May 29, 2015 Blog Entry

The Human Side

As we all know, there are especially annoying and war-aggressive gamers in a school, who always try to take over a city and end up becoming war mongrels. I'd like to point out Dominic Marra in this blogpost. During the Civ 5 game my partner and I have started a few days ago, Dominic has already waged 2 wars with us. The only reason we were able to negotiate peace in the first war was only because his computer disconnected, so his AI allowed us to make peace. However, when we least expected him to notice, he waged another war on us again in order to take over one of our cities, just because we were too near his capital. But, come on, our empire needs to expand, too. Why can't we coexist? It's not like we're planning to attack you... or are we?

See, the interesting thing about the human mind is that as much as the Christian belief says to show the other cheek when someone slaps you, we realize that we can't. Instead, we have to be like the Babylonians and believe in Hammurabi's code, which says eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. So basically, if someone attacks you, you have to attack back. If you don't, you end up looking weaker than your opponent. I just don't understand why "peace for a peace" doesn't work out in this game. Is it that hard to make alliances and trust each other? Has trust been hard to achieve over the years? Why is it that we're constantly fighting each other? Why can't we keep secrets anymore? Why can't, say, the Israelis and the Palestinians start to trust each other and stop firing rockets at each other? Why do we ALWAYS have to live in a world filled with tension in the atmosphere?

Why, DOMINIC, do we have to continue this war? Why couldn't you have just politely asked and tried to NEGOTIATE with us?

While playing Civ 5, and dealing with Dominic, I realized that the aggressive and "cruel" side of me was appearing again. Although I wasn't exactly swearing aloud, I was using some euphemisms to point out how Dominic was waging a stupid costly war. More than that, when he was saying that he couldn't take over the country, despite how he attacked it with around 5 units, I told him: "That's because you're not Thor, so you are not worthy of the hammer." Avenger fans, do you get the reference? Through this game, I realized how, despite the quiet, seemingly okay side of Dominic, he was in truth a very aggressive, and war-pursuing dude, just like other male gamers.

I sigh again, as I say MALES.

But I think that on the other hand, games with actual people are more interesting than one with AI players, because it enriches more of the "trust or betray" dilemmas in my head, and it makes me have some fun. After all, it's just a game, and even if you die, you don't actually die <-- again, this is a negative side of Civ 5, but, eh, that's what makes a game enjoyable. AI players don't have the ability to think and wonder; they do what they are programmed to do. But humans are different: they can think, make decisions, and do what they decide to do, whether it's by impulse or calm and concentrated calculations.

Gameplay May 27, 2015

Rank the people of Civ 5 in order of importance for your civilization. Explain your thinking in a paragraph. Helpful link 

My Rank:
1. Worker
2. Warrior (any military unit)
3. Scout
4. Caravan
5. Missionary

First, I'd rank the workers as the most important people in our civilization. Without the workers, our city has no access to all the plentiful resources. Resources weren't meant for watching; they were meant for utilizing. Workers can do lots of things for the city that all result in a lot of money, food, and/or production. They can construct roads and railroads, and improves farms, plantations, and mines. With them, we get access to the plentiful resources, which helps promote trade, increase happiness of the citizens, and/or improve military units in the long run (e.g., iron, horses). Second comes the warriors (or any military unit in general). The workers are not able to defend themselves, and neither is the capital. With warriors, however, security is maintained. Since barbarians are usually rampant within this game, it is always safe to leave some military units behind to defend the city. Also, especially now that there are real human players in the game, it is important to produce extra military units so as to be on the safe side. Thirdly, scouts are incredibly important, because although warrior units do have the potential to safely explore the entire game, they have to remain in the city, too, so it is better to make scouts explore the whole area. With scouts, we can find a lot of new civilizations to negotiate with them and propose deals together, and touch various ancient ruins in order to increase the happiness of our civilization. Fourthly, caravans are important, because they promote trade. A caravan establishes trade routes between two civilizations, increasing gold, food, and production for the city. However, trade ships are better than these caravans, because more barbarians are likely to attack a caravan, than a trade ship. Trade, so far, has been more successful with cargo ships than caravans, in my opinion. The negative side to the caravan is that if they do not have a designated trade route, they're stuck in the capital, which makes it a little irritating. Finally, I rate missionaries the lowest, because I don't really think religion is important in our game. Religion doesn't always make a civilization powerful. It's always a nice addition to have, however, to strengthen a culture. Even countries like China did not prosper because of religion, but it is fairly prosperous today. We want our civilization to grow similarly to that of China, by focusing on an aspect other than religion.

