Australia Could Ruin This Game! - Risk Fixed Friday

FreePete YT ► / @freepete
Twitch ► / thekillpetestrategy
Discord ► / discord
Instagram ► / thekillpetestrategy
TikTok ► / thekillpetestrategy
Patreon ► / thekillpetestrategy
For Business & Sponsorship Inquiries Email: [e-mail]
Fan Mail: PO Box 87537 300 John St. Thornhill ON Canada L3T 7R4
I am so grateful for your time, attention, support and kindness!
Donations are never expected and always appreciated. Thank you!
#Risk #RiskStrategy #RiskGlobalDomination #boardgames

[@McHorsesCreations]

36:40 the peak Gen Z content right there! 1. Pete explains capitalism 2. RISK gameplay in background 3. Cat cam I DON’T KNOW what to focus on! 😂😂😂

[@DeadInside-ew8qb]

Cat cam, conversation, risk

[@0smn4yyldz]

Man it was so funny 😂 Reggie was going to town on himself while Pete was talking about economy

[@connorskudlarek8598]

I really wanna address all the philosophy, but... the reason black put the stack out there was to guarantee they got the extra troop from territories. At 40:50 is when black realized that on some turns, people will knock him into 11 troops on his turn. Leaving a stack keeps it at 12.

[@OscarTheStrategist]

Yeah it was the classic war over the extra troop 😂

[@davidharmon79]

I like pausing the opening and figuring out where to establish myself then watch how Pete plays it. I learn a lot.

[@FinalCataclsym]

Did not see Red getting 4th or Yellow getting 2nd. Although some could say it was "boring," everyone played quite well.

[@chrisnorthern9897]

If you have not read The Mote In God's Eye and the sequel by Niven and Pournelle, I highly recommend. The Moties are aliens conceptualized by these two humans, and we are an egocentric species of necessity. They are also damn fine novels and worth reading even if my point is not noted.

[@Poopmouth-fy5go]

LOVE FIXED FRIDAY!!!

[@Austin23191]

Pete I want to thank you for helping me learn how to properly play the game and strategize. I just won a 1v1 with an expert, beating out 2 masters and 2 beginners

[@fablez]

Your explanation to the Q&A was awesome. Great and insightful outlook on a much needed conversation! Thank you for educating us.

[@kdb678able]

29:43 - "Pound for pound, the best Risk player in the world." Simply fantastic.

[@BrianScotiaMackem]

Hey dude, love the philosophy. As a carpenter, I could def dig a couple gardens with ya just for the in depth conversations. All the best

[@ryancrouch9918]

Hey Pete! Thanks for answering my question! I certainly agree with all of your points. As Albert Einstein said, “Mankind invented the atomic bomb, but no mouse would ever construct a mousetrap.” As for my phrasing regarding revolution, that may have been misconstrued. Certainly, it *included* actual armed conflict in the scope of "less practical"; at least in the US, I believe government and military entities would be able to quell any sort of armed rebellion. During the times of the American Revolution, technological advantage from the British against the colonists was far less apparent (training, sheer number, etc. aside). Nowadays authoritative entities possess many more means of leveraging technological advantage against any sort of rebellion. However, my phrasing was leaning more into the political aspect, at least that's what I intended. In various democracies, in my eyes it seems to be the case that leaders and representatives don't represent the people as often as we would like. I think it has gone to extremes in the US, with Red vs Blue, Left vs Right, Trump vs Biden. I've found a lot of people are not happy with our elected presidents. It seems that a lot of people take issue with Trudeau in Canada, or Macron in France. The point I'm getting at is that it seems, all over the world, our ability to influence the systems that govern us is greatly diminished in this day and age, regardless of the development of democratic republic systems. This is, as you said, due in part to the fact that politicians *will* line their pockets. I don't think a violent revolution could, or should, arise nowadays. However, as you said, I don't know if humanity is capable of evolutionary change either, at the scale that is required to overcome it's hurdles that is; namely war, climate change, the Great Filter (if climate change *isn't* our Great Filter), etc.

