Three's Company, Four's a Crowd. Sorry Green.

Fiona: "Hey Sam, can you do something that will make me really happy? Wanna erase Green from the board?"

Literally minutes ago the game of diplomatic risk ended. The group was small, consisting primarily of the core members (heads of state and diplomats) and some very enthusiastic members of the populous. The game was epic.

It picked up soon after Red's demise (YAY!!!) and with a fresh strategy from the allied teams (Blue, Black and Yellow). The goal: get rid of Green. After two or three rounds of the game, the mission was successful--much to Rachel and Alyssa's chagrin.

With that taken care of, Black declared war on Blue so that Blue wouldn't win before Yellow and Black. Black and Yellow traded territories so that Yellow and Black's goals were met, then Black ended the war with Blue, so that once the diplomatic changes were made, all three teams won at the same time.

So the allies won. :)

Victory!

Also, kudos to Scott and Sam for the awesome sound effects. :)

The Diplomatic Risk of World Politics

Diplomatic risk and world politics are similar in many ways. The heads of state have a primary objective and they *usually* have advisers and diplomats who make alliances and help guide the heads of state. There is also a populous that supports or detests the head of state and has the ability to overthrow the head of state. However, unlike in diplomatic risk, in the real world, there's no real "winner." Yes, countries win wars, but there isn't a real game to win because world politics never stops. Diplomatic risk, on the other hand, ends the moment PTJ tells us that we have to stop playing and discuss the readings he's assigned us. As much as we want to keep playing, because the process of winning is more fun than the victory itself, we will stop and world politics will continue. I guess that is one of the main differences, or at least the most important to me.