Final Civ 5 Blog Entry (M3)

Civ 5 is a terrible simulation that reinforces negative and unhelpful ideas about the world. Agree or disagree? Explain.

Civ 5, in some aspects, is unrealistic, so I half agree and half disagree that Civ 5 is a terrible simulation. For instance, although Civ 5 shows that war is very costly and long-lasting, I never understood how painful and agonizing the lives of the innocent people in the war were. In fact, when I heard the townspeople screaming when I shot the main city of a civilization, I felt powerful. I felt like I was making progress in this war and that I was going to win. This shows that war isn't taken seriously when playing this game; it is, in fact, a mere tool that you can use in this game in order to have a military victory. I couldn't understand what the reality of being at war was like. Moreover, the fact that it is incredibly tempting to just trashplay the game and restart a new one is also another unrealistic side to this game, speaking in terms of real life. I understand that Civ 5, despite being a potentially useful simulation, is a game, and that a game can always restart if the player wants to restart. However, I think that this makes the game less meaningful. I mean, if we could restart our lives whenever we could, we would find no point of living, since we wouldn't have to worry about our mistakes and our decisions. Perhaps, if Civ 5 made it so that the saved game could not be restarted unless the civilization actually failed, it would have been more meaningful and simulated life better. Perhaps if one cannot restart a game, he or she will try harder to succeed over a long course of time. Lastly, Civ 5 also would have been more interesting if it showed how interconnected the world was. For instance, it would have been intriguing to see how Civ 5 portrayed how a failed civilization affected the other civilizations. Would that one failed civilization bring other civilizations down or give the opportunity for the other ones to succeed? This question connects to the modern world because even in the Middle East today, the Libyan refugee crisis is not only affecting the Libyans themselves but the countries around it. For instance, Italy is the closest landmass to Libya, and the Libyan asylum seekers are onboard for the islands of Italy. However, Italy is not big enough or financially strong enough to support all these people; and if the EU, for some reason, agrees to take the Libyans in, they would also eventually become a failed state, too. As you can see here, just because Libya became a war-torn failed state, other countries are also getting affected by it. They have to choose between whether they want to take these Libyans in, at the expense of the wellbeing of their own citizens. That is why this crisis is debated upon by students today, because this crisis is two-sided and almost unsolvable, when seen from a global perspective. Nobody is willing to take the Libyans. If Civ 5 had included this interesting interconnected global concept in the game, the simulation would have been much more interesting to see as the "ruler" of our selected civilization. But, instead, Civ 5 is nothing but a zero-sum game, where, if you lose something, that something is gained by the other. Why can't both sides lose something altogether?

I can't exactly say that Civ 5 is a terrible simulation, though. There are always brighter sides to it, like that small tingling feeling of competition you feel in the multiplayer games, and that feeling of "oh, no, I'm falling behind, so I have to catch up" feeling I explained in my other blog posts. I especially enjoy how geographical luck plays into this game, because there are times when I am geographically blessed, so I can settle in the land right away and get ahead of the other civilizations, but times when I'm not, so I fall behind other civilizations. It is incredibly interesting how the game makes the rulers of civilizations like real people. These AI rulers aren't the fools that don't think before they act; they always have a plan in mind, even when they want to declare a war on some other civilization. Although these rulers are nothing but fake computer-programmed people, it is impressive to see the human-like actions and thoughts through these rulers. It is difficult to come up with a fair trade deal with these rulers a lot of times, as they are not easily satisfied with what I propose, just like how real people are hard to satisfy. So, I often have to propose less or more to satisfy them. Oh, which reminds me of another problem with Civ 5. Well, when these rulers propose a deal with me, I often look over it for only 5 seconds and click "accept," because it's hard for me to consider all the consequences considering the amount of resources I have, when I know that Civ 5 is nothing but a game. Like I said before, if Civ 5 had been more meaningful, I would make wiser decisions. Say, if the people's voices were lifted somehow, and the people created anti-government organizations in there, I would actually hesitate or doubt before making my decisions. However, that is not the case of Civ 5. In Civ 5, I am nothing but a ruler, who controls the whole civilization and makes all the decisions, in a civilization where people just follow. So, I never understand how meaningful my civilization is to me in this game. Is it really worth spending all this time on? Civ 5, you tell me.

