Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Win at Risk by using systems thinking

thesystemisdown.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 242 posts

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#81

Post by lou1306 »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #17

In our gaming group, we decided Risk just isn't that good of a game. It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. Our main plays have been Dominion, DnD, Gloomhaven, Wingspan, and Crokinole, all of which we greatly prefer.

We similarly ditched Risk, or actually, its Italian variant RisiKo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RisiKo!). This variant gives differentiated goals for each player (e.g., "conquer 3 continents", or "defeat the Blue army"), which in principle should make the game shorter. But it also allows the defender to throw 3 dice (if they have at least 3 armies), making battles much harder for the attacker. In our group we theorized that using d10s or d20s instead of d6s should speed up the game, but honestly we never tried.

Edit: sadly you will have to copy and paste the Wikipedia URL, as HN wrongly believes that the trailing "!" is not part of it.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#82

Post by msg »

wiz21c wrote: post #51
Dumblydorr wrote: post #17

In our gaming group, we decided Risk just isn't that good of a game. It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. Our main plays have been Dominion, DnD, Gloomhaven, Wingspan, and Crokinole, all of which we greatly prefer.

Are wargames (simulation of real battles) still a thing ?

Definitely, although the quality of life goes way up with a computer doing admin.

There was a weekly column at Rock Paper Shotgun that covered them (and adjacent stuff like simulation), and lately the writer has taken up residence at a new URL.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/topics/the-flare-path

https://tallyhocorner.com/

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#83

Post by samus »

AQXt wrote: post #23

The first part of the article can be summarized as: 1. Initiate as few attacks as possible 2. Let your enemies break up each other’s continents; 3. Take only one country per turn The problem is that it doesn't explain which country to take, and how to attack without being attacked -- which is what makes the game difficult. But, then, the article suggests something new (at least for me): 1. Find a way to grow in stren…

I often play against bots in yura.net Domination. These bots seem hardcoded to gang up on players (both bots and humans) whenever they manage to take a continent. It doesn't help that continents that are worth holding are usually difficult to defend. I learned quickly to never hold onto continents, especially with increasing cards. When you are strong enough to hold continents, you have pretty much already won the game.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#84

Post by SN76477 »

lupire wrote: post #46
jvanderbot wrote: post #45

This is an example of systems theory couched in Risk. You don't gain any special insights into Risk from systems theory as framed in this article. OP/TFA introduced systems theory, then introduced the usual winning risk strategy, and then introduced a lot of required steps like player management / table top diplomacy, selecting countries to attack, timing card cash-outs, boundary holding, and so on without systems th…

Isn't that what systems thinking is? A fancy word for "strategy"?

It is better thought of as zooming out to see more entities and how they work together.

This video was my introduction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AKHjwvEufg

Derek Cabrera https://blog.cabreraresearch.org/jf

https://thesystemsthinker.com/introduction-to-systems-thinki...

You can dig deep into this stuff, I find it fascinating to see what others may not see through an understanding of how to visualize the problem as a system within a system.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#87

Post by jlc »

cableshaft wrote: post #63
failwhaleshark wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "old" matter to whether a game is good or not? And regardless, are you sure you're not expressing ubiquitous consumerism or ageism? ~50 BP - Othello ~50 BP - DnD ~60 BP - Risk ~60 BP - Diplomacy ~70 BP - Stratego ~100 BP - Contract bridge ~200 BP - Mahjong ~200 BP - Double twelve dominoes ~600 BP - Playing cards ~1300 BP - Chess ~2500 BP - 围棋 (Go) ~5000 BP - Checkers / draughts ~5000 BP - Backgammon

There's a lot of obsession with 'new games are better' amongst modern board gamers that they overlook what's good about the classics and why they are still here today. I admit I was kind of the same way at first, plowing through hundreds of modern games and mostly ignoring older games, but if you take another look at the classics there's some real gems there. A few other excellent games you don't mention are Shogi (5…

I love domino games. I used to play a lot of two-hand sniff (or muggins -- lots of variants). For me there's something aesthetically pleasing about games that use generic gaming equipment -- dominoes, cards, pawns, etc.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#88

Post by simonh »

lou1306 wrote: post #81
Dumblydorr wrote: post #17

In our gaming group, we decided Risk just isn't that good of a game. It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. Our main plays have been Dominion, DnD, Gloomhaven, Wingspan, and Crokinole, all of which we greatly prefer.

We similarly ditched Risk, or actually, its Italian variant RisiKo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RisiKo !). This variant gives differentiated goals for each player (e.g., "conquer 3 continents", or "defeat the Blue army"), which in principle should make the game shorter. But it also allows the defender to throw 3 dice (if they have at least 3 armies), making battles much harder for the attacker. In our group we the…

Up to 3 dice for defence is the standard rule. I think the standard game has several different types of victory, but the one you describe is in there in the British version.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#89

Post by myth2018 »

> and you can’t really know anything without first giving it a name

Just a side note for the sake of curiosity: there is at least one African language (I don't know its name, unfortunately), which doesn't give a name to the natural environment, since, by their perspective, it is not a separate entity in itself. However, they probably "know" the environment way more deeply than most of us.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#90

Post by ryandrake »

chrisseaton wrote: post #75
TchoBeer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newer games are made with the knowledge of older games, so theoretically they should be better. I'd argue they are on average, but there's also the survivorship bias in play with very old games that only the good ones are still commonly known and played.

> theoretically they should be better Lol anything newer is theoretically better?

Yea I did a double take at that one. The software industry laughs uncontrollably at that statement.
Post reply on HN