You are on page 1of 7

Becker 1

Victoria Becker
UWRT 1103
October 2014
Civilization and the Reality of War
Introduction/ Background
Simply imagine yourself in a world filled with enemies, given the option to engage them
with any selection of tools and technology. As the years have passed so has the human capacity
for war, as well as our technological capability to do so. Everything from the simplicities of the
ever so common rock, to the complexities of advanced satellite and computer based weapon
systems. Or my personal favorite good old fashion exterior ballistics of a 105 mm sabo round
from an A4 M1 Abrams completely obliterating all of those who stand against you. So it is time
for you to choose, which era of warfare suits you the best. All of this can be seen when playing
Civilization.
In the game Civilization, you have an empire and get into wars throughout history. As
long as you win the wars, you can stay in the game. The thing is though, is that in order to be
able to win the wars, you have to keep up technologically and politically as well. And the way it
is, you can see how war advances and what is does when you have more advanced technologies.
With each way the empire advances, the way the wars are fought change.
Now, before I go into further detail about how advanced technologies and whatnot
change war, I feel that I should point out my own views about this topic. For one, I clearly
believe that war has indeed changed. But as for what I think changes it the most, I think that
technology is the main culprit for how wars are fought. Now, politics does have a role in what is
done, but overall, it is all still associated to technology. The reason I am so interested in this is
due to how much I like this game, but more than that, I enjoy history and how different aspects
in human advancements affect wars.

Comment [j1]: Overall, this paper brings


everything together very well and makes the
research easy to understand. I like how you
connected all the different sections together. I
also liked how your introduction and conclusion
werent exactly the same. Finally, I liked that it
was easy to read instead of having long, difficult
words from the sources.
Comment [j2]: You provided a great hook to
start off your paper. It really grabbed my attention
without me having any prior knowledge about your
topic. The use of your words really generalized the
game so it could appeal to everyone. No matter
what games people play, whether it be tetris, candy
crush, or 2K, people like the aspect that they are in
control. You took advantage of this key point and
used it to your benefit.
Comment [j3]: Your introduction really
grabbed my attention. It was a great way to start
the research paper because it grabs the
attention of the reader and makes them want to
know what the paper has to say. Sometimes,
papers dont do too well at grabbing attention
from the beginning and then it is very hard to
read through that part to get to the good parts. I
also like how you connected the reader to the
paper and told them to imagine themselves
inside of your figured world.
Comment [j4]: Your introduction provided
good information about technology in war and
serves as good background information in
introducing your topic. You said you enjoy the
game; I think that you could add your personal
gaming skills to the last paragraph to show your
relationship with games that involve war and
introduce your relationship with video games in
general. For example, you could tell how long
youve been playing video games, how long
youve been playing Civilization, why the game
first interested you and continues to interest
you, etc.

Becker 2

Review of Relevant Literature


Just like it does in Civilization, war in the real world also advances and changes in various
ways. One such way is when it comes to technology. Obviously, the technology we use today
has changed a lot from what it once was. This is thoroughly described by Max Boot, who not

Comment [j5]: I like that the first paragraph is


talking about changes in technology and how those
changes have affected warfare, but some of your
details seem a little vague. Clearly, the invention of
such a tool would change how a lot happens. How
would it change how things happen? What
happened before compared to what would happen
now? What people are involved in the formation,
adaptation and application of this new invention? In
this sentence but they can do a lot more damage,
maybe describe the damage and give an example.

only talks about how technology has changed, but how technology changes warfare. Specifically,
one technology that there is that has changed the way war is fought would be the invention of the
aircraft (Frisbee). Clearly, the invention of such a tool would change how a lot happens. Because
of the aircraft, not only can military units move farther faster, but they can do a lot more damage
from far away and can carry more advanced, more deadly weapons (Fish). Overall, this all plays
a lot into the nature of war itself.
Besides the advancement in technology, Cockburn, Levy and Thompson believe that war
has changed the most by the nature of it. They talk about how war is not as personal as it once
was. What with long range weapons such as bombs and missiles as well as aircraft simply flying
overheard, there are fewer people having to participate in hand to hand combat which was the
norm is previous years of warfare. Cockburn goes on to talk about how not only has war become
impersonal, but about the size and brutality of war. He explains how wars are smaller in size, but

Comment [j6]: When talking about the influence


technology has on the nature of warfare, what
specific influence has it had? Has it changed the way
the public thinks about wars? Because, there are
many aspects that are taken into account when
countries go to war, one of which is public opinion.
And I believe I remember you telling me that a part
in the game was keeping your civilization, or people,
happy. I see that in the second paragraph you talk
more about how the nature has changed, but what
else other than technology and the way war is
fought has changed?

are just as, if not more vicious.


