4 ms·
What a clickbait article. I’m really disappointed. The premise is interesting: win every time using a new strategy. Then, discussion about the concept and prev
by dcow 5y ago
What a clickbait article. I’m really disappointed. The premise is interesting: win every time using a new strategy. Then, discussion about the concept and preview of the “systems thinking” mentality. Not too bad (although the bathtub example was a pretty weak way to advocate for systems thinking, maybe that’s just me but it seems even in that example to be an overly reductive and not terribly insightful method of thought, but it was enough to entertain the next section). However, during the discussion of the strategy everything falls apart. “Let the other players fight each other. Win the game every time by not participating and hoping to inconspicuously amass an incredible army such that you can take over half the board and then turn the tide in your favor in one fell swoop.” If this fails the suggestion is then to play the meta game and beg for pity. Not a single piece of data to back up the claim that this strategy wins every time. In my experience it doesn’t. It also happens to be the strategy that most every player headquartered around Russia-Asia ends up playing because you simply cant control that part of the board early on. No “systems thinking required”. The author also claims hoarding cards is “safe” and wont trigger other players to consider you a threat to the balance of the system. Well, that’s just naive either on part of the author or requires other players to be pretty green to not account for the risk card factor. In reality, another player also using systems thinking would immediately identify you as a threat because they would be tracking unit quantity flow in and out for the players on the board and using that to inform their understanding of what constitutes a threat. I think that’s the disappointment kinda summed up: this strategy doesn't work in a game where everyone uses it because it depends on your opponents not paying attention rather than you making strategic moves to win the game. The author does not sufficiently incorporate all the complexities of the game and people to yield a solved game.
- ganzuul 5y agoCybernetics is a much cooler word anyway. Deals with functions, while systems theory deals with objects. IM!HO, object-oriented thinking doesn't work in complex environments. - You tell a duck by its quack.
- jfk13 5y agoAnyhow, if there's a system or strategy that enables you to win every time.... what happens once everyone knows and uses it?
- cbsmith 5y ago'The author also claims hoarding cards is “safe” and wont trigger other players to consider you a threat to the balance of the system.' Unlike continents, cards additionally represent an incentive for other players, so it's even crazier to think it is "safe". In general I share the same sentiments as you. I'm disappointed this article got voted up, presumably because it uses the phrase "systems thinking" in the title. In defense of the author, if you actually believe it is possible for you to win any player-vs-player game every time by applying a certain strategy, you clearly aren't doing systems thinking. :-)
- yetanotherjosh 5y agoEven if the execution was flawed in that it did not deliver a successful gaming strategy or sufficiently complex model of the game, I still appreciated the nature of the exercise. I would love to read an article that takes it to a more accurate and effective system model.