Don't Invade Me

FreePete YT ► / @freepete
Twitch ► / thekillpetestrategy
Discord ► / discord
Instagram ► / thekillpetestrategy
TikTok ► / thekillpetestrategy
Patreon ► / thekillpetestrategy
For Business & Sponsorship Inquiries Email: [e-mail]
Fan Mail: PO Box 87537 300 John St. Thornhill ON Canada L3T 7R4
I am so grateful for your time, attention, support and kindness!
Donations are never expected and always appreciated. Thank you!
#Risk #RiskStrategy #RiskGlobalDomination #boardgames

[@LootableCorpse]

The discussion about what constitutes fun and how it is subjective, was an interesting one. Watching Pete's videos and looking at the way each player behaves in this game has been a big eyeopener for me. I love the psychological aspect and because the game mechanics are so simple, what stands out are the players themselves and it exposes the pure essence of strategy for me. Having the option for alliances and diplomacy adds a whole nother layer of depth to the spirit of battle. The downside is that some players do use it to gang up on either the weaker or stronger "enemies". After a few games I noticed that each playstyle comes with its own particular flavor of satisfaction (or lack thereof). I've been implementing the Kill Pete practice of good neighbor and balancing out the board with varying degrees of success. In any case it strengthened my awareness to all the subtle cues that players give off and it's teaching me lots about social psychology in general. I could go on but I didn't mean for this comment to become an essay 😊

[@MrAgj200]

if i’ve learned anything from reality competition shows, it’s that you NEVER turn down an alliance

[@TheDannytaz]

I learned that back in my sand playing years(4-5 ish?). You decline an alliance that's an extra person throwing sand at you.

[@benhicks9481]

Not sure I fully grasped the discussion at times, but I enter each game of Risk, whether Ranked or Casual, to win (not so much a competitive way but thats kinda the aim of each games, there's no points or whatever). I have fun playing the game in general hence why I continue to play it. However during some games I may recognise I am no longer in a position to win, and my aim changes to second or maybe third. I still have fun and can have fun even without winning, you get some really nice games where its been close competitive etc and you come away with a smile and GG even if you lose. There are some games which really piss off lol.

[@ryanvance9423]

Speaking of what doesn't work, it would be cool to see a series where you made the wrong play, explained why it was wrong and then let it play out to show it

[@HudsonHornet250]

I must admit I agree with the whole 'World of Is' conversation. Many times people will blame their situation on things that could be if things were different, instead of what they could've done in the current conditions. I believe it is always better to try and adapt to your surroundings than try and change your surroundings. In Risk terms it's akin to saying 'I would've won if they didn't hit my guard stack on their border' instead of saying 'I could've won if instead of stacking on their border, I attempted to work with them to disarm the border and use troops elsewhere.'

[@stevesartain5804]

Hi Pete. Loved the show. I was very lucky to have an interesting game yesterday, 3 Masters, 1 Expert and an intermediate, I am intermediate to master now, depending on whether I focus on wonning or not, can lose 5k points in a day 😅. I was allied to all but pink and red botted after city taken on first go. I decided to start in SE Russia continent, 1 territory behind me and then a blizzard at top of Asia. By turn 8 or 9 I had taken Russia and was allowed to hold it, and keep gradualy killing red bot who had centre of board. Had a lovely enjoyable game, once WAR started just hit whomever seemed to be winning a little bit. It helped all to have portals, 3 castles were on portals, so the battles were often fast and ranged around the world. I eventually came 2nd, but all but my castle actually changed hands a number of times, I myself simply refused to add large stacks to any caste I took. Pink eventually won, I killed red and blue and missed white and was gifted 2nd by pink, who had who bottom of board. As I say, it was a lovely sane game to play, noone suiciding just because one took 1 troop of a weakly held 1 troop Denaric.

[@TreeCamper]

Red's name 😅. More like General Misfortune 😂

[@Maou3]

I find myself agreeing with you in that argument Although suicides can feel unfair when you get them, from a much more aloof game design perspective, they're far better than bot outs. It's action! It's board politics! Bot outs are just lame and should be aggresively punished.

[@Prah123]

purple played pretty good

[@RomanShowtv]

this is how i play: 1- i play to win 2- if some (noob) hit me multiple times i try to recover, if i couldnt then i make sure we both die 3- if i reach the end game i try to make scenario where my alliances hit each other, or attacking one of them with a small portion of my troops to motivate the other guy to attack.

[@LuciaThur]

Sometimes i wont make aliances in the early game before i dont know my opponents better. Some players can be very "aggressive" with there commands zu HP. It happend to me more than once that such a player would suicide into me his "ally" because i did no hit listen to their crazy demands

[@MargarineMeadow]

There’s still a difference between not accepting and actively rejecting.

