last post

After playing the simulation game Civilization IV for a semester I learned a lot of valuable lessons on why some societies are successful and others collapse. All together throughout game play I build up about ten civilizations and experienced with many different tactics trying to take my society to top of the food chain. My second to last civilization was by far my best society that I was able to create. I played the game with a great deal of patience and this allowed me to take my time and properly develop my nation state. The problem when you play to impatiently you are not taking the proper steps to secure territories and develop needed infrastructure, and create a food surplus. So originally aggressive military strategies will be successful, but eventually a small quickly developed state will collapse under the pressure of multi-front wars.

However with my successful second to last civilization I took my time and allowed my nation state to properly develop. My population was well developed as well as my technologies, infrastructure, and food surplus. Then when I began to engage in battles I had the resources and man power to win and take on battles on multiple fronts when needed. I almost became overwhelmed when societies from my north, south, and east tried to invade and over take my empire, but time was on my side my society was huge compared to the others so time was on my side and I used it to my advantage.

By the end of my reign over the world my society was the size of the ancient Roman Empire. Eventually I feel my society grew so much it became segmented and no longer acted as one unit. Unity and nationalism are needed features of successful societies and I think what happened was no longer was my society unified and diversity led to the collapse of my society. Overall though the game taught me valuable lessons and helped me understand Diamond’s thesis why some civilizations do so well and prosper and why others fail and collapse.

immigration?

While continuing my conquests in the game Civilization IV I realized one very important factor to the success of a society that the game neglected to address, that being immigration and border control. Sure you can protect your civilizations territories from invaders, but the game fails to deal with the flow of immigrants that either helps or hurts a society, but almost always is there to play a role. In the positive direction immigration can help a society expand their population, conquer more lands, and contribute to either the skilled or labor aspect to the workforce. Or immigrants can drain a society of its resources, social services, and take away vital jobs and positions from native citizens. Another aspect to immigration that must be considered is the social conflict that can result from a society that is multiracial.
The United States of America is a perfect example of society that has drastically changed due to immigration. Originally immigrants played a vital role insuring America became populated and was able to expand as well as drive out any people who “did not belong” like the Native Indians, or Mexicans. Then they provided a valuable labor force that could help to settle vast lands, all positives helping to make America prosper and gain power. Then during period of conflict and war immigration slowed and different groups were not trusted, such as the Japanese during the Second World War. This being a downfall the more diverse a society gets the more ethnic nepotism there is and cultural division can cause stress and strain on the homogeneity of a society. Currently immigration into the United States is mainly from poor third world nations, cheap labor trying to enter our borders in hopes of a better life. Our nation is becoming more diverse and ethnic and class conflict is increasing. Jobs are also being lost and it is clear our nation is gaining nothing if not losing from these people entering our borders. The United States is just one country, one example of a civilization that has been greatly impacted by immigration and it’s hard to believe the game Civilization IV can treat it as a non- issue.
In my civilization that I have been working on the past week or so, I have been extremely conservative in my decision making. My borders are extremely secure to protect my citizens from outside invaders, and enemies. However my population growth was extremely slow, many of my men were soldiers and I had everyone working trying to improve my society. If however mass immigration were possible I could have created a far more technologically advanced society that was more powerful in less time. Immigration is so crucial for societies because it allows for rapid growth in the reproductive age classes, and many times this rapid growth is need in a society to insure stability. I wanted to expand my society and take over new lands as well as battle on multi-front to show my dominance, however this was not possible, I did not have the time or the patience for my society to grow. With any simulated civilization of mine, the downfall I always faced was time; I simply did not have the patience to wait for the appropriate time to make a move. Either my military tactics were too aggressive and soon or I put to many of my societies resources into dominating the world, and not slowly building up like any successful civilization. So even though my societies failed due to my impatience and aggression, if the game allowed for secure borders with immigration I might have had a better chance to develop my society into a world power.

