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

131–140 of 242 posts

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#131

Post by augustk »

meowster wrote: post #68
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

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

Talking about abbreviations:

https://blog.mitchjlee.com/2020/your-writing-style-is-costly

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#132

Post by em-bee »

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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RisiKo%21

the url works if you % encode the !

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#133

Post by hinkley »

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…

In Civ I’m always trying to balance my attacks so that I get the killing blow on an enemy. If I don’t the AI gets the credit and possibly the city (if it’s a city state they raze it).

Seems like in risk you should let your ally “win” so that they feel more satiated. Like playing the long game in poker.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#134

Post by hinkley »

0xRCA wrote: post #130
the_lonely_road wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hate hate HATE that behavior. Games are games. Obviously you can be unnecessarily rude or cruel in a way that will sour someone's taste for playing with you or playing the game again. But the point of games is to win. When people refuse to act in their best interest or are "nice" its so frustrating because it makes the entire game pointless. edit: In a way, it feels like people who wave you on when they have the ri…

Nobody wants to ally with the guy who always wins. The game group I’m in has one of those, and so for some games I’m the one who wins the most. They expect him to win, so they drag him down, and I win by default.

It’s important in this dynamic that you pick games with a high wildcard factor, so that other people win occasionally, otherwise nobody wants to play after a while.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#135

Post by jcelerier »

0xRCA wrote: post #130
the_lonely_road wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hate hate HATE that behavior. Games are games. Obviously you can be unnecessarily rude or cruel in a way that will sour someone's taste for playing with you or playing the game again. But the point of games is to win. When people refuse to act in their best interest or are "nice" its so frustrating because it makes the entire game pointless. edit: In a way, it feels like people who wave you on when they have the ri…

> But the point of games is to win

games in themselves have no point. The act of playing games may have a point: it is generally to have fun, not to win.

> edit: In a way, it feels like people who wave you on when they have the right of way at a stop sign. It's not nice, just follow the rules and drive predictably. /rant

you're not nice.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#136

Post by meristohm »

x3iv130f wrote: post #47
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.

Smallworld is a great Risk alternative. It polishes all the best points while avoiding the pitfalls. DnD 5E is like the Risk of tabletop RPGs. Just sort of long and meandering without much going on. Shadow of the Demon Lord, Torchbearer, and Mythras Classic Fantasy are better alternatives depending on what level of crunch you enjoy.

Luke Crane helped make The Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, and Mouse Guard, in descending order of complexity. The latter uses David Petersen’s (Peterson’s?) comix-IP as setting and focuses on “what do you fight for?” Despite that phrasing it doesn’t hinge on bloodshed, since challenges are weather, nature, other mice, and ? (it’s been awhile), and can be a game for young kids as well as teens and adults.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#137

Post by smeej »

0xRCA wrote: post #130
the_lonely_road wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hate hate HATE that behavior. Games are games. Obviously you can be unnecessarily rude or cruel in a way that will sour someone's taste for playing with you or playing the game again. But the point of games is to win. When people refuse to act in their best interest or are "nice" its so frustrating because it makes the entire game pointless. edit: In a way, it feels like people who wave you on when they have the ri…

I like the ones who stop to wave you out into traffic, not realizing they're only one lane on a 4-lane road, so you can't go without getting hit by at least one of three other cars, and the backup they've now caused behind themselves has closed the entry window you were about to have if they'd just picked "smart" over "nice."

I'm as skeptical about the appropriateness of rules as it comes, but a surprising number of the ones around driving actually do work to make the traffic flow efficiently!

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#138

Post by jfk13 »

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…

Anyhow, if there's a system or strategy that enables you to win every time.... what happens once everyone knows and uses it?

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#139

Post by j1elo »

distances wrote: post #117
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.

> It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. And to just put this into numbers, BGG ranks Risk on position 19,955. By this ranking there are just shy of twenty thousand games better than Risk. And I agree, I will never play Risk again as it's not worth the time with the competition today.

Risk Legacy (2011) is ranked in position 368. So if that list is of any use, then this variation of the classic Risk must be immensely better!

To be honest I'm curious. The description of the game seems to imply that the game itself changes every time you play it, because some of the cards used should then be destroyed and thrown away from the game box, never to be used again. That, and the game concept covers complete campaigns, not only discrete games that you play once and then forget about it: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/105134/risk-legacy

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#140

Post by smogcutter »

cableshaft wrote: post #58
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.

To people who like area control games like Risk, I highly recommend checking out Inis or Kemet. Tammany Hall, and El Grande are other favorites as well, but are less about dudes on a map than the first two. Shut Up & Sit Down do a very good job selling Inis: https://youtu.be/ElcG-_-gfxo

Tammany hall is great for the first three elections, and then falls apart in the final round when it’s just about counting votes on the board.
Post reply on HN