They Were Already Dead And Didn't Know It!

[@mitchellsulkess1140]

Number of Players is map dependent. Personally I only watch 5 or 6 player games. The most interesting dynamic of Risk is the psychology and strategy that goes into reading players, thus the more players, the more interesting the game can be.

[@bacon876]

i agree

[@Ejsmich]

Personally I like 5 players

[@Notsoawsomeman]

Me two

[@purpledevilr7463]

I can take 5 guys at once.

[@zselimegmen8714]

Same

[@damianmandras8283]

Me 7

[@alaeriia01]

Yeah, five seems to be the best

[@NotKnafo]

the number of players optimal depends on the map size the bigger the more players for classic i think 5 players is a sweet spot

[@moti5045]

My favourite settings when playing Risk is: 5-6 players alliances on blizzards fog of war-optional map where blizzards are actually important (europe, world advanced) portals always off

[@3nc1ave45]

Yeah portals suck

[@Doggoowner2674]

@@3nc1ave45I like portals

[@Doggoowner2674]

I hat about progressive

[@3nc1ave45]

At least you don’t like progressive and portals because I had a 3 hour round with those settings and I have hated portals ever since

[@npcknuckles5887]

The more the merrier. I like seeing those eliminations, particularly multiple in the same turn. Also, underdog games are the best.

[@CoopsNME]

Pretty sure blues cap was empty for like 5 turns, when they split a 50 stack to take their internal bonus and didnt fortify in time at the end of that turn, they never actually moved it back to their capital

[@-yttrium-1187]

right at the end blue did have a way to win. The card bonuses were big enough that you holding the entire board no longer mattered and blue could farm cards and split troops to cardblock you.

[@Jirodyne]

I would say not quite. It depends on the map, and this wasn't a good map for it. Cause each turn, you have to attack out once, then usually split to cover the new gaps. It would work for 1 or 2 turns. But with this map and CG getting 20+ troops per turn, Blue couldn't do it. They would need to take over half the map, and have a 3 point hold at best. And the second they card traded, attacked in once, they instantly free the Second Capital. If they go less on the left hand side, a 4 point hold. CG just stacks everything in front on the right, and breaks it in on the second or third turn before you get a trade in and left yourself open and your troops split. This map isn't useful for that, and the Bonuses not that high yet. Now if the Bonuses were 150+ each, THEN it would have been worth it to turtle up and deny cards, cause the 3-5 turns to wait and split the troops would be more than the 20+ per turn from bonuses.

[@frctnlss]

40:45 Do you believe that the cap could have been undefended? It looked like they missed their fortify which would mean ~50 troops would have been locked in the corner disabling the retake.

[@theecornerstone8747]

it was undefended from that point onward and he never noticed, would have been hard to know for sure but if he made the guess could have cap ran it at any card trade after that point.

[@ghost_ship_supreme]

It drove me nuts how he just left that blue 1 at the top for like half the match. Also… telling people good game on their turn sends the message that they’re winning…

[@Jirodyne]

I can say, personally, I perfer 6 people games, cause it causes the most chaos. People have less ground to hold, more people who can throw wrenches into strategies and plans, and less snow balling early game. With 4 people, things usually quickly goes down to 1 person holding a bonus, the other 3 don't stop them, and they quickly overpower and win by killing people before they can trade in. Or get sloppy as 1 player gets a luck 3 card trade in on a big swing that takes them out. ESPECIALLY Capital games, where you just need to take the capitals, it's quite easy with 4 people, if even 1 person isn't very bright and get's themselves killed for cards. ^ This is for playing. For watching, I honestly don't think it matters to me. You make good content, so I watch when in the mood for more risk, but don't want to play myself.

[@CaTastrophy427]

5 or 6 for me, I like seeing the 2v2 alliances and when there's almost always one person botting out or getting eliminated early, you just don't get the "I'm trusting my back to you and we wait for the other two to fight one another first" tacit understanding I love seeing

[@RubiconDota]

I think it depends on the number of bonuses on the map. I enjoyed the prison map with 6 players. Since there were 6 bonuses, it enevitably meant that breaking the stalemate or gaining an advantage meant eliminating another player.

[@Lordsam_catkingissocool]

5 for a big map 4 for a inclosed map like mall of the deador castle

[@Nathan_Silver]

I like no caps no fog of war and 4 players. That helps me learn to play when I’m watching you.

[@hornetgamer8980]

Player count really depends on the map. If it's a map I'm less familiar with or a small map, 4. Common standard sized maps, say classic or a comparible size, 5 works (but prefer 6 in classic fixed). If it's something huge like Europe Advanced or Earth 2209 then really prefer 6.

