| Author |
Messages |
|
G.I. Joe
Strategist
Posts:17
 |
| 06 Jun 2009 8:19 PM |
|
I haven't posted in a while but I recently played a game of Risk at game night and ran into an unfortunate situation. I was playing with 3 other people, two who knew the strategies of the game well, and the other who understood the rules but very little strategy. We chose to have a random start by shuffling and then dividing up the cards randomly (not my choice, but I was ok with it.) The inexperienced player asked the player next to him if they could be a team until myself and the player next to me were eliminated. For some reason, the player jumped at the idea and was all for it. This left myself in an akward position in the game right from the start. I decided that a 2 against 1 against 1 game would not leave the individuals in a good chance for the win, I reluctantly teamed up with the player next to me. Needless to say, I was in it for the win and never let my partner too far ahead of me. The other team however did not think about the endgame and were just trying to knock my teammate and myself out. This ended up leading to my partner's defeat (maybe I didn't give him enough support at some point...). Near the end of the game, it was clear who was going to win: the inexperience player.
Risk Map: Game-Night --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor
I was playing as Yellow, The inexperienced player was Red, and the other player was Black. I had just made a last-ditch effort to eliminate Black and get his cards, letting me get a set to turn in immediately and possibly cripple 3 of the four continents controlled by Red. I came up short at Alaska after a battle of 28 against 21 (in my favor) that left me 5 armies under my opponent. I had just turned in a set and had one card, Red had 3 but no set at the beginning of his turn, and Black had 4. It was Red's turn and he had already fortified with his beginning armies in the map shown. The way I saw it, even though they had been working together the whole time, there was very little chance of Red eliminating me in one turn and still have enough left to eliminate his ally. Yet if he eliminated his ally and got his cards, turned in the set and received the 40 armies that were up for grabs, he could easily win in one turn. After explaining this, his ally asked why he would go back on their treaty at the beginning of the game to eliminate myself and my former teammate before attacking each other. Red finally ended up attacking me first and could not quite eliminate me, but left me with nothing to fight with and prolonged the game for 3 more turns (it was already about 1 in the morning).
He still won the game AND stayed true to his original alliance, but was this the right decision? |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 09 Jun 2009 2:37 AM |
|
That's indeed an interesting question G.I. Joe and a really good scenario to examine.
As you have stated, the end result for this game was the same, Red went on to win. So the decision at stack is nothing to do with winning in this game, but to do with reputation. The Red player is following a simple strategy which we normally employ in our everyday life; "I will be nice to you as long as you are nice to me". It's the classic tit-for-tat strategy and remember, the best approach is to be "nice" when others are "nice". These terminologies are directly borrowed from "games theory" and what it really means is that the Red player thinks that he will be playing you again (probably because the game was fun) and that in a future game, Red will have a reputation to defend.
However, now that we have established the intention, let's see what else Red could have done. Red is going to win anyway, it is only a matter of either attacking his ally first to shorten the game or stick to his words and leave the ally to the very end. There is however a third alternative. Red can engage in diplomacy with Black. I have done this before and it usually works. It's midnight, everyone is getting tired and the state of the game is almost obvious. All you have to do is to tell others about your options and leave it to them to make the decision for you. For example in this case, Red can approach Black (his ally) and state that "look, I don't want to break any treaties, but I have won the game. I can just attack you and then attack Yellow in one turn and finish the game, or I can attack Yellow and then we are both the only players left in the game, then I will attack you when I have most of the world. I would still win, but it means we just have to keep rolling dices for the next half an hour, with not much strategy. If you are happy I can shorten the game, but it's entirely up to you. I am a man of my words, as you know."
This will show the other person that you still care about your treaty, but if others are tired, you can go ahead and finish off the game. If Black agrees, he wont be able to say that you broke the treaty, because he agreed to it. You reputation is preserved and you have manages to shorten the game.
Anyway, some of my thoughts. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Great Alan
Diplomat
Posts:62
|
| 09 Jun 2009 11:25 PM |
|
That's interesting,I have heard no amazing thing than this.
"Honour and benefit are difficult to gain at the same time."I ever heard this famous quote somewhere.
If I'm forced to pick one only,I will choose "benefit" and throw "honour" away without hesitant.In my eyes,diplomacy is nothing more than a tool for victory.I will not ensure the treaty's maintainace to the last,I only "ensure my benefit".
Hence,if my opponent want me keep the promise of treaty,he'd better have the "strong power".Otherwise,I will certainly backstab him for good.
Maybe this damage my reputation,but I just care can I obtain the crown of victory.With this thought,I easily turn to be the best player in Landgrab Risk. |
|
|
|
|
G.I. Joe
Strategist
Posts:17
|
| 11 Jun 2009 3:59 PM |
|
| Thanks for the insight on this Ehsan and Alan. Ehsan, the one thing that I didn't make clear was the fact that black still felt as though he had a shot of winning even though it was a long shot. He had a set and if Red had chosen to attack me, he would've been pretty expended. This would've left an opening for black to take the 40 armies from his set and add them to his 5 that he had in Alaska. With some very wise planning and a little help from the dice, he could've taken Kamchatka, Iceland, Venezuela, Brazil, N. Africa, and maybe most of N. America. (Black didn't plan very well on his following campaign in the actual game.) That move would've taken 20 armies from Red on his next turn. Whether or not this could've been turned into a game winning move, I don't know, but by Red attacking me, he gave Black that opportunity and that's why I had th problem with it. |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 12 Jun 2009 11:03 AM |
|
G.I Joe, thanks for the clarification. What you say makes sense, as at the end of the game if people have cards and a bit of hope, they are unlikely to admit to their defeat and want to follow it through all the way to the end. If Black is stubborn and Red wanted to stick to his words no matter what, they I guess you have no choice but to sit through the misery ;-)
As you know Risk's end game depends a lot on the experience of the player so even if you are behind, it makes sense to stick around and hope someone will make a mistake and then charge ahead to exploit it. So, I don't think there is a clear answer to the dilemma you presented here and I guess we just have to use diplomacy to avoid it (as I explained above) or simply accept it, and take it as a social activity instead until you are properly defeated :-) |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
|