Risk applied to the real world

Some aspects of the game are similar to actual world politics. For example, the situation in the battlefield changes quickly. Every single action by a team is monitored closely by all of the other teams. When Red attacked Green, Black immediately responded by attacking Red. Similar to the real life hegemon, the United States, Black appears to want to keep peace in the world. In order to stay in power, both the U.S. and Black want to act friendly so the other teams don’t see them as a large threat. Just like in real life, war is costly. Every skirmish costs lives for both sides involved. Because war weakens both sides, nations don’t go to war for fun. Diplomats make deals with other teams in order to benefit both sides. Nations send diplomats around the world to increase ties and form treaties.

Unlike actual world politics, the only way a nation can acquire more resources is to take it away from another nation. In actuality, this would be a very bad move, when there are plenty of ways to increase economic strength without incurring the wrath of other countries. The game is made for alliances to form and to break, because there can only be one winner. Risk forces conflict, when in world politics conflict is the last thing a nation wants. Alliances and war status do not change so rapidly in the real world. During the course of the game, alliances and declaration of war between teams have been occurring so fast that they have become essentially meaningless. Green could be allied with Black one turn, and then 2 turns later could be at full-blown war with them. Because such instability would be unfavorable to countries in the real world, modern alliances tend to be more permanent, or at least long lasting.