[@mathieuhudon8102]

6 players is best for me because i enjoy early game and end game. I fast forward midgame usually. 6 players gives a way longer early stage

[@throstlewanion]

I think 5 is best since usually one player will bot out pretty quickly, so it becomes 4 players + 1 bot. If it’s 4 players I think it risks becoming a Mexican standoff if a player bots out early

[@ericgraham2781]

There are 4 things I want from the Risk games on this channel. 1) show the map info at the beginning. 2) show the player info at the end. 3) don't edit the video. 4) keep up the good work with your playing and commentary. Otherwise, I don't care if there are 4, 5, or 6 players. I don't care if the match is 30 minutes or 3 hours. As long as the videos keep coming, I'm happy.

[@garrethstegman3487]

I would love to see a 6 player progressive capital fog of war on a large map

[@alaeriia01]

Something like that one map with 100 territories.

[@ahmadmomenai1154]

engaging number of players depends on bonus size i think, smaller bonuses for fewer players and bigger bonuses for more players

[@raysandrarexxia941]

Saying "good game" on the OPPONENT's turn tells them that THEY are the ones winning!

[@parsaghazi8547]

5 players capital mode is the most fun

[@Hello-wo4sx]

all else being equal, I like 5 players the best but bigger maps and smaller maps can make sense to have more or fewer players.

[@sKadazhnief]

I was screaming at you to cardblock blue for so long omg 😭 also the way you say thanks is utterly deranged

[@redolinu7497]

I always only play 5-6 players. For smaller maps such as this one I'd play with 5, so there's a bit more conflict/action

[@matta4507]

I like 5 player games because it can be a happy medium between the chaos of more players and more player v player dynamic as well as a bit more ability to hold bonuses earlier even in cap mode. I also generally find 4 player matches a bit less interesting when you get unlucky and have one player disconnect immediately

[@ordalca2939]

48:04 you could have guaranteed a card trade on 3 two turns previously. Your trade at 45:10 was mixed with a wild, but you also had 3 artillery. Could have just traded the 3 artillery then and kept an infantry and a wild for a guaranteed card trade on 3 on the next turn.

[@Pedroebut]

CG does not appreciate backseatting.

[@Nemesis_edits614]

My favourite settings when playing risk are: 5 players No portals Blizzards (where it works) Europe advanced or world Alliances on

[@michaelshambaugh4303]

4 or 5 is my sweet spot depending on the map but 6 players on a big map with good spawns is always the most exciting

[@samsungtaba7820]

I like 4 players the best

[@owyowsky]

I love 6+ players with normal dice and crazy blizzards. Underdog games are also quite fun 😁

[@comrade_ee]

The content keeps getting better!

[@catkook543]

i feel like you might've been a taaaaaad bit toxic at the end

[@MrKrab866]

I like progressive 6 players with no caps😊😊

[@Zero_The_Crow]

For smaller maps only 4 is probably fine, but I'm more interested in 5 & 6 player games. Longer games without skips are nice imo.

[@Biditchoun]

I think on this map 5 five players would have been the sweet spot

[@yeetedscrub]

I think 4 or 5 are pretty equally fun to watch, but 4 is a bit faster, which can be nice sometimes

[@lurcherluke9197]

The different maps make these videos better

[@keegaroo6577]

4 is fine if everyone stays, matches often get that small later on anyways, but 5 or 6 would be better because of how often people bot out.

[@orngpanther]

Settings: like blind spots, blizzards with 5+ players

[@LimeStone125]

Every map in this game is a visual/territorial representation of locations or surfaces of different objects or places that either exist or are from fiction. At first I thought this map is from that movie where the WW2 germans went to the moon (because of the Helium 3 and other space related locations), but then I saw the Caucasus mountains on the map. What is this place?

[@alaeriia01]

REDACTED is a secret base on an unnamed moon, IIRC

[@kingwilliamtheconqueror.]

I think a variety of player amounts is the lost interesting. Higher player counts do allow for entertaining chain kills and politics

[@everrettbreezewood3665]

When you have 6 players, you eventually get 5, then 4, then 3... Six players lets you compromise. Everyone gets what they want, just at different points of the game.

[@Pedroebut]

Good thought but in reality that doesn't happen, the most impact the number of player does is at the start of the game really.

[@coolandonrs3680]

I kinda like 5 players, so it doesn’t immediately become a 1v1v1 if someone bots out (like what happened this match) as it’s a bit of an odd stalemate-y position. 4 is amazing too, not as much of a fan of 6 player matches.

[@Pedroebut]

Number of players is hard to know, but i enjoy any match where its difficult and you gotta put in some effort. Having wild cards players is fun in the sense that we get surprised or creates that tension of what is going to happen.

[@sly3o]

Looking forward to this. Caps mode is always fun.

[@thibaud1330]

" Akshually you could have won first turn by putting your cap on another tile 🤓🤓🤓" - Backseaters probably

[@Xxantoss]

I think the games with 5 players, one of which is a bot, are the best. Enough players for the politics aspect, and a bot in the mix to keep the game progressing since they seem to always attack every turn... or feed cards.

