A threesome

Just recently I read a book called Hunger Games which is the first of a 3 part series.  It was a book about a dystopian future with a very interesting 'death game' involved.  Here is the way the game works:

1.  24 people chosen mostly at random from the ages of 12-18 start in a large circle with no equipment whatsoever.  In the middle of the circle is the Cornucopia, which is a huge stash of weapons, food and survival equipment.  The contestants are then let go to do whatever they want but the catch is that only one can leave alive.

2.  The area they can move about in is large, perhaps 10 kilometers on a side, and each night they are told which contestants died the preceding day.

3.  The contestants are drawn from 12 distinct regions, 2 each, and anyone outside the game can spend a ton of money to send them gifts during the match so if you can be appealing to the people watching on TV you can potentially be handed really powerful advantages.

So what do you do in this sort of scenario?  The book presents the idea that normally half the people end up fighting over the Cornucopia and ~8 of them die right away doing so but the victors of that battle get supplies and control over the weapons.  The rest run away and some of those die to starvation, cold, bee stings, traps set by the gamemasters or whatever else.  The gamemasters have the ability and mandate to force a victor so there is no possibility of simply ignoring the others and living off the land indefinitely - you will eventually be forced together by fire, monsters or whatever else they please.

This is a pretty interesting thing to think on.  First off, obviously any alliance is extremely valuable but also short lived.  As soon as you get to the point where your alliance can handily beat the rest of the field there is a massive incentive to strike first and take out one of your allies.  My feeling is that the best strategy in this situation would be to set up a group of three.  In a big group you will quickly run out of anyone who could stop you and get right down to murdering each other in no time.  In a group of three though you have a really enormous advantage against any solo people because you can sleep safely (you hope!) as well as find food, water or shelter while having someone be a lookout.  Of course you also have the advantage that three vs. one in combat isn't much of a fight.  Three is also enough that if there is a large group you are likely to injure or kill some of them if attacked and almost certainly aren't a soft target.

I think three is also much better than two, but for different reasons.  In a three person group it is challenging for one person to decide to kill someone.  For one, the third person would have it easy in deciding who to assist (or to just kill/injure both) and it would be hard to know who would really back you up when you decide to backstab.  In a two person group whoever decides to backstab first pretty much is guaranteed victory so I suspect that alliance would be much more unstable.

Obviously all of this would be extremely random and depend on the personalities involved - young people forced to kill or die aren't exactly going to act predictably!

My personal plan would be to rush the Cornucopia to grab some stuff and try to get at least one nearby person to ally with me.  Hopefully a group of three, but any group is better than solo I think.  It is a risky play at the start but I suspect that my woodsman skills aren't remotely up to the task of surviving in the wild and risks must be taken.  Given the ability of people outside to influence the game I would definitely want to put on a show and act like a contender - it is possible that being up front and getting things done would be critical in keeping me alive.  The other contestants would be more likely to try to eliminate those that are a threat, I would think, but they might also be afraid of an overconfident show.  If you are going to bluff, bluff big would be my credo.

Picture from wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games