Sunday, August 22, 2010

response to question 5

In our game of Diplomatic Risk I was a neutral country. My objective was to neutralize all wars completly. If I could not do that I had to double the number of wars with bi-lateral alliances. I didn't need resources as much as I needed oppurtunities. I think if I would have been able to create more alliances it would have been better for me. I mean Taylor and Ellen created a tight alliance. I guess I would have needed some type of like trust to be broken in between them for me to create alliances with them. It's tough to tell though because you never know what's going to happen. Everything is so unpredictable. Yes, you can negotiate but you have to trust that the person is going to hold up their end of the bargain. If Ellen and Taylor would have broken their alliance it would have possibly made it easy for my to allie with them. Although, it could have made it more difficult for me because another war would have been created. I think that if I would have used my super power sooner it would have opned more oppurtunities for me. Like I said though it is really difficult to determine something like that though. International dealings are tricky. You can't predict what's going to happen next.

2 comments:

  1. I can see here you are coming from. It makes me think about how in the real world there are alliances between some countries that are sort of there no matter what and then there are some that are just temporary because it help both countries at the same time or a while and then when it is no longer need the countries go their own seprate ways. I was thinking that the United States and the United Kingdom could be an example, they have been allies or a long time no matter hat is going on in the rest of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. being neutral is hardwork. i can see why so many result to war instead. it's almost easier and less frustrating

    ReplyDelete