|
|
|
|
|
|
by bduerst
3732 days ago
|
|
|
That's the problem with game theory in politics - unlike hypothetical scenarios, the game never really ends in the real world. There are typically unseen (or ignored) consequences to actions made during engagements, that come back years later. When I said rational actors, I was referring to the students themselves and the scoring system put in front of them. But you're right - it seems odd that a poli sci professor would give a team zero points if they were wiped out. What if they had previously used trade of luxury goods to maintain peace on a continent for centuries? |
|
|
The 'wiped out, zero points' actually makes the most sense from a pragmatic standpoint. Figuratively speaking, you get zero points when your culture/society/etc is annihilated, wiped out. So there was an incentive to behave in a way to avoid being destroyed.
Just to sum things up, during the conflict & negotiation stage with the "victim" country, the coalition had them surrounded in one tiny town, otherwise taking over the rest of the country. When negotiations failed, the last holdouts were destroyed. It didn't have to end that way - the coalition was okay with letting them have a little compound and stay out of the way...but they didn't like that, made all sorts of demands and noise, and were eliminated out of convenience (my convenience, not necessarily the entire world's).