Translation of
http://thearbitertribunal.blogspot.com/2009/07/blog-post.html :)
Most people today would answer the question 'What do a star and crescent symbolize?' with 'Islam.' This is incorrect.
It is easy to guess why the average Westerner would think that. After all, there is a crescent with a star in the flags of most muslim countries. The Middle East has a 'Red Crescent' organization because the Red Cross is considered too christian (1). In Battlefield2 the MEC flag (Middle-Eastern Coalition, guess which Abrahamic religion they follow) has a crescent.
And still, the star and crescent are not a symbol of Islam. To begin with, many of the muslims themselves refuse to accept it as a symbol (2), (3). The reason for that is that Islam traditionally has no symbols, since they fall under 'idolatry' along with depicting people, animals or plants. There are speculations that the five rays of the star, which is the standard star on the flags, symbolize the five prayers per day in Islam. However, this kind of star is not really a standard for flags, nor has it been for Ottoman flags, nor does symbolize the five-prayer rule (ibid.). Therefore Islam is not directly connected with this symbol.
As a matter of fact, it is the Ottomans who are responsible for the spread of this symbol. The cause of its spread across the Muslim world are exactly the Ottoman conquests and the cultural exchange (3). It is coincidental that star and crescent happened to appear on the Empire's flag. It is in the Ottoman Empire that it starts to appear in banners and flags in the army, navy and also mosques (4). The reason westerners consider it a symbol of Islam are the centuries of war between Europe and the Ottomans (2). As for its adoption in the Ottoman Empire, there is a legend, according to which the founder of the empire, Uthman, dreamed of a crescent that spread from one end of the world to the other (ibid.). Regardless, the crescent was present in the insignia of the sultan Orhan's infantry (1324-1360) (4), as well as the Mamelukes during the Mongol invasion a century before that (5). The affiliating of the crescent with Islam in the eyes of Westerners happens only after 1453 (2), but I personally think that Bulgarians and Serbs that fought against the Ottomans have seen it over the enemy battalions. This conclusion is based on the fact that Orhan lived while there was still Serbia, Second Bulgarian Kingdom, and even Byzantium, with which he warred, expanding his rule. Regardless, the less detailed sources say that the Ottoman Turks adopt the star and crescent only after they conquer Constantinople...
...which is really interesting, because then, in addition to booty, they stumble upon a lot of red flags with crescents and start to consider the symbol as a good omen (6)*. The crescent with a star was a symbol of Byzantion a millennium before Mohammed became a Prophet.
The connection between this symbol and Constantine's city date from the antiquity. Bew-zanti-ON, as it is properly pronounced in Ancient Greek, saves itself from an army of Philip of Macedon (Alexander's father) in 339 BCE when it is detected at night due to the bright crescent (6). It has been a sign of the Near-eastern goddess Astarte/Ishtar, as well as the Carthaginian goddess Tanit and the Ancient Greek goddess Artemis (4), (2) and from then the crescent had spread throughout the Hellenistic world, including Byzantion. It is supposed that the city adopts the symbol in honor of Artemis/Diana (ibid.). When the Romans conquer it, the symbol remains. Other sources claim that the crescent becomes a symbol only after the Romans win a great victory over the Goths at the beginning of the lunar month. What is certain is that by the time of Constantine I the crescent was a symbol and it is Constantine who adds the star. When Byzantium is renamed Constantinople and becomes a second, christian Rome, Constantine adds the star in honor of the Virgin Mary (8). From 330 to 1453, the flag of the city is white star and crescent on a red background, much like the flag of the Turkish Republic.
The earliest usages of star and crescent at all date from thousands of years ago when people in Central Asia and Siberia use it in their worship of heavenly bodies (7). It's been used by the Chinese Zhou dynasty, Ancient Greeks, Persians and Mongols (8). The crescent has been as symbol of the Sassanid Empire and has been seen on rulers' crowns as well as minted coins (ibid.). All in all, it is incorrect to consider the star and crescent a symbol of Islam. At the very least, early Islam had no symbols whatsoever, not even on flags. That of the Umayyad Caliphate was white, the Abbasid Caliphate's was black and the Fatimid Caliphate's was green. Their hosts' banners were monochrome :) (3). Furthermore, they used a star and crescent in Western Europe even before the fall of Constantinople – this was Richard I Lionheart's emblem (6)**. In modern days it's used in the New Orleans police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOPD_badge.png) since 1855; the city's nickname is 'Crescent City' according to the article.
