'Risk'y Business

            Last week we played Diplomatic Risk in which each team was given an objective and developed its one strategy to achieve its goal. My team, the blue team, was the global hegemon. Our goal was to take over the territory of Ukraine but to also do so with World Council sanction. For my team to win the game, we had to end two successive rounds controlling Ukraine and with World Council sanction. To help us achieve this goal, our secret power was the ability to draft new three armies during the reinforcement stage. While in the final round of the ground my team controlled Ukraine and had received one World Council Sanction, yet we ended up losing because the black team was able to secure enough alliances to win and it would have been tough for us to win after we lost Ukraine mid-round.

    While the game was a simulation of international politics, some parts of the game were realistic. The game showed how smaller or weaker states could work together to overpower larger states. This is evident in how the blue team, the global hegemon, lost Ukraine to teams that had less territory and fewer armies. With the help of another team, they were able to attack and win without having to fight. Another practical aspect of the game was how the actions of teams to reach their objectives interfere with the plans or goals of other teams. Just like in world politics, many of the goals of certain states can overlap, much like how both the blue and red team wanted Ukraine. Most of the time, like what happened in the game, neither of the time will be able to achieve their goals because they are too busy working to harm the other that they lose sight of what is at stake. Another realistic part of the game was focusing too much on one spot, such as my team focusing too much on securing Ukraine, can cause a state to lose. After obtaining Ukraine, my team made it obvious that we sought to hold onto the region, which in turn hurt us. In International Politics, if a state over reals what they are planning on doing in a region, this can hurt them, as others can prepare to attack or counteract what will happen in the region. Also, if a state focuses too much of its attention or resources in one area, then the rest of their goals in other regions can falter.

    Although there were many events during the game that could play out in International Politics, there were also many parts of the game that were unrealistic. In International Politics, states would only enter an alliance they knew would benefit them. During the game, many teams made alliances, but they were mostly for show. Just two teams used their alliance in the game, which came as a shock to many of the other teams because for most of the game an alliance was something that solely lived on the board. Alliances in the game do not resemble real life alliances because in International Politics alliances are things that are constant and not just on paper, members of groups such as NATO act upon any attack committed against their allies, which did not occur during the game. Another unrealistic aspect of the game is how the black team was able just to sit back and let everything play out. I do not believe that states would be willing to let other states control their faith. I think that if the black team were to be a player in International Politics, that they would never achieve their goals because it is impossible not to involve one’s self in a situation and then expect the outcome to go their way. Another unrealistic aspect of the game is that a team had to go from allies, to neutral, and then to war to be able to attack another team. In reality, if a state wanted to attack a state, rather than waiting to pass through different phases, they would just draft a declaration of war. If states had to wait the way teams had to in the game, then International Politics would have to be thought of differently.

    Applying both the realistic and unrealistic aspects of the game, I believe that the game may be altered to improve the outcome. I could not come up with many ways to change the game, but I think that the game would be enhanced if teams were forced to starts at different corners of the globe to then fight their way into the regions that matter most to them. My team had a lot of territory surrounding Ukraine which made it easy for us to focus our attention there and to rapidly get into the region. While we did not win the game, I think that us having a lot of territory surrounding the region helped us oust the red team quickly as well as aided us in getting the region within the first few rounds.