So, another week has gone by in SIS 105, with us successfully (?) completing our game of Diplomatic Risk. I say successfully with hesitancy because based on the rules of the game and the conditions for victory, none of the teams officially won. Black had to end the game with all teams at peace; we ended with Red and Yellow at war against Green and Brown. Brown needed to capture nine territories; despite a successful campaign winning Red’s territories in Africa and Yellow’s territories in Europe, Brown was not able to take Indonesia from Red, leaving Brown one territory away from victory. Yellow was looking to completely eradicate Brown, however they ended up reduced to only a single island territory in the Southeast Pacific. Green was also looking to conquer more territory, however their efforts against Yellow in Europe came at a high cost, and despite initially overtaking the Chinese city, Red was able to stage a Guerilla Warfare, reclaim the territory, and annihilate the Green forces there. This greatly reduced the attacking power of Green, and ultimately Green were unsuccessful in gaining a significant amount of new territory. Red meanwhile had a game-long goal of reclaiming Ukraine and its six surrounding territories, however due to constant onslaught from Green and Brown (and minimal support from a weakened Yellow), Red was forced to play a mainly defensive game, losing territory in Africa but consolidating forces around China and Indonesia. In the end Red was unable to reclaim Ukraine, however their final defensive victory in Indonesia prevented Brown from reaching their victory condition. Blue also aimed to conquer Ukraine, however instead of actively participating in the war they continued to be self-proclaimed “gentle giants” and gave Brown a loan of 20 monies to conquer Ukraine for them. Ultimately however, Green retained control of Ukraine, so even this strategy was unsuccessful.
Overall, Brown was very successful in their war campaign, starting with victories in Africa and then moving through newly-conquered territories and allied Green territory to sweep up through Yellow’s European territories, through Asia and down to the Pacific. It was a clever strategy, however it was technically illegal. Military movement through allied territory (also known as “airlifting”) requires the agreement of the World Council, however no such agreement was ever made. Had they waited for the Council meeting, given Red’s sanction, Brown most likely would have received clearance for air lifts, however they would have had to wait for the next turn. Given the time constraints of our class period, there wouldn’t have been time for that next turn and Brown would have been completely unable to implement their strategy. Overall I really enjoyed playing Diplomatic Risk. I liked having to strategize with my team and analyzing cost-benefits of various alliances. I also really liked working with other teams and creating various agreements. Diplomacy is a lot about communicating and developing relationships between countries, however this is dependent on strong interpersonal communication skills between individual diplomats. It was fun practicing diplomatic skills through our game, and like in actual diplomacy there were frustrations, there were changes in relationships status, and there were misunderstandings. As Diplomats we had to work with our own teams as well as other teams in order to come to agreements. It was a bit stressful at the end when Red was involved in so many wars at the same time and sanctioned (thus able to buy only two reinforcing units per turn), however I think the Redpublic handled itself well, and at the very least was able to endure enough that Brown couldn’t win. Given that none of the victory conditions were met, nobody officially won the game, although I think for many of us, we all believed that this was the most realistic outcome. The real world is not static, and there are always new problems arising which necessitate solutions and continued diplomacy. Even if one country has a victory in one instant, it does not mean that victory will last forever; looking at history, all empires had to fall at some point, and then were replaced by new systems in a perpetual cycle of rise and fall. In this system, I don’t think there are any true “winners” or “losers”, and I think our gameplay really demonstrated that. Countries will always have their own agendas which they chase after, but even if they achieve that agenda there will always be new agendas to keep up with an ever-changing world. I look forward to playing Risk again at the end of the semester and seeing if our gameplay style is any different, and how my reflection at that point will sound like.
0 Comments
To ponder as you scheme and strategize your next move in Diplomatic Risk: what, in your view, is the most unrealistic element of this game? Is it a problem that it is unrealistic?
In my opinion, the most unrealistic part of Diplomatic Risk is the objective cards. While I enjoy the set-up and understand their value in creating certain simulations of real-world scenarios, I feel like while playing these cards hampers the development of authentic relationships between countries. Countries do have their own agendas and motivations which may not always be clear to other countries, and events such as military coups very realistically cause international reorganization of alliances, however some of the changes written on the cards seemed completely arbitrary and inconsistent with the preceding turns. For example, on the cards Brown Team has to side with Green. Yellow, despite just undergoing an armed conflict with Brown, is still willing to ally with Green and support their decision in the UN Council Meeting. Perhaps Green and Yellow share similar geographic or economic interests that Red is not privy to, however given the timing and the tightness of the alliance, it all feels very rushed and thus artificial. In the real world, schisms and armed conflicts on that level can lead to strained relations even decades later, such as between the People’s Republic of China and Republic of China. Brown and Yellow did not mutually or amicably split, and thus it is unlikely that all the countries in the world would immediately recognize and assume diplomatic relationships with both. Furthermore, given that “recognition of a new State of Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold”, Brown’s ability to immediately assume a dominant role in the UN seems unlikely. More likely, especially directly following the split, would be split recognition of a “correct” state and potentially gradual acceptance of both states as independent which would lead to two separate UN seats. Going back to China and Taiwan, the two adopted separate governments since 1949, however only one location at a time has ever held a seat in the UN. Our version of Diplomatic Risk, much like international relations, relies heavily on human interaction and human connection, however in having the objective cards I feel like you take out the human feel of the game. Why bother fostering alliances with other countries when a deux ex machina card could obliterate all that work anyway? I like the idea of cards and I enjoy where the first cards started the game, however I think the second cards are more of an unnecessary and unrealistic impediment. |
KateHi, I'm Kate! I'm from Madison, WI and am planning on majoring in SIS focusing on East-Asia China. I like practicing kung fu, listening to music, and drinking bubble tea. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|