Diplomatic Risk accurately represents the complexity of a community where highly conflicting objectives exist. Some states will be against each other, maybe not because of any personal hatred or dislike, but simply because they both want (and can’t both have) the same thing. Problems also arose in Diplomatic Risk when states who wanted to help others couldn’t always do so because it might mean compromising their own goals. For example, we had a mutual alliance with the green team. They had the capacity and desire to help us, but what we wanted them to do for us would have meant a sacrifice on their part which realistically can’t be done.
Additionally, there were far too many alliances for the real world. Blue was allied with every nation, even though some of those nations were at war with each other or not on good terms. If in the real world a state were to help a nation pursue action against another nation, they could be turning against another one of their allies. This wouldn’t go over too well in real life world politics because you just can’t be friends with everyone, even if you’re the “peace and love” nation.
Also, there were times when I noticed a head of state making decisions without consulting members of their team. While there may be moments of pressure when time is of the essence, I don’t think it’s realistic for a head of state to take on an autocratic role and disregard all pillars of democracy. The reason we have checks on power is to prevent one sole being from making judgments based on what he thinks is best. Diplomatic Risk portrayed a world that seemed to have five beings in control of all world affairs. It didn’t accurately represent the slew of people behind those heads of state who contribute to the decision making process.
No comments:
Post a Comment