Forums
Subject: 2210 Backstab
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply.

Author Messages
EuropaUser is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:170

21 Nov 2007 6:26 PM  

 


Total Diplomacy Risk Map: 2210-back-stab
Risk Map: 2210-back-stab --- Open Copy in Risk Map Editor

The above scenario was played out in a game of 2210 AD Risk some two months ago.  The treaty in brown between Red and Blue of the Greenland-Iceland border is supposed to represent one of the nuclear blast icons that forbids travel between those two locations, but since this map editor is only for classic Risk, I tried to adapt the game board to those rules.  For those who want the actual 2210 scenrio: Greenland was eliminated from the board as well as Great Britain and Yakutsk by the nuclear blast icons.  Green owned about 1/3 of the moon with forces on the rise and Blue owned 2/3 of the moon.  The water territories between Africa and Australia as well as Australia and Asia were owned by Green, the water territories from North America to Europe were jointly owned by Red and Blue and between South America and Africa owned by Yellow and Blue owned all the water colonies off the west coast of North America. 

The position in the game can be used in the classic game as I have faithfully reporduced how a similar scenario would look here. 

Turn order (everyone has 2 cards at this point): Blue, Green, Yellow, Red and then Black.  In the original game Blue had made a verbal treaty with Yellow and there seemed to be an understood (not verbalised) agreement between Red and Yellow.  Both Red and Yellow were new to the game, with Red having 2 more games experience than Yellow.  Blue, Green and Black are all very experienced players having played for years both together and with other people.   

It seemed to Blue that the natural place to go now was to focus on Asia (and in the 2210 version, the Moon, which is why he had 2/3rds of it).  Since he did that, it was clear he was now a threat to Green in Asia, Australia (and in 2210, the Moon and his water colonies).  Because of that, Green did a great job of using diplomacy to get Yellow to break his treaty and attack Blue in North America so Blue and Yellow wouldn't attack Green in a pincers movement.  Blue swore if Yellow broke the treaty, that there would be no turning back.  Blue and for that matter no one would ever trust him again, and Blue would change his focus to just eliminating Yellow for his transgressions.

In the ensuing melee, Blue was critically wounded, but not out.  He fought back valiantly and was able to stay in the game. In fact, Yellow moved some of his forces from Africa to South America for the fight against Blue and although he won, he was not without his own casualties.  Green took the opportunity as did Black and when Blue had his chance, Yellow was swiftly eliminated from the game, Blue fulfilling his promise.  Not even his secret alliance with Red could stand at this point as Red stayed out of the way for fear of his own safety.  

Blue and Red were the next players eliminated from the game in the ensuing turns with Black and Green left to fight it out for the win.  

In 2210, the moon became supremely important for Blue and Green, the only players to venture that far up there.  It helped to keep Blue in the game but also cemented Green's dominance (he eventually won).  Going to the moon however was one of the reasons Blue made the alliance with Yellow.  The water territories were important to Green's security and Red's attack plans.  Both used them effectively to garner more armies.  Ultimately, only Green was able to hang on to them.  The cards were used judiciously and had an important effect on the game.  Gotta get those cards. 

The questions here are: What would you do if you were Blue?  How would set the table differently so you wouldn't lose your alliance to Yellow?  Is intimidation and threat enough? Would you have even made an alliance with a new player like that, even if otherwise a strategically sound move?  How do you sell a player on an alliance like this and also counter Green's propaganda?  

If you were Yellow, how would handle thigns differently?  Do you go guns blazing and take out Blue knowing he will be your wrath for the rest of the game?  Do you just take one territory and leave it at that?  Do you wait to turncoat or do you attack Green?   

Assume you are Green and your propoganda doesn't work and Yellow doesn't break the treaty, what do you do now?  If you are Red, how do you protect your friend, Yellow and more importantly, stave off early elimination for yourself? 

I appraciate your comments and I will thank you in advance. 

 

 

 


Grant Blackburn
SamUser is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:110

04 Dec 2007 11:06 PM  
I honestly think Green will win but I don't have enough time to read the whole thing.

2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion.
Ehsan HonaryUser is Offline


Site Admin
King
King
Posts:268


07 Dec 2007 3:51 PM  
Treaties can always become double edged swords. As soon as someone breaks one, you are doomed since you now have to sacrifice yourself to teach a lesson. As a result, treaties should be made with great care so that you can count on it.

