Well, not really. After all, it was a mismatch on the board, with the Blue team possessing superior firepower right out of the gate (not to mention all-star diplomat Kate). However, to fulfill my objective and win the game of Diplomat Risk, I needed not just brawn, but brain. My team needed not only to wrestle the pivotal Ukraine from an enemy whose aims were fundamentally opposing ours, but also do so with the nodding approval of the international community.
Lacking the tact to do so forthrightly, Kate and I did the next best thing: we lied.
We lied in various ways. One of our favorite tactics was to tell another team we would cede them territory or carve them a path, with the provision that they first vote on a World Sanction. This was particularly effective on Yellow, who needed territory any way they could get it, and Green, who needed territory we possessed that bordered resources but was too scared of our might to pursue it militarily. As could be gathered by our eleventh-hour ceding of part of Australia to Yellow, we were fully committed to fulfilling our promises to cede territory after acquiring the Ukraine. Unfortunately for everyone else, Blue won before such promises could actually take shape.
Another tactic was to lie about what our goals were. Blue Team did an excellent job concealing what our specific objectives were; Red head of state thought our goal was to get all the cities, and I allowed him to continue that thought. Meanwhile, I told every other team that my primary objective was to eliminate Red from the board. That was laughably false, but people bought it enough that they allowed me to airlift fifteen troops into Asia - the better, they thought, to crush Red with, so that other teams would have more room to breath. They knew how dangerous that was, but they figured allowing me to win the Sanction battle would increase their chances of winning the war; little did they know that that battle WAS the war.
Why did other Heads of State believe I was their staunch ally (as Alex did)? Why were other teams so willing to take my side against a less-fearsome Red, all in exchange for a distant promise of troop retraction and territory succeeding? The reason, I believe, has something to do with constructivism. The Blue Team was the hegemon, and our hegemon (the USA) does not crush weak nations. It works with them. Hence, weaker states like Green and Yellow may have had a subconscious connection - The USA is going to destroy the other world power, which is repressive! I know that because the USA says so! And then I'll be that much closer to succeeding! - and they may have believed that Blue would be too worried (as a hegemon) with powerful-ish Red to care about smaller nations. Which is true. But it didn't stop us from soliciting support.
Also, there may have been some human-level constructivism at play. I tend to be a fairly nice guy to just about everybody, and the people who played with us today know that. I don't mess with people, or even play practical jokes, and I'm one of the quieter guys on the floor by far. All those things draw up an identity of a Head of State who, when he looks you in the eye and says he'll cede the Ukraine to you, Green Team, in a couple of turns, after he's established a European foothold, if only you'd vote for a World Sanction, actually and truly has your best interests at heart. Who knows - there may well have been Alex thinking I watched football with Tom yesterday, he wouldn't lie to me. Which is true. I wouldn't. Unless, of course, we were playing board games.
And if you think I'm bad with Risk, wait until we all play Monopoly.
No comments:
Post a Comment