Game of Risk

Kyle Meyer

Professor Shirk

International Politics

December 13, 2017

Game of Risk

The game of Risk that we played in class was very interesting, and significantly more realistic than the traditional game of risk. This game of Risk had some slight variations, but still had some aspects that were very realistic and some aspects that were rather unrealistic. Some aspects of the game that were realistic were the control of resources, the presence of superpowers and the negotiations between teams. The unrealistic aspects of the game were the way alliances were formed and the way war was conducted.

There were some very realistic aspects of this game. One of these aspects was that when a team controlled a specific country or city, they had control of its resources. This is true in the real world, where it is seen that there are conflicts between two countries for control of territory for resources within the territory. This is seen with the dispute for oil in the Middle East, especially in Saudi Arabia. Another realistic aspect of the game of Risk we played in class was the presence of superpowers. It was seen early on that the blue team was a superpower, with the control of many important territories, as well as many of the other teams trying to form an alliance with them in the beginning of the game. This is seen in the real world, where countries like the United States and Russia are feared, having many other countries wanting to have them as allies. It was seen very clearly in this game of Risk that many of the other teams feared blue, and did not want to have a conflict with them. Another realistic aspect of this game was the negotiations being made between teams. Every team in the class was interacting with the other teams in the class, in order to try and become allies with each other or make a deal to help go against one of the other teams for the team they are working with. This is seen in the real world, where negotiations are made between countries for various different reasons. Although there are many realistic parts of this game, there are some unrealistic aspects.

There are some relatively unrealistic parts of the modified game of Risk that we played in class. One of these aspects was the way alliances were formed. Within this game, alliances could be formed without the consent of one of the other teams alliances, which would rarely happen in the real world. Alliances would also be formed or broken with a team announcing that they want an alliance. With this, a team could have an alliance with another team, but the other team could potentially not have an alliance back with the team. You would not see this in the real world, as alliances do not work like this. Another unrealistic part of the game was the way wars were executed. Wars were executed by just rolling dice, which is completely at random with wins. The team that is significantly stronger should have an advantage in the way wars are executed, to better replicate the way wars are in the real world.

The only parts I would change about this game would be the way wars are executed and the way alliances are made. I think that the wars should better show that one team could have more power than another team when in a war, to better replicate the real world. I also feel that when alliances are made, both teams should initially agree to an alliance, so there is no time where one team could have an alliance with another, but they wouldn't have one back. Overall, I thought the game was very fun and a good experience in the class.  

Final Blog Post: Risk

Cam Hainey

Professor Shirk

International Politics

December 13^th, 2017

Final Blog Post: Risk

            I think that one of the most realistic elements of the game of Risk that we played was how teams were more willing to create alliances or be neutral with a country rather than go to war with them. I feel that it was the most realistic because after the first rounds of the game went by people started to not want to go to war with other teams. I think this was because of the realization that there was a reality that the loses you would suffer in a war could completely wipe your team out. I think this is a realistic part of the game because I think that in todays world countries are less likely to go to war with one another because of the possible large number of loses they could sustain, similar to the game. Something else that was realistic was that super powers and their allies make it difficult for a weaker team/country to do anything. For instance in the game as Red we tried to change the order of teams for the turn. But we were unable to get enough people to vote because Blue was the super power and they had several allies and those who weren’t didn’t want to piss them off. I feel that is realistic of world politics that the superpowers and their allies make it difficult and hard for smaller or weaker countries to have a say or propose something. I think the most unrealistic part of the game was when Pink broke off from yellow. Although pink and yellow were then at war, I think that it was a little unrealistic. I think that if yellow was as unstable in reality it would have had some impact on how they were doing in the game by the amount of territory they controlled or their ability to win a war.

            The only thing that I would change from the game was how Pink broke free from Yellow. I think that maybe something were pink has to them fight yellow to gain any territory would be more realistic. If a country was truly going through a civil was and was dividing then they would be fighting each other and the group that wants to secede from the other country would have to fight for the land that they want. This would also make them more vulnerable for other country to attack them but then at the same time would help a team like yellow create alliances with other countries by offering up things for there help to prevent Pink from taking there territory and breaking free. Overall I really liked the game and enjoyed it.

game of risk

Elif Okan

Game of Risk

The game of risk that we played in class was both realistic and unrealistic when comparing to international/ world politics.

One realistic part of the same was some teams started out as bigger and more powerful from the start while others were not instead of having every team start out with the same amount of territories and/or resources from the beginning. In the world, not every country has the same amount of power or land and there are ones that are bigger so therefore have more power. In the game, the Blue team was the most powerful one from the beginning and was like the United States, China, or another superpower so because of that my Green team wanted to become allies with the Blue team at the beginning instead of angering them and going to war. This leads to the second part of the game that was realistic which is how you made allies. From the beginning, we were at war with the yellow team, Blue was at war with the Red team, and yellow and Red were allies. Because of this, it made sense that Blue and our Green team went to war with the Red and yellow team which meant we went to war with the ally of our enemy at the beginning. Later on when everyone was turning on Red and they asked for our Green team and they wanted us to stop being at war with them and turn into allies, even though we had nothing against them and only went to war with them because of the Yellow team we had to turn them down since we knew if we said yes everyone else would start turning against us then. In world politics, I think it’s the same, if everyone is against one country and your country try to support them then everyone will turn against you as well. The third realistic part was with trying to negotiate with other teams. When the Blue team wanted us to approve their plan and get a yes, they came over to us like they did for pretty much every other team as well to negotiate with us. At first to give a yes we asked for two territories and they said they would get back to us. They talked as a team and asked if we would be okay with only one instead which we agreed to so we ended up negotiating a yes that they needed for a territory we needed. Everyone had different goals so we were all trying to meet them and thought about it even when negotiating which I feel is realistic in world politics as well. Countries negotiate with a goal in mind and make deals that way instead of just trying to be nice and giving what is asked without getting anything in return even if giving what is asked does not hurt them personally.

