J'attaque
I've recently rekindled a favorite pastime of mine: variations of the board game known as RISK. The latest incarnation of the game I've fallen in love with is ATTACK, an online, multiplayer version available via the social networking site Facebook.com.
In the past, I've been relegated to playing against my family members, constantly trying to prove to my father that securing Australia is NOT the best strategy, or forging informal truces and alliances with and against my siblings, venturing beyond the official set of rules to trade cards for snacks and promises of chores to be done.
Just earlier today, however, I played against a quite diverse cast of characters, including a college student logging in from his laptop during lecture hall and a chap from London who took exception to my tactics. It's live, digital and capable of sufficiently trash-talking and expanding the rules ever so slightly.
And I love it.
My strategy? I've always liked forming an informal truce with the strongest player in North America while securing South America and moving into Africa and Europe from there. It doesn't always work, but it's interesting to see each permutation. It's like watching the World Series of Poker on ESPN each year. I can't count high enough to signify how many different ways I've seen someone playing Texas Hold 'Em start with Ace-King or pocket Jacks and end with some odd collection of community cards.
But there's no reason I should like Risk and similar games. Just like poker, you cannot win on skill alone. It is still very much a gamble, with each roll of the dice this becomes clearer. I suppose it makes winning that much more fun — either through sheer luck or by controlling as many variables possible, winning means world domination, if only at the board-game level.
