Napoleon's Buddy
Strategist
Posts:10
 |
| 19 Nov 2007 8:34 PM |
|
Sometime in between World War I and World War II, Great Britain, France, the United States, and Japan begain building up their dreadnaught(battleship) fleets. They built them up to such a level that the militarism that had gripped the world immediatly before WWI was repeating itself, causing a series of diplomatic crises. In the end, the Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed, where almost all the world's nations agreed to reduce the amount of arms in their military and the amount they would build. While it did not stop WWII, it certainly did prevent what may have ended up as the "Anglo-American War of 1933" or somesuch. |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 20 Nov 2007 1:19 AM |
|
| Build-up almost always leads to war, as we know well in Risk. And its simple to understand. Once you have the power, you want to exercise that power and benefit from it while you can. Hence it is dangerous when everyone goes that direction, and as this example shows, it is usually quite visible and can be prevented. Lets hope we can spot the future build ups soon enough. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 26 Nov 2007 7:01 PM |
|
| Certainly the case of the Cold War build up can be analyzed in a similar way. During the Cold War, there were many proxy wars fought in Africa, Asia and Latin America as a result of military build up. What is interesting though, was the advent of nuclear technology and the nuclear arms race. The build up of these weapons actually created a situation where there was no nuclear war (thankfully) because of MAD and the deterrence that MAD policies created. This of course is what lead to many of the proxy wars and therefore the Third World suffered as a result. How does this relate to Risk? We don't have the "Nuclear Option" in Risk (unless you bring in new rules), but we do have situations where large powers in the game choose not to fight each other at first so they can pick off the lesser and weaker players and then they can slug it out later. Any tips or lessons to be learned from this? |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 27 Nov 2007 3:21 AM |
|
Well, I guess the lesson learnt is that we should build up armies in Risk, wait for later turns, pick weak players and eliminate them. Cash the cards and follow on with the chain until you win 
Well, perhaps not so easily, but thats the gist of it. Of course you cant quite apply this to the real world, because its not ethical, but you can certainly carry on in a strategy game.
Nevertheless, I am always amazed how complex situations in real world and historical events are replicated in a Risk game and you can usually benefit from the real-world solutions to get yourself out of a dilemma.
What I have noticed as the ultimate solution for a balanced Risk is that no one fights with others. Once the original continents are established, just sit tight and dont fight. This is infact what the real world is going towards (or at least it has gone towards after World War 2) and its beneficial to those who already have power. Too bad for those who dont of course!
|
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 07 Dec 2007 11:40 PM |
|
This is interesting, because your post here contradicts the thinking of going after the strongest player to keep the balance of power in the game in such a way that you cna manipulate so you don't get overpowered. How do you reconcile these two approaches?
The Cold War presented a polarized world, but Risk is almost never this except in the end-game.
What I find interesting is the the Cold War is well represented in the Risk Game as the southern hemishpere (the Third World plus Australia) gets a lot of action and the bigger continets up north have the big action only initially to gain control of the continents (pre-Cold War-Imperialization) and near the end when the stakes are really high, as in what WWIII would have been (thankfully it wasn't!). |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 14 Dec 2007 2:44 PM |
|
Choosing between eliminating the strong player or the weak player highly depends on the game. I don't think there is a universal strategy that dictates either one. In a crowded game, going for the weak player is obviously the best choice since you get to eliminate a competitor from your immediate environment (less hassle for a while) and also may get his cards.
On the other hand, playing in a 3 player game is all about balance and you need to seriously watch the strong player before making a move. So both strategies are correct depending on circumstances.
As for cold wars, I always get the analogy for the build up around Central America. As armies are mounted you can just tell that the only reason they are not fighting is because players don't want to lose armies and fear the backlash that may lead to their elimination. This is much like cold war and it's kind of interesting to know the solution is also usually the same as what happened in history. Just try to bankrupt the other nations by other means. Sorted. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 15 Dec 2007 2:28 PM |
|
| Interesting thought, bankrupting the other player somewhere else can be a good move. Using diplomacy and working on other avenues to weaken the opponent building next you is a proven strategy. The trick is when do you finally move in for the kill? When does it become a good time to move in? How can you weaken the player on the back side to get them to remove their armies on your front? |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 15 Dec 2007 4:16 PM |
|
Well, one method at least is to get other players fight your opponent, hence engaging him and eroding his forces slowly and steady. I am sure you use this method frequently ... At this point the game becomes like a probability game. You just want to decrease the probability of losing armies yourself and putting others in a positions that is highly probable for them to lose more armies, i.e. next to other more aggressive expansionist players. Cold war style army placement helps you to control this probability distribution in the game.
I guess this is a bit deep to think about it, but it's another point of view you can put in the global strategy. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 20 Dec 2007 6:42 PM |
|
| Okay, that sounds good. So I have to ask, is it good to stack armies and get into an arms race with a neighboring player? Having that positioning can certainly tie one's resources up, and as a strategy, that can be useful, but how much of your own resources should one use in that process, if they opt to use this strategy? |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 21 Dec 2007 7:04 AM |
|
| Well, it depends on diplomacy. I discussed this in detail in the book, that you can use the force like a magnet so that you can hold your opponent's armies next to you. of course the actual amount of armies much depends on the balance of the map, threats, treaties and your vulnerability. It should be handled with care, since a large army wants to be spent! It will start rolling sooner or later, so you need to put a cap on it (i.e. every now and then reduce them or redistribute them, post-cold-war style). |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
DearCyrus
Tactician
Posts:8
|
| 16 Jul 2013 9:29 AM |
|
| Really enjoying the line of reasoning in this Post! What is Your opinion of using secret treaties in a game of RISK, similar to those that led to WWI? |
|
|
|
|