[@thesolarfutureenthusiast1102]

Under the right conditions, mice will attack other mice. Albert's IQ did pip mine 🤣but he may have been wrong on this.

[@1catattack]

I think the word that would fit more than practical would be viable, though it was an interesting question regardless.

[@TreeCamper]

The question of economy and politics and rise and fall of civilizations and independent organizations jockeying for power reminds me about all the factions in the Dune universe.

[@thisisMeDM]

Discord notifications are so much better than KZbin, I can finally catch new Pete when he drops

[@jegsh4299]

Pete!! I'm sure you know, but I find most people don't know that the word "soviet" translates roughly to "worker's council." When you talk about distributed decision making as a solution for the complexity of resource and power allocation, you are tapping into an idea with a rich and tragic historical tradition. Anyway, love the vids man. Thanks for all the stress relief! Keep up the good work :)

[@thesolarfutureenthusiast1102]

Communism is a great idea on paper 🙂 It's just in practice that it doesn't work.

[@allstarbusboy]

"Communism doesn't work because whenever a country attempts it America spends billions of dollars making sure it doesn't"

[@Zesserie]

Spoiler block here!

[@smokane81]

Begging for attention here too give me attention

[@owlyroy5330]

Hi Pete! I love the fixed Friday show. Would be great if you made a playlist of fixed Friday games so I could binge them instead of scrolling endlessly to find them ☺️

[@ryanmcnabb5722]

There is classic fixed video Playlist

[@jayyy5270]

and on his second channel "FreePete" there is specifically what you are asking for

[@rivercox8172]

Very insightful, learned some things for sure! Thanks pete!

[@ipsylon9833]

Came for the risk. Stayed for the deep perspective. Quite enjoyable and insightful.

[@Cyraxslayer666]

That regi cam is AWESOME! I’m still trying to figure out how you managed to wrangle na out of black, when he came back after that bot out I thought for sure he was going to break you. He ended up being a ticking time bomb!

[@Dino-god69]

56:00 I call it Non-Committal Strategy, you don't want players to have expectations of you beyond basic bias. You still play friendly with those you want to, and you don't with those you don't want to. Its actually kind of fun sometimes, but it's not viable for ranking up. Guy has probably been playing for awhile.

[@RoyalJoker15]

Maybe, but He also made so many bad plays and moved egregiously slow even in the 1v1 when there would be no reason to bluff anymore.

[@davids8345]

The game was good, the discussion was better! Thanks Pete...

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Cheers!

[@danielmanning5845]

Impressive coordination with everyone almost cardblocking black 9:38

[@jphughes6868]

I thoroughly enjoyed that answer to the question :)

[@Delfontes]

Seems like once equilibrium is established it's just a matter of waiting for someone to get bored and suicide hopefully not into you.

[@PorkBoy69]

Yep its a real problem in Risk's late game design. The 'right' way to play is not the fun way.

[@MsLondondude]

The logic of empires rising and falling was based on a state of technological advancement that didn't involve the globalization of economic and military power that can happen within hours. Also, nukes have totally changed the power of nation-states to be able to, in a state of serious economic decline, simply enslave neighboring countries as long as all other super nation-states agree. The only way an empire can really fall these days if it is understood comparatively to other nation-states (empires in the present), is via democratic self-destruction. But this will most likely cause a state of economic decline in the nation that causes the rise of a populist government that promises war as a way to overcome said decline - using nukes to simply take what they want. However, economic interdependence which places China and the US as the main superpowers (they control the flow of capital and own tons of assets), does prevent a state simply 'taking' what they want from other non-nuclear states, but gradually, the populist movements will argue for more economic isolation to allow for more aggressive military operations. This is exactly what we are seeing in Russia, Italy, Sweden, Netherlands, UK, and so on. The war with Ukraine and Covid are giving populist governments the tools to argue that economic interdepdency is the problem, not neoliberalism taking all the resources from said dependence, leading to less elasticity in times of difficulty. That said, it is obviously true that empires can fall via natural disasters or overconsumption etc, but in this case, given where we are now, essentially every empire will fall if one of them does. Since the one that falls, will react with such force to prevent it, all others will be drawn into nuclear war or have to watch it happen. Also, I think it this important to note that when Pete said "democratisation of resources", I think he is talking about social democracy, not full-on socialism. And yes, social democracy has shown to be the best way to economically grow a country if your interest is to ensure a fair distribution of that growth. Of course, neoliberalism is the best way if you want the growth to only really be experienced by the 1% etc, who then absorb all the assets and wealth of the lower classes until they have it all.

