Where are we getting these values from, and do we know if they're correct? SnottyWong ^chatter 15:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I added table number 2 ("whole battle") and 3 ("number of countries that can be defeated in a sequence of battles") to the article on the 5 July based on my own stochastic RISK simulation GNU Octave/Matlab program code. However, I made a mistake in my code - sorry about that. User:Aeriform and/or User:Snottywong discovered it and corrected table 2 on the 7 July, also based on own(?) newly written Matlab code on a private home page that was provided as source by User:Snottywong. That code is however not stochastic, but provide the exact values of table 2. Yesterday I fixed my code, so my programme gives the same result as table 2. I also updated and extended table 3 (generated by my risk2.m program).

The problem with both my code and the source provided by Aeriform is that they are not published sources. Private home pages should be avoided as sources at Wikipedia. Sometimes exceptions are made, and perhaps this is such a case? I would not mind sharing my code under some open license and publish it on a wiki, but still that might be considered as original research. I have noticed that sometimes people put program code and mathematical proofs on their Wikipedia user pages, on article sub pages or as part of the article. Mange01 (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I made some quick javascript code to verify the numbers in the last table which show the average number of 1-army territories that an attacking force of x can defeat on average. The code just simulated 1 million such battle sequences (until the attacker runs out of armies) and averaged how many territories were captured in each battle sequence. Here's what my code generated:

Number of attacking armies in the first battle:	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
Average number of countries that can be defeated:	0	0.58	1.24	1.90	2.56	3.22	3.88	4.54	5.20	5.86	6.51	7.18	7.84	8.49	9.15	9.81	10.47	11.13	11.79	12.45

I agree that a published source would be preferable, but in the absence of such a source, I'd like to be sure that the information in the article is actually correct because the table is useful. If the table isn't correct, it should be deleted. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean, just look at the obvious case of when the attacker starts with 3 armies (meaning that he has 2 left to attack with). The average number of armies in this case is going to correspond exactly with the probability that the defender loses in a 2 dice to 1 die battle, which is 57.87%, meaning the average number of territories captured is 0.5787. Your table says that the average number of armies you'll win with 3 attacking armies is 1.7. What gives? SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. We defined number of attacking armies differently. When you say 3, my table says 2. In your example, the average number of defeated countries would be .5787*.4167*2 + .5787*(1-.4167)*1+ (1-.5787)*.4167*1 + (1-.5787)*(1-.4167)*0 = 0.9954 ≈ 1.0, which supports my table. First term is if he wins both battles, resulting in 2 defeated countries, and second term is if he wins the first battle and loses the second, resulting in 1 country. The third term is if he loses the first roll of the first battle, but still has one army to use in a second roll, which he wins. Since he only has one army left, he can not go into next country, so there is no second battle. Fourth term is if he looses both rolls of the first battle, resulting in 0 defeated countries. Mange01 (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, it is more complicated than that with 3 armies. But what I meant to say was: in the case of 2 initial attacking armies (meaning only 1 army available for attack), either the attacker is going to win (58% of the time, netting 1 territory) or they're going to lose (42% of the time, netting 0 territories. So clearly the average is 0.58 territories, where your table lists it as 0.42. SnottyWong ^talk 00:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you only go with one attacking army into the country, you only use 1 dice, which gives 42% chance of defeating the country. .42*1 + .58*0 =.42 . (I am still embarrased over my mistake that you found a couple of days ago.) Mange01 (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Argh, sorry again. You're right. I don't know what's wrong with my numbers in the table above then, must be a glitch in my code. Shouldn't have rushed. I'll try doing it again a different way in the next few days and see if I can verify your results. I'll let you know what I find. Your first few results do look correct though. SnottyWong ^speak 00:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As you have noticed, if you want to calculate the exact values of table 3, it is not enough to start out from table 2, since table 2 does not tell you anything about how many remaining armies there are after each battle. I think one approach would be to use table 1 to calculate a three dimensional matrix of probabilities of various numbers of remaining attacker armies for each case in table 2. Than that matrix together with table 2 can be used to calculate table 3.

A more simple approach would be to use random number generators - which is how I did it. I have used at least 20000 simulations for each case, which seems to be necessary for reasonable accuracy. But in GNU Octave that takes many hours. Perhaps MATLAB is faster.Mange01 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I realize what I did wrong in my code. Pretty stupid mistake. Your numbers are definitely right for the 1-army row of the table. I'll check the rest when I have time. It really takes hours to do 20,000 simulations? I've got about 20 lines of javascript code that will do a million simulations in about 30 seconds... All I'm doing is simulating battles with x number of starting armies, using random number generators to throw the dice, and counting how many territories are won before the attacker has lost all of his armies. I do that a million or more times, and then average the number of territories. I won't get an exact answer, but it will be within 1/100th of an army to the correct answer. SnottyWong ^converse 01:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting seeing your code.

