Talk:Risk (game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleRisk (game) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
January 12, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 7, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 25, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Risk (game): edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2007-05-23

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Other : *Include citations in the article.
    • Improve the section which briefly goes over major/popular editions of Risk, i.e. castle, lord of the rings, RISK 2210AD. It would also help to improve the List of licensed Risk game boards article that corresponds with it.

Alliances section importance[edit]

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[edit]

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)[]

Suggestions for expanding the article[edit]

1. Not adding to Gameplay or Strategy sections

2. History is anemic; the game is issued and played in many foreign countries, which ones, and how did it get there?

3. Is there a governing body that sanctions competitions and issues titles? Where is it headquartered? What are the titles and qualifications for them? Who holds or has held them?

4. What competitions are there (Mind Olympics?), how often are they held, where?

5. What are the SIGNIFICANT differences between the themed variants? Not details here, but fundamental character of the games. Why would you want one of these instead of the standard version?

6. Is the Franklin mint version interesting?

7. Are the any notable Risk players (maybe chess grandmasters who play risk, professors, PHD game scholars, TV personalities, ?)

8. If it's one of the most popular board games in history, what's the marketing/sales data show?

It's going to take some digging from here, not just transliterating a game manual or copying elements from a book on playing the game. Sbalfour (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[]

No thank you, these are mostly opinion based and would interest absolutely none — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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 (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[]

erm.... ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talkcontribs) 09:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[]

me too!! Face-smile.svg ---Sm8900 (talk) 🚀🌍 17:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[]

In popular culture.[edit]

I can't believe that the episode in Seinfeld where Kramer and Newman plays Risk isn't mentioned in the article! (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[]