*although this source doesn't look particularly trustworthy
**here Rafael Narbaez, the author of (6), must have gotten it right, because here (http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglosse.htm) I can see its on the coat of arms of Richard I as well as Henry III
Sources:
(1) http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_red_crescent_symbol_stand_for
(2) http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544398
(3) http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/symbols.htm
(4) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/142628/crescent
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wadi_al-Khazandar
(6) http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/crescent1.htm
(7) http://islam.about.com/od/history/a/crescent_moon.htm
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_and_crescent
Monday, March 12, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Part 3: Qualitative Advantage 1
Part 3 is about winning when we have units of different dps, hp, speed or special abilities. In part one we assumed that all ships or space marines were identical. Wherever game we are in, however, we have different units with different stats. Artillery has much more dps than cavalry, but much less hit points. Grenadier units have both more hp and dps than normal line infantrymen. And so, for whatever setting the game takes place in. Also, some units move much faster than others. This part first explains how to use every unit's strengths in a sort of rock-scissors-paper approach to battling. After that, it talks about ways of increasing our troops dps or hp (and decreasing the enemy hp or dps) other than fighting. That's effects of exhaustion, morale, terrain, magic, etc..
This part mentions speed but initiative will be explained in a part of its own.
1 Speed for superiority in numbers
To be fast, we need to have better technology. From horses to trains, it works. A notable example is the Byzantine emperor Bazil II the Bulgarslayer's rescue of Aleppo from the Caliphate. In 995, while campaigning against medieval Bulgaria in the Balkans, he received news that the Saracens had attacked the empire's lands in what is today Syria. In order to get there on time, he equipped his entire army (40 000 men) with mules and managed to cross Anatolia in the staggering 16 days (and drove back the Fatimids' army, winning a 10 years peace).
Also, we need to plan our soldiers' movements well. For instance, we should avoid stopping for things like foraging, instead trying to march wherever supplies are readily available. For instance, on the Western Front in early WW2, the Germans used available gas stations to refuel tanks quickly. On the operational level, greater speed can also be used to cut off the enemy from his lines of communications but games generally don't simulate that so I won't elaborate.
Once we are faster, speed is there to help us concentrate troops more efficiently. If our units are identical to the enemy's but twice as fast, we can more easily focus our groups on one or two of his, staying away from the others.
Consider our four cavalry squadrons vs the enemy's infantry. Our cavalry attacks the leading eny company.
It takes time for the ones behind it to catch up and by the time they arrive we have destroyed it and moved our cavalry aside.
Next, the enemy moves west-southwest and we send 3 of our squadrons to attack the leading company while the fourth engages the remaining infantry at the back.
Our fourth squadron is broken but the enemy now has one less company.
Even if he tries to defend somewhere, if our usage of faster units is precise enough, we can still pick off his companies one by one, while staying out of others' range.
2 Maneuvering (terrain not considered)
'Tanking' and 'Artillery'
In RPG's, a tank is a player with lots of defense and hp but little damage. Warriors, paladins or whatever. Artillery, on the other hand are the fragile mages with massive damage but little hit points. When the group fights monsters, the tanks stay up front while the mages do the killing from behind. RTS's are much like that, from simpler ones like the C&C series to more engaging ones like the Total War series. Some have multiple weak, expendable guys, like the common orcs in BFME 2, others have hard-to kill costly guys, like mountain giants or knights in WarCraft3 TFT.
As a universal rule, extant across franchises, when the army is fighting, we always want to put the 'meat shield' troops in front and the archers/cannons/spellcasters behind, so that the latter destroy the enemy as much as they can while the meat shield units take the pounding. Even if our high-dps troops also have high dps, like heroes in BFME 2, we still want to bring some expendable troops to check enemy maneuvers or cover a possible retreat or just add to the army's dps.
Rock-Scissors-Paper
In strategy games, some units deal more dps to one kind of troops than another. Usually, spearmen deal increased damage to cavalry and cavalry deal increased damage to archers. Artillery, from catapults to cannons tends to be devastating to everything, while heavily armored troops, whether cataphracts or dismounted knights, are resistant to arrows. The game I know where this was most obvious is BFME 2, where archers->swordsmen->spearmen->cavalry->archers. What each unit is effective against depends on the game mechanics.
