system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Going for Australia in RISK is an overrated, and usually foolish, strategic decision.

One of the most popular strategies in RISK is to take over Australia as quick as possible and slowly build up. There are seemingly several advantages to this strategy, including a continent bonus card and only only territory that needs to seriously be defended. 

However time and time again, whenever I play RISK, someone uses this strategy and it almost always fails. Here are the most common reasons for failure:

1) No one wants you to have Australia. 
Because the Australia strategy is so popular, more often than naught several players will fight you for control of Australia from the outset. Usually it's because they want Australia, but other times it's because they don't want you to have a bonus. 

Either way, I've seen people waste a whole game trying to take and hold Australia and lose the whole game in the process.

2) The Bonus isn't worth it
Seriously, you only get a 2 troop bonus for holding Australia. While that seems great at the beginning of the game, as your opponents begin massing huge armies that advantage quickly declines. Especially when RISK card start getting turned in.

3) You limit your ability to gain more continent bonuses
Although RISK isn't all about bonuses, they certainly help. By holding up in Australia, you all but guarantee that you'll spend most of the game in Asia; which is notoriously difficult to take and hold. If you're lucky, you can take Asia by mid-game, but even then that makes you a target to your remaining competitors.

4) There's nowhere to run
If you're banking on taking small territories and waiting to turn in RISK cards, you have another problem: There's no where to run. End Game RISK usually involves huge armies and a lot of battles. Since there's only one way in and out of Australia, an experienced player can effectively hamstring your expansion by plunking down troops in Siam.


Now this isn't to say that the Australia strategy CAN'T work; but rather that, on the whole, it is overrated and not the best strategy.

**tl;dr: the Australia strategy in RISK is overrated, CMV**
gpt
The "Australia Strategy" is only overrated if you expect only taking Australia to bring you to victory. Having the Australia Strategy as part of your war chest is undeniably better. A viable way forward by using the Australia Strategy is to place your initial forces in two big clumps: 1 in Australia and 1 in anywhere else but Europe or Asia, preferably South America or Africa. Taking Australia in the first round nearly doubles your troop output for the early game, giving you better odds for your second continent. If you aren't able to take a second continent from Australia, you will have disrupted your opponent's path to a continent for a long time, and will probably have to wait on a cash-in in order to establish a foothold continent. When they cash-in you can sit on your now more valuable cards and take her when she's spread out.

I'd also like to refute some of your negatives against the strategy

>1) No one wants you to have Australia. Because the Australia strategy is so popular, more often than naught several players will fight you for control of Australia from the outset. Usually it's because they want Australia, but other times it's because they don't want you to have a bonus.

Going all in on the Australia Strategy is a dumb move, but that doesn't mean the strategy itself is bad. If you don't pay attention to your opponent's placements and respond accordingly you are making an entirely different error. 

>2) The Bonus isn't worth it Seriously, you only get a 2 troop bonus for holding Australia. While that seems great at the beginning of the game, as your opponents begin massing huge armies that advantage quickly declines. Especially when RISK card start getting turned in.

As mentioned before, sitting on your trade in for the right opportunity is a good move. Australia's early 2 troop bonus allows you to have a stronger contribution in the early game, and makes it so you don't have to rely on a trade in to get a continent or break another's.

>Now this isn't to say that the Australia strategy CAN'T work; but rather that, on the whole, it is overrated and not the best strategy.

I tend to agree. If you can, going for South America is the best strategy because it has more access points for continued conquest of a large, defensible continent in America. However, this is all reliant on troop placement. If you randomly start with no way forward in South America and half the territories in Australia, you would be a fool to not take it.