As you said, Red and Yellow were new to the game. Hence you will have no idea on their personality. My experience shows that new player have a higher tendency to break deals, simply because they think its fun! On the other hand, if a player is only going to play once with you, he always has an advantage to break the deal, because you can't retaliate in the next game. As a result, not having made a treaty with Yellow or Red would have been better. Here, Blue seems to be allied with both, potentially putting himself in a risky position.

One solution is, if you had a choice, to get another continent in the beginning of the game so that your neighbours are the experienced players. That way you can turn the tables and force experienced players to make deals with the new players.

Playing as Yellow, he seems to have over expanded himself a lot having two continents. Its all about timing, and may be he expanded too quickly. Green is going to play defensively and Black is stuck in the middle. The best option for Yellow is to stay put and out of trouble. Africa is a good area for staying out of conflict zones. Maybe he shouldn't have gone to SA. Treaty with Red is also possible, especially if they are new players and feel they are in the same boat. Yellow and Red could follow the passive strategy of Black, by not attacking too much and slowly expanding. Let Blue be Green and Black's problem. If Red and Yellow worked together, they only have 4 borders between themselves to defend which is a great advantage over others. Probably they missed that since they were new.

Its an interesting game and I yet have to discover the new features of the moon map and all the extra rules in 2210.

Ehsan Honary
EuropaUser is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:170

14 Dec 2007 3:52 PM  
I feel like in this game I should have avoided the moon at first and just concentrated on keeping the treaty alive in Central America. I sould not have trusted Yellow from the outset, as Dr. Honary suggested, and instead keep that border strong and expand much more slowly elsewhere. I could have gone to Asia, fortified my position and even continued working my alliance with Yellow. Yellow received a lot of effective propaganda from Green to break the treaty and this is the point that I need help with. Blue and Yellow's treaty was recognized as an immediate threat to Green, so he began working on Yellow right away. He kept saying, "You gotta go after him, if you don't he'll eat you alive! You have to break the treaty before he does" and things alomg those lines as well some other things I couldn't hear. How do you fight against that? What diplomatic tactics do you use to maintain your alliances, and fend off foe trying to sabotage it? Do I promote the incentives for staying in the alliance? How? I felt like my tactics were good, but lost the diplomatic battle and since this is Total Diplomacy . . .

Grant Blackburn
Ehsan HonaryUser is Offline


Site Admin
King
King
Posts:268


15 Dec 2007 1:47 AM  

Anti-propaganda is not easy against someone who talks all the time, though it has to be done and there are techniques for it. I discussed a number of these techniques in Section 6.3.3 of the book. You can use techniques such as, repetition, red herring, labelling, historical facts, crowd mentality, vagueness and so on.

As a minimum you can announce to the world that Green is trying to manupulate Yellow and that this is unfair or not really honorable. By this you would try to prevent yellow from listening or increase the cost to Green as the rest of world might become hostile to him as a result of his propaganda.

I guess, Green must have been an experienced player.


Ehsan Honary
Dan12User is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:81

15 Dec 2007 2:21 AM  
I get really annoyed when another player tries to dominate the game with propaganda and I always find it exhausting to go against them. But I guess this is part of the game and you have to deal with it much like in day-to-day life. In my games, if I see someone who talks all the time, I know I am in for trouble. They just wont stop .... Oh, well, better stop moaning.
EuropaUser is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:170

15 Dec 2007 2:48 PM  
You aren't kidding! Having someone who likes to dominate the covnersation can be a real pain and I have one of those in my usual group. He is very good at what he does and he is a good, experienced Risk player as Dr. Honary noted. Problem with him is, as soon as he wins, people tend to gang up on him because we realize his propaganda has worked against us and as a result, he gets hammered. In the game that came after this one, a scenario I put in the forum entitled: "Thanksgiving Risk", he was the first eliminated and the subject of attack between at least three players at any one point. This goes to show that propaganda can work well in one game, but if you push it too much, it can hurt you in the next game. While that's a nice consolation prize, you want to minimize the effects of that propaganda in the current game.

I think Dr. Honary is right, you need to use counter tactics and anti-propaganda. I think it also helps to put pressure on in the field, since all the talking in the world can't stop the dice and the armies you place.

Now, what would you do if you were the other players in the game? Red and Black have an interesting position in the game and I wonder what they could do in this situation? Lets try to look at this from all angles.