[@davidlessenberry8736]

@@MargarineMeadow I agree with you for about 20 reasons. (I won't list them all, unless someone is really interested.) The big one is that you can always "pretend" that you never saw the offer, because something else distracted you. I can't really think of ANY reason to ACTIVELY reject an alliance offer in the early game. It would be different if this was an Axis/Allies situation (real life, not the board game), and this signaled to other players that you are "serious" about a primary alliance. If you are teaming in a 2 v1, this might be a viable option late game to incentivize the other player to attack first, due to turn order. Really, I only break alliances due to fog. I am used to the FtF tabletop game, in which everyone can use any form of diplomacy at any time. In the FtF game, it is very easy to bully people out of Australia, and then use the continent as a "colony" to generate +2 per turn, while you fight elsewhere. Believe it or not, South America was considered the better continent back in the day, because it had more potential with progressive cards. For the first 25 years or so of this game, fixed cards did not exist, nor did standing armies.

[@dylanbordner6168]

​@@MargarineMeadow Interesting idea. In my playing experience, I always took and ignored alliance request as more of an insult and declaration of enemies as a denied request. Maybe its just me..Of course I dont take alliances seriously, I just try best to use them to my own personal advantage.

[@dLOSINGSTREAKb]

I figured it why I'll never be good at online risk, I'll never have the patience to play it properly

[@dnaandpac9910]

Another epic vid, keep of the good work and stay risky!

[@MessiasMC]

Your videos are helping me so much in getting better bro. I am participating in kpo wish me luck 🤘

[@69Jackjones69]

I love to hear Red's comments about what he was thinking during this game 😅

[@EvertfromNederland]

Pretty sure he yelled at the screen "What's the point of accepting alliances if they kill you regardless!?"

[@69Jackjones69]

@@EvertfromNederland is that you, Red?

[@theevening9233]

Good times to all blockers❤

[@user-fc3vu4kg9v]

You said at the end get rid of bot out points but for me with bad WiFi that would be pretty bad

[@dylanbordner6168]

Im sorry bro, but bot out points are a terrible game component which actually encourages botting out. I highly advice you play risk with a secure connection to the interent, Its so much funner imo.

[@Christmasmoose714]

Love the title

[@vincentlamers8976]

Love your vids and the Tool shirt Pete ❤

[@beefheath5542]

My play group for commander shares the ideal that a commander game should go for an hour to an hour and a half. Infinites/combo decks are not fun to play against thats for sure

[@manawearblack]

I reject the premise that you have to choose in the first place tbh, there's plenty of ways to play that are fun and also lead to high winning chances without having to resort to bot scummery, cap stacking/stalemating or any other boring/tedious strategies. Winning or having fun? I choose both.

[@gamers_1]

Great game pete as always 👍❤️🔥❤️

[@landon5519]

I despise the Bot out vs full revenge dichotomy in Risk. Some times, a break gets you a psycho enemy the entire game, and other times it causes a bot that fights your opponents. It introduces a massive luck factor imo

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Yeah we need some way to systematically discourage botting out

[@Sha_00n]

Or just remove the feature altogether. Make someone who leaves auto forfeit after a selected amount of time, like in any other competitive online game. (I know that sucks for people who unintentionally dc due to technology errors, but there are far better options. Also ps.. am I the only one who is still greatly hoping to see an actual game chat system implemented into the game, where you can type in all chat, or make alliances and "whisper" to the other players, make strategies etc. at the very least the text chats should be updated and have wayyy more potential communication options​@@TheKillPeteStrategy

[@-_noble_-2621]

Wut........Is.....Up 😂

[@LastSpartan2000]

Merry Christmas

[@LargeMic]

Responding to Pete's cEDH comment; That's why I always play control. If you try to win by turn 3 or earlier, you get to play nothing

[@user-uf5oo1sq6r]

hello pete i have a Question. How do I know if I should take Australia or Europe, for example? if i have only 2 stake in different places

[@Vaughan4]

Question: what is the point of changing the order of the cards that you are trading? I noticed you dropped a dude on the left of the three cards only to put the dude back in the trade, but at the right side of the order. Does the order of the cards in the trade make a difference, and if so, how?

[@MargarineMeadow]

It changes which territory the bonus troops are added on.

[@Grothgerek]

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the goal of a game. You play games for fun, but the goal of the game is still to "win". Yes, sometimes you can create a different goal (like trolling or beating a specific player) but this are just very rare cases and the big majority still tries to win.

[@sjmoorez]

By the title of your game I thought I might have fought you earlier 😅. Blue player got mad he couldn't hold +23 and I was trying to be diplomatic by breaking his weakest bonus (singular) for a trading zone and then someone sued into me (was SuS collaboration but didn't get to report) feeding the game. Good times glad it wasn't you lol

[@neckrys21]

I mean the biggest issue vs fun in a game vs winning being the goal has a correct answer. "Ranked" game modes are made with purpose of winning. In all games u have casual game mode meant for fun and do what ever you want. And ranked. Which often consists of sweaty try hards trying to win. That's why there are rankings and goals... no debate. Unfortunately the way this game is designed. Ranked is trated as the standard play mode

[@828FrankF]

What up Pete from CHICAGO !!!! More World Classics PLEASE !!!