One unrealistic part of this game was going from being an ally to going to war or the other way around. In this game, we had to wait a turn before we could change it so if you were an ally and you wanted to go to war with said ally you would have to break your ally and go to neutral first before you could go to war. It’s the same thing from being at war to turning into an ally, you had to turn neutral first and then you could go be allies on the next turn. This is not realistic at all. In world politics, you would not have to go to neutral first and would go straight to war from being allies if that is what the countries want or go straight from being at war to being allies instead of having to wait a little first. Also what’s not realistic of this game is that you had been at war to be able to attack another team, in world politics you could attack an ally or someone who you are natural with right away instead of having to be or declare war with another country. Also in this game, you could be an ally with someone even if they were not an ally with you which is unrealistic since no country would call another their ally if the other doesn’t see them as an ally as well.

There are only two things I would change about this game which is get rid of having to be neutral first before going to war or being an ally with another thing and make it so both teams have to agree to be allies instead of having it so only one needs to be which I think would make this game more realistic of international/ world politics.

Review of Risk

Caitlin Maloney

Professor Shirk

POL 143

12/13/2017

Review of Risk

I found the version we played of Risk to be both realistic and unrealistic. There were many parts of the game regarding war, negotiations, and resource control that I found to be realistic. However, I found other aspects of the game such as conducting war along with ending wars and creating alliances to be rather unrealistic.

Primarily, I found the game to be realistic and interesting in the sense that wars were largely based on resource control. Should a team had wanted to attack another team for a specific country, this was highly dependent on the military resources allotted to both teams in the nearby countries. For example, had Team Green wanted to attack Team Blue over the country of Afghanistan, this would only seem reasonable if Team Green had more military forces in the area than Team Blue. As this would better the odds of Team Green winning the war. I found this to be realistic as the United States wouldn’t attack a country, such as France if they didn’t believe that their military powers were greater than those of France. Having a great amount of resources would place America in a better position than France, in order to gain the territory of content. 

Additionally, I found the negotiations between countries to be realistic. As every country has a specific goal that they are working towards. In negations, every country has their goal in mind and will continue to push for it, despite what may be in the best interest of the whole. There were many times in the game where teams would bicker because they felt as though they were being betrayed because an ally would be speaking to one of their enemies. I found this to be interesting and possibly realistic, as it is likely that world leaders would feel threatened if secret talks were occurring. Especially, if there was potential for a new alliance, in which said country may be overthrown as a world leader, much like what occurred with Team Blue in our game.

However, I found the game to be unrealistic in the way war was actually conducted. I did not think throwing dice to decide who won the war was a realistic manner at all, as this is completely random and does not apply any sort of strategy or thinking. Yet, I did appreciate that the number of dye aligned with how many resources a team had in a specific country. Along with this, I didn’t think it was reasonable that teams had to switch from “at war” to “neutral” before entering into an alliance. As there are times in the real world when war can be ended by countries creating an alliance, yet was not allowed in the game.

If I could change anything about the game it would be the way teams have to switch to neutral before switching to an alliance. I think the game would be much for realistic if this extra step did not have to be taken. This adds time to the game along with making negations between extra complicated. There were times where a team would say that they couldn’t trust another team due to the fact that the second team could only switch to neutral from war, rather than creating an alliance. Overall I enjoyed the game and found it to be very interesting and helpful in seeing international relations in play.

        

RISK

The version of RISK we played in class mirrors world politics quite well. It can be seen as a simulation of diplomacy and conflicts. It really mirrors the way a war works. For example, if red has less pieces on Ukraine than blue has in South Europe, it will be easier for blue to get Ukraine as well. It shows that if a country has more troops in one place, the odds of it winning a war against a neighboring nation with less armies increases. Even, though in the real world, countries do not get turns acting, the council seemed realistic with sanctions and votes on motions. It seemed to incorporate well the institutions part of international relations. It also seemed realistic how the teams talked behind the scenes, especially when turning against another team behind their back.

However, this version of RISK had its flaws. The way one had to go from war to neutral before going to an alliance does not really happen in the real world. It made it more difficult to negotiate with other countries because it took too long to get the benefits of an alliance and make a deal with another team, whereas, in the real world, one could simply make an alliance and end a war. It was also unrealistic that we used dice to decide how a war plays out and who gets a territory. With dice, there is no technique, it is all about luck, since the odds of a certain number coming up is unlikely. In real life, countries do not get turns acting. The super powers also were not realistic, because some of them were too much. For example, the yellow teams super power was to make any team win a war, but that does not really happen.

If I had to change anything, I would change how alliances and wars work. I would make it easier for a team to change from an alliance to war and vice versa. It would make the game move faster but also make it more realistic. I would change some of the super powers to make it less unrealistic, even though a few were fine.