In Risk, is attacking or defending more likely to help?

Question

Say I'm playing a friend in Risk and at the beginning she lays down all 19 pieces in Greenland. The only way she can go is through Europe, sweeping my pieces. I want to eliminate as many of those pieces as possible, and I have 9 to lay down. I want to put them all in the only space that can attack her as well as be attacked by her, but I don't know which is more likely to destroy as much of her as possible - attacking her 20 with my 10, or leaving them there and fortifying, so her 20+(she could lay down up to 7 on her turn, depending how many of her countries I can capture) are forced to attack my 12 if they want to move. Suggestions?

Answer 1

Because of the extra dice, the attacker has the statistical advantage over the defender - even though he wins on a tie. I would suggest loading them up on Iceland or Alaska rolling into Greenland with everything you got.

I love Risk by the way.

Answer 2

You should attack that way she won't have as many new armies when its her turn. If you wait for her to attack she'll have a bigger army, beyond a doubt. Attacking however could possibly reduce her army. So you have a choice of fighting more or possibly less. I'd go for the possibly less.

Answer 3

I would suggest defending then counter attacking.

When you attack with fewer pieces then your opponent you are less likely to win the battle. After your friend attacks he will suffer losses and won't be able to defend as strongly.

      I don't attack unless I can win a space. If you win a space on your turn you get a risk card which you can turn in for more armies later. If you attack and don't win a space you have sacraficed with out any gain.