I could answer the blog question for this week as irritatingly as possible and say that the biggest difference between risk and real life is that real wars aren't fought with dice and a game board. Lucky for you all, I won't. The biggest differences, I think, are that there are no constituencies to consider, and teams started out fairly anonymous.
Without constituencies, warfare is much simpler to conduct. There is no one to complain about you risking their lives and spending their money in the name of a greater goal. Real global actors have to worry about keeping the people at home happy, as well as advancing themselves. I'm thinking that if risk were closer to real life, almost every group would have had to deal with at least one attempted coup by this point. Constant warfare is hard to sell in today's culture.
The anonymity given to the teams is also something extremely different from real life. For strategy's sake, I don't want to say too much before we're done with the game, but I will edit and expand upon this section once it won't affect game play anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment