How to Win on a Multi Pocket Board: Risk Meta Settings

Risk KZbin ► / thekillpetestrategy
Twitch ► / thekillpetestrategy
Discord ► / discord
Instagram ► / thekillpetestrategy
TikTok ► / thekillpetestrategy
Patreon ► / thekillpetestrategy
For Business & Sponsorship Inquiries Email: [e-mail]
I am so grateful for your time, attention, support and kindness!
Donations are never expected and always appreciated. Thank you!
#Risk #RiskStrategy #RiskGlobalDomination #boardgames

[@benrund-scott1598]

Is it just me, or are the side icons cut off? Edit: accidentally became the spoiler block😅

[@ZtotheG]

It’s not just you

[@tommendham7686]

Yeah the whole layout is off

[@jan-seli]

The rare Pete oopsie

[@djthechef8975]

Same

[@remcovanhartevelt588]

It's just you😅

[@davidzanoni5549]

Sweet, I was the green player in that game. Awesome to make a KZbin video. Had to rush north as I knew I was gonna get cut off from you mid and white coming from Italy. Holding 3 easy kills was just too much to overcome.

[@FreePete]

GGs man! Happy to give second there. I got really lucky.

[@bartstanley9678]

It’s hard to get oriented with the game because I am used to using the outside icons that got cut off to understand the turn order. It’s funny when you realize how much you use one feature of the game when you no longer have it.

[@mattbarmore9318]

That was bothering me as well, had to go back and make sure i didnt change a setting and have it cut off on my side.

[@TheShizz011]

Brilliant video pete, I like the one answer per episode idea!

[@highlytenacious7608]

Nice vid as always! I got greedy in turn 1 and another player won 8v5 against my Cap, losing only 1 of their own troops. It was Balanced Blitz, so I think the odds of that happening were like under 1% 😢 Still got the 3rd spot out of 6 by just hiding in the corner lol 😝

[@kenmathenge3642]

Just in time! Thank you Pete. Wish you'd make more meta setting videos tho ❤

[@FreePete]

Oh ya lots of meta settings vids

[@tommykahlow5353]

Pete! Love the videos man. Keep up the good work!

[@DrMrNikolaMax]

I like your politics man, i bet thats why you play risk, hopefully people like you will dominate the world not just on the board! :)

[@joeynapier9286]

I do like the newer framing in that the Western Sahara or the territory below Morocco is visible

[@jamesdula9539]

One phrase I'll never get tired of... "What is up... RISK TAKERSSS"

[@kalekompa3231]

nice one sir Pete---greetings from Croatia

[@dontmindme6995]

22:45 I support the idea that people are able to represent their interests, but I feel like because we life in our current system, that many, too many, people do not only not see the bigger picture, but don't even see themselves, where they stand and what they want. Might just appear to me because of the age spectrum of the people around me (I'm not even 20 yet), but that's what it feels like

[@FreePete]

A lot of people feel this way and it's a fundamental criticism of democracy

[@dontmindme6995]

@@FreePete I guess so, but in fairness I prefer disoriented people all having a say to a disconnected-from-life bunch that have all the say. Politics is a compromise and that's why I hate it

[@gamers_1]

Great game pete as always 👍🔥❤️🔥❤️

[@nicholassinggih6678]

Here's an idea: Once you've kill-guarded a bot with two cards in a corner like that - the best thing to do in a progressive game is to keep it alive until the bonus reached a high number. Then, right before you harvest its cards, let it take one of your territory so you can get three cards instead of two. If you do this, you might end up with a surprise huge bonus. But seeing how Pete did it, it's so beautiful - the chain kill was superb and he does it with confidence showing that he is a true grandmaster. To keep it alive and not become a threat, just lower its troops to 2 or 1 each turn. You'll get better chances with three vs two dice rolls. But this is just for longer games. If done right, you will profit from the element of surprise. But it is very risky. It's a lot less risky if the player simply raised the white flag. Anyway, the game is broken for me. My 100% chance is often not 100% aka failed. Love Pete's idea on non-representational democracy. Cut out the middle-man & lower the risk of manipulation by a group of oligarch. But you know what they say, democracy is only as good as the intelligence of its citizens. If people's votes can be ranked based on how well they've performed in intelligence based tests, perhaps that would give a more robust votes. Say, every age-appropriate citizens must complete a series of tests before they can vote. Based on the result of those tests, they will receive a grading system which will determine the weight of their vote.