So, I guess Civ 5 is an okay game simulation, with its merits and demerits. Although I personally have quite a few suggestions that could make the game better, like I proposed above, the game's content itself is pretty satisfying so far. I just feel like Civ 5 would be much greater if it were more realistic and if it also included the people's voice of my civilization. After all, what makes a state isn't just land but its people.

May 22 Blog Entry

1. How will you approach the game differently now that you’re playing with human players instead of the computer A.I.? Are you more trusting or more suspicious of the other players in this game? Explain. Include a relevant picture in your post.

Depending on who I am allies with, I feel like I will either be incredibly cooperative or oppressed the entire time. Often times, I have those moments when I want to prioritize certain aspects of the game (for instance, a certain science branch), but other people want to do something different, so the more vulnerable and meek people listen to those other people (since that's usually the majority of the population), and my opinion never gets heard. This is when I store anger inside me and don't speak for the rest of the game, and the results are usually pretty poor. On the other hand, there are times when people are very cooperative and willing to listen to any opinion. These are the times when I share my ideas very frequently and cooperate very well to end up with the best result. I always realize that which group you're dropped into are often like life, in that they're both the luck of the draw, and we have no control over who we want to be with... which kind of relates to GG&S, because Diamond explains that some people advance quicker than others depending on their geographical luck, but all these people are just born into a certain family at a certain time at a certain place). It really has to do a lot with luck, which can sometimes be cruel, but sometimes be kind to you. But it also depends on what you do to make a change, which can sometimes make a difference, but sometimes not.

2. Which civilization will you play? Explain your reasoning behind this choice. Include a picture with your post (remember to consider backups just in case the civilization is already taken)

I will play the Greek civilization, because I want to aim for winning diplomatically. In order to do so, I have to have the civilization that boosts up alliances with other city-states. I always kept in mind that the Greek civilization was the best when it came to diplomacy, because the city-state influence degrades at half and recover twice at normal rate. With this civilization, I will get loads of city-state bonuses and votes for Diplomatic victory. I will also be able to cross any capital or city-state's border without getting caught for trespassing; I also heard that even if I trespassed the border of an enemy, they wouldn't consider it as trespassing. I could also get cultural or science victory with Alexander the Great, because I can get all the Great Scientists with this civilization. If not, I would like to play as a Babylonian to get a Science victory.

Uh Oh

• Post your civilization’s “demographics” screenshot.
• Explain your various rankings.

• Using this information, comment on your current position in the game

• Using this information, speculate on your long-terms prospects for success in the game. How could you change your gameplay going forward?

As you can clearly see, we're not doing well. At all. Since my partner and I have been focusing on winning the war against Milan for the last few days, we haven't been making any progress in the other factors of the game. In fact, we're nearly second or third to last in everything. First of all, our population is small, because we only have one city (we haven't had the time to build another one). So is our crop yield, as we are not producing much food in the one city we have. Our production rates are also low, so we do not manufacture much goods. Our GNP isn't that high either -- we're not producing much gold for sure (as you can see in the upper left corner, we have an income of +2). Our land definitely is one of the smallest in the region, as we only have one city. Also, I don't know what got into me when I fought that war, because we didn't even have the strongest military in the first place, yet I had the feeling that we would surely take over that city! For some reason, our Approval rate is really high, meaning that our citizens are happy with what we've done... although we clearly aren't. And, although our literacy rates were high in the beginning of the game, we have somehow -- I mean, evidently -- decreased over the past few days, because we were focusing on improving technologies like Ironworking, Chivalry, and etc. Using this information, I know that my partner and I are probably pathetically behind in the game, compared to the other civilizations. Success has been floating away from my partner and my eyes.... HOWEVER, we still have a chance to win this game. All we need to do is focus on diplomacy by interacting with other civilizations, and improving other parts of the technology tree. We need to get another Golden Age, another Great Person, and other branches of the tech tree instead of fighting a time-consuming war. We also need to find more civilizations; as you can see in the lower right corner, we haven't explored much of this whole game, so we need to explore more. We can do this. We can win this. We just need to stand back up, thank the past, and make the future a brighter place.

