sophie
Break My Heart
Meh. I didn't really have a problem with the Napoleon inclusion; more with the other two. That and those three characters seem to be all most Americans know of French history. So yes, I suppose that makes me a hipster.
If you had to take over the world, what country would you invade first?
- Thread starter ShahJahanII
- Start date
Meh. I didn't really have a problem with the Napoleon inclusion; more with the other two. That and those three characters seem to be all most Americans know of French history. So yes, I suppose that makes me a hipster.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
To be fair, Charlemagne isn't really French, and Jeanne d'Arc really got lucky. The French army WAS capable of driving the English out even then, they just had their morale sunk so far down the Devil was looking at it.
But you really think that if I referenced Richelieu or the Sun King, people would get it?
Ryukyu's not a country.
Once I liberate them from the imperial Japanese occupiers it will be.
Well, in that particular part of the Hundred Years' War, the problem was less morale and more that France was inconveniently fighting a civil war at the same time as it was fighting the English. After Henry V conquered basically all of the parts of France that mattered before his untimely death, the Armagnacs were up a creek in real terms, not just in psychological terms. Jeanne was a part - a relevant part, possibly even an integral part, but just a part - of a general French revival behind the leadership of the Armagnacs and a corresponding collapse in the English military position. The army that eventually won the war was not forged by her; the creation of the compagnies d'ordonnances and the development of a strong artillery arm were down to a lot of people, and if any one of them might be highlighted it was Jean Bureau, not Jeanne of Domremy. So even if the army of Charles VII and the Spider King was particularly fearsome - and I dunno that I'd go that far - it was certainly not Jeanne's army.
The Sun King? Sure, why not?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Fixed that for ye.
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
I will build my headquarters in Kyrgyzstan. You can't send out orders to attack a country you can't spell.
Or Cagliostro. I hear they have good security.
Or Cagliostro. I hear they have good security.
Armagnac, not just Valois.Fixed that for ye.
Disgustipated
Deity
cool, I started a discussion of French military history. 
As for taking over the world, I do believe it is impossible. Who got the most? I think the Mongols had the largest land empire. But even that is a small fraction of the world.
As for taking over the world, I do believe it is impossible. Who got the most? I think the Mongols had the largest land empire. But even that is a small fraction of the world.
Kraznaya
Princeps
I would start in Kazakhstan because it is in the Heartland and the geographic pivot of history. Everything else is marginal.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Suitably amended.
Kraznaya
Princeps
Damn, that's what I get for not reading the entire thread.
But Russia sounds way too valuable in other contexts to make a suitably salient point anyway.
But Russia sounds way too valuable in other contexts to make a suitably salient point anyway.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Winning Risk invariably came down to controlling Asia.
sophie
Break My Heart
Never fight a land war in Asia.
I don't know who last talked about Risk, but they had it right; get control of either Oceania or SA, and then use that as a spring board for taking NA or Europe (or Africa, though Africa is a little tougher to hold on to). Once you get a solid hold on NA or Europe + either SA or Oceania the game is over.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Trying to get Asia at the outset was almost always futile. But it was the end goal. If you controlled Asia, you won.
sophie
Break My Heart
The problem with trying to get a hold of Asia is that it's damned difficult to hold on to. You have to maintain a presence on all the provinces and other players have a lot of avenues through which to play spoiler. What's more, even if you manage to secure Asia, your total holdings will still grant you 1-2 less pieces per turn than someone who holds a combination of, say the Americas or Africa+Europe, or hell, any of those and Oceania. Moreover, someone who has the latter continents will doubtless have been getting the improved troop outputs for many more turns than you have, and they're in a perfect position to play spoiler, especially from America or Europe, and if you lose control of Asia, even for one turn, the troop disparity will make the end inevitable, barring crappy dice rolls. F*** dice rolls.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Europe to me is the pig . 4 borders minimum , always under the pump from the jackass who has America , having to defend western Europe from attack from Brazil (???) .
If I have Oceania , then instead of trying to get all Asia too soon I like to get Kamchatka , Alaska if possible and defend with a pincer movement ( Siberia and one other I can't remember) . It's surprising how much of Asia can be held with just 2 borders , the big downside being you ain't getting your 7 per turn , but if it's stopping someone holding north America it kind of balances .
Then you can work towards grabbing "the hub" and "the baseplate" of Asia , china and middle east.......Ukraine completes the triumvirate and it's game .
If I have Oceania , then instead of trying to get all Asia too soon I like to get Kamchatka , Alaska if possible and defend with a pincer movement ( Siberia and one other I can't remember) . It's surprising how much of Asia can be held with just 2 borders , the big downside being you ain't getting your 7 per turn , but if it's stopping someone holding north America it kind of balances .
Then you can work towards grabbing "the hub" and "the baseplate" of Asia , china and middle east.......Ukraine completes the triumvirate and it's game .
Similar threads