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Re your first paragraph, there is a tendency for us to think we exist outside of history which is the result of a few different cognitive biases as we all maybe the technologial situation you described. Only time will tell if the empire falls and if so how so, but I would put all my chips in on the bet that says in 100 years time we do not have a US hegemony as the dominant empire globally.

[@gobz8965]

He says about revolution being essesntially different to previous timelines look at the arab revolutions in libya egypt etc. Egypts revolution was fairly bloodless. In the last 100 years we've seen alot of changes in socity such as the suffragetes movement where yes there was loss of life it was fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things. segregation in America was another one that was fairly bloodless ultimatlely

[@lukasbalazik3488]

33:15 I love watching my favourite risk youtuber while listening to marxist theory. I am a Marxist, I despise capitalism and its nature, and I love to see that even politically neutral intellectuals understand its inherent flaws. :D

[@mieszkochojnacki]

Why do you use less troops than total?

[@truth_powers]

RIP red didn’t even do anything to him…

[@owlyroy5330]

Red had the opportunity to speed up the game up by taking out the weak Australia player. Instead they just played boring. Deserved the su

[@truth_powers]

@@owlyroy5330 🤨

[@dwarian5252]

@@owlyroy5330 I don't think they DESERVED the sue, but they did deserve the longer game length.

[@paulmccarthy1444]

I think they deserved the sue as they could have gone to a 3 player equal endgame but chose to wait for others to make a move, silence is violence.

[@benmarshall4077]

@@paulmccarthy1444 I would have sued lol

[@davidsalisbury1688]

I think your answer to the question was fantastic sir. I mostly agreed, especially the bit where we all as a species must decide together where we want to go next.

[@thomasscott7937]

Do you think that the two doors with goats and one door with a door puzzle is an example of the gamblers fallacy or is it truth?

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

I have read the explanantion for why it's correct to switch a number of times and I still don't have a clue why

[@thomasscott7937]

@@TheKillPeteStrategy haha! Never expected to hear that from you.

[@thomasscott7937]

@@TheKillPeteStrategy I agree that it’s quite hard to understand the theory but I think that’s because it only works in theory, and we know that in real life, “luck” doesn’t really work the way the theory describes. At least that’s my two cents.

[@pixl2286]

I love putting on a Pete video for Risk and being hit with some major philosophical discussion and some Reggie.

[@ZezoTVNL]

I wanna play risk against you man

[@dkuzanek]

Pete, I'm sure you hear this often, but I've never played a single game of Risk in my life. Regardless, I still enjoy the show. Best wishes!

[@lawtonperret]

Anyone ever listen to Dan Carlin’s hardcore history?? Same vibe as Pete when he gets deep into his philosophy bag

[@jordanbeaudoin8425]

Dan Carlin's Hardcore History is a gem. The man is an extraordinary story teller!

[@shadowmancer7040]

I wondered why you left japan in yellows possession for so long when it would have sorta pushed you to 13 territories. You eventually did but after maybe as many as 20 turns of being mostly at 11 or 12 territories.

[@STR4nG3boy]

I know you hate labels but I've never considered you a communist haha I share 100% of your analysis Edit: holy shit you know the Zeitgeist trilogy, nice. Not many people know it

[@DeadInside-ew8qb]

I bet you like John Lennon’s “Imagine”

[@Zanxos]

I feel like black suicided Red because he was trying to work on a card block on yellow and having a trading spot up there but red wasn't committing troops to it. But then again black also kept giving yellow cards while doing that. Who knows. Maybe it's cause Red put all of his troops right next to black.

[@ogtyleredwards9785]

ah yellow, the first person pete hit as well as the last

[@damonpalovaara4211]

51:22 269 is prime and has 69

[@leovinci3149]

That is what happens when you have a chance to finish off a player but instead choose to keep your irrelevant advantage of 10-15 troops

[@doomofthedestiny8065]

28:00 FYI a mixed metaphor is a malaphore

[@RoyalJoker15]

I’m convinced the game glitched and switched red and yellows rank😂

[@Scyxiii]

I wouldn't say capitalism is in end stages, i would say our markets being dictated by corporations and the wealthy elite whom have placed value on the wrong things that allows a civilisation to grow and survive. Even if a huge collapse happens there will still be some sort of capitalism happening, there will still be trade, markets and things we perceive as value being exchanged. Just feels like most of the problems we currently have is due to a misguided belief in what is valued highest and what people can live without, cause at the end of everything the most highly valued things are gonna be Water, Food, Safety and Heat.

[@pupper5580]

I always learn something while watching Pete. Gambler's bias is a new one for me. Although in games like Dota, because of pseudo-chance mechanics, previous events affect the next events - which is incredibly stupid to me. And it is conditioning people to think in a gambler's bias way.

[@brianmason8287]

Anyone else play Europe advanced progressive capitals and after a hour of a good game people bot out even though they are strong and you end up getting a easy victory?

[@dwarian5252]

Many people don't have the time to play games for that long. I take my 6 hours of free time on school days for granted, while everyone I talk to at my school usually only get 4-2 hours. Or maybe they are just bored and don't want to sue and ruin someone elses game. Who knows?

[@desyncer]

Sometimes I fall asleep playing Risk, especially if it is the late game "take a card and pass" playstyle.

[@Captain_J18]

Why did you hit the yellow 3 instead of black 2? It would've been easier hitting the 2 stack instead of yellow 3 .

[@pasqualesimonelli1513]

That's what I thought. Maybe because yellow didn't accept the alliance?

[@SB-ex8nt]

These serious discussions are about as thought-provoking as they are off-putting against Reggie cleaning his butt.

[@MostlyLoveOfMusic]

what does "dude's trade" mean?

[@dwarian5252]

A set of 3 cards that are all Infantry cards (the ones with the soldier/infantry/dudes/people on the front)

[@shadowmancer7040]

And when playing fixed they are the least valuable trade. In progressive the type of set is irrelevant only the increasing value.

[@PorkBoy69]

It's when you smoke weed and trade cards at the same time, so it's like "dude"

[@InQuizitiveTrivia]

So I think the question is fundamentally flawed. It presumes that capitalism is going unchecked and that is why we are having cost of living issues we currently are facing. That really isn't the case though as it is the governmental interference that is causing costs to rise. Most people assume that because there is a super wealthy upper class that is taking resources away from the lower and middle classes which is not what is happening. The price of goods in true capitalism is set by 2 parameters, the availability of the item and the amount of money the target market can reasonably afford to spend on that item. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffet having billions of dollars doesn't effect that cost. If you were to take money from the top and distribute it to the middle and lower classes prices would simply rise as now there is more money available to be spent and the supply of the item did not increase. Most items relative to your purchase power are actually a fair bit cheaper than they were 20 or 30 years ago. For instance a gallon of milk in 1970 was about 1.20 and the average income was a little over 8k. Today that same gallon of milk is about 3.60 and the average income is closer to 70k. So a 3x increase in milk cost but an 8x increase in income. A loaf of bread has gone from 50 cents to 2.00 a 4x increase. TVs and most consumer electronics have seen major fall offs in price over the years etc. Cars have pretty much kept pace with wages. There are really 3 things that are pushing and breaking peoples budgets. Housing, Student Loan Debt, and Medical Bills. Housing is an interesting one as in the 1950s in America we were building 1 million homes a year. Today in 2023 we are still building around 1 million homes a year. The population has gone from 150ish million to around 330 million. So we have built 70 million new homes for 180 million new people. But that also doesn't take into account the homes that are no longer habitable or the major decline in the rust belt pushing people to other parts of the country. Suddenly you can see we simply aren't building homes fast enough to keep prices reasonable so any time rates are low prices will get pushed up dramatically as people try to scramble to get into a house. The fact that we aren't building enough houses has nothing to do with corporate greed either but with the fact that we have a trade labor shortage which is not going to go away and and we have created our own lumber shortage. Both of these issues have kind of been created by societal changes in the views of blue collar workers which pushed more kids into 4 year degrees and has helped cause the student loan debt issues. Combine that with people having issues with cutting down trees (which have now burned) and we have our lumber shortages. Really probably could go on for quite a long time about this stuff. But lets just say that most of the problems we have today are not really problems caused by how we distribute and produce resources but rather how we interfere in that system in mostly negative ways.

[@pasqualesimonelli1513]

That turned out to be a nice comment but I don't agree at all with the start. "it is the governmental interference that is causing the cost to rise" is a very bold statement. Also, the last part of your comment was very interesting, looks like you are a big advocate for the lassez-faire but it's now become clear (at least outside of the USA) that this simply doesn't work. Again, you had very interesting takes I agree with on the specific problems and their causes but you just seem to propose an unregulated market as the answer when it's become clear it can't be

[@InQuizitiveTrivia]

I am not for no regulations and yes it is a bold statement. For instance Anti Trust laws serve a purpose of promoting competition. Having lots of competition is what helps drive capitalism and keep costs down. We can directly see how removing competition negatively effects pricing when you look at big pharma. They have been able to successfully use copyright law to reduce/eliminate competition for various life saving products. This in turn has forced some medications to be extremely high. Many on the left would want the government to step in to fix the issue by doing some sort of universal health plan and being able to leverage that into buying power to keep costs down. The reality is that it won't keep costs down unless you have multiple sources that you can get similar products from. The correct course should be to fix the copyright laws (not remove them cause they are important) so that big pharma can't abuse them. Will this happen? Not likely because big pharma has a huge lobby that contributes to a lot of campaigns so it is not in the law makers best interest to fix the copyright laws or really do anything that would fix the cost problem other than distribute it amongst more people or just take on massive amounts of debt. This is not a problem with capitalism but with the interaction between government and capitalism. Another problem and probably the primary reason college prices have raised so dramatically is a change that happened in the 70s (I don't remember the exact year). Essentially government wanted to make sure more African Americans had access to higher education. Which is a good cause to champion for, the problem is in what they did to get there. Student loans were pretty rare prior to this change because of the general higher risk associated with collecting on the loan. So the government made a change that Student loan debt could not be cleared in bankruptcy (or at least it is much harder compared to other forms of unsecured debt). This incentivized banks to give out tons of money so people could afford to go to school. The number of schools didn't increase nor did the number of students those schools could teach. But now you have a much larger pool of people who could afford to go to the school so they did what anyone would do when faced with more customers than supply they increased the prices to reduce the number of customers until the supply and customers are closer to equal. Today this has resulted in many kids having 50-100k in student loan debt at the age of 22. This in turn leads to a bleaker financial outlook because many of them will be still trying to pay down these loans and the associated interest 10, 20, even 30 years later. It is crazy. Combine this with a big push in middle and high school to go college at a societal level and now many of the kids that would have become plumbers, carpenters, electricians, mechanics, and so on are not following this path. They are instead taking out massive loans to get into a career that they may not have much aptitude for simply because they think that is what is expected of them. If they had gone the trade route not only would they not have any student debt they would be getting PAID to be an apprentice and learn the skills. This has created a massive labor shortage in the trades that makes it virtually impossible to build enough houses for everyone. And it all roots back to 1 change the government made to try and force a system to do something it didn't need to be doing. The 2008 housing market crash is rooted in similar objectives. The government wanted to see more underprivileged people have access to buying a home. So they passed laws to de-regulate the banking and incentivize giving out loans to those who at the time probably wouldn't have qualified. So you have created a higher demand for houses but again they didn't do anything to create a higher supply so housing costs started to rise. 50 years later and here we are with housing, medical, and education costs out of control. Some of which likely would not be the case if the government had stayed out of the way or at a minimum looked at the problem with a wider angle lens. Anyone who has taken a couple business classes knows that if you increase demand without increasing supply then prices go up. If you increase supply without increasing demand then prices go down. If you increase or decrease both at a similar rate then the cost stays the same. So from my perspective what we need is limited regulations on corporations to promote competition. We also need regulations that promote the creation of new business. We also need big companies out of controlling the senators and congressmen. Plenty more that could be said about this. In the end it really isn't the system of economic distribution that is the problem but the interactions between that system and government that is currently messing things up. Oh and my perspective is definitely US centric as that is where I live and spend most of my time doing any research. I can't really speak to the rest of the world although I do know that the level of social programs in other countries tends to be much higher. Any time you add a government funded social program that doesnt have a specific end date you are moving away from capitalism as your form of distribution. All of this is to say that most other countries don't have true capitalism as their form of economic distribution. When I say social programs that have no end date I am referring to what most would think of as Welfare. These programs essentially take money from those who have worked for it and give it to those who haven't. In some cases this might be the morally right thing to do but it isn't very capitalistic. Other social programs don't have the same problems, specifically Unemployment and Social Security. Unemployment has time a time frame and is specifically there to bridge a sudden gap between employers so that your world doesn't fall apart from lack of money. You are technically paying into this every day you work. Same goes for Social Security (If LBJ didn't find a way to mess it up).

[@SimonLAylett1]

S-club t-shirt WUT

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

haha I'm such a dork

[@thesolarfutureenthusiast1102]

I do love me a bit of irony. Talking about the waste of resources, building weapons to kill ourselves, whilst playing a game designed solely around that concept 🙂

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

I see it as less ironic than you do. A market is a free for all game. Ideally FFA is not the same as zero sum. I think realistically incorporating the cooperative and competitive sides of our nature will be how humanity evolves.

[@adamjosey1543]

Late-stage capitalism is not "inevitable" given the growth of AI and implementation of Andrew Yang's Universal Basic Income (UBI) strategy.

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

I do think UBI schemes will continue to allow some kind of market to function for longer than it otherwise would without it.

[@MikeSpike117]

Late stage capitalism refers to the contradictions within the system leading to an untenable way of living. Profit and constant expansion with a constant pressure to decrease wages. I’m sorry if you don’t know but Yang is quite conservative in how he wants to implement UBI. It’s going to be used as a substitute for wages rather than a safety net

[@adamjosey1543]

Who knows where we're going now that AI is here, but I don't buy into the whole "we're all doomed" mindset.

[@adamjosey1543]

@MikeSpike117 Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others. I'm not concerned. We'll figure it out. Everything will be fine.

[@MikeSpike117]

@@adamjosey1543 well if we’re continuing the current use of Ai we are pretty much done

[@schongemeldet1]

Algorithm boost 🔥

[@hustler3of4culture3]

Australia could ruin this game😂

[@windowsxp8561]

Attack more

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Oh babyyy

[@windowsxp8561]

@@TheKillPeteStrategy 🤣

[@IWubYooz]

Gambler fallacy and things like this annoy me because they state a fact without stating anything useful. You could roll 1's for the rest of your life, but you won't.

[@Mushbug88]

Ok

[@sprankster2]

Capitalism is great.

[@soccer101pro]

Hey, Pete. I disagree with a lot of your philosophy because it does not take into account with all of human nature. You do some takes on human nature, just not all of it.

[@jamesstevenson3116]

Stop calling the female avatars, guys ^_^

[@dwarian5252]

can 'guys' not be used in a general way? I don't really see the problem here.

[@PorkBoy69]

You're assuming those avatars are female?