• “Game Theory”
• Define “game theory.” Here are some helpful links: link1, link2, link3
• How does the prisoner’s dilemma connect to gameplay in Civ 5 (ie. militaries)
• How does the prisoner’s dilemma connect to the relationship between countries in the real world?

Game theory is the study of making decisions or the study of the "mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers." It's essentially where people study the decision-making skills of people by breaking it down into a theoretical mathematical model. It's kind of like the Punnett Square, where there are dominant traits and recessive traits written down, so that you can foretell what traits you will receive from your parents. The prisoner's dilemma is an important game that demonstrates this theory. This is basically an imaginary situation that portrays the human's tendency to either cooperate or betray the another. The situation is this: two prisoners who committed a crime together are locked in separate rooms and told 3 things: one, if they both stay silent, they only go to jail for 1 year; two, if prisoner A talks ("betrays") and prisoner B stays silent, or vice versa, then A is free while B has to go to jail for 6 years; and three, if both prisoners talk, they both go to jail for 10 years. The key thing to remember is that these prisoners are locked in separate rooms, so they do not have any way of talking to the other prisoner. There are four outcomes: 1) both go to jail for 6 years, 2) prisoner A goes to prison for 6 years, 3) prisoner B goes to prison for 6 years, and 4) both go to jail for 10 years, depending on how the prisoners answer. Of course, the "best" outcome of the four depends on the viewpoint of the prisoner. If the prisoner was self-centered, and wished only for the best of oneself, then "betraying" would be the best solution, because that prisoner wouldn't get sentenced to jail! However, in the overall view of the situation, staying silent is the best solution, because not only is the prisoner admitting that he committed the crime, he is also showing that he supports his friend/the other prisoner. 

The prisoner's dilemma connects to Civ 5, as seen in my older blog posts. For instance, when I realized that Milan was quite close to our border and prospering greatly, and I was pondering upon attacking them (before I attacked them), I faced something close to a prisoner's dilemma. I thought of 4 options: 1) don't attack them, because they're neutral, so they won't attack you; 2) attack them and sack the city; 3) wait until they will someday sack your city; and 4) prepare and attack when both sides feel the need. The bad outcome of this would probably be the number of lives killed, because in order to sack the city, I would have to kill hundreds of lives in the actual civilization of Milan, but, on the brighter side, I'd gain more land. Of course, since I was selfish and impulsive, I chose option 2. I didn't want to face any attacks in the near future, so, in order to prevent it, I saved my own self by attacking Milan first.  This probably wasn't the best decision I made in this game, but I made it anyway. I'm sure that if I were faced with the prisoner's dilemma, I would most likely choose option 2, where I "betray" the other person, and profit alone. Now, this dilemma also relates to the countries in the real world, as seen today in Korea. North and South Korea are two countries separated by a demilitarized zone (DMZ). Here, North and South Korea are quietly but not quietly waiting for each other to attack first... or, if you prefer, never. North and South Korea evidently do not understand what each side is planning or thinking of doing (for instance, creating nuclear weapons or preparing an army). North Korea has attempted shooting rockets at South Korea in the past, but a lot of them have failed. I'm sure that both sides thought, and still think, of the 4 outcomes I thought while playing Civ 5. Like the prisoner's dilemma, if both countries stay silent, then no tragedies or losses from either of the countries will occur. If one reacts, then the other will get hurt. If both reacts, both of them will be damaged really strongly. In fact, this conflict between North and South Korea today is almost parallel to the Cold War that occurred between the US and the USSR, in which both sides were developing destructive weapons. Back then, the US and USSR also had the four options presented in the prisoner's dilemma: 1) stop creating weapons altogether, 2+3) create weapons and destroy the other side, and 4) continue creating weapons in both sides. Obviously, since the US and the USSR were in the Cold War, they didn't talk to each other. They only watched what each side was doing by waiting. HOWEVER, they always had the choice to take upon a certain action, just like both sides of Korea do at the moment. 
***One thing to note about the prisoner's dilemma is that real-life examples don't necessarily follow the game theory all the time, because there are often unexpected twists. These two "prisoners" COULD cooperate together in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY to make the future brighter, instead of going through consequences presented in all 4 of the options. For example, North and South Korea could become one country. In that case, neither side will have to carry responsibility for its actions at all. But, of course, we're brought back to reality, where people instinctively take one of the options presented to them instead of thinking of a new one. Thus, this dilemma can be seen almost everywhere in the world. It applies to almost everything you see, like the place you're living in (South Korea) or the game you're playing (Civ 5), as I explained before.

