Finding the Sweet Spot on the Risk Meta Settings!

Risk KZbin ► / thekillpetestrategy
Twitch ► / thekillpetestrategy
Discord ► / discord
Instagram ► / thekillpetestrategy
TikTok ► / thekillpetestrategy
Patreon ► / thekillpetestrategy
For Business & Sponsorship Inquires 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

[@-ross3778]

Hey Pete, what's the difference between wearing jeans while riding a bicycle and wearing overalls while riding a unicycle? It's a difference of attire.

[@jp27whodey31]

Top notch dad joke

[@dlckilledmyfamily2027]

Lolololololololololol

[@jochla3850]

Blue and Green spend almost 3 hours for Magenta to get 2nd who just went out over an hour ago.

[@jp27whodey31]

I used to tell my mom patience is a virtue whenever she said it was time to do the dishes😂😂

[@TheTunaNugget]

Spoiler blocker 🚨🚨🚨

[@LithmusEarth]

12:35, I'm impressed that you starting turn 4 in this much of a deficit, is going to result in a near 3 hour game, always something with you pete.

[@FreePete]

Sure would be a shame if I were to give up right 😉

[@LithmusEarth]

@@FreePete You always advocate for playing for your outs, it's also good advice in MTG/Commander. Don't throw it in until you are at 0. You never know how things will play out, even if it looks sunk. There was a game recently where magenta DID NOT BOT OUT, and stayed locked in a corner, until you killed them, they were in it. Props to them, you don't see that often enough. You see the bitch-bot out constantly.

[@peardbear4688]

Shoulda let blue hold, he had a line of least resistance out through italy into magenta

[@belshanaar6317]

I liked the back and forth emoting.

[@ChirpatGaming]

you are very smart player😮❤ Lots of Love from India 🇮🇳 ❤

[@taemyr]

1:30:14 Why not hit the green 300 cap?

[@LithmusEarth]

1:56:38, 2 hours and you move caps, yeeps. 2:27:00 So I started watching this video almost 24 hours ago (roughly 20 hours ago) and... is this the same game where black wouldn't let you have a bonus? It's just been so long... I have gone off and done other things, got my house in order, literally?

[@LithmusEarth]

Is it worth it? Put your thing down, flip it and reverse it (in reverse).

[@Alias_Amar]

Please don't stop screaming EUROPE ADVANCED PROGRESSIVE CAPITALS!

[@TopLevelJiuJitsu]

Im at about 1:48hr and you still have never bothered to go up through Italy to explore the board. Just wondering why

[@kieranwebb1241]

he had no need to, knew where everyone was, waited till blue started working with green or he'd be screwed out of card options. You can see starting troops, cap count (green on 4 most of the time) and if you know how bots love to cap neighbour stack, then green would have to evenly split his troops across all four caps as to not be screwed over by the bot. Cards in the 100s+ well out-generate bonuses etc, so playing conservative kept the Petemaon safe.

[@TopLevelJiuJitsu]

@@kieranwebb1241 thanks

[@SB-ex8nt]

He can yell Europe Advance Pregressive Capitals all he wants. But how *smoothly* can he say it?

[@Vyctor__]

Gosh darn that's a lot of minutes of runtime.

[@Uncledaz]

Preach it Pete... EAPC!

[@kieranwebb1241]

Fun fact: at the end, pete has 18,940 gems. If he were to claim the daily reward every day, it would take him almost 26 years to do so. Oh and Pete... Bring back EUROPE ADVANCED PROGRESSIVE CAPITALS!!! If not, then the only passionate Risk map name recital will be from Kylted videos on ALCATRASH smh

[@TopLevelJiuJitsu]

And 10 mins later I get my answer. Lol

[@jonathanlindstedt4578]

Yell

[@WalkerAndrews]

