Win at Risk by using systems thinking • Hacker News Board

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#101

Post by ganzuul » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

dcow wrote: post #79

What a clickbait article. I’m really disappointed. The premise is interesting: win every time using a new strategy. Then, discussion about the concept and preview of the “systems thinking” mentality. Not too bad (although the bathtub example was a pretty weak way to advocate for systems thinking, maybe that’s just me but it seems even in that example to be an overly reductive and not terribly insightful method of tho…

Cybernetics is a much cooler word anyway. Deals with functions, while systems theory deals with objects.

IM!HO, object-oriented thinking doesn't work in complex environments. - You tell a duck by its quack.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#102

Post by aphextron » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

Or just take Australia

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#103

Post by ghostly_s » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

hpoe wrote: post #98

callamdelaney wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience players are happy to unite against me. Usually I take Australia and move into Asia when I’ve amassed enough forces. Then my strategy moves to holding asia at 3 points, while I disrupt the continental bonuses of my opponents between turns. Africa, Europe and North America can be disrupted from this position.

So take it from a young man who spent way too much of one summer playing Risk on the computer, you don't want to take Australia, the problem with Australia is that there is no good way to go from Aussie to anywhere else because the only thing next to you is Asia so someone else can solidify gains somewhere else, and Aussie only gives you 2 more reinforcements, not enough to get you a decisive enough edge to move out…

I think this depends on the map. If you're playing with Antarctica, Australia has a good route to South America and Africa

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#104

Post by canadianfella » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

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…

For?

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#105

Post by awillen » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:10 PM UTC

fridif wrote: post #77

Groxx wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found I actually enjoy Risk when played on the computer. Just speeding up army placements and automating the dice rolls, so you can say "attack until N remain", saves an unbelievable amount of time.

oh believe me, i can believe it

oh believe me, I believe you

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#106

Post by cletus » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

paulluuk wrote: post #56

This article suggests that you should not play too aggressive and not take continents too early (maximizing Reinforcing Feedback), because other players will then unite against you (Balancing Feedback). However, this article fails to understand that in Risk, most players are not willing to unite. In fact, if player A and player B decide to unite against me and player A had his turn and stopped me, player B is highly…

When I read stories like this I always wonder how much of this is groupthink. Speaking as someone who has played a ton of different, complex games over many years, groupthink can be really pervasive and often explains why someone swears a particular strategy is dominant.

I don’t play Risk so can’t speak this specific example. I suspect if you took your strategy elsewhere your get far more boxed results however.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#107

Post by the_lonely_road » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

paulluuk wrote: post #56

This article suggests that you should not play too aggressive and not take continents too early (maximizing Reinforcing Feedback), because other players will then unite against you (Balancing Feedback). However, this article fails to understand that in Risk, most players are not willing to unite. In fact, if player A and player B decide to unite against me and player A had his turn and stopped me, player B is highly…

Might just be a friend group thing but I will also add on that very few games of risk I ever played didn’t involve some level of ‘meta’ strategy like a husband/wife not attacking each other or that guy that doesn’t like you refusing an obviously mutually beneficial alliance.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#108

Post by cableshaft » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

neogodless wrote: post #80

cableshaft wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One of my favorite games of social deduction is Skull. I got the $10 version but it's based on a very old Skull & Roses game. The simplicity is deceiving, which you quickly realize as you have to make meaningful, difficult choices about your bluffs and bets.

Skull has more going on for it than it seems like it should for its super simple components, but at the same time I only ever seem to play it with 6 players, and the game feels to me like it outstays its welcome after about 20-30 minutes and those 6 player games always seem to take 45 minutes to an hour to play out, at least with the various groups I've played it with. I'm usually pretty bored by the end of it.

Coup, while more complicated, is a similar game that never seems to last that long, even with 6 players (usually closer to 10-15 minutes for that).

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#109

Post by ysavir » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #74

meowster wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "BP"? I tried searching the Inernet but couldn't find it.

My guess is "before present", not sure why you wouldn't use BCE/CE though.

BP (when properly explained) emphasizes that the important aspect of the timeline is its relativity to the current time.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#110

Post by lanstin » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #96

TchoBeer wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New things are made with the knowledge of old things, and old things aren't. Unless more knowledge about what you're making could lead to a worse product, then newer things will on average be better than older things.

Does this theory hold in practice when you look around you in the real world? Was the best work of all fields - cinema, art, music, architecture, literature, all from the last year?

I find the production of bad movies to be such an interesting issue. Lot of money, lots of highly skilled people, long time, it still some how you get really bad results fairly often. It is a lesson in humility for any ambitious endeavor I think.