[@pneumra]

The Kill Pete Strategy in 3 easy steps! 1. Always take Australia! (no Australia no win) 2. Decline alliances! (You must never communicate with the enemy) 3. Attack with all of your troops! (a 5v3 works 72% of the time, 100% of the time) I cannot stress the importance of the first step. If you want to win the game it is CRUCIAL to slam all of your troops into Australia, no matter the cost. With these steps you will get from novice to beginner in two years time!

[@hichembhl8182]

My boy pete 🤍🇩🇿

[@user-lg3hf3bp6l]

mum.. Mum! I'm famous the Peteman read out my comment and now it's on the youtubes. 😂

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Yes!

[@user-lg3hf3bp6l]

@@TheKillPeteStrategy Happy new year mate

[@SandroBR824]

It's kinda funny that australia has became such a old meme by this point. But people still slam each other, ruining their game for a +2

[@Chuculainn9]

Favorite Elton John song?

[@TheRealgoodlike]

U changed the title!

[@LimitBreakr424]

Yeahhhh he do

[@MichaelC1245]

Pete how the hell do you get these games with such obvious noobs?

[@matthewhosier5084]

I don't understand how not communicating with players can lead to more fun. such an odd mentality

[@schongemeldet1]

Algorithm boost 🔥

[@bumlbeea]

5th 🎉

[@moneddi1708]

Erster :D

[@matteokoshi4065]

3 day in a row being in the firsts

[@ReelFishyGuy]

I respect your intellect, however in the discussion of how the game should be played, ultimately I think you end up taking a hypocritical point of view. When talking about the “ethical” point in playing the game because that’s how someone wants to play the game or believes it should be played vs you saying it should be taken at face value and played strategically and to win, you also play the game how you think it should be played and implore other to play in a similar manner. The real reality here is that the game is not designed to be played in a specific manner. The player is the master of their game and can choose to play any number of ways. Strategy games are designed with many angles of play so that if a player is clever enough, they can effectively win against any player of any skill level.

[@RomanBelisarius]

Him imploring others is not hypocritical to his ultimate acceptance that people play according to their own opinion, his expression is only suggestive and performative in nature. In fact it is precisely genuine/not hypocritical when he himself plays according to his opinion of trying one's best to win.

[@ReelFishyGuy]

@@RomanBelisarius you missed the point. That part was added because his logic tells him there isn’t as good of value in playing a different way. This in turn makes playing in that manner irrational. But that half of the sentence is hardly the point of the whole comment

[@Sha_00n]

I disagree with the "hypocritical" comment. I do agree that it is ultimately a game in which people should/do have relative control over their own games, however as Pete said it is a multiplayer, competitive, strategy game. And anyone who is actually good at risk will tell you that other players have just as much, if not far more influence over your actions than you do. There may be different goals for gameplay, however the ultimate goal should be to win, at the very least in ranked play. I mean... It is a STRATEGY game. To play it foolishly without strategy may be fun for some, but as I'm sure most of the players who are trying to play the game in a way that agrees with what the peteman calls "correctly" is an unarguable point. It's just not only unfulfilling for the players who are (intentionally) throwing and not getting better at the game, but it is also somewhat infuriating for us who are playing strategically. Like, imagine trying to play any competitive game, or even a sport, and getting matched against people who are only screwing around. There are multiple game modes in the game for a reason... If they are just going to screw around and "play for fun" then maybe they should not be playing in the ranked settings.

[@user-iu8mt8ow1p]

What the fuck are you talking about, he is playing a game. Dont get too political about this.

[@eianex1329]

​@@ReelFishyGuy​@Sha_00n ​@nix4110 All right, after reading your messages I have news for you all: all of you are right! But all of you are talking about different things! 1- The word hypocritical is a little to harsh sounding in the eyes of @Sha_00n - @ReelFishyGuy, his main point is that the change in strategy is an adaptation to the circumstances rather than a throw of one's own optimal play. 2- It is true that you are not following your own advice when switching to punish an opponent rather than playing GTO @ReelFishyGuy 3- @nix4110 even though it is true that opponents can make a difference, at a GM level in risk (I am one of those as info) you can deal with very complex situations, even win 2v1s. So yeah, if all the board comes after you, you will lose. But if everyone plays true FFA your skill is what determines your 'medium' results in those games - aka your ELO points inside the game's ranking system. In conclusion: no, the victory of a player is not randomly emergent from it's opponents bad decisions but from his ability to choose the correct ones adapting to the board. There is indeed a "mental" Meta strategy at high levels of Risk - Master and GM level, but because the games usually take a lot of time to play, when you see a noob playing sub-optimally, you change and take 2nd in order to accelerate the process and later on start a new game. This option is taken only when an opponent already fucked you up so hard it would require a titanical effort and time to change the winds of the game and is just not worthy. And because of that, is indeed not hypocritical but time saving.

[@LithmusEarth]

7:33 what the hell is red doing?! this looks like terrible playing? I can't tell I watch a lot of progressive from you. If he's going for north America, shouldn't he be making a big stack to topple the three pillars, around him. Also this Purple fighting Australia stuff. 8:32 Glad to hear about this. So many of these games are you just schooling noobs. More vs. Intermediate and Expert fights are interesting. Masters are just too rare.