Regarding the speed discussion: Javascript is an interpreted language without code optimization, just like GNU Octave, right? So it should be quite slow. Because of code optimization and compilation into p-code (similar to Java byte code), MATLAB is 8-20 times as fast as GNU Octave, especially if you use iterations rather than vectorized code. However, currently I do not have access to MATLAB. Another issue is that I have not allocated memory for the arrays in advance, but extend their size for every iteration, which probably makes the code rather slow. Mange01 (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I verified your tables are correct. Only had to make one slight tweak. It would be great to find a source for this stuff, but that doesn't seem likely at the moment. Though, since it's very useful info and it's been verified to be correct, we can probably keep it around for awhile. SnottyWong ^yak 15:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Rule and gameplay changes

There is a new version of Risk that has cities. The article mentions this, but does not say when it was it was introduced. Perhaps some one who knows can clear this up.

(74.198.15.16 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC))

Risk is Not Just a Dice Game

The strategy section has changed dramatically since its previous version which was around June. It looks like it has been sabotaged! Most of the new section on strategy has a series of large tables on dice probabilities. Although useful, dice probabilities are a very small part of the game. I don't think it is wise to present Risk to the world, especially new comers, as a dice game which suggests Risk is just a game of chance.

The original strategy section listed a series of common strategies which made the game look more interesting and demonstrated to someone new to the game how deep and complex the game can be. The current charts and numbers are not representative and seem to dominate the entire article.

Two solutions: Either reduce the dice tables to make them proportionally representative. Or better still, add the previous section on strategy to make the article more complete and balanced. This way a reader can use the dice table as reference while still understand that Risk is not just a game of chance.

In any case, the current setup in the strategy section is misleading. I can't understand how the moderators let this happen as there was nothing wrong with the previous version which has now been drastically replaced with a bunch of tables with numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spline101 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RISK IS A SOCIAL GAME On a social level Risk is played with a cult like following. Many players organise to have costume themes or pre plan holidays and weekends just to play Risk. There is often friendly rivalry between players, both during and preceeding a game with 'articles of war' and the fostering of allies with other players. The remaking of the playing pieces, cards and playing boards, integrating their own personal touches and rule changes is also common among long term players. (Chenginator (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

Alternate card turn-in rules

Question regarding the quote: "One common house rule follows the same ratios of troops, but simply uses cards instead of stars. This "currency" method prevents the wild escalation of reinforcements that occurs with the traditional rules. Players are forced to turn in their cards if they have a full set of five."

Does this mean that the maximum value with this rule is 10? If so, I think it should be noted in the text to clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psydev (talk • contribs) 19:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

File:RiskSoldier.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RiskSoldier.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File:RiskCavalry.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RiskCavalry.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File:RiskCannon.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RiskCannon.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2011

I would like to add that you forgot to mention in risk the youngest player ALWAYS goes first

Newestmuinster (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a source for that statement if you'd like to add it. I don't believe it's true. —SW— ^chatter 00:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012

I would like to change the Risk Legacy description to change the year published to 2012 and to add to the description: After it says " A game that has permanent changes to the game board and cards each time you play by adding stickers and writing on the game board and tearing up cards.

I would also like to add an entry to the list of Risk Games available: there is a 2-player only game called Risk: Balance of Power that plays similarly to the Risk: revised (or Reinvention or Risk Factor as it is sometimes called) and was only available in Europe.

Blackburngrant (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Legacy came out in December. APL (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I added Balance of Power. APL (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have the 1993 edition and it has 56 cards, not 72. 44 province cards and 12 mission cards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.59.169 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February 2012

