I'm somewhat new to risk, but have been playing for a couple weeks.  I'm in a 6 way game on the regular wargear warfare board with medium fog.

Does this make sense as a tactic?  I have greenland, mexico (with columbia neutral), and western US.  I also have angola with mozambique neutral. 

Blue went before me (i'm 5th).  He had Ontario, put all three armies there, and then attacked NW territories.  I don't know if he also has alaska.  I'd obviously like to go after NA, and if possible I'd like to talk blue out of contesting NA. 

Would it make sense to attack the neutral army in mozambique with my 3 armies in angola just to sort of clear a way for blue to talk him into going for africa?  then, if he gives up on NA I might easily take it?

Is that a reasonable strategy or is it always a bad move to make an attack that is obviously going to fail and make life easier for an opponent?  I could easily be getting too cute with this.

Here would be my reasoning why not to do this.

Do not make attacks where the odds are against you unless you want to suicide.

Do not make attacks to benefit someone else in the hope of their seeing things your way later.

Generally I'd assume that someone who is working to follow a plan is likely to feel committed to it, and is not about to abandon said plan.

Then again I'm only a decent player.

It does sound like you are being "too cute" but it may divert blue's attention.  Especially if his attack in NA went badly.  

The best way to "talk" blue out of NA is to knock him out of it.

What would be nice if he attacked some of the other people in NA and thus made it easier for you to take it after.

btilly wrote:

Here would be my reasoning why not to do this.

Do not make attacks where the odds are against you unless you want to suicide.

Do not make attacks to benefit someone else in the hope of their seeing things your way later.

Generally I'd assume that someone who is working to follow a plan is likely to feel committed to it, and is not about to abandon said plan.

Then again I'm only a decent player.

+1

In the early game (especially with 6p WGWF) your units are priceless.  Don't waste them against a Neutral.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Don't waste them against a Neutral.

+1 Always better to attack blue in NA, or stockpile and be patient... if you eventually get enough units there, he'll realize he has no chance.

The only way I would go with the attacking neutral route, is if you talk to blue and give him enough carrot & stick to encourage him to go for Africa.   A bit of I'll help clear Africa for you, if you help clear NA for me.  You'd probably need an explicit agreement though.  I wouldn't count on some random wargear player catching on to what you are doing.

Usually I wouldn't bother with this, but it might be a good strategy if you are ok with it.

btilly wrote:

Generally I'd assume that someone who is working to follow a plan is likely to feel committed to it, and is not about to abandon said plan.

This is the prime reason why your preferred tactic isn't going to gel the way you want it to.
No reasonable player would place armies and attack in an area if they weren't planning on that being a stronghold.
ESPECIALLY in early game.

Even for the greatest of negotiators, what you're asking him to do is tantamount to throwing away his first turn, which puts him at a ridiculous disadvantage.

Kudos to you for being a new player and still being brave enough to post a thread to ask about strategy, though, keep the questions coming.

Thanks for the replies.  Given the consensus it is clear to me I was better off not doing the diversion.  I didn't do it.  I did eventually take NA, but then came in third when I had two straight rounds where both opponents only attacked me.

Figuring out how not to have everyone attack me is the next thing I need to learn.  Maybe I should reduce my trash talking to my friends so much making me a target?...  Nah that would ruin the fun...

sulli, you should post a link to the game, now that it's over.

The trick in WGWF is in getting players to not attack you, usually by carrying a big threatening stick and positioning your troops in locations least likely to be attacked. Both require maneuvering and the latter may be unavoidable based on early setup and attacks.

ratsy wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Don't waste them against a Neutral.

+1 Always better to attack blue in NA, or stockpile and be patient... if you eventually get enough units there, he'll realize he has no chance.

+1 Peace through superior firepower!

Thingol wrote: sulli, you should post a link to the game, now that it's over.

The trick in WGWF is in getting players to not attack you, usually by carrying a big threatening stick and positioning your troops in locations least likely to be attacked. Both require maneuvering and the latter may be unavoidable based on early setup and attacks.

+1 

It's all about survival.  If you're leading you don't want others to gang up against you. If you're behind you don't want to be the one chosen as the next target.

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”

Even more specific than this, the tactic that I learned from one of the best on this site (if memory serves, it was either BlackDog or Yertle) was:

Always be in second place.  
It means you're one of the strongest on the board, but never the target.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”

Even more specific than this, the tactic that I learned from one of the best on this site (if memory serves, it was either BlackDog or Yertle) was:

Always be in second place.  
It means you're one of the strongest on the board, but never the target.

+1

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/348030

Here is the game.  It was line 230 in the history when i was about to take my first turn that I considered attacking in south africa with an intentionally losing battle hoping to talk him into changign his mind.

IMO:

Looking at this board Sulli, (If I was blue) there is no way I'd be giving up terriotiry in NA.  Your only hope of Getting blue to stop attacking there is to reduce him to one or two territiories in NA. But even then, he'd only shift if it was easy pickings in Africa. 

If I were you at this point, I'd set my sights on NA, dig my heels in and hope to win some battles with blue up there.... 

Transfer your units from Europe towards NA and commit them there. 

Spilling your African troops would be a waste.  Think a few turns ahead here, where khaki gets stronger and expands, green make a move, and you've been battling blue. 

You'll want those down there for a takeout, or for stopping someone else from having it. 

Right. Take Iceland (from poor purple) and consolidate in Canada. Don't worry about making purple easier to elim as it's so early, whoever eliminates him isn't getting much.

Right. Take Iceland (from poor purple) and consolidate in Canada. Don't worry about making purple easier to elim as it's so early, whoever eliminates him isn't getting much.

And watch out for Bastardos. ;)

What is the card situation?  It looks like Blue is in a position to take Purple out for his cards.  If So, you might be better off attacking Blue in Scandinavia?