This week in USH we have been doing a simulation in which the class was split up into 5 groups. Each group was given a slip of paper that told us what group we were on the board and how many of E.U.’S we had. In the beginning each had different amounts of resources. Some groups had more ships while others had more soldiers or artillery. Every group but group 5 had the same amount of planes. Even though planes weren’t the main concern it was a bit strange that they one while every other group had 6. In the second of the simulation a few groups allied with each other. Two groups even made secret alliance that the public of their country didn’t know about. The happy or sad face that was drawn on the board after every round showed the happiness of each group’s citizens. In the second round the group that I was in notice that the ability produce some products more effectively than others remind us how closely some of the groups represented actual countries in reality; for example are group was able to produce ships without spending as many E.U.’s as other groups. Another group represented Russia because there ability to produce troops was unbelievably quick.
By Jack Tomkins
What did you guys find interesting about the simulation?
I found it interesting that a country that was viewed as weak was taken over by a much stronger country simply because they were a larger country. Does this happen between countries in real life?
ReplyDeleteI found it it interesting that the happiness of our countries was not given to us in terms of how it was calculated, and that the only way to understand it was through trial and error, and analyzing how other countries moved affect their happiness.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how no one is willing to ally with group 5 because it is the weakest and other groups wanted to declare war to eliminate group 5 (the one that causes the least fear) They were thinking that they should gain more territories to be stronger. But does gaining more territories really help improve security?
ReplyDeleteIn group 4's defense, they thought they would get the resources from whichever country they won against in war. So they thought that group 5 would be the easiest because it was the weakest, and Group 4 needed more resources
ReplyDeleteThis simulation brought up an interesting point that countries (like Italy in World War I) often joined wars out of interest only for gaining new territories to add to their ever expanding need to grow out their empire. For some reason, because of group 5's great weakness, multiple groups wished to declare war on them, which only lead to chaos, similarly to World War I. It was amazing the parallels this simulation brought up that were so similar to some motives in world war I, like territory and land, but also the trading policies.
ReplyDelete