Grant Blackburn
Dan12User is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:81

16 Dec 2007 1:39 AM  
Haha, a Serial-Propaganda-Maker who got what he or she deserved! ;-)

You are quite right, in the long wrong if you manage to annoy people, they will eventually realise that you are not honest to them and you will lose your credibility. It's all about reputation these days.
EuropaUser is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:170

16 Dec 2007 2:33 AM  
Reputation is very important indeed. Having a solid reputation can carry you in many games and is the case in real life. If you are honest or are loyal, then you will be more likely to make deals. Otherwise, you can meet your demise quickly. I was once known as a deal-breaker and as such people stopped makjng deals with me. I also have had the rep as a man who is erratic and that actually served me well in some games because people don;t know what to expect and as such, could not read me. Eventually people liked getting rid of me early because I was known as a tough player. Now, people know I will be honest because I haven't broken a deal in years and I don't plan to. I have found that it is better to lose as an honest player than the other way around. People know they can make deals with me now and can count on it. This took a long time to accomplish and is not something I want to lose. It takes only one game to lose your rep, trust me. My rep does have one downside though: people know they can make a deal with me and sometimes they do so to put me in a bad situation and block me out of the action. This has happened to me in the Thanksgiving game that I posted and I have learned to only make deals that will benefit me and not hinder me. In that game I made two bad deals and I still managed to outlive those opponents!

Grant Blackburn
Dan12User is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:81

17 Dec 2007 1:33 PM  
yeh, completely agree with you. Reputation is critical and very true that your can destroy it in one game. By the way,if they know that you would never break a deal with them, why don't they break a deal with you then? it makes it very difficult for you to trust others, while others can always trust you. How do you deal with that?
EuropaUser is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:170

17 Dec 2007 1:51 PM  

Funny you mention this. I am not totally sure, but I have my theories. Because I have established my reputation as being very solid, people know that if they break a deal with me, it brings with it very serious consequences as I have shown in many games. So I think this leads people to conclude either make a deal and keep it, or don't deal with me at all. I have been very consistent with this and as such, people learn to respect that. Basically, if people want to screw me they will try to make a deal with me that will limit my options (as in Friends Thanksgiving, a posted scenario) or choose not deal with me at all. If they do deal with me and they break the deal knowing they won't face any immediate consequences in that game, they know they will face my wrath in the next game. So far, it hasn't failed. Your thoughts?


Grant Blackburn
Dan12User is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:81

18 Dec 2007 1:17 AM  
so does that mean you just attack them in the next game if they broke a deal. But if they make another deal with you in the next game, then you wont break it, though they still may break theirs. Also do you ever make a deal with someone who has broken a deal with you?
EuropaUser is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:170

19 Dec 2007 8:02 PM  

These are great questions. First of all, if someone broke a deal with me in the previous game, I don't go all bezerk on them in the game just to seek out my revenge. But if the opportunity presents itself, and the trade-off isn't too greatly balanced out of my favor, I will attempt to punsih them there. I also wouldn't make a deal with them in that game unless they prove to me they are worth it and I can be reasonably protected. So what I mean is that I use the previous experience as leverage, always useful in a negotiation. So if the player that broke the deal last game wants a deal this game, I ask them to prove to me they will kepp by sacrificing something such as making an attack they wouldn't normally do, withdrawing their armies from a particular location so I have the advantage and they don't. I make it very difficult to be put in a bad situation again. Usually though it takes several games of them making moves that benefit us both or me directly in order for me to truct them again. If they break a deal with me again, then they are pretty much on the black-balled list until I forget what happened. So that is how I tend to handle it.


Grant Blackburn
Dan12User is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:81

20 Dec 2007 6:32 AM  
Yes, that's pretty much I was thinking. It's as if someone who has broken a deal has to really work hard to prove himself or herself. And that means sacrificing some advantage he may have just to show you that he has now been converted. Though if someone breaks a deal, I tend to remember him for a long time and the element of trust is very difficult to restore. It goes back to that reputation again. Difficult to earn it and easy to destroy over a single game.
EuropaUser is Offline


Diplomat
Diplomat
Posts:170

20 Dec 2007 3:37 PM  
You said it well. It is indeed true, a reputation can take a long time to build and short time to destroy. True in Risk and true in Life. Funny thing though, how do we deal with newcomers? One of the reasons this game went so awry was because of two new players and three experienced players. The new player had no idea the magnitude of his decision at the time and since we last played (Thanksgiving Risk), he already has begun the long process of rebuilding his reputation. When do we believe people again? Should we give newbie's a chance? Or that folly?

Grant Blackburn
Please login to post a reply.
Forums > RISK > Risk Game Strategies > 2210 Backstab