When directing the battle, then, we should always try to calculate our units' movement in such a way that our units are killing what they kill best, staying safe of what kills them. We should aim our cavalry at the enemy archers and avoid enemy spears at all costs. Our archers should be shooting at parts of the enemy army where his troops are close to each other and, if possible, we should not let enemy cavalry engage them, because of the rock-paper-scissors problem.
It is easy to do it if our units are faster. If we mount our archers on horses they will have no problem staying away from knights. An extreme example are the Mongols. When they first reached Europe, Western knights were eager to fight them hand-to-hand, as was normal. The Mongols, however, would keep their distance, firing arrows upon their pursuers until the pursuers were weakened, spread out, or shot down. Then, the Mongols would turn back and charge, having 'reduced the knights' dps and hp' to less than their own.
Flanks, Oblique Order and Crossing the T
In reality an infantry company or a cavalry squadron or whatever can deal the most damage frontally and is most armored in front. Units of modern line infantry are wider than they are deep to maximize the shot of the muskets. In such formations, only the left- or right-most soldiers can turn and shoot to the side.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080929222924/uncyclopedia/images/b/b0/French_line_infantry.jpg
This means that if we position our troops to attack the narrow side of the enemy formation, we will have local superiority of numbers. This is the key benefit of attacking the enemy flanks, as well as the enemy weapons being usually aimed forwards and not the direction we are coming from.
28 friendly vs 51 eny space marines, illustrating the advantage in numbers in the contact point, even though the enemy has a larger army
Historically, it was cavalry that had the speed and maneuverability to do flank attacks like this.
This same principle is valid on the scale of armies, too. The Old Fritz used it to great success during his campaigns and it is called 'Oblique order.' Frederick would position his army perpendicular to the enemy's, enabling him to mass combat power to one side of the enemy force while those battalions in the enemy centre and other flank had to maneuver and waste time turning and going to the Prussians.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Battle_leuthen_shift.gif/626px-Battle_leuthen_shift.gif
Oblique order, in general, is the massing of combat power on one wing of the army, using our center and other wing as a distraction or to try to keep the enemy center/other flank busy.
http://schillerinstitute.org/strategic/2011/battle_leuthen/h1-Battle_of_Leuctra.jpg
It was also used in naval battles during the age of sail, under the name 'Crossing the T.' The ships of the 17th and 18th century had cannons on the side, but little or none dps capability on the front or back. Hence, if we positioned our ship to move in front of the enemy ship, we would bombard the enemy from one side while they have no cannons to return fire with.
http://guides.gamepressure.com/empiretotalwar/guide.asp?ID=7089
In general, this principle is useful for any enemy formation that is elongated. If we use faster units or calculate our movement well, it ensures we have numerical superiority – and with it greater combat power – in the area of contact with the enemy, which brings us closer to victory.
S=vt
Sun Tzu advised to attack the enemy's weak sides with our strong sides. This is probably what he meant. How to make sure our spears are always in the way of enemy cavalry or our cavalry always ? S=vt calculations of the troops' maneuvering if possible; if not – hasty guesses. In general, the more we calculate, the better we can position our troops and predict the enemy's movements. The more able will our archers and spearmen be to both fire on the enemy and quickly face enemy cavalry with spears. The less we calculate, the more we are relying on chance, which is like trying to perform suicide. In fact, calculating movements is so important in warfare I am bewildered why strategy games do support good ways to measure distances and unit speeds, forcing gamers to rely on judgment and the naked eye.
Sometimes, of course, we may have to fight enemy spearmen with our cavalry. To win such fights we need great superiority in numbers. Similarly, if we have a lot of units we can overcome the enemy's qualitative advantage. A group of knights can only beat so many units of archers before taking too much damage. Such cases are usually a better trade for the defender. More about combinations of factors in further parts.
This part mentions speed but initiative will be explained in a part of its own.
1 Speed for superiority in numbers
To be fast, we need to have better technology. From horses to trains, it works. A notable example is the Byzantine emperor Bazil II the Bulgarslayer's rescue of Aleppo from the Caliphate. In 995, while campaigning against medieval Bulgaria in the Balkans, he received news that the Saracens had attacked the empire's lands in what is today Syria. In order to get there on time, he equipped his entire army (40 000 men) with mules and managed to cross Anatolia in the staggering 16 days (and drove back the Fatimids' army, winning a 10 years peace).
Also, we need to plan our soldiers' movements well. For instance, we should avoid stopping for things like foraging, instead trying to march wherever supplies are readily available. For instance, on the Western Front in early WW2, the Germans used available gas stations to refuel tanks quickly. On the operational level, greater speed can also be used to cut off the enemy from his lines of communications but games generally don't simulate that so I won't elaborate.
Once we are faster, speed is there to help us concentrate troops more efficiently. If our units are identical to the enemy's but twice as fast, we can more easily focus our groups on one or two of his, staying away from the others.
Consider our four cavalry squadrons vs the enemy's infantry. Our cavalry attacks the leading eny company.
It takes time for the ones behind it to catch up and by the time they arrive we have destroyed it and moved our cavalry aside.
Next, the enemy moves west-southwest and we send 3 of our squadrons to attack the leading company while the fourth engages the remaining infantry at the back.
Our fourth squadron is broken but the enemy now has one less company.
Even if he tries to defend somewhere, if our usage of faster units is precise enough, we can still pick off his companies one by one, while staying out of others' range.
2 Maneuvering (terrain not considered)
'Tanking' and 'Artillery'
In RPG's, a tank is a player with lots of defense and hp but little damage. Warriors, paladins or whatever. Artillery, on the other hand are the fragile mages with massive damage but little hit points. When the group fights monsters, the tanks stay up front while the mages do the killing from behind. RTS's are much like that, from simpler ones like the C&C series to more engaging ones like the Total War series. Some have multiple weak, expendable guys, like the common orcs in BFME 2, others have hard-to kill costly guys, like mountain giants or knights in WarCraft3 TFT.
As a universal rule, extant across franchises, when the army is fighting, we always want to put the 'meat shield' troops in front and the archers/cannons/spellcasters behind, so that the latter destroy the enemy as much as they can while the meat shield units take the pounding. Even if our high-dps troops also have high dps, like heroes in BFME 2, we still want to bring some expendable troops to check enemy maneuvers or cover a possible retreat or just add to the army's dps.
Rock-Scissors-Paper
In strategy games, some units deal more dps to one kind of troops than another. Usually, spearmen deal increased damage to cavalry and cavalry deal increased damage to archers. Artillery, from catapults to cannons tends to be devastating to everything, while heavily armored troops, whether cataphracts or dismounted knights, are resistant to arrows. The game I know where this was most obvious is BFME 2, where archers->swordsmen->spearmen->cavalry->archers. What each unit is effective against depends on the game mechanics.
When directing the battle, then, we should always try to calculate our units' movement in such a way that our units are killing what they kill best, staying safe of what kills them. We should aim our cavalry at the enemy archers and avoid enemy spears at all costs. Our archers should be shooting at parts of the enemy army where his troops are close to each other and, if possible, we should not let enemy cavalry engage them, because of the rock-paper-scissors problem.
It is easy to do it if our units are faster. If we mount our archers on horses they will have no problem staying away from knights. An extreme example are the Mongols. When they first reached Europe, Western knights were eager to fight them hand-to-hand, as was normal. The Mongols, however, would keep their distance, firing arrows upon their pursuers until the pursuers were weakened, spread out, or shot down. Then, the Mongols would turn back and charge, having 'reduced the knights' dps and hp' to less than their own.
Flanks, Oblique Order and Crossing the T
In reality an infantry company or a cavalry squadron or whatever can deal the most damage frontally and is most armored in front. Units of modern line infantry are wider than they are deep to maximize the shot of the muskets. In such formations, only the left- or right-most soldiers can turn and shoot to the side.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080929222924/uncyclopedia/images/b/b0/French_line_infantry.jpg
This means that if we position our troops to attack the narrow side of the enemy formation, we will have local superiority of numbers. This is the key benefit of attacking the enemy flanks, as well as the enemy weapons being usually aimed forwards and not the direction we are coming from.
28 friendly vs 51 eny space marines, illustrating the advantage in numbers in the contact point, even though the enemy has a larger army
Historically, it was cavalry that had the speed and maneuverability to do flank attacks like this.
This same principle is valid on the scale of armies, too. The Old Fritz used it to great success during his campaigns and it is called 'Oblique order.' Frederick would position his army perpendicular to the enemy's, enabling him to mass combat power to one side of the enemy force while those battalions in the enemy centre and other flank had to maneuver and waste time turning and going to the Prussians.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Battle_leuthen_shift.gif/626px-Battle_leuthen_shift.gif
Oblique order, in general, is the massing of combat power on one wing of the army, using our center and other wing as a distraction or to try to keep the enemy center/other flank busy.
http://schillerinstitute.org/strategic/2011/battle_leuthen/h1-Battle_of_Leuctra.jpg
It was also used in naval battles during the age of sail, under the name 'Crossing the T.' The ships of the 17th and 18th century had cannons on the side, but little or none dps capability on the front or back. Hence, if we positioned our ship to move in front of the enemy ship, we would bombard the enemy from one side while they have no cannons to return fire with.
http://guides.gamepressure.com/empiretotalwar/guide.asp?ID=7089
In general, this principle is useful for any enemy formation that is elongated. If we use faster units or calculate our movement well, it ensures we have numerical superiority – and with it greater combat power – in the area of contact with the enemy, which brings us closer to victory.
S=vt
Sun Tzu advised to attack the enemy's weak sides with our strong sides. This is probably what he meant. How to make sure our spears are always in the way of enemy cavalry or our cavalry always ? S=vt calculations of the troops' maneuvering if possible; if not – hasty guesses. In general, the more we calculate, the better we can position our troops and predict the enemy's movements. The more able will our archers and spearmen be to both fire on the enemy and quickly face enemy cavalry with spears. The less we calculate, the more we are relying on chance, which is like trying to perform suicide. In fact, calculating movements is so important in warfare I am bewildered why strategy games do support good ways to measure distances and unit speeds, forcing gamers to rely on judgment and the naked eye.
Sometimes, of course, we may have to fight enemy spearmen with our cavalry. To win such fights we need great superiority in numbers. Similarly, if we have a lot of units we can overcome the enemy's qualitative advantage. A group of knights can only beat so many units of archers before taking too much damage. Such cases are usually a better trade for the defender. More about combinations of factors in further parts.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Part 2: Contact and Fighting in Battles
When we play RTS's or some other strategy game with armies, we send our army to fight the enemy. While it does, however, not every single infantryman is shooting or hitting the enemy soldiers. Usually only a few of our regiments or troops will be fighting a few of the enemy regiments or troops. In the meantime, the spearmen on the flanks or the fusiliers in reserve just stand there, waiting to be sent to the fight.
Hence, the draining of hp only happens in the points where units from the two armies fight. Also, points of contact may be where only one side is damaging the other. For example, if hidden riflemen are firing on an enemy column.
By definition, these points are where the draining takes place. Therefore, in order to drain the enemy's hp faster, we need only worry about draining it faster in the contact points. This has great implications now, when I will talk about units of different hp and/or dps.
It dictates the economy of power. In a medieval-ish setting, if we have a limited amount of magic that makes soldiers' swords flaming, when the enemy comes our way we want to only enchant the infantry that are fighting. In a Napoleonic setting, if some part of the enemy's army is close to ours and engaging us, we want to aim the cannons at the enemy companies that are exchanging shots with ours. That's because the faster we kill the troops that are killing our troops, the more infantrymen we will have left. Bringing us to part 1 and the mutual draining.
We could ask, why not aim the cannons at the main mass of the enemy army instead? Well, it depends on the game mechanics. If the enemy are too far, cannon shot gets inaccurate and miss, which is a waste of dps. If the enemy is among trees, the artillery is less damaging. On the other hand, if the enemy is sending more companies to reinforce the fighting ones, we may want to fire at them if we can hurt or delay them enough. This would isolate the first enemy company, allowing us to overrun them. Napoleon massed his artillery in such a way to create gaps in the enemy line. We may even want to fire at some part of the enemy army ourselves, creating new points of fighting. Whether we should or not is decided by crunching all the numbers – speed, hp, dps, etc. – and since in reality we can't, it is decided by experience.
But the point (no pun intended) is, there are one or few areas where troops from both sides are hitting each other during battles. It resonates with what the updated 3-0 field manual states. One of the principles of war, whatever those are, is mass – to 'concentrate the effects of combat power at the decisive place and time' (4-39). In wargaming, this means directing our army's combat power, its cannons, magics, cavalry or air units, at these areas where the fighting is. We may save some, but expend enough to reach higher dps than the enemy. Thusly, on the larger scale of the battle, we are slowly winning.
Hence, the draining of hp only happens in the points where units from the two armies fight. Also, points of contact may be where only one side is damaging the other. For example, if hidden riflemen are firing on an enemy column.
By definition, these points are where the draining takes place. Therefore, in order to drain the enemy's hp faster, we need only worry about draining it faster in the contact points. This has great implications now, when I will talk about units of different hp and/or dps.
It dictates the economy of power. In a medieval-ish setting, if we have a limited amount of magic that makes soldiers' swords flaming, when the enemy comes our way we want to only enchant the infantry that are fighting. In a Napoleonic setting, if some part of the enemy's army is close to ours and engaging us, we want to aim the cannons at the enemy companies that are exchanging shots with ours. That's because the faster we kill the troops that are killing our troops, the more infantrymen we will have left. Bringing us to part 1 and the mutual draining.
We could ask, why not aim the cannons at the main mass of the enemy army instead? Well, it depends on the game mechanics. If the enemy are too far, cannon shot gets inaccurate and miss, which is a waste of dps. If the enemy is among trees, the artillery is less damaging. On the other hand, if the enemy is sending more companies to reinforce the fighting ones, we may want to fire at them if we can hurt or delay them enough. This would isolate the first enemy company, allowing us to overrun them. Napoleon massed his artillery in such a way to create gaps in the enemy line. We may even want to fire at some part of the enemy army ourselves, creating new points of fighting. Whether we should or not is decided by crunching all the numbers – speed, hp, dps, etc. – and since in reality we can't, it is decided by experience.
But the point (no pun intended) is, there are one or few areas where troops from both sides are hitting each other during battles. It resonates with what the updated 3-0 field manual states. One of the principles of war, whatever those are, is mass – to 'concentrate the effects of combat power at the decisive place and time' (4-39). In wargaming, this means directing our army's combat power, its cannons, magics, cavalry or air units, at these areas where the fighting is. We may save some, but expend enough to reach higher dps than the enemy. Thusly, on the larger scale of the battle, we are slowly winning.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Part 1: Superiority in Numbers
Part 1 is about how to use numerical superiority.
To begin with, wargaming is not real war. It is a simplification, which represents real things like firepower or freshness of the troops through numbers. War is the duel of two 'individuals' on a grand scale, according to Clausewitz. When two armies of soldiers fight in wargaming, every individual troop has a certain amount of 'health' or 'hit' points and 'damage' points. When a soldier fights another soldier, both periodically inflict damage to each other depending on their 'damage' points. This is subtracted from each soldier's hit points (abbreviated HP) and they inflict damage until one is dead. In real life it's more complicated and wargames usually have things like magic or morale to spice things up. In the artificial environment of wargames, however, the most basic way of looking at a fight is two troops draining each other's HP as fast as their DPS (damage per second) allows them. These simplifications are the set of axioms on which the manual is built.
For that reason two armies fighting is similar to two soldiers hitting each other. Each reduces the enemy's hit points periodically until one is dead. Only the group sizes vary. These are two space marines (from StarCraft). Each has 40 hit points and deals 5 points of damage per second. In the most basic conditions, they will both destroy each other in 8 seconds.
And so, firstly and most basically, hitting first, before the enemy, gives an advantage.
1 More important is numerical superiority. Numerical superiority works by allowing us to drain the enemy hp faster than he drains ours. Consider a fight between warships in the sea. Each has 10 hp and deals 1 dps. We have 30 and the enemy (abbr. ENY) has 25. Initially, we will be hitting with 30 dps and they will be hitting us with 25 dps. As the following wrong table describes,
We will win
We win but it's actually wrong. This table assumed that all troops live to the very end, taking equal damage. This means that the enemy has retained his full firepower of 25 dps for the whole fight. BUT, in reality both we and the enemy will have our different ships take damage randomly, some dying before the others. This means that we will lose some of our dps capability and by the end of the combat we will drain enemy hit points SLOWER than we did when we started. Consider the same fight. Only now each time the ships hit each other they mangle the hulls, disable cannons and wreak havoc among the crew. This reduces the fire capability. Also, some of our ships take critical damage and sink, while others are lucky and stay afloat while their comrades blow up beside them. RTS's universally have this chaotic damaging and this means that the whole dps of the army is reduced throughout the fight.
What people may not realize is that if the enemy is less numerous, his dps is reduced faster than ours. Because the enemy troops will more frequently die before ours die, the enemy will lose his firepower faster than we do. The situation will look somewhat like this
The formula is available dps minus the dps lost after each enemy bombardment (due to our ships being shot at, hulls destroyed, cannons disabled, etc.). The calculations are at the end. As you can see, we wipe out the enemy's firepower faster, and although we lose some dps in the fighting, the enemy loses it even faster. Which, by the way, is exponential decay.
