The Game of Global Domination

Sean Kelly

PS 210

MW 10-11:50

Risk: The Game of Global Domination

Username: sean4kelly94

Password: seanieboy94

        “In the classic “World Domination RISK®‘” game of military strategy, you are battling to conquer the world. To win, you must launch daring attacks, defend yourself on all fronts, and sweep across vast continents with boldness and cunning. But remember, the dangers, as well as the rewards, are high. Just when the world is within your grasp, your opponent might strike and take it all away!”

The previous paragraph is the introduction to the game of Risk that was provided by Professor Nicholas Spina in relation to this paper. The introduction references several of the assumptions put forth by the creators of the game and are very important when analyzing how it symbolizes certain ideals relating to international relations. The first of these assumptions can be found in the first sentence of the introduction when it states that we are “battling to conquer the world.” Although this is not necessarily true in the real world, it does represent realist ideals and puts them forward within this game. Which is to “launch daring attacks, defend yourself on all fronts, and sweep across vast continents” in order to have the most power and dominate the world.

The problem with realism in this game however, is that it showcases the assumptions of its foundations and faults that embody it. All of these assumptions turn out to be correct. The foundations of realism state that human nature is selfish, conflict is inevitable, and resources are scarce. Within the game we see that human nature is selfish because we know the point of the game is to win and in order to do that, all actors will attack instead of being diplomatic. With that assumption in mind, it proves that unless there is communication in between states; conflict is inevitable. Also, the only resources in this game are land and armies. Being selfish and wanting to win, coincided with limited resources just reaffirms the assumption that conflict is inevitable.

Faults lie within the assumption that being a realist who wants only power will win you the game. The largest of which is the belief that states will be rational actors. This is because of the lack of information available in order to make a well informed decision. This becomes evident in regards to the tactics of other actors, as well as how many cards and ultimately how many armies they might have in the future. This would extremely assist you in deciding who to attack and how you assign your troops. Another major fault concerns there being a security dilemma. This is choosing whether or not to attack or not attack. This can be very difficult in the game because of a lack of communication so you would be taking a big risk when choosing not to shoot. With very little information, it is almost always in your best interest to shoot and hope that you can conquer the territory. Which would ultimately give you more power and help you, as a realist, to “conquer the world”.

Realism, Dominance, Rationality, Prisoner’s Dilemma, Arms Race, and Hegemonic War are all terms that can be used to help describe this game. The first of which that presents itself in the game is the prisoner’s dilemma in which all could do better, but do not coordinate. At the very beginning of the game we are given the knowledge that if we all survive, everyone gets 4 extra credit points. However, if a team ultimately wins, they receive 10 extra credit points. Therefore, the decision needs to be made of whether or not to cooperate and all try and gain the four extra points or attack to try and get the ten points.

More than likely though, there will be a fight for dominance and a Hegemonic War will break out between the groups. This shows that players in this game must be realists in which only power matters and they end up fighting in order to be that top dog. This turns into a constant arms race, or the development of armies in that fight. In order to win however, states need to have some rationality. To do this they must set and rank goals, consider all possible alternatives, and choose the best option with the highest benefit and lowest cost so that they might win.

The result of my practice simulations was fairly positive when I didn’t lose a game due to inactivity. Out of the five games I finished, I won three of the games and took fourth and fifth in the other two. With a 60% percentage win rate, I am very pleased with that. Playing the computers is difficult though and one of the most challenging aspects of the game was accepting the fact that half the outcome is based on luck. Whether it be from rolling the die or which territories you take over in the beginning. Sometimes having the larger force doesn’t always necessarily mean that you will win a dispute.