Forum

Risk Map: 2210-back-stab --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

The above scenario was played out in a game of 2210 AD Risk some two months ago.  The treaty in brown between Red and Blue of the Greenland-Iceland border is supposed to represent one of the nuclear blast icons that forbids travel between those two locations, but since this map editor is only for classic Risk, I tried to adapt the game board to those rules.  For those who want the actual 2210 scenrio: Greenland was eliminated from the board as well as Great Britain and Yakutsk by the nuclear blast icons.  Green owned about 1/3 of the moon with forces on the rise and Blue owned 2/3 of the moon.  The water territories between Africa and Australia as well as Australia and Asia were owned by Green, the water territories from North America to Europe were jointly owned by Red and Blue and between South America and Africa owned by Yellow and Blue owned all the water colonies off the west coast of North America. 

The position in the game can be used in the classic game as I have faithfully reporduced how a similar scenario would look here. 

Turn order (everyone has 2 cards at this point): Blue, Green, Yellow, Red and then Black.  In the original game Blue had made a verbal treaty with Yellow and there seemed to be an understood (not verbalised) agreement between Red and Yellow.  Both Red and Yellow were new to the game, with Red having 2 more games experience than Yellow.  Blue, Green and Black are all very experienced players having played for years both together and with other people.   

It seemed to Blue that the natural place to go now was to focus on Asia (and in the 2210 version, the Moon, which is why he had 2/3rds of it).  Since he did that, it was clear he was now a threat to Green in Asia, Australia (and in 2210, the Moon and his water colonies).  Because of that, Green did a great job of using diplomacy to get Yellow to break his treaty and attack Blue in North America so Blue and Yellow wouldn't attack Green in a pincers movement.  Blue swore if Yellow broke the treaty, that there would be no turning back.  Blue and for that matter no one would ever trust him again, and Blue would change his focus to just eliminating Yellow for his transgressions.

In the ensuing melee, Blue was critically wounded, but not out.  He fought back valiantly and was able to stay in the game. In fact, Yellow moved some of his forces from Africa to South America for the fight against Blue and although he won, he was not without his own casualties.  Green took the opportunity as did Black and when Blue had his chance, Yellow was swiftly eliminated from the game, Blue fulfilling his promise.  Not even his secret alliance with Red could stand at this point as Red stayed out of the way for fear of his own safety.  

Blue and Red were the next players eliminated from the game in the ensuing turns with Black and Green left to fight it out for the win.  

In 2210, the moon became supremely important for Blue and Green, the only players to venture that far up there.  It helped to keep Blue in the game but also cemented Green's dominance (he eventually won).  Going to the moon however was one of the reasons Blue made the alliance with Yellow.  The water territories were important to Green's security and Red's attack plans.  Both used them effectively to garner more armies.  Ultimately, only Green was able to hang on to them.  The cards were used judiciously and had an important effect on the game.  Gotta get those cards. 

The questions here are: What would you do if you were Blue?  How would set the table differently so you wouldn't lose your alliance to Yellow?  Is intimidation and threat enough? Would you have even made an alliance with a new player like that, even if otherwise a strategically sound move?  How do you sell a player on an alliance like this and also counter Green's propaganda?  

If you were Yellow, how would handle thigns differently?  Do you go guns blazing and take out Blue knowing he will be your wrath for the rest of the game?  Do you just take one territory and leave it at that?  Do you wait to turncoat or do you attack Green?   

Assume you are Green and your propoganda doesn't work and Yellow doesn't break the treaty, what do you do now?  If you are Red, how do you protect your friend, Yellow and more importantly, stave off early elimination for yourself? 

I appraciate your comments and I will thank you in advance. 

Anti-propaganda is not easy against someone who talks all the time, though it has to be done and there are techniques for it. I discussed a number of these techniques in Section 6.3.3 of the book. You can use techniques such as, repetition, red herring, labelling, historical facts, crowd mentality, vagueness and so on.

As a minimum you can announce to the world that Green is trying to manupulate Yellow and that this is unfair or not really honorable. By this you would try to prevent yellow from listening or increase the cost to Green as the rest of world might become hostile to him as a result of his propaganda.

I guess, Green must have been an experienced player.

Funny you mention this. I am not totally sure, but I have my theories. Because I have established my reputation as being very solid, people know that if they break a deal with me, it brings with it very serious consequences as I have shown in many games. So I think this leads people to conclude either make a deal and keep it, or don't deal with me at all. I have been very consistent with this and as such, people learn to respect that. Basically, if people want to screw me they will try to make a deal with me that will limit my options (as in Friends Thanksgiving, a posted scenario) or choose not deal with me at all. If they do deal with me and they break the deal knowing they won't face any immediate consequences in that game, they know they will face my wrath in the next game. So far, it hasn't failed. Your thoughts?

These are great questions. First of all, if someone broke a deal with me in the previous game, I don't go all bezerk on them in the game just to seek out my revenge. But if the opportunity presents itself, and the trade-off isn't too greatly balanced out of my favor, I will attempt to punsih them there. I also wouldn't make a deal with them in that game unless they prove to me they are worth it and I can be reasonably protected. So what I mean is that I use the previous experience as leverage, always useful in a negotiation. So if the player that broke the deal last game wants a deal this game, I ask them to prove to me they will kepp by sacrificing something such as making an attack they wouldn't normally do, withdrawing their armies from a particular location so I have the advantage and they don't. I make it very difficult to be put in a bad situation again. Usually though it takes several games of them making moves that benefit us both or me directly in order for me to truct them again. If they break a deal with me again, then they are pretty much on the black-balled list until I forget what happened. So that is how I tend to handle it.