I'm a bastard

For the last two class periods, our International Relations class played risk. The class was divided into teams, and it became a free for all to complete many different missions. Each side was given an objective to complete in order to "win". What began as a divided class, quickly broke up into desperate nations trying to win, but at least survive at all costs. I found this game to be a relatively accurate and fun version of World Politics. The version of risk we played in class, was much more reflective of international relations then the original game. The reason that diplomat’s risk was so much more realistic, was because every team had separate motivations and goals, the unpredictability of the dice, and rules on warfare which makes the simulation parallel events in a way that is much more likely to occur in reality.

               My personal experience in this game was very different than that for most other people, and I’d like to reflect on what occurred in the game first. I started out on the yellow team with a certain objective, but was given a secret mission as well. I could start a schism, and create a new team if I wanted to. While this divide was very unfavorable for both my original yellow team, and my new pink team, it ended up effected a lot of how I played the game. While throughout, I was interested in playing and wining as pink, the yellow team was wildly successful as well. On top of coming very close to victory as the yellow team, I also formed a bond with them. However, in one of the final rounds, when it became clear that the yellow team was going to be frozen, and had already used their secret power, plus the distribution of property was favorable for me, I finally decided that it was time to break off. In a pleasant surprise, many old my teammates, whom I had not even discussed the schism with followed me as well. I'd like to hope that it was because I proved myself a good and clever leader, and not simply because they deemed the yellow team a lost cause. However, my schism, incidentally not only likely kept the yellow team from wining, it also allowed the black team to win. Ultimately, neither of my teams, won, however I felt that both played the game the best and most strategically. We didn’t blunder into dumb battles losing lots of troops, we used persuasion to often get what we wanted, and our political board was always to our advantage (we sometimes were at war with people that were still allies with us, haha). In reality, before the schism, I had helped lead the yellow team into a place as a world power. Despite our humble beginnings, we were the only team that could realistically rival the blue team in terms of troops and territories despite being dealt a much poorer starting position. At the end of the day, it was a great and fun game and I found it to be realistic and I believe that it is worthwhile enough to keep doing in this class moving forward.

               There were many aspects of this game that I found to be good simulations of world problems. I think that the best happened when I was talking to Ben Soder. He said something along the lines of, “What we are doing makes sense, but I just can’t make everyone else do what I want”. This is so realistic. Just like how everyone had different objectives in the game, in real life, everyone also has different objectives. While America might see the issue one way, and try to convince others to follow, other say, Iraq might see the issue totally differently. What makes sense to one group does not always to another. Even if both sides have sound logic, values and the goals that ultimately are decided based on these values may be very different. This can be very frustrating and lead to violence and wars. This ultimately came to fruition in the game, because each team had different objectives, and thus, different values on what was important. At the end of the game, I thought that I had swindled the blue team. They agreed to give me two countries in return for two troops and sanctioning their war with red. This seemed like a great deal to me because, my goal was to gain as much territory as possible and this deal, would have won me the game. However, the blue was focused on the Ukraine, so the countries they gave me amounted to nothing to them, while the sanctions were key to their goals. While in this situation, both sides profited, it’s a great example of how different values effect the choices we make. 

I also loved how the different teams, had to deal with issues of the value of war and peace. While both have their advantages, they have their drawbacks too. If you enter into an alliance with someone, it takes two complete turns to declare war on them. And similarly, being at war while, it is the only way to accomplish your goals, it is also a dangerous time where you can lose it all. Based on this each team had to very strategically make decisions about allies and wars.  

               I also loved the unpredictability of the game. The dice make the game much more realistic. I play a very conservative game for the most part. I only attack when it provides me a distinct advantage, and I will never engage in a large scale battle unless it is absolutely necessary. This is because of the unpredictability of the dice. Just because you have a lot more troops then another nations, does not mean you will always win. This is very accurate to real life, where smaller nation shave been able to fend off much stronger military forces. Examples are Vietnam and the American Revolution. The dice, were random and made each attack a difficult and unpredictable risk.

               Finally I loved how you can only attack the countries next to you. While this is not nearly as true today with the incredible powerful navies and planes, it still has a lot of good base in it. Due to supplies and troop movement, countries around the world can’t really just move an army and begin in invasion far away. Instead it is your neighbors that you need up fighting and having disputes with. This was really well simulated in the game, because you could only attack spaces right next to your country.

               While I loved the game and simulation there were definitely flaws. Among these were that it does not take into account modern weapons such as missiles or any sort of economy or industrial complex. However, on the whole, the game is about international relations and dealing with others, and that’s ultimately what this class is really about, and to that end, this game does a fantastic job simulating those issues and difficulties.        

-William Chandler