Flaws in Civilization IV

The simulation game Civilization IV focuses on testing a player’s ability to build and manage a successful society that survives the tests of outsides invaders, extraordinary forces and time. However the game is based off very superficial understandings of human nature, society and culture. For example Civilization IV allows you to train, educate, and arm your soldiers but it does not leave room for human ingenuity or technological advancement. Watching the movie 300 over the weekend made me realize this subtle flaw in the game. Everything in the simulation is based off numbers and formulas using training, technology, and numbers to determine outcomes. The movie is almost completely fictional, but it shows the important concept that pride, strength, and quality plays a role in the outcomes of militaristic pursuits.
For example during the American Revolutionary War the British were superior in training of soldiers, number of soldiers, and goods and monetary funds allocated for the war. However the Americans had a desire and dream for independence and there motivation and desire played a role that the game could not understand or use as a parameter in making the game. So after mastering game play I decided to become more aggressive in my military strategy and try to use my superior tactics and training to use my soldiers more effectively and spread them out on multiple fronts. Using this idea that superior tactics and effective training would be enough to make up for my lack of numbers due to how far my troop strength was spread out. This is when I realized the limitations of the simulation it could only tap the concrete date and information, which is perfectly fair artificial intelligence can only go so far, but this limitation really bothered me.
The issue of quality and pride are extremely important throughout the years various wars and battles have shown the importance of desire to win. Every country now knows that mercenaries are not nearly as effective as soldiers from the motherland. There is something that money can not buy and this simulation game Civilization IV can not understand or account for this. Like any game this simulation simplifies everything to make everything a simple computation. Once I understood this the game no longer really represented a challenge to me. I knew the system could not be beat, it is a dry game. Once I understood the structure of the game the fun I use to enjoy was kind of ruined. No longer did I have far off dreams or hopes of what I could do with my civilization. My different strategies in playing the game had all been on somewhat false notions, but now I am no longer playing in ignorance I know there is no way for the game to use the emotions of the citizens and other subtle factors that contribute to the success and failure of societies.
The game still is a good basis for understanding Diamond’s thesis it teaches the player why each of Diamond’s point is true. I guess I just have high hopes for modern technologies, and understand the importance of nationalistic feelings and pride during war times, and I know how much more successful well trained soldiers are in battle compared to hired help. But at least the game does not simply randomly decide the winner of a battle, which would just lead to even greater frustration. Overall the game is as fair as possible technological limitations just pose obstacles that are addressed as fairly as possible.

Outside Influences

After playing the game Civilization IV for the vast majority of the semester I have realized the success of a society is based off a great deal of factors some being luck others self-determined. In Guns, Germs, and Steel Jared Diamond discusses many of the factors that explain why some civilizations succeed while others fail. Some of the factors that a society controls would be military strategy, budgeting of nation’s resources, and allocation of laborers. However the factors that a civilization has no control over are far more interesting to me. For example Diamond points out: east-west axis, wild species, arable land and water, as well as ability to expand as all key factors that contribute to the success of a civilization. But these seemingly obvious factors based off luck are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to issues that shape and determine whether a society will prosper or collapse.
The history of Civilizations has played a role in being a gatekeeper of societies helping to determine which ones are allowed to go through and prosper and which ones have to collapse. This can be explained by if there is an opening for a Civilization to break through and become the super power of the world. For example during the high point of the Roman Empire there was no way any society could overtake them and there was little room for civilizations to become great before Rome set their eyes on it and took it over. Any dominate power would never let a civilization grow to a considerable size because then it could pose a threat and challenge their power. So it does matter the timing of a society to succeed and become dominate because if a world super power is reigning their supremacy over all lands it would be extremely difficult for a society to grow and become a player as a world power. And then to show the alternative, currently no single civilization is dominating the world. The United States, UK, and various western European nations have been the super powers. But recently no single society has shown a dominate force and decided to expand and suppress the will of other nations. So China has grown drastically in the past decade largely due to globalization of production and markets. And the timing has been right no power shot them down or made an active attempt to prevent them from growing, and this has allowed China to gain vast power and use their population and growing economy to exert themselves over the world.
The game however does not account for this. Sure civilizations around you can wage war and lead to your collapse. But there is no fundamental rule or principle in this game that helps to determine or control what civilizations have the power to bring you down. When I created successful civilization that exerted their power I simply had a strong build up of resources then used I my surplus of food and soldiers as well as other resources to dominate in battle and conquer new lands. So my point is that even though the game recognizes the influence of outside threats and forces. It fails to properly address the role of time in the rise of a society and how other cultures and neighboring civilizations play a role in effecting a building civilization.

fate of civilizations

The game Civilization IV basis its premise of winning the game around supporting a society through the ages and preventing it from collapsing from domestic or international conflict. However for me simply creating a civilization that stands the test of time is just boring, I just simply can not sit at a computer for a few hours just to sustain life. So throughout playing the game I picked up different strategies and employed different tactics to make the game more interesting and exciting for me. Most civilizations of mine that collapsed fell apart because of my bizarre and insane military tactics that I used in order for me to stay entertained. However the more I study actual civilizations that have collapsed in the past I am realizing that my tactics were relatively mild and conservative compared to tactics used by some societies before their collapse or demise.
For example many times I would spend a few generations creating a food surplus and improving my society’s infrastructure, in order to prepare my civilization for war. After years of build up I would go to war against all my neighbors and battle on many different front trying to gain as much power and territory as possible. This may seem absurd and may look like just a way I used the game to entertain myself, however when looking back in history one can draw many parallels between my fictional gaming war and actually societies. Once Hitler took power it took him less than a decade to create a World War and have Germany fighting a multi-front war that would drain a nation of its resources, prosperity, and young men dying in a vane effort. Also Napoleon of France built up a huge military and marched a million men to Moscow to show he could conquer everyone and anything. Sadly on a very small fraction of his men returned alive to tell stories of food and supply shortages, as well as under preparation for the cold weather that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of good men. Showing that my strategy of military build up then blitzing the enemy with everything I had was not madness nor an entertaining tactic, but a reality, a very similar scenarios to other civilizations that once were grand but eventually poor decision making led to their collapse.
One lesson that the game Civilization IV taught me was it only take one person, one totalitarian ruler to make poor decisions for a powerful world power to collapse. Normally when thinking about the collapse of a society and regarding Jared Diamond’s Guns Germs and Steel as well as Collapse you only think about a civilization as a whole collapsing. But what if the people really do nothing to contribute to that collapse it’s purely the work of abusive rulers who are motivated by personal gain and do not wish to serve the people. For example in Nazi Germany the average farmer worker and laborer increased productivity during the build up of Germany however that did not save the society, 99% of the population could be doing everything perfectly but it only takes a select few to decide the fate of a society.

vacation blog

Playing Civilization IV on my spring break vacation definitely gave me a different perspective and outlook regarding societies and why some succeed and others fail. Sure success of a society can be regarded as strictly its ability to survive and grow as well as withstand the test of time. But to me and anyone who enjoys a high quality of life I am sure they will disagree with that and argue for a society to truly be successful it needs to grow advance and present its citizens with opportunities to relax and have pleasurable experiences. Sure the civilization of Papua New Guinea has been around for over ten thousand years, but what enjoyment and pleasure do people living in that society get out of their life. Sure I am basing this logic that materialism brings happiness. But having a great time in south Florida on the beach made me realize how lucky I am to live in a successful civilization. When does a farmer living in rural Papua New Guinea get a break or a vacation? Never.
Jared Diamond’s new book Collapse as well as Guns, Germs, and Steel address the factors that lead to the success of some civilizations and the failures of others. However neither book adequately addresses that success is not completely based off longevity or survival. Ask any person wither they would live a prosperous happy life full of luxuries and die and age 70 or live a life of struggles and difficulties and die at age 80. The vast majority would prefer the prior and enjoy themselves and die earlier. So when studying civilizations it is important to consider that there is much more to most people’s lives then just waking up working, eating, sleeping, and doing it all over again everyday for the rest of their life. However the game Civilization IV like Diamond neglects to see more in civilizations and lives then just survival and technology.
Playing the game and eventually winning the game is strictly based off ones ability to have a civilization last the test of time and simply survive through the years. Sure technological and agricultural advances all help a civilization and grow, become stronger and increase the likelihood of survival, but does the happiness of the citizens mean anything. Currently throughout the world the most important issue to all people is the quality of their life. No one wants to just work and barely get by. Current societies are separated into either developed or developing nations, or 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world nations. The key separating factors that separate the higher ranked countries from their lower counterparts are the varying qualities of life that the nation can provide for their citizens.
So when I played Civilization IV from my balcony I realized that there was so much more to a society that this game totally neglected. Sure the game addresses the key issues that deal with strategy of developing a long living successful society, but what issues are most important to people living on this world know and the people who walked in our foot prints in prior generations. Many civilizations have been overtaken and succumbed to outside invaders, but does that really lead to changes that matter to the people. In the game being invaded and losing control over your lands means you lost the game and your civilization failed. But to the average American colonist did life change after independence was gained, did it really matter to the average Joe? Or for a person of the Roman Empire living in the outside territories of the civilization when the society collapsed did it really matter to them, to be quite logical they probably never knew anything changed. The game treats independence and home rule the end all. But would the average nonracial American want to be overtaken and enjoy the same quality of life, or maintain independence and live a short life span in hellish conditions? Sure nationalism and independence motivate some and are the end all. But to the average person people just want to be able to enjoy themselves in a happy high quality of life.
So when I realized how little independence and home rule mattered to me, I was able to determine that to lot of people the game Civilization IV left out a very important characteristic of successful civilizations, the overall happiness of the people living in that society. A great military with secure borders means nothing if the people are constantly in a day to day struggle to feed themselves and their families. Diamond gets away with ignoring quality of life as a factor of successful civilizations because dominance, technology, and resources are both characteristics of powerful successful as well as enjoyable societies. Therefore the factors that contribute to a high quality of life are normally the same as the factors that lead to a successful society.

This game really gets me thinking

After logging well over 30 hours of game play it became the game Civilization IV was not nearly as advanced of a video game as I had previously thought. I realized I had mastered the game and had a more than adequate understanding of why some civilizations are successful and why other collapse. So when my civilizations began to collapse after planning everything out to the tee and restarting the game well over a hundred times to better understand they way in which Civilization IV operates I discovered the artificial intelligence used on the more advanced difficulty levels of the game is flawed in the sense a civilization will collapse from no apart reason, basically it makes the game so hard by almost in a sense cheating. Sure everyone wants to be challenged when playing video games, but nothing is more annoying than when the game screws you over. Playing Civilization IV brought back old memories of Roller Coaster Tycoon, very similarly that game more difficult settings did the same thing.
Even though the artificial intelligence of Civilization IV can be extremely unrealistic and annoying the game still taught me valuable lessons this week dealing with successes and failures of societies. The most valuable learning experience in the game recently has been how to control a huge empire, such as the one possessed by the Roman Empire for so long. It seems so basic, controlling vast amounts of land, enemies being too afraid to start war, huge crop surplus, and technological advances. However controlling a huge empire is no cake walk. The more a society grows the more variables lurking and visible that can eat away and eventually lead to the collapse of a once great civilization. Originally, when first starting up a society everything goes relatively smoothly as long as you budget ones resources appropriately. Much like colonial America, never investing too much into military, new technologies, or westward expansion, but allowing, everything to grow steadily and evenly allowing for the build up of a great civilization. The Roman Empire was another prime example of this slow build up in all sectors of a civilization that allowed a balanced spread of power and slow expansion became rapid expansion, and rapid expansion led to the build up of the greatest, largest, and most powerful civilization the world has ever see.
One of my biggest problems is my impatience I know that I need to slow, and methodical in my decision making process to form a successful civilization, however it is always so tempting to make risky military moves to try to expand more rapidly than safely possible. Sometimes this works, investing a large majority of a society’s resources in the military will allow for a quick takeover of neighboring weak societies and sometimes this success can continue for an extended period of time. But if risky military endeavors don’t lead to the collapse of a society based strictly on conquering territories in an unorganized speedy fashion. Then the lack of resources allocated to other parts of everyday life, such as agriculture, city development, and improving technologies and modernizing will all contribute to the downfall of a civilization.
Playing the game just yesterday made me drew a parallel to modern times, and I posed a question to myself. Is our great nation, an extremely powerful civilization allocating far too much of our nations resources to military endeavors, and neglecting other necessary aspects for the success and continuation of a society? Any time in the game when I engage in multi-front wars and began to neglecting taking care of all the nations citizens, and ignore other necessities my civilizations always collapse. So with the United States engaging in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the ever increasing amount of troops stationed outside the nation in war and conflict torn areas, is our nation going to experience the same fate as my civilizations in this simulation computer game?

finally i have learned to play the game

After logging close to 25 hours in the simulation game Civilization IV I have decided to move away from hasty and risky decisions regarding my society and move more towards advancing a civilization and making it truly successful. No longer will I engage in dangerous and risky military strategies, but be more conservative and help to build up good, soldiers, and technology before going intro treacherous combat. Originally in my game play I focused on conquering as many new lands and territories in as little time as possible. This plan worked for a short period of time, but soon after my civilization would collapse and fall apart extremely quickly. It is just not possible to have a successful civilization while engaging in multi-front battles and allocating far too high of a percentage of a nations resources on war. This can be seen in the history of the modern world through the example of Germany under the control of Hitler. From the late 1930’s to the countries practical collapse in the mid 1940’s the nation used all their man power and resources on conquering as much land and overtaking local governments, but this could only be successful for so long and eventually the civilization collapse. Maintaining a successful, powerful, and dominant society is a lot like staying healthy through eating a balanced diet. Every aspect to the success of a society needs to be taken in moderation not too much aggressive warfare or isolationism, kind of like not eating too many fatty proteins, or not eating enough fruits and vegetables.
Another aspect to developing a successful civilization that I have developed and mastered through my growing experience in game play is strategizing where to develop new territories and cities to fit the needs of my society most adequately. It does no good for a nation to have five cities in very close approximation to each other in almost uninhabitable lands consuming unnecessary resources. Also it is pointless to waste a society’s resources to conquer lands that will do absolutely nothing to aid or advance a civilization. Taking over a desert or an ice sheet will do little to benefit the people of a nation. But taking over freshwater sources or arable land will be of great benefit to the people of a society. This cost-benefit analysis is crucial and a separating factor between societies that succeed and societies that collapse. Many times nations such as Britain in the 19th century and Spain in the 15th through 17th century become overly aggressive and begin to conquer far too many lands and declare this is all good and makes the nation powerful and seem invisible. However this overzealous conquering eventually runs down a nation like an infection and without giving the nation like the human body time to rest the nation begins to fail and eventually if the problem is not fixed the society will collapse. This is what happened to Great Britain and Spain they over spent their man power and resources on overtaking lands that did nothing to improve, advance, or aid the nations and eventually these pointless undertakings contributed to the demise as both of these nations as world superpowers.
Overall the more I play the game Civilization IV the more I realize the characteristics that define why some civilizations succeed and others fair.

Blog Post #2 Defensive military strategies

Originally my goal in playing Civilization IV was to conquer as much new land and territories as possible without any concerns for the future of my society. Soon I realized this approach always led to the collapse of a civilization and there was no way to fight multi-front battles while at the same time preparing for food shortages and crop failures. Eventually the costs of war caught up with me and my civilization could not handle the stresses or costs of allocating all available resources to conquer new lands and rapid expansion of a society.
So I took a new approach one in which I focused on slow gradual thought-out expansion. This allowed me to develop food surplus and prepare for unexpected crop shortfalls and possible attacks from the outside. Also allocating more soldiers to defensive military tactics rather than offensive allowed me to more adequately secure my cities and lands to protect the people from invasions and foreigners. This made it more difficult for my cities to fall due to attacks from opposing civilizations and barbarians.
Another advantage to making a more well rounded and balanced society was that it enabled me to better advance all aspects of society and not just focus on the military and ground soldiers. More resources could be put to use in order to advance technologies and improve the quality of life for all my citizens. Examples of these advances are improved farming techniques, and better city management as well as improved defensive tactics and structural protection from outside threats.
Comparing my new approach of allocating resources to civilizations of the past I was able to see that my new approach was very similar to societies that have prospered and the overly aggressive military techniques that I once engaged in were common in societies that failed. Examples of civilizations that succeed due to similar practices as mine are the United States during isolationism, Australia, and Switzerland. All of these nations focused military resources on defensive measures and protection from outside threats. While allocating the vast majority of resources to protecting the people and helping improve the quality of life for everyone. Like my civilization these nations cared most about insuring every citizen had their basic requirements for life ment and expansion and concurring of new territories was trivial and insignificant.
Aggressive military strategies have been shown throughout history to be extremely successful in the short term, but in the long term no civilization has been able to sustain the added stresses and costs of aggressive military techniques and all society that try rapid expansion fail and collapse due to unexpected monetary, food, and human shortages. Examples of these civilizations are ancient Roman Empire, as well as France under the control of Napoleon. Eventually fighting on too many fronts will place too many added strains on the civilization and lead to the collapse of a once great society. Napoleon’s empire was vast and great, but his million man march into Moscow strained his empire and the nations resources were spread to thin and eventually the society crumbled under the added stress of yet another war on another front. This shows another important aspect of societies to consider, resources might be available in some parts of a nation. But many times transportation limitations create shortages in some parts of the society, and shortfalls may be isolated to heavily populated or rural areas. France had plenty of food and warm clothing for the soldiers, but it was not possible for the nation to get these goods to the front line and eventually hundreds of thousands of men died dude to the fact available resources could not be transported to where they were needed. Rome did the same thing allocated far too many of the nations citizens and resources to conquering new lands and eventually the interior became weak and the nation practically divided and collapsed from the inside out.
These examples of great civilizations that eventually collapsed show why my civilizations originally failed when I was overly aggressive in my military strategies. Keeping a civilization strong and powerful is like keeping the human body healthy. Everything needs to be balanced; war is a lot like exercise a nation needs to be able to expand its territories like a person building up muscle. However one needs to be careful not to ware out ones body, or in the instance of a civilization not spreading soldiers to thin on too many fronts and use up to many resources of the nation, and tire out the military and fall to outside invaders. Overall the game Civilization IV helped me to better understand how overly aggressive civilizations fall, and what it takes to slowly develop a society and what attributes lead to the success of a civilization and what attributes lead to the decline of a once prosperous powerful society.

Econ 202 JL's Blog post #1

Around 30 years ago Jared Diamond was posed with a question from a man Yali living in Papa New Guinea, “Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it back to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own.” Diamond’s book Guns, Germs, and Steel is dedicated to answering this question that Yali posed over thirty years ago. However to better understand why some areas developed and prospered and advanced technologically while other civilizations struggled to survive let alone advance and become prosperous, we used the video game Civilization IV as a simulation to better understand Yali’s question and issues brought up in Guns, Germs, and Steel. Then we compared the history of civilizations to the simulation outcomes from the game and analyzed similarities and differences.
One of the most striking similarities found between the game and history is the cost of war. On my first attempt at playing Civilization IV I was in an overly aggressive mood and decided I would make a foolish and futile attempt to control as much territory as possible. I did not allocate enough man power or resources to everyday living and expansion of towns, but spent the vast majority of resources on soldiers and military technologies. I was able to spread out of the Fertile Crescent, but eventually I found myself fighting too many multi-front wars and eventually my civilization collapsed like most societies which spread themselves to thin and engaged in far too many battles trying to gain territory hastily. Examples of great civilizations of the past who spread their resources to thin over war and experienced the same collapse as I did in the simulation are Napoleon’s reign of France and collapse when trying to control Russia and march into Moscow, and the fall of the Roman Empire after trying to control almost all of Europe and Asia.
Overall the simulation showed the importance of balancing a civilization in order to have it advance and prosper. A society can not be too aggressive and try to develop at expand at too fast of a rate or it will simply collapse. Most resources need to be allocated to everyday living to help people leave simple substantive farming and become skilled, but in order for this to happen their has to be liquid capital or a food surplus so not everyone has to farm in order for everyone to eat. I did the opposite I only allocated enough resources for basic survival and little expansion of specific skills and building on gained territories, gaining land was my number one and only goal. Eventually this was fine everyone had food to eat and a place to sleep, but that did not last I underestimated the needs to my soldiers and militaries and eventually food shortages and lack of development led to the collapse of my militaristic society.
This simulation game also showed the difficulties in simple day to day life for developing civilizations. Northing comes easy and when I played around with the difficulty level I soon found holding a steady let alone increasing population was near impossible. This is very similar to history though very few societies have actually been able to prosper and become successful advance cultures, most do not make it much past infancy. An example is Papa New Guinea an area that has been populated for approximately twelve thousand years and has never successful developed past substantive farming, showing the main points of Diamond’s book Guns, Germs, and Steel, he argues that all people are of relatively the same intelligence and intuitiveness. However the origins of a civilization are crucial in dictating the success of the society. Climate, native animals and plants, and possible axis of expansion all play crucial roles in determining the fate of any society. These same principles govern success in the game when it comes to determining a starting point for your civilization and analyzing advantages and disadvantages to the given areas. Those factors are what Diamond concluded determined how civilizations out of the Fertile Crescent were able to advance and prosper, while civilizations on remote islands like Pap New Guinea never were able to get their feet off the ground.
Overall the simulation gained through the video game Civilization 4 was extremely valuable in helping us gained understanding why some civilizations prosper and others collapse. It also supplemented Diamond’s ideas and helped to understand Yali’s question.