Part of the reason war is not as personal as it once was, is because of politics. In his article
about how war has changed, Haddick explains in part the political side of war. The things about
war that were once open to the public are now hidden from view. In part, this is the fault of the
media. The media tells whatever side about the reasons/ happenings of war that they want in
order to boost their own ratings with their viewers. Not only that, but the government is a lot

Comment [j7]: I like how you connected the


change of war to the changes in politics that has
occurred. However, I believe that the part where
you said The things about war that were once
open to the public are now hidden from view. is
incorrect because later you said that the media
broadcasts their own side of the story. This still
results in the information that is trying to be
hidden by the government to escape to the
public through the media. I think that the two
statements contradict each other and you
should read a little more into this if that is what
the article said, and add to the description of
why the media is helping to hide the
information.

Becker 3

more secretive about what it is doing now (Hanson). In todays world, government officials care
a lot more about what their people think about them than they used to. Therefore, they now say
something different from what they are actually doing. Not only are that, but a lot of conflicts
that they get into or do not get into is based a lot off of what the citizens want. And what the
citizens do or do not want is based a lot off of what they know about what is really going on.
Entering the Conversation
When it comes to video games, there are a lot of different viewpoints. For example, most
parents do not like them because they believe that video games rot their childrens minds. But
is that true? I suppose it could be. However, in the grand scheme of things, it really depends on
the game that is being played. While yes, there are many games out there that do no good and are
complete nonsense, there are many others that are actually good. Meaning, they can teach the
young generation certain things that they would not be able to learn in any other safe way. This

Comment [j8]: It seems like in the first two


paragraphs you are commenting and telling the
viewpoints of video games and not really giving me
your own opinion or adding something new to the
conversation. I think it would be beneficial to
connect war, which was what all your resources
were about, to the video games that you are talking
about in the Entering the Conversation section.
Near the end of the section it seems as if you are
just telling me about the game Civilization, but that
is not new information.
Comment [j9]: Your first paragraph in
Entering the Conversation is a really great
attention grabber and introduction to the body of
this section. It flows nicely and the ideas are
presented in an easily understood manner. I felt
your example and approach to a two-sided
conversation was very appropriate and
respectful.

applies to not only academically educational things, but to more dangerous things such as war as
well.
One way games are used to teach is within the military. Recruiters have turned to video
games to try and recruit new members. They do this by allowing prospective recruits to play a
war based game, Call of Duty, so that they may see what kind of stuff they would be doing if
they were to join the military. Obviously, just by playing the game, the recruits do not get the full
experience, such as the true fear and whatnot of being in a combat zone is like, however, they do
get the gist of what goes on. They are able to use certain tools to hide and fight, as well as take
out enemies. In doing so, they can learn how to properly do certain tasks in a timely manner.
And if they cannot do it without stressing our or being frightened, they should probably rethink
joining the military. Or prepare for a tough time in boot camp. Because the real thing is

Comment [j10]: You Entering the


Conversation demonstrated your knowledge on
the military and Civilization well. However, once
I started reading the body of the section I was
looking for a specific sentence that introduced
me to what you were going to add to the
conversation before jumping straight into it. I
feel that if you specifically state I am
suggesting, it would help the reader
recognize what they are reading and allow them
to reflect back once they finish the section.
Comment [j11]: I like that you are willing to
challenge the viewpoint that video games rot
childrens brains. Most people are not willing to
fight that viewpoint because it is so set in stone
in peoples minds that they are probably not
going to change. However, I think that you give
good reason as to why video games can help
your brain instead of rot it. You give good
examples of how video games are used in the
real world to teach people occupational skills in
the military.

Becker 4

definitely harder than it is in some game. But overall, the games are simply used to initially
expose people to what goes on.
Another war based game that is out there is Civilization. This game is extremely
educational when it comes to not only the aspects of war, but also economics and how the world
actually works. In Civilization, the player has to create an empire that lasts through time. Heres
the thing, all throughout history, war has been a constant. At no point in time has there been a
long period of time where some group was not trying to take out another group. And a problem
is that people do not realize that. However, when playing Civilization, you learn that no matter
what time period you are in, war will happen.
Since the game is set at the beginning of time, the player has to create an empire and keep
it going as long as possible before another empire destroys it. And the longer you play the game,
the more time goes by (in the game). At one point, the game will be in the BC, but it gradually
goes into the AD years. So, obviously, as time goes by, things change and stuff advances. Also,
as cities grow, there are more people (units in the game) to worry about. Therefore, economics is
a big part of the game and the player has to learn how to keep the people happy, as well as learn
the different ways to keep money flow and whatnot.
The game also advances in many other ways. Over the years in the game, not only does
the population of the players empire increase, but so do other things. One such thing is the
technology. As the game progresses, the weapons and technology used also advance and
upgrade. Bowmen turn into composite bowmen which in turn upgrade to crossbowmen and so
on. Then warriors go to swordsmen which go to musket men and so on. So the game teaches
players how things change and how war changed throughout history. Not only with technology,
but also with the nature of war. It also teaches how people react to it. For example, when the

Comment [j12]: Your Entering the


Conversation body has a lot of background
information that is useful to this section. Your
conclusion presents ideas and suggestions that
I feel you should also include in your Entering
the Conversation section. For example (using
the example from your third paragraph), when
explaining that Civilization points out that war is
inevitable, though weaponry and tactics
changes over time, what can we take from that
as a reader? Why is this information valuable
and in what way can it be used? In your
conclusion, you talk about advancement in
technology and political viewpoints. You could
add this information here.

