Response to Question 5

5.) Think back on our game of Diplomatic Risk. What resources or opportunities would you have needed in order to fulfill your objectives? What difference would those resources or opportunities have made?

My objective in the Diplomatic Risk game was basically to takeover as many countries as possible. I was a religious movement and I needed at least fifteen to win. I was pretty far from that goal by the end of the game. I wasn’t even that I as at war that was the major problem.

In fact it may have even benefited me to be at war with more people, however it took incredibly long to switch territories with allies. There would have been almost no way for me to arrange to peacefully trade and end up with at least fifteen countries. It would have really helped me if there were some way to switch territories more quickly and simply. It would have been helpful I you didn’t have to only have one army let in your country before switching; I was always hesitant to do that because I thought I might be attacked between my turn and my allies. .

I think it would have been a lot easier to meet my objective if I had more armies as well. Because if I built up one area it meant that I had to leave other places with less protection than I would have liked. If I had had more armies I cold have both protected the areas I wanted keep and I could have built up forces in areas where I wanted to attack.

Also it would have been really helpful to my objective if there were a way to attack across areas that are not connected. Often there were areas that were very poorly fortified and they were separated from where I had troops. If I could have somehow flown troop in or something, once I had allied with the country that was separating us that would have my objective much easier.