By using order statistics, it is possible to construct a formula for the average result of any single battle based upon the number of attacker dice, the number of defender dice, and the number of sides on each die. The mean number of armies lost by the attacker $L_{A}$ is $L_{A}=\sum _{j=0}^{k-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{l=0}^{j}\sum _{m=0}^{j}{d \choose l}{a \choose m}\left[\left(1-{i \over n}\right)^{l}\left({i \over n}\right)^{d-l}-\left(1-\left({i-1 \over n}\right)\right)^{l}\left({i-1 \over n}\right)^{d-l}\right]\left(1-{i \over n}\right)^{m}\left({i \over n}\right)^{a-m}$, where a is the number of attacker dice, d is the number of defender dice, n is the number of sides on each die, and k is the minimum of a and d. It follows, of course, that the mean number of armies lost by the defender $L_{D}$ is $L_{D}=k-L_{A}$. Should we put this in? --75.130.139.171 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I deactivated the template since you seem to be trying to generate a consensus, not asking to have something added. FWIW, you should provide a reliable source for that formula if you plan to add it to the article. - Celestra (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This is something I worked out myself. It gives the results that are in the table for mean armies lost by attacker/defender, but not the probabilities of certain results. When I play Risk, we typically use four attacker dice and three defender dice, so I have worked out cases for adding a die to each side by hand as well (1v3, 2v3, 3v3, 4v1, 4v2, 4v3), and the formula works there too. (The benefits are that in the 4v3 case the result is almost balanced (attacker loses 1.4766 and defender loses 1.5234), it makes the game play faster, and a single attacker or defender is more likely to be overwhelmed by a large force.) If you read Order_statistic#Dealing_with_discrete_variables it is rather straightforward to figure out.

--75.130.139.171 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Sadly this is original research, which we don't allow, you would need to find coverage of it in 3rd party reliable references--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to include a formula since it isn't a part of the game, regardless of whose research it is. 192.131.177.18 (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; a place to collect information that has been published by reliable sources, not a place to publish original research which has never been published before. This may seem strange at first, but this is how we work. Whether or not the formula is correct is not for us to judge, inclusion of information on Wikipedia is decided by whether or not the information is verifiable. —SW— ^gab 22:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research & verification aren't pertinent to this issue. It is not a part of the game Risk, so even if the formula is published, peer-reviewed, verifiable, and a fundamental pillar of probability in dice-based games, it has no place in the page about the game Risk. 192.131.177.19 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Risk: Factions on facebook 3/27/2012

Under computer games it should be mentioned that Hasbro launched Risk:Factions on facebook in January 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsuspenders001 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Five Players the new recommended maximum?

My copy of Risk Revised Edition (2009) only has pieces and rules for five players, and I have heard this is also the case for Risk 2210 (2001) and the online Risk: Factions (2010), despite these updates using mostly the standard game map. Is this the case with most or all of the standard Risk rereleases since 2001? If so, we should likely mention that modern versions are 2-5 players. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Europe

Can anyone explain why Central Europe is called Northern Europe in Risk? Pinut (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Two player risk rules

So most of the site seems to reference this manual: http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/risk.pdf Except this manual does not have the same set of rules for two player risk. It specifically states that the neutral army does not attack. I am updating the article to reflect the linked PDF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.67.110 (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Risk Pieces

UK Risk Pieces from the 1980s

In the UK from the early 1980s to the early 1990s the UK edition did not use Roman numerals but instead used pieces that were stars with three, four (an X) or five "spokes", with the ends of the spokes forming an equilateral triangle, a square and a pentagon, respectively. The three spoke pieces represented 1 army, the four spoke pieces 5 armies and the five spoke pieces 10 armies. Also, the three spoke pieces were as deep as the spokes were long (approximately fitting in a 1 cm cube) whereas the four spoke pieces were slightly deeper (12 mm) and the five spokes pieces deeper still (15 mm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekjc (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

iOS Remakes

A quick note, there are two more iOS remakes of Risk: Conquist and Conquist 2, which feature World Domination, Secret Mission and a variety of different modes and maps. Coolguy100ish (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In the infobox...

Is there any reason/source that people can give for being described as a highly luck-based game? Sure it involves dice but dice are rolled several hundred times over a game, and no roll is particularly more important than any other, so luck normally balances out. The only absolutely true thing you could write is that "some" luck is involved, which applies to the vast majority of commercially produced board and card games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.55.215 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if luck balanced out, over a long period of time, players should be where they started. The fact is that dice rolls "actively" alter the game environment. The players' actions (assuming they all have identical skill) have little to no consequence in altering the flow of the game in comparison to the dice rolls. So, since it's the dice rolls and not the player's decisions (again assuming all players act in identical fashion) that shape the game flow, I would call Risk as a highly luck-based game.217.129.96.108 (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Dead link.