[@ruthlesace]

You're final comment literally described high school. Except we don't add or subtract voting value from it because that's actually not good. Imagine being born with a mental deficiency that makes it harder to learn, your vote now matters less due to things beyond your control. What about a head injury? Speech impediment? Stroke? Where did it start how does it end and then the few richest people who can pay for the best education get to control the highest percentage of votes making the disparity between the classes even worse passing laws that only benefits then instead of everyone.

[@nicholassinggih6678]

@@ruthlesace Very good points. But there has to be a much more accurate way to test intelligence or how someone's vote would weigh in any election, right? Remember it's not about equality, but it's about fairness. A person with mental deficiency should be heard and counted as well, but if they don't really understand the issues that the nation is really facing - then fair is fair, their vote should weigh less than, say a poor hard working teacher who might have a better idea for a solution for the nation. Remember that the benefit really goes back to the people with mental deficiency as well. I wouldn't assume people with mental deficiency to be less capable in the tests compared to a college graduate who probably never learns anything about the state of the nation. So it really boils down to how well these tests are designed: they shouldn't favor levels of education as much as the actual aptitude of the person in solving problems. They should also grade how well a person understands the current socioeconomic problems. And, they also should factor in the person's track record in community service, their contribution to society and their genuineness. But, the scores wouldn't be so extremely contrasting that it won't discount anyone. A base point of 1 for everyone + a fraction of 1 depending on the tests. For example: an unemployed, uneducated homeless person scored 0.2. So he'd get 1.2 score. While a nobel winner Professor got a 0.9, so he gets 1.9. And let's say a person with a mental disability scores 0.4, so they get a total 1.4. So you see, everyone's vote matters, just with different weights. Look, fair is fair, if a person is smart but he's got head injury and therefore hasn't been keeping up to date with the current news, then his views would weigh less because he lacks the understanding of what the nation is facing and what solution would be best for all people. Speech impediment doesn't block someone from scoring an online test. A person with a stroke can still complete the tests with assistance from loved ones or appointed officials. They will have a minimum score of 1 anyway.

[@ruthlesace]

@nicholassinggih6678 the only fair way to get there is to leave everybody at a 1. The most fair voting there has ever been is in a republic. Where the voters elect representatives. The best way to handle that is to have a representative for a region AND a group. And each representative gets a vote based on the amount of each group they represent in the size of the area. So a .1% of the population is not making laws that affect 99% of the population.

[@nicholassinggih6678]

@@ruthlesace I see your point. CMIIW, what you just describe is the current electoral college system in the US. However, you've circled back to exact same spot in this discussion as before. I mentioned that the problem with such method is that the result of the vote would be as good or bad as the collective level of intelligence of the population. If the majority is only interested in getting drunk or having a more free sex lifestyle, then you'll have a problem. This is apparent lately in the US. Some people have claimed that Trump was objectively a terrible president, and the US is now most divided in the last fifty years. The representational system is also what Pete called archaic in the video. I'd also argue that giving everyone an equal weight is not fair at all. It's basically the same principle as communism, where everyone gets the same regardless of what they bring to the table. It's not fair because a person who's put their heart and soul in studying economics and social sciences and have lived in the country all their life, would have exactly the same weight as someone who doesn't care about the country and never paid attention to socioeconomic problems of the country. Let's say, not saying anything against immigrants here, there are people who've just migrated and became citizens in the last two years. They never paid attention to issues surrounding their communities, let alone the country. They never bothered to learn the language. All they know about an issue was told them by their criminal minded relatives. Okay, this is hypothetical, I'm not claiming most immigrants are like this. But I don't think it's fair for a person like that to have the same exact weight as someone who's worked hard to study the issues of the nation, and have time and time again contributed to the communities. My opinion is that we should differentiate the vote weight of each individual for the same reason why we deem it illegal for a twelve year old to vote: it's because most people agree they're not qualified to give a reasonable vote. With a proper grading system, everyone has a vote but some people would have more weight than others. It's not like they're barred from voting. Everyone has the right to vote, but if they want their vote to count more, they should prove their intention for the well-being of the country by demonstrating their efforts to improve their understanding of the current affairs of the country, and their aptitude to solve its problems. In summary, voting should be seen as a job: where each 'employee' would have more say if they've shown more objective qualification/potential in improving the well-being of the whole country. Just like in a household, the parents would have more say in what they buy compared to the children - not because they're older but because they have more experience, knowledge, wisdom to know what is best for the whole household.

[@nicholassinggih6678]

@@ruthlesace I also want to add that a twelve year old should be able to give their opinion on policies to be adopted by the country. And if they scored better than a 21yo in the pre-election tests, then what they have to say should be counted more than the 21yo's. That, I believe, is more objective than just judging people based on their age.

