Jared Rostkowski-Risk

       
          One thing that I found to be realistic about diplomatic risk was the whole negotiation side of
things. Teams had to negotiate to accomplish their own goals, while simultaneously keeping there goals unknown to the other side. A big part of politics is knowing what your opposition want while also achieving your own personal goals. This game also forced people to be against each other, politics get competitive just as games do, and people are willing to lie in order to achieve their own goals. Countries go to war and make alliances all for gain, a lot of which we saw in the game. There were also many enemies who soon became allies for a common cause, when blue came close to winning, the rest of the countries teamed up against them, stopping practically all other wars, just so blue couldn't win and the game of achieving goals could go on.
          The things I found unrealistic mostly had to do with war. There was no real benefit to not go to war and the punishment for losing a war isn't as realistic. You could pull in and out of wars as quickly and as easily as you wanted, you could start a new war whenever you wanted to, and then stop it the next turn. The only thing someone would lose from a war was territory, and the same team would be able to attack the next turn after they reinforced troops. Some of the possible conflicts were unrealistic too. Yellow could go to war with blue, which is described as a religious group vs. a world superpower, and if yellow had a better die roll, then they would win a war against a world superpower. Also, the speed in which you can do anything is unrealistic, but its a game so I understand that things need to go at a faster pace.
          One thing I would change in the game is how condensed everything was, it seems that the only fighting going on was around the Ukraine and in Southern Africa, so spreading things out so fighting would happen elsewhere would make the game more interesting. Adjusting the goals or locations of resources would probably be needed to spread out the fighting. Another thing would be adding a bonus for getting a war approved by the council. It seems that there is no benefit to proposing anything to the the council besides changing the order. Not enough stuff is done with the council either. Because of that when Blue brought something up to the council, it became pretty obvious that they need the Ukraine to win. So maybe having a bonus to having a council approval for a war or for holding a territory, just so it isn't so obvious that Blue is up to something, as they were the only team to propose something to the council that wasn't an order change.
          I loved this game and it was a great way to finish off class, it was a cool thing to combine ideas of what we learned and give us a small taste of International negotiations.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog Post 4 - Yousuf Sander

Global terror has plagued the international community in increasing frequency and tragedy for the last two decades. The rise of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and others have left thousands dead and given rise to new fear, and an elusive enemy. These groups have used ever more brutal tactics to stage devastating attacks on civilians in both their home countries and abroad. In the early 2000s, the U.S. began a so-called “ War On Terror ” to combat the rise of such groups, only to have the even more dangerous organization of ISIS rise out of the ashes of our own operations in Iraq. These groups are hard to fight and even harder to dismantle, so what are our options in the War on Terror? I believe that the problem stems from the ostracized environment in which immigrant Middle eastern communities exist in the West.   As long as we continue to marginalize Muslim communities in the U.S. and Europe, we will continue to be fostering an environment that makes it easy for terrorist gr...
Read more

Blog 3 Jared Rostkowski Why NAFTA is not "The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever"

Why NAFTA isn't “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever” Jared Rostkowski On September 25th 2016 during the first presidential debate of 2016, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump described the North American Free Trade Agreement as “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever.” NAFTA is the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, which eliminated tariffs between the three countries. Trump has continued to voice his displeasure with the trade deal, mostly with Mexico. Anyway, NAFTA is not the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, in fact, it is actually a trade deal that the 3 countries benefit greatly from the trade deal, and we should not pull out of it anytime soon.  So what does Trump dislike about the deal. His main displeasure comes with the fact that many companies from the U.S. are moving manufacturing to Mexico, to take advantage of Mexico’s cheap labor. Trump argued that companies like For...
Read more
Yousuf Sander                          Why Syrian Intervention is a Bad Play for the U.S. Foreign intervention has become a staple policy choice if the United States since the early decades of the 20 th century. Time and time again, we have intervened in order to protect our interests, installing dictators in Latin America, toppling them in the middle east, all in order to protect our foreign interests. However, what is the right course of action when a crisis occurs that does not put our interests at stake? How, as the world ’ s foremost superpower, can we sit by and do nothing as the crisis evolves in Syria? Though intervention may seem like the obvious choice, we must weigh the costs, and our decision must be strategically based and thought out. For this reason, I don ’ t believe intervention is the right option due to the reactionary and impulsive nature ...
Read more