[@unbasedcontrarian]

I like 4 or 5 players, caps, and, personally, FOW

[@tomothan]

I dont have a preference? Whatever is least likely to make a stalemate

[@jacksoncarroll5245]

4 or 5 is more fun for me, fun seeing the chaos and the political game

[@joeriandries]

you play in weird ways sometimes 😅 "if one player wants to make war with me, i need to go with the other player aswell!" 🤔

[@JPenB]

alot of players = alot of chaotic content.

[@ZeroNumerous]

Personally I like the maximum amount of players, but it's more fun when you have fun with it.

[@Scorv2112]

4 is ok for small maps. 5 is best in general

[@curufinw3]

5 is good, with 4 people botting out has more impact to the match IMO

[@SirDragsalot]

i watch ur vids every morning while eating breakfast and i prefer 5 player bc i think its a nice balance without having to wait to long for ur turn while still having it be interesting and unpredictable

[@antoniotrivelloni8191]

On the regular Risk map, 4 players is the sweet spot. On large maps, more people is better. On small ones, less people is better

[@keegaroo6577]

on capital mode, the more capitals the better

[@skarma9673]

I like watching 4-6 players, but I prefer playing with 5 players (depends on the map too, but often 4 is not enough and 6 too much)

[@SaphiSolstice]

I always think 5 player is most fun except small maps- blizzards are mandatory though

[@Manyfetch]

You kept refusing to break blue's central command despite it being poorly defended. It was very frustrating

[@TomciokTS]

Personally i like when there are more players, so in this case 6, or even 5, because when there are less, if any of them become a bot (like the white player at the start of this game) it just less fun, instead of many players teaming you get bot focusing 1 guy and the 2 guy win

[@ric0h777]

1v3 or 1v4, it doesn't bother me, I just want to watch you play Risk. 🙂

[@parsaghazi8547]

try fixed cards too

[@Kristers.kk18]

5-6 is my favorite

[@goncalo1410]

i like 6 players, its more entertaining when there is a lot of eliminations

[@tonypringles2285]

What is this map based on? Like a game or show?

[@studmcmuffin8844]

Big fan of the 5-6

[@garrettwill1220]

I usually like five or six players because it's easier to chain eliminations in a progressive mode

[@benjiboy1337]

Such a persistent opponent

[@anthonycarless8572]

5 or 6 with 1 bot for some chaos

[@TheAwikak]

Personally i like 5 player but it could be 4 players and a bot!

[@aquashkhar7351]

personally I always play 5 player matches

[@Kruimeldief]

2:39 - The number of players depend on your experience with how often how many players bot out early on. Any match with at least 3 human players that stick around is fun to watch.

[@parkerbond9400]

More players is more fun

[@leonardovidal6737]

5 players is the best imo

[@kormai1501]

personally i like 6 players as its more challenging

[@goatedzilla]

I Like 5 Player Games the Most. 6 Player Games have too few territory holds and bonuses. In 4 Player Games there are too few variables cs there are too many troops per territory from Spawn (3-5 troops) Nobody wants to Break those.

[@breaddboy]

given that there is always 1-2 people botting out, i think 5 is better.

[@velvet6923]

is it possible that blue and purple are played by the same person with two accounts XD

[@erbananito_3843]

honestly I prefer 5-6 players, with only 4 players the game feels too much simple while with 6 players you can have more interactions

[@Jeremy.Mekkaoui]

5> 4 >6 (6 too long, 4 too easy, 5 perfect)

[@AggelosKondylis]

I personally don't have a problem playing with 4 5 or 6 players but I prefer 5 bc 4 seems too little and 6 too many

[@deathstalker22-mu4fk]

I like 4 player but don’t mind. 4 player just cuz shorter to wait

[@mrperson1324]

6 players more fun to watch

[@brokenpencil4313]

I like watching 5 players fog of war and blizzards

[@perkerfraherning5958]

I think watch wise i mostly like 4 players, but playing i prefer 6

[@Badie_Mohamed9966]

What is the game name

[@tirillas6327]

6 players optional

[@slothandgrubtakeover]

i personaly dont care how many players there is

[@rask-o]

Unrelated but my cat’s on me rn (also I like 5 players)

[@ArcaneGhoulzer]

Interesting, you normally get mad when ppl spam you with emoji comments but then you do it bawhahahaha. no hate, much love for the content =P #addictedtoriskcontentnow

[@stormingn4341]

I like 5 player

[@Coinpolisher]

Nao vou ser eu a quebrar os bonus deles, 1 rodada depois ele quebra os bonus dos 2 kkkk

[@regret.moveon2956]

Like the rest of the comments 5 players But 4 or 3 every few time is nice But prefer 5 if you can Plz

[@martynscurfield7138]

Honestly, 5 is better, but please don’t spam so much. I get it, but it doesn’t play in the long term :/

[@Kayn_.]

5 or 6

[@biologicalintelligence9831]

5 players and a bot.

[@lucafusillo5987]

Ayo how are you pronouncing thanks lmao