Live data from Hacker News

Win at Risk by using systems thinking

thesystemisdown.substack.com

51–60 of 242 posts

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#51

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.

Are wargames (simulation of real battles) still a thing ?

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#52
post #46

This is an example of systems theory couched in Risk. You don't gain any special insights into Risk from systems theory as framed in this article. OP/TFA introduced systems theory, then introduced the usual winning risk strategy, and then introduced a lot of required steps like player management / table top diplomacy, selecting countries to attack, timing card cash-outs, boundary holding, and so on without systems th…

Isn't that what systems thinking is? A fancy word for "strategy"?

Kind of? I think you're supposed to be able to identify flow rates and limiting factors and back out numerical / quantitative advice.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#53
post #26

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.

Yes there are better games than Risk. That holds for practically all old games. For example, I don’t consider chess a good game. With good players, it usually ends in a draw which is unsatisfying.

Chess no longer allows draws, and the rules have been updated earlier this year.

https://www.chess.com/news/view/breaking-official-rules-of-c...

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#54

Title: How To Win At Risk Every Time By Using Systems Thinking Disclaimer at bottom of page: The above strategy works “on paper,” but that doesn’t mean that it will work in your next game of Risk.

Yeah this title is clickbait. No strategy wins every time, especially if everyone's cognizant of your one style.

My sarcastic internal monologue while loading the article: "If multiple players use systems thinking, which one wins every time?"

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#55

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.

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.

> DnD 5E is like the Risk of tabletop RPGs. Just sort of long and meandering without much going on.

That's...highly table dependent, even assuming the same set of rules options are in place. And I’m not just saying that whether it feels that way is a matter of subjective taste (which is also true), but that the objective qualities of play depend very much on the particular group at the table. That's true of TRPGs in general, but its true of some TRPGs more tha others, and D&D5E is relatively unopinionated (though not so much as, say, GURPS) while some more focussed games zero-in on a more-specific playstyle.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#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 likely to backstab player A and then emerge as the winner.

I've found that playing very aggressively, and really get as many continents as possible within the first few turns, is the best way to win the game. I always win if I can get 2-3 continents in the first few turns, and if I fail then the game is usually won by whomever did manage to do just that.

Being a turtle or "mongolian horde" as we call it can be interesting, but your only viable strategy is to wait for an opening while everyone else stockpiles their continental forces. If you wait too long, you're just an annoyance to the other players, but you don't actually have a good chance to win.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#57

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.

What does "old" matter to whether a game is good or not? And regardless, are you sure you're not expressing ubiquitous consumerism or ageism?

~50 BP - Othello

~50 BP - DnD

~60 BP - Risk

~60 BP - Diplomacy

~70 BP - Stratego

~100 BP - Contract bridge

~200 BP - Mahjong

~200 BP - Double twelve dominoes

~600 BP - Playing cards

~1300 BP - Chess

~2500 BP - 围棋 (Go)

~5000 BP - Checkers / draughts

~5000 BP - Backgammon

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#58

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.

To people who like area control games like Risk, I highly recommend checking out Inis or Kemet. Tammany Hall, and El Grande are other favorites as well, but are less about dudes on a map than the first two.

Shut Up & Sit Down do a very good job selling Inis: https://youtu.be/ElcG-_-gfxo

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#59

Coming from an economics background, every presentation I've seen of "systems thinking" (admittedly, not a large number) makes it look ill-defined, incomplete, and obvious.

Are you kidding? My economics background taught me to assume away all the relevant facts and content myself with toy models of perfect competition.
Post reply on HN