Though frustrating by the end of the game, I do see the point in having us play Risk because I
definitely see how it parallels the world of international relations. Even
while playing it, I thought to myself how difficult this was and I think it was
a solidifying moment for me at the end of this class being able to say to
myself, “Wow, this stuff is really hard to figure out. I understand why our
world has so many problems politically.” Some of my team members didn’t think
this game really paralleled international relations, but I do for a number of
reasons.
One of
things we discussed in class that I think is relevant to this argument is the
states/positions on the board that each team starts out with. I think that a
team’s starting position is very influential in how easy it is to spread to
other states. This was the mission for the Yellow Team (my team) and it was
pretty difficult with our starting positions being in Southern Europe and two
sections in Africa. I feel as if we had started out more territories in North
America it would’ve been much easier to spread. In fact, as soon as it was
possible we started acquiring territories in North America for a time our team
was spreading throughout North America quickly and we acquired new territories
somewhat easily. From North America, a team could go in one direction to
Russia, one direction to South America, and one direction to Europe. In Africa,
there’s really no other choice besides occupying Africa and then eventually
going one direction to Europe. So to answer one of the discussion questions
asked in class, I think starting location is very influential to a team’s/state’s
success.
I think
Risk also speaks to the challenges faced internally in a state or team as they
try to make decisions. As the whole class saw, Will on my team decided to schism
and break away from the team to form the Pink team because (I’m assuming) he
didn’t like the decisions I was making as Head of State. This is a concern that
other states have on varying levels. Obviously in the United States, if
constituents don’t like the decisions President Obama makes internationally,
they probably won’t create a civil war and start another state, but it would
definitely hurt him in an upcoming election if he were able to run for another
term. For more unstable, weakened, or failing states, fears of major protests,
outcries or even civil war could be a serious concern and greatly influence the
decisions the Head of State makes. And that factor is just another added layer
of difficulty among the whole process.
So even
though I was quite irritated leaving class on Tuesday, I think it was a great
way to encapsulate everything that we’ve learned throughout the semester. I
think the game really did parallel the real world of international relations to
a certain degree. And I was actually having fun (before the whole schism thing).
Victoria,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words and the feedback! I will say that Will asked me at one point if he had to schism because he thought he team would be able to win without it. I told him that it was his given interest to have his own team and win. So while the censure (which you can't really control) had an effect on his decision I am sure, it wasn't that he disagreed with your decisions personally.
You talk about how starting position mattered so much, but how much freedom do you think you had to formulate a strategy? You answer can go a long way towards figuring out if this is largely a realist or constructivist game (or some combo thereof).
I think how much freedom you have to form a strategy not only depends on how you view the game, but also your team's end goal. My team's end goal had a lot more flexibility in terms of strategy because it was just two pieces on any twelve strategies, which gives more flexibility as opposed to some of the other teams that just needed Ukraine or need so many alliances. I think while I was playing I was thinking more in a realist fashion because personally I was hesitant to alliances and didn't trust the other teams, very much feeling the anarchy.
DeleteRisk was a lot of fun, however, my team (red team) definitely did not do so well. If we had played the game again, we would have taken a different approach. Firstly, we should have been more conservative about our attacks. We became too ambitious when winning battles, which is almost all based on the luck of the roll of dice, and therefore our army became very spread out. Taking over too many territories made our armies smaller within those territories and increased our vulnerability.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, as demonstrated by the black team, I wish we played more defensively. This would have proved more effective in the long run.
Thirdly, to answer Professor Shirk I definitely see how Risk can be a largely constructivist game. The black team demonstrated this by using collective security which is a key piece of constructivist theory. Or, when one team appeared to be gaining power, two other teams would typically band together to counter-balance that power.
In retrospect, I kind of feel like my team (yellow team) may have actually benefited more from using your team's strategy. We were one territory away from winning at the beginning of Tuesday's class, but decided to play it safe and not be super aggressive at first. Unfortunately this caused other team's to attack us and one by one we started losing territories and the schism. Like I said in response to Prof Shirk, I think your team's goal has a lot to do with the strategy you use and that would explain our difference in thinking.
DeleteVictoria, you talk about how starting location made a huge impact on your ability to expand. What are some other aspects of how the game parallels international relations?
ReplyDeleteOne that I can think of is how much risk do you take in a battle? Being on the green team, we often declared wars in states where we had at least 4 blocks. Being the aggressor, we could stop if we thought we might lose. At times, we lost nearly all our blocks, which was proof of how being aggressive does not always guarantee success. Although in the game's wars, winning was all luck because of the dice, in real life there are always unexpected attacks or events.
Another way that Risk parallels international relations is uncertainty in battles. In Risk, we rolled dice. In international relations, it may seem like a state is absolutely going to win and has all the best resources/advantages but that state still my not win. A very classic example of this is the Revolutionary War. Great Britain had so many more resources and advantages over the colonies/United States, but the United States was still able to pull through and win.
DeleteInteresting thoughts on Risk. I thought it was surprising how the Yellow team fell apart after Will and everyone else formed the Pink team, considering that Yellow was doing pretty good on the board (from what I remember). I think this shows how internal stability is needed for a country to be successful in foreign politics.
ReplyDeleteConsidering our team (Black team), it was sometimes hard for us to get the other teams to form alliances and be less aggressive towards each other. Coming together at the meeting every round and being able to censure the most aggressive teams (Yellow) helped us in achieving our goals. I think this is proof for how liberal ideology needs international institutions and allied countries to be able to succeed.
I understand your point about internal stability, but at the same time, to my understanding, we were pretty internally stable in our team. As Head of State, I made a point to listen to what each member of the team thought we should do and often had votes. When Will decided to schism, I had no idea why he would do that and didn't understand his motivation because up until that point I felt that our team had been relatively cohesive and internally stable.
DeleteI agree with the point that Maddie brings up in response to Professor Shirks comment. The game did seem quite constructivist due to the different approaches that different teams took due to their individual motives and the ideas on how to obtain those motives.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I noticed, which plays into what you were talking about is that people did not always agree on which actions to take. This shows the importance of balancing different view points and could possibly be parallel to balancing culture and self-gain, domestic policies and foreign policies in international relations.
I think that's a really good observation that you made about balancing different view points and different components of government and one that I didn't even realize. As head of state it was very difficult for me to make those decisions so I tried to listen to all my group members' points of view and make things as democratic in the group as possible.
Delete