[@ZytphenA]

Spoiler Block❤

[@Kariegoz]

Such a juicy chain kill, you're gonna need a clean shirt!!

[@lukenzije2233]

Hey Pete! I have one very interesting idea that I think it would be a lot of fun! Try to make new series where you will do a crazy challenge's.Like when you play a capital's to draw a continent before a game starts and you must put your Capital there,no matter is it bad or good choice.Becouse you have very good skills and you are a grandmaster I am shure it will be a fun for you and us (your weivers)! (And because you have crazy stats make a new account just for that) Let me know what you think about that. Love you!!

[@sammyazmon]

the map is offset to the right too much you cant see the characters.

[@kenmathenge3642]

What's up with the video crop..😅

[@markjust86]

I literally can't watch this with the sides cut off. I need to be able to see how many troops and shit people have. Hopefully you can re-upload it.

[@markjust86]

@@SirConfectionery and that stops me from seeing petes troops count and number of territories? I think not dummie!!!

[@FreePete]

👍

[@mattbarmore9318]

I'm sure they have programmed it well enough, but has there ever been a game with a true pocket, and not just a one point hold?

[@FreePete]

You can get the blizzards so that the only way in is a stable portal

[@road9ten256]

Makes a point to say he’s playing no bonus game and takes a bonus and guards the very first turn lol

[@Delfontes]

I think he's playing with a projected screen behind him and the canvas is skewed

[@chrisnorthern9897]

All forms of government seem to develop into some form of aristocracy. It seems then that we are only ever involved in determining what the nature of the aristocratic class will be. I don't see direct democracy being any different. Who proposes what to vote on? Who controls how many people hear which interpretations of what is being voted on? They become the aristocrats. With hereditary aristocracy, it can at least be said that the people know the nature of the the class that rules, as the and thus their nature is open and apparent to be supported or opposed.

[@FreePete]

So the question is whether that design is inevitable. Nested inside the notion of a functioning direct democracy would be a systemic ability for all to propose what is voted on. Your point about who controls what people hear is something that I've thought a bunch on. The media becomes stronger in this paradigm than it already is and we are already very heavily propagandized. In this way I think your second question is a much strong ctriticms than the first.

[@chrisnorthern9897]

You are correct, that is indeed the key to the debate; I tend to think that innate human nature will out in all circumstances; what percentage of people do you suppose would involve themselves in direct democracy? What would their nature likely be? Those who want to control other people I would expect to involve themselves more, and those who want to control only themselves rather less. Any other such division of involveds would immediately manifest itself and begin the process of reduction to an aristocracy, I think. You're a smart fellow, Pete. I appreciate all aspects of your work. I've been thinking on this subject for literally half a century. I don't think there's an answer. Good governance is an intractable problem, achieved more by luck than judgement and in either case seems fleeting; there's no system that can't be corrupted. But we live in hope, eh? It's at the very least a more satisfying emotion than despair. @@FreePete

[@FreePete]

I see it as a design problem. And human beings are excellent designers with proper incentives. So that's how I'd answer that question of yours. People would participate in the process if the incentives to do so were correct. I don't think we have an innate human nature though so we would have a lot to discuss on that point. @@chrisnorthern9897

[@user-ot4cf8ym7n]

❤

[@moisesm3058]

Pete : “long story short I believe in democracy” Risk : yeah sure, Pete’s dictatorial democracy

[@user-ot4cf8ym7n]

How do I get in a game with you?

[@FreePete]

I do viewer games on twitch

[@ERISISMYWIFE]

Spoiler Block!

[@user-ot4cf8ym7n]

You have a dm?

[@FreePete]

My discord is always open. Public forum works better for me than dms

[@tsherman393]

The endless political questions, on risk 😅😅😅😅😅 So boring. Not the proper forum. Pete is intelligent and interesting but stop asking ridiculous questions about politics. Go make a difference or shut up. It's risk ♡

[@FreePete]

I'm new to being a person who gets asked questions and who's opinion anyone gives a shit about. I wonder if my current strategy of: let anyone ask a question and as long as it's respectful I'll answer, is the right one?

[@tsherman393]

@@FreePete i love your insights, your approach and your respect , so Maybe one political question, with a time limit, so we don't stagnate haha I feel like I'm a captivated audience, to a bunch of lazy noobs, that don't put troops on their capitals. ♡♡♡

[@MalamuteX]

A Mob rules supporter of politics. Heh,... right on. Completely incapable of governance, but sure, great... 🤣