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

211–220 of 242 posts

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#211

Post by bryanrasmussen »

So the article describes the reason why taking and holding Australia early doesn't cause the other players to gang up on you (although I have played with people who definitely wanted to take me out of Australia because of the two extra armies and who were willing to go on crazy suicide marches to achieve their goals) but it does not explain exactly why take and hold Australia early is almost a cliche of 'the key to Risk' strategies one sees about.

finally, everyone here seems to argue that Risk is a terrible game but if that's so why do I generally win?! Next you're going to tell me that Stratego isn't any good either!

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#212

Post by IMTDb »

kqr wrote: post #177
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…

Wait, I must be missing something here. If people are nice to each other and that's a bad strategy, surely you get to wipe the floor win them (i.e. fulfill your objective of winning) and if people are nice to each other in a way that makes them hard for you to beat, surely it is you who are playing the worse strategy by not doing the same? In my group of friends, whether it is Risk or Monopoly, being nice makes it mu…

> If people are nice to each other in a way that makes them hard for you to beat, surely it is you who are playing the worse strategy by not doing the same?

If the arguments that underly the strategy decisions taken during the game purely happen during the game, that's perfectly fine. The issue arises when you absolutely cannot do anything to influence those. Rules of games are designed not designed to account for external behaviours that might favour

Eg: If Alice, Bobo and Charlie are playing a game of Risk and Alice is in love with Bob in real life and won't do anything in the game to hurt him. What can Charlie really do ? The rules of Risk have been designed to give each player with equal skill roughly 33% chance of winning - as they should. But in this case, Bob is almost sure to win and Charlie has very little things he can do to change that. How is that fun for Charlie ?

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#214

Post by noahth »

IMTDb wrote: post #212
kqr wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, I must be missing something here. If people are nice to each other and that's a bad strategy, surely you get to wipe the floor win them (i.e. fulfill your objective of winning) and if people are nice to each other in a way that makes them hard for you to beat, surely it is you who are playing the worse strategy by not doing the same? In my group of friends, whether it is Risk or Monopoly, being nice makes it mu…

> If people are nice to each other in a way that makes them hard for you to beat, surely it is you who are playing the worse strategy by not doing the same? If the arguments that underly the strategy decisions taken during the game purely happen during the game, that's perfectly fine. The issue arises when you absolutely cannot do anything to influence those. Rules of games are designed not designed to account for ex…

In this example Charlie has failed to consider the metagame of "don't be a third wheel"

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#215

Post by spicybright »

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.

If someone waves me on that goes against the right of way, I'll sit there till their arm gets tired.

Unpredictable traffic is dangerous, that's like, driving 101. It's nicer to let everyone follow the rules and stay safer.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#216

Post by spicybright »

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…

You must be fun at parties.

Games never exist in a vacuum of their own mechanics. That's what makes them interesting. Learn the meta of your opponents, not just the game's if you're focused on winning.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#217

Post by andrewzah »

emsy wrote: post #185
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 also highly dependent on Luck and gambling is dumb.

Check out Diplomacy. It has no RNG and each player writes their moves for the turn, which all get evaluated at the same time.

It’s a very long game due to the discussion turns and having to evaluate everyone’s moves… but it allows for exciting politics.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#218

Post by jacquesm »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #197
jcelerier wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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.

I do this quite frequently with bicycles caught between lanes. Yes, it annoys the people behind me. But it still improves the situation considerably.

Traffic isn't just 'other cars'.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#219

Post by markus_zhang »

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…

This reminds me of two strategies of playing Starcraft PvP.

No 1: Play very aggresively in the beginning and use your excellent micro management to make sure your opponent doesn't have enough time to stop your expansion. Sure you are going to lose one or two bases but then you have a full three bases to devastate your enemy.

No 2: Play conservatively, let the opponent expand but grow your available bases (usually only 2) to full potential quickly and devastate your enemy with your big army. The key is to grow your army quickly (you opponent meanwhile is busily expanding his new bases) and to use a lot of micromanangement to harass your opponent (e.g. dropping a squad of marines to kill all drones of a new base).

Ultimately it falls into micromanagement and how familiar you are with the map.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#220

Post by ipaddr »

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…

Your playing the wrong game. The husband is winning points or at least not losing points with the wife by working with her. The game becomes a proxy for your social relationships.

If you want a fair game, play strangers or a computer

Post reply on HN