I edited the mistake that made the whole thing not make any sense.
I introduced the wargame to my ten year olds yesterday. It really wasn't meant to be an out and out wargame, it was meant to lead them to an insight into why weapons developed so much over time. They were supposed to be hunting animals and taking them back to their camp to become food. I told them that the group with the most food in its camp at the end of the game would win.
I split the class into 4 teams of 6, each with its own colour. Three of the teams were mixed, with one or two boys and the rest girls. The red team however was all boys. On their first turn, one of the red boys asked me if they could kill people as well as animals. I told him they could if they wanted to, but I pointed out that the blue team (the closest to them) was a long way away.
The red boys discussed their strategy and decided that because their was a finite number of animals to hunt, they couldn't have the blue team hunting them all, so they headed toward them and attempted to exterminate them. They almost succeeded too. They managed to get 4 out of the 6 and they almost got one of the remaining ones as they fled away to their camp.
The blue team were not exactly happy about the way the game went and I think the red team were disappointed because time ran out, which meant that the green team won; they deserved it because they had cooperated from the word go.
The kids want to play it again and I am thinking of letting them do it on Friday. They have made lots of suggestions; better weapons being the most common idea. One of the kids (a member of red team) wants nukes to be introduced. Bloodthirsty little buggers.