The 11th citation is dead. Any functional backups? Ernir (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wayback Machine didn't crawl the page, so maybe the best course of action was to ask the original author (the contact's at the main page, on the link) for him to put back the file online.217.129.96.108 (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wayback Machine did get the page, and the source code file: Archived 4 December 2011 at the Wayback Machine. I've added this to the page. --Steven Kelly (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Territories

In the notes to the Territories section, it says "On some versions of the board, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Great Britain, Ukraine, Congo, India, and Siam are known as Western Canada, Central Canada, Eastern Canada, Great Britain & Ireland, Eastern Europe, Central Africa, Hindustan, Pakistan, and Southeast Asia, respectively." There's a mismatch there. Is there a name missing from the first list? Rojomoke (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the page history http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Risk_(game)&diff=497194547&oldid=495990859 I think Pakistan shouldn't be there at all. The territory on the Risk map includes both India and Pakistan, so maybe "Hindustan" is used in some editions. I'll revert "Hindustan, Pakistan" to just "Hindustan". --Steven Kelly (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dice probabilities

An anonymous IP wanted to add the following material; I reverted it, as being too much analysis and original research, taken from a wordpress blog, but I'm putting it here for others to consider: - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Impact of the distribution of defenders and attack order on outcome probabilities

When faced with an attack that will span multiple territories an attacker can improve their odds by focussing on large concentrations of troops first. Conversely the defender has a better chance of preventing an attacker from taking all of their territories if they spread all of their units evenly across their territories.

For instance, consider an army with 15 units attacking 12 defenders spread over the 6 territories of Africa:

• if the defender has 7 units on one of the territories and 1 unit on each of the 5 remaining territories, and the attacker starts by attacking the 7-unit territory, the attack run will succeed 51.9% of the time

Graphic and chart showing the odds of an attack succeeding in a game of Risk where the attacker addresses the main concentration of defenders at the start of the attack run. When the defender's troops are concentrated on one territory, this approach is the most likely to succeed.

• with the same defence configuration, if the attacker finishes by attacking the 7-unit territory, the attack run will succeed only 46.8% of the time

Graphic and chart showing the odds of an attack succeeding in a game of Risk where the attacker does not address the main concentration of defenders until the end of the attack run. When the defender's troops are concentrated on one territory, this approach is the least likely to succeed.

• if instead the defender has 2 troops on each of its 6 territories, the attack run will succeed only 39.8% of the time

Graphic and chart showing the odds of an attack succeeding in a game of Risk where the defender has spread their defences evenly across 6 territories. This configuration of 12 defenders over 6 territories is the most difficult to conquer.

These slight differences in odds are often outweighed by other factors in the game. For the a player that anticipates it will need to defend, the strategic importance of having concentrations of troops to attack with on subsequent turns may outweigh the defensive advantage of spreading units around. For the attacker, where the attacking army will end up may be the decisive factor in determining attack path. Also by attacking the greatest concentration of the defender's troops first, the attacker may eliminate the defender's ability to strike on the subsequent turn, which may or may not be a desirable outcome in case the overall attack fails.

Odds in Risk Legacy

I have removed this from the article - way too big, way too long, way too much uncited analysis. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, way too much original research. Good catch. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 16:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Risk (game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091124142100/http://www.totaldiplomacy.com:80/ to http://www.totaldiplomacy.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Popularity

I've noticed that one of the key problems with Wikipedia is that it often struggles to adequately explain how well-known or popular (or, indeed, unpopular) a given topic is. Reading the article, you would struggle to be able to understand that Risk is a perennially popular board game in the West, with millions of copies sold and is familiar to a large proportion of people. This, of course, would need to be sourced, and this seems to be a little tricky (hence not doing it myself), but perhaps it's something an editor might want to look into adding to the article, especially in the lede. -86.132.19.146 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Risk (game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130309054637/http://www-monitor.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/48730859ec2cbc4dc125700b0049d6fd/$file/MARS.pdf to http://www-monitor.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/48730859ec2cbc4dc125700b0049d6fd/$file/MARS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Attacking

The current text is "The attacking player attacks with an army, rolling up to three dice. At least one unit must remain behind in the attacking territory not involved in the attack, as a territory may never be left unoccupied."

As a noob, I found this rather confusing. It makes no connection between the number of dice chosen and the number of armies available, and I wasn't sure if there was such a connection. However, reading on, the rule perhaps ought to be "The attacking player attacks with up to three armies, rolling one dice for each." The second sentence seems correct but reads badly. Maybe "At least one additional unit must remain behind in the attacking territory, as a territory may never be left unoccupied."