Range Attack. Fortify. Shoot Catapults. Repeat.

Meetings between early colonists and native populations: At some point in your game, you have encountered a civilization which is technologically vastly superior or vastly inferior to yours. 

• What was the outcome of this? 
• Describe how it relates to real-world historical encounters we’ve studied this year.

War is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. Oh, mind you, it's also stupid. So... why did I start the war against Milan? I don't know. It was primarily for land and for the resources found in that land. For 40 minutes today, my partner and I tried to win the war that we started against Milan, thinking that this war would end quickly. However, our predictions were proved to be wrong. Milan was somehow able to put up with all of our units. In fact, it was actually more technologically advanced than our civilization, in that they already had swordsmen while we didn't! So, my partner and I quickly researched iron working in order to catch up with them. We also researched machinery in advance so that we could get our unique units called the Chu-Ko-Nu. HOWEVER (here comes the sad part), we were really unsuccessful in this war. Around 10+ units of ours were obliterated by the Milanese civilization, including our Chu-Ko-Nu units. My partner and I had forgotten the fact that this civilization could also produce a lot of units just like us. They eventually created knights and even swordsmen to fight us. And, somehow, their one catapult in the capital never seemed to be destroyed by our units (most likely because of the city wall they created). We soon found this war to be tedious and pointless, but my partner (who finally came to school) kept telling me to not give up in the war, so I didn't. However, I really feel like we have to give up in this war and find some other way around to getting access to Milan. We should really make peace. I don't get the point of war in general now, and why we have to keep fighting against Milan when there are obviously other ways we can take to get closer to Milan. This experience made me connect to the conflict between Afghanistan and the United States. I'm pretty sure that when the United States first attacked Afghanistan in 2001, they thought that because they were such a great force in the whole entire world, they would win the war easily. However, as proven even today, the Afghan-US war has been going on for a LONG time -- for 14 years! Obviously, a lot of people were killed during this war in the same way our units have been killed. Furthermore, despite how advanced and numerous the US soldiers were, and how outnumbered and weak the Taliban insurgents were, the U.S. had still not been able to gain Afghanistan. They were only killing Afghan soldiers and not making any progress. In a similar sense, we have also been attacking Milan for 40 minutes straight with no progress being made whatsoever, despite how we should've won because we had a lot of soldiers. I mean, we were even using our most unique units that we thought would be our strength in this game! I guess we were proven wrong in a lot of ways -- that war doesn't end quickly in this game just as it doesn't in real life and that its winners cannot be foretold most of the time (despite how technologically advanced one civilization may be).


“War crimes”?

• Do a Google search and provide a definition (EILI5 - “explain it like I’m 5”)
• In your Civ 5 game, have you committed any actions that would be considered war crimes in the real world? Conversely, have you been on the receiving end of any war crimes? Explain.
• Provide an example of “war crimes” from this year’s content (ie. Latin America, Middle East)
• Why do you think Civ 5 makes it so easy to commit these actions without any serious repercussions? Is this a weakness in the game’s design?

"War crimes" are essentially crimes committed during a war, like holding your enemies for hostage, committing genocide, and pillaging a nation. I have definitely committed a lot of actions that would be considered war crimes in Civ 5. For instance, I committed my biggest war crime when I attacked Milan and weakened its capital with a weak reason: to gain more land and resources. However, from a different perspective, Milan has definitely committed some "war crimes" too, because despite how it may seem like they were attacking us for "defense," they were nonetheless killing a lot of our units altogether (from a different perspective, you can see that the Milanese people are also part of this war committing what would be considered their own "war crimes"). Even our Great Generals got killed because of Milan. Moreover, I have definitely been on the receiving end of some war crimes. For instance, when my partner was gone, our workers got stolen by our barbarians. This relates to the war crime of 'holding prisoners for hostage,' because our workers had basically been enslaved by the barbarians. Eventually, I took upon an 'adventure' to take our workers back, and succeeding in doing so, even though I ended up killing 3 of the barbarian soldiers. Furthermore, I have been the witness of war crimes in the game. To use as an example, while attacking Milan, I realized that some barbarian ships kept arriving at the coast of Milan. It was obvious that the barbarians wanted to take over Milan. However, I realized that Milan, to self-defend their city, was also committing a war crime by killing these barbarians. So, I realized that war crimes have two sides to them, depending on which side you're looking from. 
Civ 5 makes it so easy to kill barbarians. This game makes you default into thinking that your goal is to get rid of all these barbarian encampments (or else they'll kill you or steal your workers). Of course, not all barbarians in the real world are like that -- they're not all psychologically impaired and they don't all default into fighting, and we don't in particular have to get rid of them because there are always other ways to get rid of these barbarians. However, Civ 5 makes you want to kill these barbarians, make unit promotions, and eventually even try declaring wars on different civilizations (the game makes you think you're strong enough to obliterate other civilizations and rise to the top). If Civ 5 had included how much the citizens were affected by these wars, and showed how many lives were actually getting killed, war wouldn't start so easily. However, the game makes you think that if you get control of another civilization, you get more land, which results to more resources and more happiness -- when, in truth, it costs a lot of lives, money, and stupidity. 
An ongoing event of war crimes would be the Arab-Israeli Conflict. In order to be more specific, I'll pick on the 2006 Lebanon War. This war started when Hezbollah crossed the border to Israel, and killed 8 Israeli soldiers and kidnapped 2 on the way. In total during this war, 119 Israeli soldiers, 40+ Israeli civilians, and 1,000+ Lebanese were killed. This conflict shows 'war crimes' in several different ways: holding prisoners hostage, murder of civilians, and even using teargas. Apart from Civ 5, where almost no repercussions occur, the 2006 Lebanon War started from the repercussions that formed due the 1982 Lebanon War, which was when Hezbollah (Shia resistance group) was created. This further reveals how both the Israelis and Palestinians fight/commit war crimes before talking, and despite how they fight, nothing is ever resolved between these two sides. War crimes are a serious issue, both in Civ 5 and in the real world. However, Civ 5 makes these war crimes seem "correct" in certain times, while the real world arouses lots of controversies behind these wars.

Failure At The Peak of the Mountain?

What is conflict and why do conflicts begin? Use an example from your Civ 5 experience and connect it to one of the following: Spanish/Incas or Palestinians/Israelis.

I really don't understand why people think that I'm a very "nice, quiet, patient and smart" girl. I absolutely abhor slow-paced games especially when I can't make decisions quicker. I'm honestly a very short-tempered person if I reach my limit. Critical thinking is crucial, and it takes a lot of time -- yes, yes I know -- but today, I just couldn't help but act very unwisely today. I don't know what triggered me, but I assume this must have been what happened in history too. I'm pretty sure I'm going to restart the game next week. Well, new goal: If you want to fail, fail greatly, so that you can start strongly.

Conflict -- or, more specifically war -- begins when.......

1. You want to attain natural resources

2. You want to acquire more land

3. You think the enemy will attack you in the future, so you decide to attack first

4. You think that your religion is "better" than the other country's religion

5. You think your country has more power

6. You think/see that the other country around your border is polluting the environment.

(These are the list of situations in which people in the past have waged war for... it came out in our M3 Prompt for 2014-15 on March 2.)

On March 2, the old Chloe's famous quote was this:

"It’s stupid to just wage a war to take over more land or more resources, because taking over more land and resources can be done by talking things out."

But, as I presumed, words are merely words, and actions usually do not follow words...

By playing Civ 5, I finally realized that it was incredibly easy to declare war on countries that seemed like they had "less" power than you, but more land and natural resources than you. That was the reason why I attacked Milan in the first place. I wasn't being wise at all. I acted before I thought of anything. At the moment, I had no regrets. I knew I was going to obliterate them. Our combat strength was even stronger than theirs! But I had forgotten that attacking a city for no apparent reason wasn't really efficient at all, but that it was rather stupid. I remember Mr. G said that I could gain more resources for free from Milan by trading with them, rather than taking on on a war, but for some reason, greed and aggressiveness took over me. The feeling at that moment was almost like seeing a bothersome fly buzzing in front of me and wanting to destroy it completely. Right before I attacked, I remembered how I read something about how war was incredibly costly and often a bad idea. But I persisted anyway. I know this move must have been foolish, but having kept a lot of irritation and fear inside me for days, I couldn't help but attack. Of course, I brought a lot of my units, but I realized that the units were dying out really quickly. I wonder if any empire in the past also did something similar to what I did today... were they able to stand back up? Was that even possible? Or did they submit to everything that happened? Should I go on with this game? Should I restart? Is there really such thing as hope now that I've come this far?

