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

191–200 of 242 posts

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#191

Post by isaacremuant »

stakkur wrote: post #188

Having played Risk on and off for almost 40 years, this article sounds...silly and wildly overthought. Oh and, my favorite strategy: capture Australia first, then creep outward, deny others full countries, and create opportunities for other players to attack each other.

Yeah. Risk is broken in the sense that Australia is too powerful if the rest of the world is properly contested so whoever manages it can patiently push upwards and win the game.

I've played variations that have better balances.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#192

Post by Dylan16807 »

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.

I wouldn't have said anything if you concluded "you're not nice" from the first part. But you conclude it because they don't like when someone messes up traffic? That's wrong.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#193

Post by jcelerier »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #192
jcelerier wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I wouldn't have said anything if you concluded "you're not nice" from the first part. But you conclude it because they don't like when someone messes up traffic? That's wrong.

how is waving to the other drivers messing up traffic ?

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#194

Post by Dylan16807 »

jcelerier wrote: post #193
Dylan16807 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't have said anything if you concluded "you're not nice" from the first part. But you conclude it because they don't like when someone messes up traffic? That's wrong.

how is waving to the other drivers messing up traffic ?

Because it's their turn to move and they're not moving.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#195

Post by yetanotherjosh »

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…

Even if the execution was flawed in that it did not deliver a successful gaming strategy or sufficiently complex model of the game, I still appreciated the nature of the exercise. I would love to read an article that takes it to a more accurate and effective system model.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#196

Post by jcelerier »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #194
jcelerier wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how is waving to the other drivers messing up traffic ?

Because it's their turn to move and they're not moving.

... waving just mean thanking by a move of the hand no ? How is that related to moving or not.

Hell, doing it is even an official recommendation in my country: https://mobile.interieur.gouv.fr/Archives/Archives-publicati... ("faites un petit signe de la main" = to wave)

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#197

Post by Dylan16807 »

jcelerier wrote: post #196
Dylan16807 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's their turn to move and they're not moving.

... waving just mean thanking by a move of the hand no ? How is that related to moving or not. Hell, doing it is even an official recommendation in my country: https://mobile.interieur.gouv.fr/Archives/Archives-publicati... ("faites un petit signe de la main" = to wave)

Are you familiar with the term "right of way"?

The complaint isn't about a friendly wave. The complaint is that it's someone's turn to go, and instead of going they wave at someone else to insist the other person go out of turn.

The wave is an insistence of "you go first", not a greeting or a thanks.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#198

Post by gerdesj »

the_lonely_road wrote: post #107
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.

You have just described international diplomacy. For a slightly dumbed down version with working shown: Eurovision Song Contest.

Actually, when I say dumbed down, I'm not too sure! If I was you, I'd embrace the added dimensions that go outside the official rules. Get your Machiavelli on. Get him so pissed he can't see and his alliance with the missus might break down.

Be careful and get some lines that shall not be crossed worked out first if you are going to play Extreme Risk.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#199

Post by skmurphy »

I think the analysis is deeply flawed because classic Risk 3:2 odds favor the attacker see http://diceroll.stritar.net/risk.html

Attacker wins: 2890 (37.17%)

Tie: 2611 (33.58%)

Defender wins: 2275 (29.26%)

out of a total of 7776 for 5 dice rolled (3 on 2)

On average defender loses 1.08 armies and attacker loses .92 for a 0.16 defender deficit per attack. When two large groups face each other (e.g. 20 on 20 or more) it's much better to be the attacker.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#200

Post by pasabagi »

gerdesj wrote: post #198
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.

You have just described international diplomacy. For a slightly dumbed down version with working shown: Eurovision Song Contest. Actually, when I say dumbed down, I'm not too sure! If I was you, I'd embrace the added dimensions that go outside the official rules. Get your Machiavelli on. Get him so pissed he can't see and his alliance with the missus might break down. Be careful and get some lines that shall not be c…

International diplomacy is like that, but every now and then some random soldiers in one of your backwater armies get drunk in some podunk border posting, murder some of the other side's soldiers, then suddenly you have to explain to your nutso nationalist press why a great power war is a bad idea.

(The india-china border clashes are a good example of this. Or that one where a NK soldier killed somebody with an axe. Or that time japanese soldiers bribed a triad gang to attack japanese priests so they had could convince their officers to invade more of Manchuria.)

Post reply on HN