I’ve previously played risk and always gotten into my “world domination” mode and never really took into consideration what it would actually be like in the real world. For one, its not that simple to bring armies into any surrounding territories and take charge. Its definitely expensive and not always beneficial. During the game, different players in the team come up with different methods in accomplishing the team’s objective. The way we evaluate whether or not to pursue their idea is by questioning whether or not we can risk any potential or current allies or even jeopardize our main source of armies (cities and resource centers). In world politics, countries have to determine whether or not it is to their self-interest to ally themselves with particular countries. Countries don’t exactly go into war automatically. Through the game Risk, I’ve started to value even further diplomacy. It makes a bit more sense why the United Nations takes so long to make decisions during an international crisis. During these moments, there are various key figures and each has a different objective and interests. In Risk, there’s only 5 teams and we’re spending so much time trying to make diplomatic agreements (which don’t always go as planned), I couldn’t possibly imagine how 1. stressful it might be and 2. complicated it could be to develop a plan that would address the majority’s wishes. Nevertheless, I’m sure diplomats would wish that the number of countries that are seen in the game and the ones in the actual world would be the same. Smaller numbers are easier to address. Then again, both situations d have hegemons that play influential roles in determining what course to take. In our version of Risk, there are members who want to acquire power in a certain area (sounds like USSR seeking a water port), others who want more alliances, and so forth. All of these players have existed at one point in history and the international community has had to deal with them. I can definitely agree that Diplomatic Risk is a good micro version of world politics, despite some of its differences to the real world.
I would definitely agree with you on wars not always being beneficial for countries. I think that is why diplomatic risk is more like real life than the original version. However, as you collect more territory in risk your troops become spread more thin. This is a very conventional aspect of war. In today's world overextension doesn't just have to do with sheer territory in your control, but in what particular aspect your troops are deployed. We don't really have control over enourmous amounts of territory, but the mission our troops are engaged in are on so many levels from infrastructure building to search and destroy missions that it really strains the military establishment as a whole. This is why I believe are military must adapt and is adapting to this new type of war that demands vertical strength rather than horizontal, meaning infrastructure and security, rather than territory gathering.
ReplyDelete