The Most Interesting Parallel Between the Game of Risk and Real-World Politics - Essay Example

Teacher Risk and War Risk is a game of world domination where players square off against one another in an attempt to destroy each other in order to complete this objective. It has rules, and involves luck and skill. Among many interpretations of this game, one that is overlooked is that in which it pertains to personal finance. This cannot be seen in the game unless one has played it fairly extensively since initial game play is fairly intense with a substantial amount of new information to take in, such as how one can attack, fortifying armies, and understanding the ways in which to win by rolling the dice, which favors defensive players in that tying rolls go to them, allowing a roll of six to be dominant while offensive rolls of one guarantee a loss. The interpretation one can take of this game on personal finance comes in making conservative moves throughout the course of play. Just like a person lacking the funds to make large investments, those first beginning in the game should not make bold moves across the globe. Rather, diversifying in a few key areas, such as Australia or South America will offer bonuses of two extra armies, which will allow players to use the extra income to expand their holdings into investments overseas, such as Africa or Asia. This is where primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives come into play, which can also be thought of as short and long-term goals. After several attempts to win without a concrete strategy, the author began to conduct some research so as to conquer his opponents. This is where the concept of finances came to be found. The bonus armies at the start of each turn are one’s income, and where they are placed is asset allocation (Pascale, 2011). For those who spend all of their armies away in battle, destruction is near because the carelessness of one is the short-term strategy of another. In order to win, a strategy to gain and hold Australia was enacted, and another to expand into and gain control of Asia. This resulted in one of two ways for those who were still left on the board. They either attempted to cooperate with one another or they suffered the destruction of a force with far superior resources. The one result that did not occur was a smaller army siding with the larger one to guarantee survival, which is much more likely to occur in the real world of global domination, also referring to conflict, which occurs when differing forces, governments, or parties face off with one another as a result of discord that often relates to world affairs (Kegley, and Blanton, 376-377). Conflict was not actually the result of anything other than beginning to play the game since the object is to destroy each other while obtaining more land for oneself. Parlaying off of this, one may have engaged in unplanned conflict if their monopoly on a continent was lost, such as a player making a strike from Mexico into South America. While the previous owner of the South American continent may not have wanted to go into battle with this particular army, he was perfectly content to do so in order to gain back what he had lost so as to maintain his position and have a better opportunity to grow his forces. Cooperation always fell between two parties who could not stand to fight on their own since doing so would result in heavier losses. However, by pooling their resources, they stood a slight chance of being able to bring down a far superior power if they agreed to do so before the hammer that came down had not gained so much weight that the momentum of its strikes were crushing rather than just painful. One historical event that seemed to play out is that there was never peace in the Middle East, which should not be entirely surprising as it is not only bordered by six territories in three continents, but also because for a person wanting control of Asia it is a necessary territory, and for those holding Africa, there is more security in pushing the opposition back. For any player wanting to get to Australia so as to gain control, or take it away from a player who is operating with the advantage of this continent, one can reach its doorstep in only three moves from East Africa, Egypt, or Southern Europe. As a focal point on the world map, those working from one side to the other would only be able to do so by way of the Middle East. Another historical event that seemed to play out was that Japan was almost never attacked, and many times it was even neglected. However, when a strike was made from Japan, the attacking force seemed to have the ability to easily create havoc in mainland Asia or work its way into North America. The general decision making determinants were based on survival if one was behind. For this purpose players would agree not to infringe upon one another unless it served their common purpose, such as impeding on a leading force’s monopolistic control of a continent. For example, in one game, the author had control of Kamchatka, and his battalion was strong so as to pose a threat to Alaska where the yellow army was in control of North America. In the coming turn, the green army was about to turn in cards, which would allow him to take out Alaska and perhaps work his way into Mexico since the yellow army’s border strength was just south of there in Venezuela. However, the green commander’s chances would have diminished greatly had he first had to battle the fifteen blue soldiers in Kamchatka. For this reason, fourteen of the blue soldiers were relocated to Mongolia, granting the green army safer passage as well as permission to take care of the growing threat coming from North America. This worked into the author’s short-term goal of stopping the yellow army from having such a high income, which stopped him from ever having the ability to display his influence in Asia, and it also moved the green army’s central forces out of Asia and into North America where the two forces quarreled until they eventually fell by way of their own singular focus of fighting each other. This action related to the long-term goal to conquer all opposing armies, but it was done indirectly for the most part as the blue army used this opportunity to strengthen his forces in Australia and Southeast Asia, which then expanded to take over Asia and end the debate over who would be in control when the cannon smoke cleared. Balance of power came to be related to one’s decision making process. For example, when an army occupied a small continent, such as South America or Australia, no one seemed to mind as much as if they controlled Europe. For this reason, the winning army almost always started with control of one of these smaller continents, which gave them a greater income to build their savings with, but slowly so as to avoid one cause of war, which is when one nation is too powerful. As their borders increased with a focused sense of investment, their enemies’ forces were usually over diversified as three bonus armies would be placed on three different territories at a time. For this reason, the ruler of South America could always plunder North Africa and Central America, and stay there if he so pleased, and would often be safe because expanding just one territory away was not often perceived as being too disruptive so much as a nuisance. It was when this person gained too much hold of the world that combined forces would attempt to rally against him, but it was often too late. At times, a commander who could perceive the growing threat would preemptively strike another. The gray army, for example, may not have been attacking the blue army, but the blue army struck so as to set this group back and potentially avoid being defeated on defense (Kegley, and Blanton, 397, 465). Collective security, which is most commonly seen in the United Nations, is a force that is indivisible and able to work together for the greater good of all (Kegley, and Blanton, 526-528). This concept was not seen in the game. It could have been had the players changed the rules, such as agreeing to have teams of equal or lopsided power, perhaps even with continental control to simulate the real world power struggle of different eras, such as the Cold War, but since no rules were changed during the course of playing, this did not occur. Realism is perhaps the most interesting parallel between the game of Risk and real world politics. Realism is defined as self-interested states competing to serve themselves (Kegley, and Blanton, 27). In the world at war today, there is much of the same going on. Nations work with each other to get what they want. In 1990, the United States entered into a defensive position in the Middle East in Operation Desert Shield with a mission to protect oil in Kuwait (Operation Desert Shield). This was done not only to protect the good people of this region from Suddam Hussein, but also to protect America’s interest in oil. As a result, US gas prices are still much cheaper than those overseas. What is left out of the model that is Risk is the ability to co-exist in different territories with other people. Additionally, all territories are conquered by foot rather than by air or from a long distance, such as the drone strikes into Pakistan (Miller, 13), which necessitated no soldiers as the planes were/are flown by remote control, and if they do not make it back, there is little concern save for the possibility of innocent people being hurt by it. Also, there are no ships, which is unrealistic for the nineteenth century. Overall, the game Risk is a great means of learning. It can teach one how to be modest when he cannot back up bold moves that do not go as planned, such as in investing or war, and it can also be a great tool for geography. With rules that even children can understand, it is a fine way for teaching strategy, world history, and to have fun. Works Cited Pascale, Christopher. "How to Win at the Board Game Risk." Suite101.com 7 Jan 2011. Web. 23 Feb 2011. Kegley, Jr., Charles; Blanton, Shannon. World Politics, 12th Ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print. Global Security. Operation Desert Shield. Web. 28 Feb 2011. Miller, Greg. "Increased US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Killing few High-value Militants." Washington Post 21 Feb 2011: 13. Print. Read More