ok, thanks again!!

bump, just have to bump it :)

anything nice to say??

Well, it's whatever you prefer: whether or not you think it's fair a pack(?) of ten armies can be beaten by one single army (with enough luck); or [... it's fair] an army is always equal to another and by negotiations you get support/results. So: neither is better, it's what you prefer. I don't like Risk for a couple of reasons, one of them being too random, another that in my version the continent of N-A and Australia are becoming bastions once they're taken (and they're quite easy to take as well.

what are bastions and what's the difference with your version??

A bastion is a fortification, rallying point, or home base. He's saying that, while it is easy to initially conquer them, once fortified they are nearly unbreakable.

well, not very true to me, you just have to have a bigger army and take them down, the ones in there are with few countries so they don't get much SCs, but in mid-game it's probably not worth attacking them because they are defended well, but that's because it isn't worth much...

bumping again, i just can't stop myself...

But steephie, you know that luck plays a significant role in Risk, as a defender your advantage over the attacker is huge. First, you're deciding by how many armies you're going to defend (meaning: high numbers are thrown -->1 die; only one high number [4/5/6] --> 2 dice) and second, as an attacker you're not allowed to put armies on the board as you like: you get only one card a turn (approximately 2/turn) vs his guaranteed two armies a turn on the opponents sole connection to another continent. If he also conquers a territory once in while, he gets that same approx. 2 armies/turn. And the pacifist's turn (getting armies equal to half of your territories, rounded down) will most likely not be enough to yield that same result (2 armies on every of your border territories), only then you should execute such a turn in my opinion.
Btw my version looks like this one (but without the fancy colors): http://sillysoft.net/plugins/images/Classic%20Risk.jpg

Actually I usually found that the attacker had the advantage. Three dice versus two. Even scores went the defenders way, but that third dice tipped the scales in the attacker's favor, when there were large numbers of armies involved. When the numbers of armies were smaller the the defender could have the advantage.

correction... *equal score went the defender's way

yeah, attacker has the advantage when his attacking army exists out of at least 4 units, if the defender has 2...

and including the one army that needs to stay home while the others go hunting...
a bit like the young Atilla :)

@Steephie, yeah, especially if-argument I consider weak.
Let's assume you have equal forces (or sufficiently large to make this assumption): then do you agree with me that the defender wins in way more often than the attacker does.
In the example of 4 attackers vs 2 defenders it's easy to win for the attacker: for 1 reason: the attacker has 50%(!!!) more units on the battlefield. So as a defender you need to get into the 'sufficiently large' amount of units asap in the critical areas (sole conections to the mainland) and that's too easy.

No Carpenter. the attacker has the advantage when the numbers of armiesare equal because he gets three dice, whereas the defender has just two dice. But the attacker loses the advantage and soon as he is forced to use two dice. Then the defender gains because in the case of equal scores the defender wins.
the advantage.

There's a loophole in the rules that allows the defender to choose how many dice they roll after seeing what the attacker rolls. That gives the defender a significant advantage, even when the attacker has far superior numbers.

Sorry for the typos... I am writing from my iPhone.
I should clarify the above. I am assuming equal numbers of units here and I assuming a fight to the death (that is until the attacker can no longer continue the attack).
Because the defender gains the advantage once the unit numbers are small enough to require the attacker to use two dice there is a minimum number of units to ensure the attacker has the advantage for the whole battle - that number is roughly twelve units each. Any smaller than that and the defender has the advantage (for the whole battle). But for really large battles - for example 100 versus 100 the attacker has big advantage.

Here is a link to an online Risk probability calculator

oops posted to soon...
http://www.recreationalmath.com/Risk/

@ghug
So you are saying that if the defender chooses to use 1 dice versus the attackers 3 dice - that that increases the defenders advantage? I am not a mathematician - but I would have thought that this would only increases the advantage to the attacker.

The defender waits for the attacker to roll, if the attacker's second highest die is 4 or higher, the defender only rolls one to minimize his losses, otherwise he rolls two. It's a stupid way to play, and it makes the game take even longer, so your general argument is still true for anyone that hasn't critically analyzed the rule book, looking for things to exploit.

Apparently there are different rules to risk... Some say defender chooses the number of dice to roll before the attacker rolls and some say after. In the former case, the attacker has a pretty huge advantage (something like 54:46) and in the latter case the break is an almost perfect 50/50 split (assuming optimal strategy by the defender). This article can hopefully clear up the confusion:

http://oai.cwi.nl/oai/asset/2639/2639A.pdf

I have never played with those rules. In the version I learned as a child both attacker and defender rolled at the same time. Interesting.

Those are very strange rules. The attacker can choose to attack with less than the maximum number of dice. I would think the defender does not have a choice -- it's their territory under attack; they cannot hold forces back.....

...And I would be wrong. The officials rules from each edition are here:
http://boardgames.about.com/od/riskrules/Risk_Rules.htm
Attacker and defender roll simultaneously, and both can choose how many dice to roll if they have more than 2/1 armies respectively.

It is true that the defender can choose how many dice to roll, but it is before the attacker throws, not after. And it messes up the probabilities so it would actually be in deterrence of the defender. The odds on a 3 to 1 roll are smaller than on a 3 to 2 roll. Form my real-life experience, only when a player is attempting to annoy the person who is winning does he choose to roll dice one by one. Picture a last stand in a country with 55 armies surrounded by hundreds of armies. And having to roll the dice hundreds of times to end the game. Gets pretty dull.

Defender can choose to hold back units in reserve in real life, so why not in the game too? But both the 59 and 63 rules clearly state both roll at the same time. Anything else is not official Risk, but a variant.

yes but in real life you also can't see how much luck the other armies have so you just put only 1 army against them if they're lucky...

Seeing as you can't see the die roll befor ehand according to the official rules from both 59 and 63, there is no seeing this supposed "luck" despite the assertions of that ill-informed article posted above.. And if you say the previous roll's outcome somehow indicates the next rolls, well each roll is independent of the previous one. Basic statistics and probability, just as each poker hand is independent from the previous one. (Although don't tell my opponents who either believe things run in trends like 3 big hands in a row to the same person or who don't believe the same person can get back to back flushes or full houses).