I feel like this is what the Palestinians and the Israelis must have felt, too, because it seems like they keep attacking each other for no apparent reason. However, somehow, just like both sides of this conflict back themselves up by saying something like, "That attack was for self-defense" and they actually believe that it was done for self-defense, I also thought of it in a similar way, except that I was just thinking that I wanted more natural resources -- no, that I needed more natural resources and more land because I wasn't successful right now. I should probably be ashamed of myself, but I really am not. At first, I used to think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was ridiculous and time-consuming for both sides. Now that I played Civ 5 today, however, I think that when you're the actual person fighting in war, you always believe that the first reason you can think of for fighting this war is the true purpose of your life. This also relates to the concept of "choice-supportive bias." For instance, in the beginning of the game, I never wanted to start a war at all, because I wanted to handle things with diplomacy and be a peaceful country from beginning to end. However, I soon started panicking when I realized that our natural resources weren't actually that 'good' in the region (these resources were found almost everywhere). So, I decided to target Milan, the civilization closest to us that had gold. In the beginning, I kept reminding myself, "This isn't a good idea. You should stop now. You can turn back." But the other part of me was telling my brain: "Attack. Do it. You get natural resources AND more land without taking all that time to negotiate with them." Soon, my "choice-supportive bias" turned on, and I believed that declaring war was the right thing to do, because I had already made that decision. I never knew that games like Civ 5 had such a tremendous impact on my thoughts about the world and even the deepest part of myself that revealed itself through gaming.

Is Civ 5 a “zero sum” game? 

• Define “zero sum” and explain.
• Is this similar to the real world? Is the real world a zero sum game? Think deeply about this and maybe ask some other people before you rush to respond.
• Is the Arab-Israeli conflict a zero sum game? Explain.

I feel that Civ 5, the real world, and the Arab-Israeli conflict are all zero sum games. First of all, Civ 5 is a zero-sum game, because if you make a bad decision and decide to research a less-important technology first, other civilizations actually (somehow) choose a better decision and leap a few hundred feet in front of your face (without even caring about your loss!). It's like that concept of "falling behind" I mentioned before in my blog entry a few days ago: if you don't make the better decision first, then other civilizations will soon be ahead of you. However, the problem with this is that when you actually catch up to the civilization, you realize that the civilization is way in front of you now because it took you such a long time to catch up to them. Now, the distance between how much you've catched up and how much the other civilization has progressed into something better are equal. This is what defines zero sum in Civ 5. It's when what you lost is already gained by the other civilization. Moreover, the real world is also a "zero sum" game which can be seen in several examples. For instance, although this may actually pertain to the personality of a person, I'm pretty sure all of us once felt this weird, naggy feeling behind us after receiving our test scores -- that when we got a bad score, and someone else got a better score, these scores seem to cancel each other out. It's as if the future was already planned out for us... Additionally, zero sum in the real world is also like losing the opportunity to do something and regretting it, when already another person eventually gets that opportunity back because of you. For example, I remember when I dropped out of a play that appeared to be a minor part, but eventually turned out to be a big one due to the person who picked up on it. I actually felt like the opportunity I lost flew away to another person and enlarged itself, which is pretty unfair but not unfair at the same time because, well, I was the one that dropped out, and the person was the one who picked up on what I dropped off. Last of all, the Arab-Israeli conflict is also a zero sum game, even from the beginning. It was evident that from the beginning, whatever the Arabs lost would become the Israelis, which was the whole point of the war. However, soon, it turned out that the Israelis became more powerful and more advanced than the Arabs, which could even be seen in their life styles. For instance, when you see the picture below, you can see that the Israelis already have established a paved road and have lots of cars, while the Palestinians do not, and they are actually walking on their feet. This shows that on top of "stealing" the Palestinian land, or "regaining the Israeli land, the Israelis have balanced out what they have achieved with what the Palestinians have not achieved. For those reasons, I believe that Civ 5, the real world, and the Arab-Israeli conflict are all zero sum games, despite how we may refuse to believe so in the beginning.