For Xmas I was given a game called RISK: Balance of Power, which is a standalone two-player-onlyversion of the new revised RISK rules. It's a fine enough game - essentially the standard neutral-party two player RISK rules set on a variant map of Western Europe - but there is one amusing quirk to it: nowhere in the rules does it tell you how to win the game!
Well, if it's called "Balance of power", naturally no player will be able to get a significant advantage over the other one ;)
Is it possible to lose at least?
Not according to the rules.
Also in this version players collect objectives for accomplishing specific goals, but once again the rules fail to explain what these are for.
Luckily I know RISK (both old school and 2008 revision) more than well enough that this is not an issue for me, but I pity any new player trying to figure it out on their own.
EDIT: Turns out that all Canadian copies of RISK: Balance of Power were missing the essential rules describing Objectives and victory conditions.
It's trying to teach kids that you can't win with war, eh, eh?
Shows what they know.
EDIT: Turns out that all Canadian copies of RISK: Balance of Power were missing the essential rules describing Objectives and victory conditions.
Well that makes sense. Canadians can't fight, and if they ever tried, they'd be too polite to win.
It's trying to teach kids that you can't win with war, eh, eh?
That's only true for the U.S. Army for the last while......
We won. George W. said so.
He probably mispoke and meant to say "they won", it happened all the time
I think what you're all forgetting is that you've all just lost The Game. I've been losing The Game every time I look at the OTT since this thread has been up.
Thanks a lot, man. I didn't know about this game thing until I clicked that link. So now I'm playing, aren't I? And, thanks to you, I immediately lost. Yay. Oh yeah, I lost the game. Dammit.
That's only true for the U.S. Army for the last while......
Uhh ... you have no idea what you're talking about, do you? How many bomb craters are there over here in the US of A? How many occupying forces? Trust me, we're doin' just fine thanks to our brave men and women. And that's inspite of the political and social handcuffs, too.
Jeebus, what's with all the 'American military sucks' stuff lately? You guys sufferin' from Army Envy or somethin'? Just cut it out, ok? I'm tired of explaining reality to all of you delusional ****s.
I think what you're all forgetting is that you've all just lost The Game. I've been losing The Game every time I look at the OTT since this thread has been up.
DAMNIT! I LOST THE GAME!
I had gone fifty-three days without loosing, and then you had to say that...
Thank goodness it wasn't what I was thinking.
Jeebus, what's with all the 'American military sucks' stuff lately? You guys sufferin' from Army Envy or somethin'? Just cut it out, ok? I'm tired of explaining reality to all of you delusional ****s.
I'm going to guess that it's because a lot of people don't like america, even americans, and so they figure a good place to hit the american ego is by dissing on the military.
I'm going to guess that it's because a lot of people don't like america, even americans, and so they figure a good place to hit the american ego is by dissing on the military.
There's a whole buch of d-bag countries out there that this American don't like all that much. Ya don't see me talkin' out my ass about them, do ya? 'Course not. Cuz I'm an American. And that makes me a better person.
I think what you're all forgetting is that you've all just lost The Game. I've been losing The Game every time I look at the OTT since this thread has been up.
Insufficient memory, paradox program reboot........initializing.............Program completed all instances of The Game will be ignoredand disreguarded as meanless babel.
Insufficient memory, paradox program reboot........initializing.............Program completed all instances of The Game will be ignoredand disreguarded as meanless babel.
You just lost the la-li-lu-le-lo.
That's only true for the U.S. Army for the last while......
As opposed to who? The Brits? They're giving it a good effort, but not really doing any different from us. Canada? Good guys but theres very few of them and they aren't any more successful. Most of the other NATO countries? Well let's see, they typically send their forces only to areas of Afghanistan where their troops are not expected to come under fire (yay, great asset). I don't really see most other countries even attempting to do any of the heavy lifting. I guess you could almost say Russia did ok lately, since they did run over a country that was pretty much insignificant next to them, and even then their army ran into lots of setbacks and logistical issues that it were not expected.
Technically, we have won twice lately. We achieved our initial objectives very quickly in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The follow on has gone poorly in large part to a lack of real objectives, a problem that also plagued us in Vietnam, and also do to some piss poor planning on the reconstruction. However, when it comes to taking ground and killing the enemy, we seem to do that just fine.
EDIT: And Australia has been throwing what they have available into the mix. I've seen a few of them, never worked with them, but heard good things.
Like i said, it may not be hundreds of thousands of troops. But we send our best, and always do. We have since America came to our aid in WWII against Japan's impending invasion.
oh, and i nearly forgot - I lost the game too..
Lol, it's all good. The going joke over here is you all just announce a BBQ in which ever country we are going too.. it gets us there every time.
I love a good BBQ. I met a cajun in Afghanistan who was a master on the grill. And both Afghanis and Iraqis can cook some mean kabob.