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

151–160 of 242 posts

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#151

Post by cbsmith »

avereveard wrote: post #40

there's about 3 levels of strategic play: a player can follow the rules a player can find the optimal strategy within the rules a player can use the rules to find plays that negate easy access to the optimal strategy to the enemy this whole article is mostly stuck at level 2, it identifies a workable strategy analyzing a player own options, missing all the more advanced plays that a risk player should know and will n…

There's a fourth level: a player who can use the rules to find plays that negate easy access to the optimal strategy to a player who can use the rules to find plays that negate easy access to the optimal strategy to the enemy. ;-)

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#152

Post by AncientPC »

IncRnd wrote: post #150
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.

As they say in poker, "Play the person, not the cards. But also sometimes play the cards."

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#153

Post by IncRnd »

jcelerier wrote: post #135
0xRCA wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a question of being nice or mean but a question of being competent and predictable to other drivers.

We have roundabouts where I live, and some people will always stop before entering. This is done even to the point of waiting for people to arrive and enter from the other roads, despite the law being to yield. This causes more problems than it solves.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#154

Post by jacobolus »

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…

Continents are overrated; they are a big source of armies in the early game, but the primary goal of the early game is mere survival, and a skilled player can win without ever owning a continent until the last couple turns. After the early game, cards are where the real threat is in Risk – in particular, the way someone can eliminate an opponent and capture their cards (and when they end up with >5 cards, immediately turn some in in for armies) makes risk a very unstable game when played aggressively.

The best aggressive players wait for the right moment when they can go from minor threat to unquestionably dominant in the span of 1–2 turns, by toppling one opponent after another. The tricky part is the timing (and there is some luck involved with dice rolls and card matches). If you get it wrong and don’t quite take out one of the card-rich opponents along the chain, then (a) that extremely weakened player will be open to easy attack from the other players, and (b) you’ll be completely exposed having used all of your armies on at least one side of your territory in the attempt.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#155

Post by faeriechangling »

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…

My experience is that people overvalue Australia heavily. I think South America is the strongest start the way people typically play the game. You just keep taking potshots into Africa and expand into North America and end up with +7 armies a turn and 3 borders.

I think if Australia wasn't overvalued it wouldn't be bad because there is no real non-suicidal way to stop the Aussie snowball once it gets going.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#156

Post by IncRnd »

AncientPC wrote: post #152
IncRnd wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As they say in poker, "Play the person, not the cards. But also sometimes play the cards."

I was taught early on (in a paraphrased form), "if you can't tell who the loser is at the table, it is going to be you."

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#158

Post by qznc »

marcosdumay wrote: post #18
qznc wrote: post #6

This basic strategy „get a card each turn and avoid losing armies“ gets you from beginner to intermediate. Once every player understood this it once again is a question of who controls the southern continents. The additional two or three armies each turn add up.

The winning strategy is doing whatever the other players are overlooking. If everyone decides to follow the advice about the southern continents, the winning strategy is to get all over Asia.

Some years ago I regularly played Risk with three friends. It always started with a fight about the three southern continents. Of course, only three can get one. The left over player tried this strategy to stretch across Asia, Europe, and maybe even North America. Always careful to not cover a whole continent and raise attention. South America and Africa are in constant conflict with each other so they are busy with themselves. The problem is Australia. That player also needs a card every card and will constantly tear into Asia.

At some point the balance between South America and Africa will break and the northern player needs to intervene there as well. So it is impossible to not be dragged into fights and some armies need to be spent.

With four players there is always someone who will point out to your neighbors what they are overlooking. That makes the game drag on because whenever one is about to overpower another player, two others will intervene. Apart from the cards on your hand there is no hidden information in Risk. So if you play for world domination everything is very obvious all the time.

What ends the game is that the card bonus armies become so huge that every turn there is some crusade across the whole board until some is the lucky winner.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#159

Post by Jabbles »

Risk seems like a game that an alpha-zero-like AI could be trained on. The major differences between Go and Risk seem to be an element of randomness, more than 2 players, and a small amount of hidden state (cards). Perhaps the hidden state would interfere with the ability to train too much?
Post reply on HN