International Relations theories offer diverse perspectives on how states interact, the nature of global power dynamics, and the factors that drive conflict and cooperation in the international system. The main International Relations theories are offered by three schools of thought, Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism – each of them has its own sub-schools –, which serve as foundational frameworks that shape the common understanding of world politics. 

In designing World Order, we have drawn on these theoretical perspectives to create a game environment that reflects as much as possible the complexities of global interactions and allows players to explore the strategic considerations that underpin the behavior of superpowers. Let’s discover these schools of thought one by one.

Realism is one of the oldest and most influential theories in International Relations, emphasizing the anarchic nature of the international system and the conflict-driven behavior of state actors, which are both guided by the absence of a superior central authority able to enforce rules or protect states. Realists argue that states are primarily concerned with their own survival and security, leading them to pursue power and act in ways that ensure their dominance or balance against rival powers.

In World Order, the principles of realism are central to the gameplay. Players must navigate a world where trust is scarce, alliances are often temporary, and the pursuit of power is paramount to survive and to gain points. Whether playing as the United States, China, Russia, or the European Union, players must constantly assess the relative power of other states, engage in strategic balancing, and sometimes resort to the military to protect their interests. The game’s emphasis on military capabilities, economic resources, and strategic alliances reflects the Realist point of view that power and security are the driving forces in International Relations.

For example, the Russian player might engage in power projection in the post-soviet space or challenge NATO’s influence in Eastern Europe, reflecting strategies based on Realism for securing regional dominance and balancing against Western powers. Similarly, the US player might focus on maintaining global military supremacy and forging alliances to counter China’s rise, embodying the realist concern with preserving hegemony and deterring potential challengers.

Then there’s Liberalism, which, in contrast to realism, emphasizes the potential for cooperation in International Relations, particularly through multilateral institutions, trade, and the spread of democratic values. Liberals argue that states can achieve mutual gains through cooperation, that economic interdependence reduces the likelihood of conflict, and that International Relations play a crucial role in managing global crises and promoting peace and can create an effective global governance.

World Order takes into account the liberal perspective by allowing players to engage in diplomacy and foster economic interdependence to achieve their goals. For example, the EU player can use its strength in economic diplomacy and free trade agreements without resorting to military force. In doing so, World Order allows players to explore and understand how economic and political cooperation can be powerful tools for achieving stability and prosperity in the international system.

Constructivism is another important school of thought, although is less known than realism and liberalism, which focuses on the role of ideas, identities, and social norms in shaping state behavior. Constructivists argue that the international system is not just shaped by material forces like power and wealth but also by the beliefs, identities, and rules that states and other actors bring to the table. According to this school of thought, the interests and actions of states are often shaped by their historical experiences, cultural values, and the social context in which they operate. It’s actually hard to disagree with constructivists, although their ideas are less popular and overshadowed by realists’ and liberals’.

In World Order, constructivism is reflected in the way players can influence identities. For instance, the Russia player is able to negotiate with Communist Cuba, while the US player cannot, and this happens, just like in the real world, in the name of their common anti-American beliefs. But players can also engage in cyber-attacks to destabilize and influence public opinion of their rivals.

One of the strengths of World Order is its ability to incorporate the aforementioned International Relations theories into a cohesive gameplay experience. While realism may drive the competitive and strategic aspects of the game, Liberalism and Constructivism add layers of complexity, allowing for cooperation, institution-building, and asymmetric actions. This interplay creates a dynamic environment where players must navigate a world shaped by competing theoretical perspectives – and competing interests.

As the game progresses, they might find that forming alliances or promoting economic diplomacy offer new avenues to achieve their goals. The game’s design encourages players to think critically about the different strategies available to them, reflecting the multifaceted nature of international relations and providing both an entertaining and educational experience.

To stay informed and ensure you don’t miss the launch of World Order, be sure to visit our Kickstarter page and click the “Notify Me” button.