Becker 5

cities are smaller and do not have much, they do not get too upset. However, when the
population is larger and there are trade routes, the population will actually get upset when other
cities are destroyed and they have the ability to riot. So yes, although some games are not
educational. Others are. Especially ones like Civilization that teaches the player things such as
how war changes over time and about what happens to the economy during times of war.
Conclusion
Once again, my reason for writing this paper is due to my interest when it comes to
warfare and my love for gaming. Especially games that portray the real world in such an
advanced and realistic way. The paper explains this and also goes into some detail of the various
ways that war has actually developed throughout history which is described extremely well in the
game Civilization. In review, some ways in which war has changed involves the advancement of
technologies, specifically, the inventiondiscovery of the aircraft as well as other long range
weapons. Another way in which war has changed is the nature of it, mostly the fact that it is not
as personal today as it once was, and lastly, war has changed in political ways as well. The
political changes are due to the fact that governments nowadays in modern times care more
about what the people think about the conflicts that the country is involved in. Therefore, the
government hides a lot of information that one day would have been available to the public. Of
course though, this is all pretty known. Especially since there are informational/ realistic games
such as civilization out there. Although people have different views on how games portray
certain aspects of war, no one can say that the games teach nothing of value at all. Because that
would not be true, just like Civilization, there are games out there that explain/ portray what goes
on in times of war very well. Games like Civilization being somewhat realistic is important
because it teaches people different aspects of war and in a sense, what goes on on the battlefield

Comment [j13]: This paragraph was very


detailed and showed your interest in your topic. I
like your sentence structure because you make it
seem more like a conversation with words such as
Sure, . I like how you incorporated possible
questions that your reader would ask and then
answered them.
Comment [j14]: Your conclusion is really well
thought-out. It offers a great summary of what
happened in the paper and it definitely puts all
the pieces of the paper together. It offers great
explanations as to why your contribution is
important. It also poses some great questions
for the readers of the paper.
Comment [j15]: Your conclusion is filled with
many realistic opinions, in which I can see you
feel strongly about. It provides for a great
conclusion paragraph and your ideas are
presented nicely. Specifically, I really liked the
relationship between the military and the game
as a tool for learning.

Becker 6

as well as how citizens react to different things that are done to other people in times of war. I
think that this is all extremely important because people should realize that games can be
educational in some ways and I believe that they should be more open-minded and participate in
games more. Perhaps then they would understand the world a little better and realize that not all
games are bad and will rot their minds. Overall, this all really does matter. Whether we like it
or not, whether we believe that things can be resolved peacefully or need to be figured out on the
battlefield, war is an important part of everyday life. Throughout history, there has never been a
time period where some major war has not taken place. It is unfortunate, but that is the reality of
things. Unfortunately, it is kind of just human nature. People are naturally violent, and therefore,
war will always be around. Sure, the ways it is fought and peoples views on it may change, bit it
will always be there. It is because of this, I think, that war based informational games such as
Civilization are important. Not everyone can go into the military and experience war firsthand,
so games such as Civilization are good to have around because they are the next best thing for
people to learn how the inner workings of war work. So, are games like Civilization really that
important? Do they actually portray war as realistically as they should for people to understand
what is going on? There is research going on that supports both these questions, and there is
some that does not. However, in the end, I believe that it really depends on people individually
based on what they themselves take away from what they learn in games.

Becker 7

Works Cited
Becker, Victoria. Assignment One. 2014. Microsoft Word File.
Boot, Max. War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today.
New York: Gotham, 2006.
Frisbee, William. "Evolution of Warfare." Evolution of Warfare. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.military-sf.com/Evolutionofwar.htm>.
Gray, Colin S. War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History.
London: Routledge, 2007. Print.
Hanson, Victor. "Victor Davis Hanson - Has War Really Changed?" National Review Online. 10
Dec. 2009. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228765/has-warreally-changed/victor-davis-hanson>.
"How Has Warfare Changed over the Last 100 Years? This Is for an Essay and I Have to Write
to Pages and I Need Info ASAP! - Homework Help - ENotes.com." Enotes.com.
Enotes.com, 13 May 2009. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://www.enotes.com/homeworkhelp/how-has-warfare-changed-over-last-100-years-82719>.
Levy, Jack S., and William R. Thompson. The Arc of War: Origins, Escalation, and
Transformation. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2011. Print.
"RealClearWorld - How War Has Changed." RealClearWorld - How War Has Changed. 10 Sept.
2011. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.realclearworld.com/2011/09/10/how_war_has_changed_127570.html>.
"The Nature of War Has Changed." CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names.
3 Mar. 2014. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/03/the-nature-of-warhas-changed/>.

You might also like