Risk v Stratego

When you think of games like Risk and Stratego, one word comes to mind:

Strategeries.

Both games test the wits, cunning, and testicular fortitude of the players. Both games pit players against each other in a dance of feint and attack. Both games involve the conquest and domination of land and armies. But when you get right down to it, which is sweeter?

Risk has always been my favorite board game of all time, and as such, I've always considered it the greatest strategy game of all time. But as I mentioned in my last post, I've recently become hooked on Stratego. I used to think it was a pale imitation of Risk, but the more I play it, the more complex and brilliant I think it is. So the time has come to take an honest and unflinching look at both games and decide which game really is sweeter.

Let's examine how each game stacks up in a few major categories.

Strategy - Although it's the underlying element of each game, there's a surprisingly large degree of difference in the amount of strategy necessary to win both games. The strategy in Risk is fairly straightforward. The person able to control an entire continent the earliest and build up the most armies tends to win. Waiting patiently for other players to show weakness is usually a safe, successful strategy, and can be used in almost every game. Stratego, on the other hand, requires a carefully crafted strategy before and during the game. The initial placement of pieces is probably the most strategic aspect of the game, and can determine the outcome before the game even begins. This is in contrast to Risk, where the inital placement on the board is completely random. Which leads us to...

Luck - There is little to no luck involved in winning at Stratego. Apart from guessing where the opponent has placed his bombs, a good Stratego player relies on a careful probing of the enemy to determine the placement of all the pieces. The players control the game in almost every regard. In Risk, luck plays a large part in the outcome of each game. From the initial disbursement of the territories on the map to every roll of the dice during attacks, luck is a crucial factor in every player's path to worldwide conquest. Of course, luck is a factor in real-life warfare, but maybe not to this degree.

Diplomacy - This is where Risk really shines. The constantly shifting alliances among all the players is a big reason the game is so much fun. Obviously, there is no real diplomacy necessary in Stratego, apart from keeping a poker face during play. But in Risk, the flow of power in each game can shift wildly due to plotting and backstabbing among players.

The Fog of War - In real life, it is often hard to keep track of the enemy's movements and plans. In Stratego, this is simulated by each player not knowing their opponent's strategy or placement until they use their scouts or other soldiers to probe the opposing formations. Risk doesn't simulate this blindness at all, as every player can clearly see their the other players' strengths and weaknesses.

Final Verdict - I have to admit that Statego is superior to Risk in several ways. It is more realistic, and takes more adjustments and planning from each player. However, Risk forces players to deal with multiple enemies/allies and creates a lot of group activity. It makes for a very emotional atmosphere at times, and with luck being such a large factor in every game, there is never a certain outcome. So...which is sweeter?

Who am I kidding? Even though Stratego is like a better version of chess, and takes more skill than Risk in many ways, it's hard to top the emotional thrill of world conquest. Stratego doesn't offer the same ability to conquer and hold territory, or allow you to watch your empire grow while your friends' crumbles around them. And is anything sweeter than convincing someone to wipe out your enemy, only to find you waiting to crush them after they are weakened from doing your dirty work? Nope.

Risk is the sweetest.