Talk:Risk (game)/Archive 1

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opinion/Experience throughout Strategy section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  addition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RISK variants? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Die vs. dice and repeated incorrect edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Gabo Tactic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strike Force Strategy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  House Rules 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Linked online sites: NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Territories? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Roman World 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Dice table 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of official Risk game boards 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, thank you. :-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates/Years 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Area movement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Standard setup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA Nomination 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: 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.Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references located at the end of a sentence or paragraph (read more about it in the essay Wikipedia:Inline citations). Short articles, one page or shorter, can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. Articles or sections that contains general statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, "common knowledge", or other material that does not contain disputable statements needn't be referenced.  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)
thread_title:  GA evaluation 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dice Probablities 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Stub sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of licensed Risk games 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion of Popular Culture? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Risk_box.jpg]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References to the board game Risk in popular culture up for deletion 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  RISKTOC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A drive for FA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Computer implementations and video games 

message: If I remember correctly this famous painting was on at least one version's box.  If so could we include it in the article?
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any one know Italian? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section 4.3-Fortifying--suggest update to include new rules 

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

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Risk logo.png 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Profanity in ''Children's'' game 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Violence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Surrendering 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Escalation of reinforcements of Risk Card armies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: I decided to remove it as OR. bibliomaniac15 01:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continent Advantages and Disadvantages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Castle Risk 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redeployment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Area linkages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Errors/Corrections in Manuals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added back in official variations and computer versions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Card set probability question 

message: Why prefer the 1963 rules rather then the 1959?--Work permit (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: got it, thanks--Work permit (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 1963 vs 1959? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added review site 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Video games- restriction on unofficial implementations 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rule Variations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Difficulty of Secret Missions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New RISK game coming to the Xbox LIVE Arcade 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Consensus for the inclusion of the unofficial versions section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link To Official Hasbro Game Demo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Online review sites 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Probability table colors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Dice Probabilities 

message: 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:
#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?
#The probabilities listed in the 30x30 table were drastically different than in the smaller table.  Neither table was sourced.  This is a big problem.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Whole battle" probability table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rule and gameplay changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Risk is Not Just  a Dice Game 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alternate  card turn-in rules 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title:  File:RiskSoldier.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title:  File:RiskCavalry.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title:  File:RiskCannon.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request on 28 December 2011 

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

text: I added Balance of Power. APL (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 11 January 2012 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Edit request on 24 February 2012 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Risk: Factions on facebook  3/27/2012 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Five Players the new recommended maximum? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two player risk rules 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alternate Risk Pieces 

message: 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)
thread_title:  iOS Remakes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In the infobox... 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Territories 

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

message: 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
* 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
* if instead the defender has 2 troops on each of its 6 territories, the attack run will succeed only 39.8% of the time
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)
replies: text: I agree, way too much original research.  Good catch. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 16:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact of the distribution of defenders and attack order on outcome probabilities

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Risk (game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Risk (game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attacking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dice probabilities - history repeats itself 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History section missing info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alliances section importance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Setup, Player turn and Rule variations sections 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text:  me too!!  ---Sm8900 (talk) 🚀🌍 17:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank You