I once participated in a Civ-style, turn-based, global game for a Political Science class, and, full disclosure, I was easily the most controversial person to have participated up to that point.
The way the professor set up the game it actually had grade-implicating consequences. The class before mine essentially sat down in a giant circle and worked together to solve the 'built in' problems so they could maximize their collective points for the exercise. My class...not so much.
By the end of our game, my country, as ringleader of a small coalition of willing and semi-willing participants were on the verge of total global domination (just needed one more turn). One country had been completely destroyed and all of its students received zero points for the exercise.
The professor and I met a few times in private and he was absolutely stunned at the divisive difference between the results. The 'cooperation' class taught him nothing, and the global warfare class was a ton of work (both calculating results and managing the social dynamics of college kids/semi-adults).
What we discussed at the end was how the flaw in the game seemed to be the 'ideological survey' initially used by him to group the teams together. I landed in the most "passive" group based on the survey results, but ended up being a much more hands-on, active leader and joined up with an "aggressive" collaborator. We agreed the passiveness meant that my team essentially didn't put up any resistance to me taking power, setting the scene, and letting them know they'd get the grade points just don't make waves.
Come to think of it, I still have the whole saga in mind as a long-form write-up so maybe I'll get around to that haha. As Megadeth pointed out, "Peace sells, but who's buying?"