Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Group 3's Attempts to Cooperate With Other Nations

Throughout our country simulation where there were six different nations composed of students who had different amounts of money, soldiers, and power levels, Group 3 ended up having the smallest military (least amount of soldiers and artillery) and very few economic units even though the nation had started off with the 3rd best economy and a sizeable military. I strongly believe that this was as a result of our lack of cooperation with other nations, as can be seen through how alliances allowed even the weakest countries such as Countries 5 and 6 to succeed, meanwhile Country 4, a nation with only 1 alliance that was kept a secret, ended up getting isolated and then attacked by everyone else. However, even though our nation did only have 2 alliances, one of which being a secret military agreement with Country 4, we were still actively pursuing alliances with other countries that ended up failing due to a general distrust for our country. For example, during the first round, Country 3 wrote up treaties to form military alliances with Countries 5 and 6, which would allow all of these countries protect each other. However, both countries strongly refused our treaties for reasons unbeknownst to us at the time, even though we were stronger than them at the time and even though we were willing to protect them. Additionally, this general distrust for Country 3 was exemplified through how we did end up forming treaties with other countries during the second and third rounds. During the second round, we rewrote our treaties with Countries 5 and 6 and tried to wrote one for Country 2 which agreed that we would go as far as to pay these nations per turn in favor of a military alliance between our country and others, and still, all three nations refused our proposals. It wasn't until the end of round 2 and early round 3 that we were able to form treaties with Countries 1 and 4, both of these originally being secret treaties, and the main aspect differentiating these treaties between our proposed agreements with the other countries was that in these treaties, we were paying both Country 1 and Country 4 5 economic units per turn. This essentially meant that we were paying all of our per-turn income in favor of military alliances with other nations in order to promote our domestic security if a war were to take place involving Country 3, which would allow us to have allies rather than being isolated by everyone else. However, because Country 4 did end up being isolated by the other countries for not forming alliances, they were able to emphasize the importance of public alliances between nations, as their decisions to be mostly independent affected how other countries trusted them. Even so, Country 3 was still treated poorly and ignored due to us being theoretically untrustworthy, which prevented us from forming treaties, and therefore limited our ability to secure our nation and protect ourselves.

2 comments:

  1. I really like the stress this simulation placed on public relations between foreign countries. I was part of Group 4, and our original plan was just to sit back and see how things played out, then make some moves with other countries once we were comfortable. But that clearly backfired, as our uninvolvment led to war, as you mentioned. If would have been interesting to see what would happen if all the little countries, like 3, 4, 5, or 6 teamed up together to ally against the larger countries.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think country 3 was decently secure because of their alliance with country 1 and their willingness to give so much money to another country. Because we were receiving economic units every turn, we considered country 3 to be a very important ally, so I think if country 3 had asked us for help making alliances with other countries, or changed its treaty with 4 to be with 2, country 3 would have been one of the most secure countries.

    ReplyDelete