Hey, Pete! Regarding the Biblical debate, I was curious as to your thoughts on firsthand accounts being considered as evidence. Much of the history that our society has pieced together is based upon firsthand accounts, particularly when talking about anything before the fall of the Roman Empire. The Bible is claimed to be the accounts of prophets and Jesus' disciples writing down their experiences (especially the New Testament). With that in mind, would you not consider it evidence? Most of our understanding of the Classical era comes from the firsthand accounts of Greek and Roman philosophers and rulers, and we still construct a historical timeline based on these accounts. That is not to say that the Bible is true (I believe it to be so, but I am in no way claiming certainty of its truth); however, the same could be said for most firsthand accounts throughout history. Any journal, notebook, or even published piece of academic literature could be based on either malicious lies or unintentional misunderstandings/falsehoods. In that regard, do you believe that evidence must be true? In the definition for evidence you used, it said that it indicates truth, but not necessarily being true in itself. I find that evidence can indicate a truth, and yet be wrong in the end due to an incomplete understanding of every aspect of the situation being analyzed, such as contradicting evidence in a court of law. In order for the evidences to contradict, at least one must suggest a truth that is in fact incorrect. These two questions were intended to be independent from the other portions of the discussion in the video. Regardless of your views on ethics, accuracy, or purpose of religion, I believe these questions can stand alone. Thanks, and I apologize for the length of the comment.

[@coolorphans]

322

[@josefbehrends2749]

Upvote or I sh!t myself!

[@FreePete]

😮💩

[@DeadInside-ew8qb]

💩💩💩💩

[@josefbehrends2749]

Thanks Pete, the 🤴 of risk!

[@lucasfabisiak9586]

So people who read books to seek moral and ethical guidance don't want to do any heavy lifting? Or does that only apply to religious texts? Seems like an absurd position to take and assumes that the person who's reading isn't engaging critically with the text. I'll grant you that there are plenty of religious people who read religious texts uncritically, but I'd say that's just a human trait rather than one that specifically resides in "religious" people. Just look at all the people who fawn over the obscurantist drivel of the likes of Hegel, Derrida, and the Frankfurt school, the people who read and accept whatever mainstream newspapers tell them, or people who are into astrology. I actually found your comparison of the Bible and the dictionary rather amusing, as though one has more authority than the other despite them both being written by people. Wouldn't you have to appeal to some higher standard in order to judge the "correctness" of such texts? What standard are you appealing to? What is this "higher power" to which you refer multiple times? If you aren't willing to ascribe any attributes to it, then what purpose does it serve in your ontology? Aren't text like the Bible collective attempts to describe this very being? Isn't it incumbent on people who believe in such a "higher power" to consider the heavy lifting of those who came before them? Not to do so strikes me as arrogant and naive. You also discussed feeling condescended to by things like the Ten Commandments - treated like a child when you'd prefer to be addressed as a rational being. This echoes Sam Harris's attitude toward religion. It seems reasonable on the surface, but to anyone remotely grounded in reality and willing to observe how ethics are actually learned and disseminated, it appears immensely pretentious and unsophisticated. First, human beings can use reason, but this ignores the far greater power of the unconscious in determining actions (see Jonathan Haidt's work, especially the metaphor of the elephant and the rider). Second, the few people who possess some ability to use reason for determining their morality are, well... few, thus making such an attitude toward religion ununiversalizable (and egotistical or even narcissistic to boot). Third, people are not born fully socialized, rational adults. Heuristics and "condescending" stories are extremely effective for teaching children about ethics and societal norms. Dispose of them at your peril. Finally, it is a particular prejudice of modern people to dress people in the distant past (say, the authors of the biblical texts) in the robes of contemporary culture and understanding. Many don't seem to realize how much more brutal and "uncivilized" people were just a few thousand years ago and that even something as seemingly self-evident to us now as "Don't murder" was revolutionary at one point.

[@kieranwebb1241]

I AINT READING ALL THAT (At least not at 2am after sitting through this whole shabam lol)

[@jadongrifhorst6221]

Well I read it and agree mostly. Good job.

[@FreePete]

Right. I'm glad to see that you don't think I hold an absurd position. It's possible to believe in a higher power and be non religious as I do. Just as it's possible to be adherent to a non deistic religion. I think this is where my actual position leaves you. I find religion to be an extremely broad category and probably structurally integrated into the way we think. It seems like you danced around that. If it is true that the majority of people lack the ability to critically understand ethics (once learned through allegory, culture, heuristic, whatever) then that is a more cynical view of the world than I hold.

[@coolorphans]

People derive their ethics from people around them. It's not deep. You don't need a religious fantasy text that people purport as true to teach someone about ethics. And especially not a religious text as its riddled with prophecies that predict war which people will subconsciously make a reality because they want it to happen because it would also validate their religious beliefs even more. So, no, a religious book written thousands of years ago should not be used as the basis for ethics. I think something like Dr. Seuss probably would be better.

[@kieranwebb1241]

Now that it ain’t 2am and I read all that, I would like to leave a review on said comment’s opinion: “BARS”

[@ShawnForno]

Second.