I find Risk to be an entirely invigorating game. The standard methodology of the World map is, however, not nearly as interesting as the full spread on ConquerClub which is where I play most of my games. The other alternative, of course, is in-person games; however, these are uncommon in my experience mostly due to the large time requirement playing a game requires.
The other benefit of an online environment is the ease with which maps can be added to the game mechanic. Hence, CC has options for the War of the Triple Alliance, Europe, Eurasia, the North America, and other places & times. The plurality of these choices, while it doesn’t quite replace the option for ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ or Middle Earth maps, is enough to give one quite unlimited options for replaying the game without getting bored.
Indeed, the standard World option is one of the more boring ones in my mind and the ones I mentioned above fit the format quite a bit better. Or, perhaps, not fit the format per se rather than make it more fun for me. And, this obviously will be personal because everyone will have their own map they like more than the others.
I am quite happy to have my own sturdy crowd of Risk enthusiasts, and playing the game with these people makes it even more fun. If only there was a Middle-Earth map online…
Of course, a good question is how good this game is in developing tactical or strategic understanding, at least as that is the basis on which the usefulness of go and chess is often ranked. I like both of those two, and I believe them to be quite good for different reasons. However, Risk fits into the same category: as the main principle on which the game revolves is luck, one cannot ever be certain in winning or losing. I have won battles of 5 against 10, and lost 14 against 3. However, one might think in the end these even out at 50-50. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. What’s certain is that one can gain an appreciation for the fickleness of luck by playing Risk.
