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

161–170 of 242 posts

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#161

Post by gowld »

j1elo wrote: post #139
distances wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 comple…

Do people actual follow those Legacy game rules that try to trick you into destroying the game?

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#162

Post by gowld »

beaconstudios wrote: post #113
ysavir wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I can see why it makes sense in archaeology, but using it here without any explanation just led to confusion. Everybody knows BC/AD (or BCE/CE if you're wanting to be cross cultural) so using it is just poor communication in this case.

It's trivial to Google and then we are part of today's 10,000.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#163

Post by einpoklum »

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

Different people, or groups, play games for different reasons:

* Sublimate conflicts (it's probably better than physical fighting)

* Learn / hone skills

* Feel personal challenge, tension, suspense

* Passing the time.

* Experience other players' "game-table-side banter"

* Attention diverter from munching snacks.

* Making a romantic pass at another player (it's been known to happen!)

etc. For some of these, winning is part of how you achieve your objective; for others it doesn't matter; and for others still it's detrimental!

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#164

Post by ALittleLight »

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.

If you try to get all over Asia you'll be eaten by the player who took Australia.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#165

Post by slothtrop »

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.

Well Gloomhaven is new, but also clunky. Friends aren't too enthused about playing it because the setup is intricate, and the game takes time if you aren't used to it. It's ideal if you can commit to a weekly game (much like DnD I guess).

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#166

Post by slothtrop »

jader201 wrote: post #124
davedx wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gloomhaven scenarios take way longer than one game of Risk IME. Actually one of its weak points...

Game length and fun are not directly correlated. I can spend 4-5 hours playing a good board game, and enjoy it immensely and go back to it anytime. Risk is not a great game regardless of length of play. Sure it’s enjoyable playing on PC, but there are still many more enjoyable games tabletop or PC. This is true, for me at least, due to the fact that it’s fairly shallow plus it involves too much luck. I enjoy deeper g…

> Game length and fun are not directly correlated.

Not everyone has time for 5 hours of "fun". Let alone when games like Gloomhaven are best played on a consistent basis until it's completed.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#167

Post by IshKebab »

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.

Yeah in my experience whoever starts in Australasia basically always wins because it's so easy to defend. Risk is a pretty terrible game by modern standards anyway.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#168

Post by ummwhat »

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…

Asia can be held if you can also take (or start from) Australia and take Ukraine iirc. It works out to 3 territories defending the entire space. That's literally the same as defending the whole of the Americas. Europe+Africa can also make a sustainable combination, but neither works on its own.

Every other pair has too many connections and no way to reduce to a chokepoint.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#170

Post by Waterluvian »

pharmakom wrote: post #169

Hmmm in my experience the benefit of a continent in Risk is too great to pass up. Either you take a continent, hold it and win or lose trying. This makes the game feel very random.

I find the same thing.

I'm not sure what the term is but I find risk has too few mechanics/variables.

Post reply on HN