Sunday, July 18, 2010

Question #5

Looking back on our game of diplomatic Risk, although it was difficult to reach the objective given, it provided a unique view on the world and diplomacy. I went about trying to win the game in a very difficult way, and ultimately the incorrect way and I did not lack the resources and opportunities I needed to win, I just didn't utilize them correctly. My objective given to me at the beginning was to simply conquer Russia and have the World Council vote at the end of the round, and in addition to that I was given three different resource stars all around the map. Because these resource stars were placed in such obscure countries such as Madagascar and Western Australia, I felt as if they were no good and ignored them. So instead of using the extra armies I received with the stars, I tried to build armies with the scarce amount of troops I was given before each round. Unfortunately the armies in Madagascar, Western Australia, and Alaska grew tremendously, but in inconvenient places. In terms of the objective, I had terrible strategically placed countries, only having two near Russia, and yet I still tried to build those armies instead of using the large ones I had elsewhere. The small armies got destroyed and in the end I had a three large armies in Australia, Madagascar, and Alaska which I could not use in time to win. Looking back I should have pushed the large armies up through Europe and Africa so that they were placed closer to Russia, and also should have used my ally more effectively. I was given one ally to start with, and due to poor planning and strategy we were not able to do anything productive. We should have worked out deals to move around armies and transfer troops to more strategic positions instead of going our own ways. It became obvious that in the game of diplomatic risk it is important to utilize your allies because it is extremely difficult to go about the game by yourself. I tried achieving my objective by myself, and I soon realized I should have communicated more with my ally and then we might have had a better outcome. In the final round I ended up in a war with very other player except my ally, and due to my poor planning and movement of my armies I had no chance of winning. Noticing my mistakes, I know now that in diplomatic Risk it is important to use your resources and your allies to your advantage, and do not try to achieve your objective solely on a few of your armies.

1 comment:

  1. One resource that could have been used was the World Council. Though utilizing this resource goes hand in hand with utilizing at least two allies. By allying with two other teams you then gain the support of the majority of the players on the board as well as the majority of the vote as to who plays first in the next round, this decision allows more flexibility and confidence in your strategies and battle plans. There was also the ability to trade countries/regions with your allies that was very useful. It allowed objectives to be worked toward with out the use of war, and it conserved troops that could later be used when war was necessary.

    ReplyDelete