1957 !

:astonished_face:

I thought the attacker got 3 and defender 2. But as you say, it was half a century ago

3/2 started in later editions.
My (at that time) original edition (maybe from 1975 or a bit earlier) had three/three dice.
A newer edition from the 90's that I bought as replacement for the older one (I gave it to someone as I lost interest in Risk in the 80s) indeed had three/two dice as you said. But I have only rarely played that, if ever.

Edit:
I just read on Wikipedia that Risk was originally released in 1957!

Also German Wikipedia says:
"Die wesentlichste Veränderung war die Verringerung der Verteidigerstärke von drei auf nur noch zwei Würfel. Dies stärkt die strategische Bedeutung des Angriffs und macht das Spiel wesentlich dynamischer."

what translates to:

"The most significant change was the reduction of the defender strength from three to just two dice. This increases the strategic importance of the attack and makes the game much more dynamic."

I thought the attacker got 3 and defender 2. But as you say, it was half a century ago

My future self now realizes that it was training wheels for A&A

I played Risk back in the 70's and I am astonished how different the rules are today - about 45 - 50 years later.

What I remember is that as well attacker and defender rolled with a maximum of three dice each, provided at least that many armies where present in the embattled territory. There were three red dice and three blue dice in the box.

And the defender did not have a choice. He rolled 1 die (having only 1 army), two dice (having two armies) or three dice (having three or more armies). The same rule applied to the attacker, of course.
Resolving the dice result worked the same way as it seems to be today however.

... Just another step back into history ...

It raises an interesting issue for things like tournament rules (thinking again in the A&A context) since usually the rules there have different victory conditions, like with the cap on the game round so that players have to adopt a different style of gameplay vs the clock. But then I think for the average person who just has the boardgames in their closet, they will always defer to what's written in the manual. So like even errata and faqs may be disputed when someone holds up the game manual and says "but see, it's written right there!" hehe. I wish more games like A&A and RISK would have a lengthy and stacked to the hilts appendix. Like for A&A could easily have all the setup cards as a page X in the book, or for RISK all the many variants with optional extra zones.

For me the gold standard remains RISK II by microprose, but that's only cause it was what I had growing up. That and the 1993 physical release, which has my favorite color combo!

"The defender then observes the roll of the attacker and decides whether to defend with 1 die or 2 dice."

Unless the rules have changed in more recent editions of Risk, I think this is maybe a bit off?

In Risk I've played both players must first state how many armies/dice they intend to roll, and only afterwards would they then roll those dice (simultaneously) to determine the outcome of the battle. So the situation outlined in the survey would not arise in normal play. The Defender would only know that the Attacker intends to roll 2 dice (ie attacking with 2 armies) but would not know the actual values of the attacker's dice before deciding whether to defend themselves with 1 or 2. If it is a form of asynchronous Risk, say players are playing via email and not a live game where both players are present at the same time, I believe the standard method is for the defender to just always roll 2 dice when available, so as not to delay the attackers turn with defender confirmations for each battle round. A&AO had to manage a similar issue when developing a way to play A&A asynchronously with an order of loss in the profile, but that's not the standard for most tables or tourneys, where the defender still gets to choose and the attacker must sometimes wait for the defender to respond. Or basically if the attacker is assigning the casualties for the defender, that they do so with the defender's best interest in mind (effectively playing for the opponent to save time.) Again though might not be applicable for the specific Q you're asking re: RISK.

ps. Are those the Dutch rules? I remember hearing about them before but I've never played that way. I think there is maybe a difference in how RISK has been played in Europe vs how it's played in Britain and the States which could explain my head scratching. It may skew the answers a bit, as my first thought was 'wait what?' lol

Best of luck!