I'd make the change myself but I may have misunderstood the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.16.25 (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dice probabilities - history repeats itself

At the time of the peer review for GA in 2007, at least two of the reviewers cited the dice probabilities section as WP:GAMETRIVIA. At that time, the probabilities table was a small (3x5 entry) single table. It was subsequently removed in conjunction with the review. The article was delisted in 2008, though the reason wasn't the re-appearance of the dice table. The problem cited (ref'ing, as usual), still remains - there are 45 paragraphs without terminating citations. In addition, if I were doing the review, the dice table would need to be axed, again. It would be acceptable and useful to give a general textual description of when it's favorable to attack, or better to sit, or how to decide among several attack possibilities which has the best odds. I think any kind of table is out. I'm considering being bold and axing the dice table as it stands. Unless editors understand the GA requirements cited in the first review, this article isn't going anywhere. I.e. if I delete the dice table and get reverted, there's clearly a misunderstanding. Sbalfour (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to do two things coincident with deleting the dice probabilities tables: 1)summarize the dice probabilities; 2)specifically note the references where this information can be found, so the encyclopedia becomes a secondary source, not a primary one, for this type of detailed info. Sbalfour (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

History section missing info

The name of the original French company is missing. There is no history of the trademark: who owned it, who licensed it. The game pieces and game art have changed (some of this is in the Equipment and Design section, should be moved to History). The game subtitle has changed at least three times, not two. I think some of the rules have changed from the early versions regarding allocation of territories to players and placing of armies on territories during set up. Also, some rules were different between European and U.S. versions, and some of the themed versions got different rules. The box art has changed too many times to track, but the packaging (wooden box at least one version) changes should be noted. There's a Franklin Mint Risk set as of 2016, may be worth noting (metal pieces?). No mention of any history of sponsored competition, or champions of any kind. When were computer, video game and mobile apps introduced? Elaboration here would certainly be required for FA, possibly for GA. Sbalfour (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Alliances section importance

Risk is a game of diplomacy, as stated first in the intro's opening sentence. It is a poor strategy, probably a losing one, to always play as a solo competitor in a multi-handed game. It's an equally poor strategy to always seek alliances. Alliances may be either tactical, along one border or one section of the board while the situation lasts, or strategic, forming a stronger union for a longer term purpose, i.e. eliminating another strong player, or conquering a highly fortified section of the board. Good play means forming alliances when it's beneficial, and dissolving them when it's not. Defining those circumstances is the meaningful part of strategy. Dice tables is thinking in the small. Risk is a microcosm of the real world, and the game manual is John von Neumann's Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Translating that into the game is where we ought to be, not computing dice tables. A java applet to simulate any sequence of dice rolls can be written in about 12 lines, and give the result of battle instantly instead of having to roll all those dice. But reading the book, and creating an exposition of a Risk strategy based on diplomacy, ah... that takes keen scholarship. As far as I can tell, it's never been done. There's a wide gulf between what's in the Alliances section now, and the content of the book. Let's expand that, if anything.

I should say, that a Strategy section is not essential for GA or FA, and IMHO, not needed in the article at all. To the extent that the strategy of a game is a meaningful part of the description of the game of interest to those wanting to buy it or play it, it should be detailed in the Description or Gameplay section. If the detail is of interest only to a competitive gamer, it should not be in a concise scholarly article. Sbalfour (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Setup, Player turn and Rule variations sections

We have three detailed top-level sections devoted to the rules (and part of a fourth section, Strategy, is also taken from the rule book). Ordinarily, these would be subsections (or just paragraphs) in a Gameplay or Rules section. Someone has transliterated a rule book (not specified from which edition of the game) into the encyclopedia complete with all minutiae of card counts, token values, army bonuses, etc. However, I have inspected 8 versions of the game, and there are at least 5 different rule sets, minutely different, but different nonetheless. Which are the "official" rules of the game? The rules section isn't supposed to be a paraphrased rule book from the box; it's supposed to be a description of the game or gameplay derived from applying the rules to the equipment: what's significant or interesting about the game, and distinguishes it from other possibly similar games. The character of the game doesn't change depending on ruleset, and that's what we capture for a scholarly article on the game.

Please note that the Style guide for Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games#Style guide explicitly says: "...For this reason, please do not include: The complete rules of the game." It also explicitly says: "detailed rules violate WP:GAMEGUIDE".

I think I'm going to be bold, and redraft and combine the Setup, Player turn and Rule variations sections into one narrative style Gameplay section that's free of the minutiae of counts, dice, card matching, etc and is compatible with any of the standard edition rulesets. What we lose in precision, we gain in descriptive power. Sbalfour (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Risk (game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219173015/https://www.hasbro.com/risk/default.cfm?page=strategy to http://www.hasbro.com/risk/default.cfm?page=strategy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709011042/https://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/c64hist/c641988jun.htm to http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/c64hist/c641988jun.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Just wanted to say how great this article is, really well written with a straight-to-the-point description. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.198.26 (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

erm.... ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

me too!! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🚀🌍 17:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)