Win at Risk by using systems thinking • Hacker News Board

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#141

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #88

lou1306 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Up to 3 dice for defence is the standard rule.

The standard rule is up to 3 for attack, up to 2 for defence.

https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/risk.pdf

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#142

Post by drited » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 6:37 PM UTC

alex_anglin wrote: post #120

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…

My experience is that capturing and holding smaller continents early on is best. Capturing and keeping North America, Europe or Asia early on tends not to work well when I play.

Agreed! There's often a little jostle during the starting land grab to get Australia: easy to defend and those extra reinforcements really matter in the early game.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#143

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

ysavir wrote: post #109

beaconstudios wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

BP conventionally being relative to an epoch date of 1 Jan 1950, which is at an ever increasing distance from the actual present, is something of an issue (and while “before actual present” is useful, using BP for it, given the conventional use, is problematic.)

"ya" (years ago) as a suffix is better, in that it doesn't have a conventional use with a particular epoch date.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#144

Post by kens » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

AlotOfReading wrote: post #116

meowster wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It normally refers to a timescale called "Before Present" where Present is defined as = Jan 1, 1950. You see it a lot in radio- dating. GP has invented their own dating system with the same name based around ~2021. Fun fact, there's no corresponding After Present system for dates after 1950. Instead you subtract negative years. E.g. 1957 AD = -7 BP.

That's interesting. The creation date for Dungeons and Dragons (1974) would be -24 BP then.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#145

Post by qznc » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #92

x3iv130f wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dungeon World scratches the itch for me, if I'm going to play anything that looks at all like D&D. There's been a huge renaissance in TTRPGs for over a decade now though, powered by cheap DTP and PDF publishing.

The creator of Dungeon World is a big fan of Burning Wheel. He has a video where he explains why it is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E79DDGdX62I

His point is that game mechanics reveal what a game is really about. Using this classification: DnD is about fighting monsters. Dungeon World is about worldbuilding. Burning Wheel is about character development.

Since people are different, this might help to find the right one.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#146

Post by cbsmith » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 6:46 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…

'The author also claims hoarding cards is “safe” and wont trigger other players to consider you a threat to the balance of the system.'

Unlike continents, cards additionally represent an incentive for other players, so it's even crazier to think it is "safe".

In general I share the same sentiments as you. I'm disappointed this article got voted up, presumably because it uses the phrase "systems thinking" in the title.

In defense of the author, if you actually believe it is possible for you to win any player-vs-player game every time by applying a certain strategy, you clearly aren't doing systems thinking. :-)

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#147

Post by neogodless » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

cableshaft wrote: post #108

neogodless wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Skull, unlike modern European-influenced games, doesn't keep everyone in it until the end. But I think I prefer 4-5 players.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#148

Post by makach » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

A great article, but isn’t the strategy just «if you want to win [in RISK] don’t lose.»

I tend to play with the same people over and over and usually we balance who wins. It’s a great game, should I over complicate it?

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#149

Post by cbsmith » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #65

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…

> If this is a good strategy, I have always played it wrong -- because I've always tried to take whole continents. Its not a great strategy, because it doesn't work. If you are taking only one country a turn and keeping only a small connected corr of reinforced countries with the rest weak, then anyone playing a “grab lots of countries quickly" strategy is going to steamroller your weakly defended territory, and if y…

"Also, contrary to the article, IME while Australia is frequently taken early on, its also a major balancing feedback trigger."

It turns out that in any decent game with decent opponents, players learn what works and adapt. ;-)

At least in my meta, the main reason why Australia tends to get left alone once consolidated is that defending it is comparatively easy that anyone who tries to take it out without first consolidating an overwhelming advantage will be so crippled by the effort that they'll invariably lose the game. So Australia devolves to being this game of "chicken" between the other players.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#150

Post by IncRnd » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 6:52 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…

Notably, I've played Risk with two people, one who taught the other. They appear to make the same sorts of moves in similar positions, and they speak the same strategies. Yet, one consistently wins compared to the other. I believe the missing component is that one plays the game against people and wins, while the other plays against the board and wins less.