Win at Risk by using systems thinking • Hacker News Board

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#71

Post by TchoBeer » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

failwhaleshark wrote: post #57

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.

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

Newer games are made with the knowledge of older games, so theoretically they should be better. I'd argue they are on average, but there's also the survivorship bias in play with very old games that only the good ones are still commonly known and played.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#72

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

cableshaft wrote: post #63

failwhaleshark wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's a lot of obsession with 'new games are better' amongst modern board gamers that they overlook what's good about the classics and why they are still here today. I admit I was kind of the same way at first, plowing through hundreds of modern games and mostly ignoring older games, but if you take another look at the classics there's some real gems there. A few other excellent games you don't mention are Shogi (5…

[deleted]

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#73

Post by BoiledCabbage » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

projektfu wrote: post #25

Jeff_Brown wrote: post #21

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.

The basics are feedback and a holistic POV. From there anything can be said. But if your strategy doesn't incorporate feedback, it is not a systemic strategy.

I think his point is that "applying systems thinking" in many cases when at least shared casually like this post, frequently seems like some hand-wave that is extremely porous in its reasoning.

Ie that was a whole lot of formality to deduce and say "other people will gang up on you if you're seen as too strong".

Honestly I'd love to see an example of systems thinking that provides a unique insight that someone wouldn't have otherwise come up with by looking at a problem from more than 2 mins.

An approach for thinking only provides value if it produces something different and better than what an alternate approach would have come up with. Every instance of support for systems thinking has either been used as a justification for an otherwise trivial result, or has been a version of the argument of "this person I look up to uses it therfore it's good". Can noone find an example where it actually demonstrates value?

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#74

Post by beaconstudios » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

meowster wrote: post #68

failwhaleshark wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What is "BP"? I tried searching the Inernet but couldn't find it.

My guess is "before present", not sure why you wouldn't use BCE/CE though.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#75

Post by chrisseaton » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

TchoBeer wrote: post #71

failwhaleshark wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Newer games are made with the knowledge of older games, so theoretically they should be better. I'd argue they are on average, but there's also the survivorship bias in play with very old games that only the good ones are still commonly known and played.

> theoretically they should be better

Lol anything newer is theoretically better?

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#76

Post by fallingfrog » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

Not to beat a dead horse but the difference between “try to design society to produce positive outcomes for people in the aggregate” and “put the onus on every individual to succeed on their own and have no sympathy for the portion that inevitably fail in a moralistic or Calvinist fashion” is also a difference of systems thinking versus not systems thinking.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#77

Post by fridif » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

Groxx wrote: post #36

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.

I've found I actually enjoy Risk when played on the computer. Just speeding up army placements and automating the dice rolls, so you can say "attack until N remain", saves an unbelievable amount of time.

oh believe me, i can believe it

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#78

Post by beaconstudios » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

lupire wrote: post #46

jvanderbot wrote: post #45

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"?

Systems thinking is to strategy as reductionism is to tactics. It's about holism.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#79

Post by dcow » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

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 thought, but it was enough to entertain the next section). However, during the discussion of the strategy everything falls apart. “Let the other players fight each other. Win the game every time by not participating and hoping to inconspicuously amass an incredible army such that you can take over half the board and then turn the tide in your favor in one fell swoop.” If this fails the suggestion is then to play the meta game and beg for pity. Not a single piece of data to back up the claim that this strategy wins every time. In my experience it doesn’t. It also happens to be the strategy that most every player headquartered around Russia-Asia ends up playing because you simply cant control that part of the board early on. No “systems thinking required”. The author also claims hoarding cards is “safe” and wont trigger other players to consider you a threat to the balance of the system. Well, that’s just naive either on part of the author or requires other players to be pretty green to not account for the risk card factor. In reality, another player also using systems thinking would immediately identify you as a threat because they would be tracking unit quantity flow in and out for the players on the board and using that to inform their understanding of what constitutes a threat. I think that’s the disappointment kinda summed up: this strategy doesn't work in a game where everyone uses it because it depends on your opponents not paying attention rather than you making strategic moves to win the game. The author does not sufficiently incorporate all the complexities of the game and people to yield a solved game.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#80

Post by neogodless » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

cableshaft wrote: post #63

failwhaleshark wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's a lot of obsession with 'new games are better' amongst modern board gamers that they overlook what's good about the classics and why they are still here today. I admit I was kind of the same way at first, plowing through hundreds of modern games and mostly ignoring older games, but if you take another look at the classics there's some real gems there. A few other excellent games you don't mention are Shogi (5…

One of my favorite games of social deduction is Skull. I got the $10 version but it's based on a very old Skull & Roses game. The simplicity is deceiving, which you quickly realize as you have to make meaningful, difficult choices about your bluffs and bets.