[ez]

Absolutely so. In fact, after the inhabitant of Australia had won five times in a row, we were forced to connect Eastern Australia to Argentina so it could be attacked from more than one direction. Holding that continent early with only one attack point allowed the holder to fence off Kamchatka, and then go for the three country wall of Middle East, Afghanistan, and Ural. Once the player had Australia and Asia it was over.
At least that was our experience, yours may have been different.

[bagster]

Absolutely so. In fact, after the inhabitant of Australia had won five times in a row, we were forced to connect Eastern Australia to Argentina so it could be attacked from more than one direction.

Blasphemy! One cannot simply make up your own rools. This isn't monopoly. This is world domination!

One day, we FReeQs must get together for a friendly game of RISK.

You, and your Australia strategy, me and my North America Strategy.

#ThereCanOnlyBeOne

While you're holed up in Aus, collecting your two pieces per turn, I will have taken North America, held it, blocked Europe, moved into South America and most likely taken it, and ease my way into Africa, surrounding Europe and threatening Asia, which is still in dispute.

All the while collecting God knows how many pieces per turn. Not two, I assure you.

One of the survivors of the Asia conflict will attempt to flee to Australia and threaten your tiny kingdom. In that way, you will be kept busy while I consolidate and mass my armies.

I will come for you last as you cower behind your sheilas and your roos, eating vegemite sammiches.

Yes. I speaka your language. And that language is the language of doom.

☠

Also, Axis and Allies is way more funner. Ever play that one?

Bagster

[gymbeau]

Sounds like an awfully Risky strategy.

[grey_whiskers]

I always did well going after North America first.