Forums
Subject: Risk as an analoge to the novel 1984
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply.

Author Messages
Cambus731User is Offline


Tactician
Tactician
Posts:6

14 Feb 2013 3:49 AM  

Has anyone else noticed that when a multi player game of Risk reaches a stage where 3 or sometimes 4 players have amassed continent spanning empires, the situation can often resemble the situation in 1984 where there were 3 giant super-States with core territory and there was a wide stretch of land which consistantly changed hands while the core territory of the empires remained unthreatened.

I played a game once which started of as a 6 player game, but it was eventually whittled down to 3 players all 3 of whom were of roughly equal strength and the game seemede to stay at a stalmate for perhaps half a dozen or so moves where just  6 or so territories changed hands back and forth while no-one dared to open a new front or go for a big push. 

Ehsan HonaryUser is Offline


Site Admin
King
King
Posts:268


15 Feb 2013 5:40 AM  
You are absolutely right cambus. The situation in 1984 is very similar to a Risk game with players who roughly have equal powers. It is actually amazing how George Orwell has beautifully captured the situation. I remember playing Risk games where the game was played from 6 players and we progressed to 3 players as others were eliminated. It just happened that we were all almost equal. From this point onward the game was very stable. Every time a player got stronger (through chance or even through cunning strategies) the other two immediately made an alliance to slow down the strongest player. Once he started to be became weaker, the two allies immediately started to plan for the post-supremacy world; each wanted to emerge as the strongest. Of course, one would inevitably succeed. But then this took the players back to where they were before; one strong and two weaker. The two weaker players made a new alliance (always forgetting all the fights they had just gone through) and the situation repeated itself.

I remember, that we never finished these games. It happened several times and I almost always dread it because there will be no winner, though it is always an interesting case to study.

Applying Orwell's prediction/warning to real world always makes me uneasy. It is too easy to happen and way too difficult to get out of.





Ehsan Honary
ProStrategosUser is Offline


Tactician
Tactician
Posts:4

17 Apr 2013 7:27 AM  
Yes, I completely agree that these stalemate scenarios occur frequently and are very frustrating, but it seems to me that there are several feasible ways of solving it. Theres no reason why the game can't be finished.

Assuming the value of cards are set to 'escalating', here are some possible solutions:

1. Negotiate a firm agreement with the other 'weaker' player. Completely eliminate the 3rd player from the game, then slug it out to the end. Your reputation precedes you as a player, so if both sides have reached a deal, hopefully your counterpart will not backstab you.

2. Which brings us to the second option: betrayal. You (or the other player in the agreement) could exploit a weakness caused by the deployment of troops against the 3rd player. A sudden, full-force, cash-your-cards invasion of your 'allies' continent would easily bring him down, allowing you the 'clean up' the remnants of resistance, so to speak. Naturally, there would be reputation-related consequences with this solution.

3. Utilize your diplomatic abilities (or maybe you just get lucky). The two other 'weaker' players react too late. You've been biding your time, appearing passive and not too strong. A quick re-deployment, along with cashing cards, would give you a force large enough (hopefully) to wipe one player and start the dominoe effect. Its a gamble, but it called Risk for a reason!
Please login to post a reply.
Forums > RISK > Risk Game Variations > Risk as an analoge to the novel 1984