The yellow area is our advantage without considering the enemy's loss of firepower due to our bombardment. The green area is our advantage when this is taken into account. These calculation clearly show how numerical superiority works in a simple RTS environment of identical units (that has no morale, etc.). If it's getting narrow it's a bad sign – we are out-gunned and may lose.
When things become more complicated, with varying units and movements, the lines will vary greatly, but Part 2 explains this.
2 Focusing fire
Focusing fire is ordering nearby troops to simultaneously fire at enemies one by one.
In most RTS's units deal their full damage regardless of whether they are at full health, 50% or just 1 hp. So, as long as our units are alive, we will keep our dps and damage all over our troops is not much of a worry.
Two armies have both a hundred troops, totaling 1000hp and 200 dps. Ours focuses fire and the other hits at random.
After the first exchange of thoughts, our troops will have only 80% hp left but will be still alive, amounting to 800hp and 200 dps. The enemy will have lost 20 men, leaving him with 800 hp in 80 unscathed men who only maintain 160 dps.
After the next salvo, we will have 640hp and ~180-190 dps left (some troops are less lucky than others) but the enemy will have 600hp, 60 men and only 120 dps.
Thus, focusing fire is the way to reduce the enemy dps as fast as possible.
Depending on the game mechanics or, in real life, on the technology, hitting as many enemies as possible may be a better option. But it's all about the mechanics. The chief factor is how much firing capability is lost from enemy fires. Clausewitz points out the effect of fires during the Napoleonic wars:
'1000 men fire twice as many shots as 500, but more shots will take effect on the 1000 than on the 500 because it is assumed that they stand in closer order than the other. If we were to suppose the number of hits to be double, then the losses on each side would be equal. From the 500 there would be for example 200 disabled, and out of the body of 1000 likewise the same; now if the 500 had kept another body of equal number quite out of fire, then both sides would have 800 effective men; but of these, on the one side there would be 500 men quite fresh, fully supplied with ammunition, and in their full vigour; on the other side only 800 all alike shaken in their order, in want of sufficient ammunition and weakened in physical force.' (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1946/1946-h/1946-h.htm#2HCH0022)
In most games, soldiers are not programmed to get tired or shocked from being fired upon, so this is nothing to worry about, as long as they are alive and capable of dealing damage.
3 Achieving numerical superiority through maneuver
Maneuvering is the movement of troops during the battle. If we plan the movements of our units well we can mass superior firepower at some enemy units while avoiding encounter with others. It is like focusing fire on a bigger scale, so that our battalions kill more enemy battalions than he kills. For example, here comes the enemy, at random, in urban terrain.
Here, both sides are of equal strength. The Red enemy will march in our general direction, without regard for a whole lot, by 3 nearby paths. We will send our troops in the two planned areas, where we will have numerical superiority.
The enemy expects us to also march more or less in his way, so he finds his middle group alone, while we are fighting the rest of his army with our full force.
Now his central group, which we kept away from before, is outnumbered by our force and will be destroyed.
I haven't seen this done a lot, probably because it requires too much planning and 'S=vt' calculations and it's easier to just keep the army in one place.
4 The out-calculation nature of wargaming
In this example, nothing prevents the enemy from doing the same. In fact, he may choose to split his force into more than 3 groups and move around in various ways, out-maneuvering us. If he tries to, we should then predict where he may be going – all likely directions – and calculate the direction of our troops in response. In reality, neither person knows all the calculations of the enemy. People attack as soon as it seems advantageous, not knowing how much has the enemy foreseen. As a result, whoever has pre-planned the most movements wins. In its very basic form, wargaming is about out-calculating the enemy.
I imagine real war is a lot like this, too. Napoleon, at least, would plan campaigns and movements in great detail, making himself prepared for anything and assuring his battalions, when on the battlefield, will be supported by other battalions and so on. It worked well enough.
5 Achieving numerical superiority through surprise
When a player moves his army around the map and sees an enemy army coming his way, he moves away if the army is stronger. He attacks if the army is weaker and the odds are favorable. Some games have ways to make troops invisible (WarCraft3, BFME2, etc.) and we can thus hide half our army. If we then parade the visible half in front of other players, they will usually pursue and can be led to the hidden troops. There, the enemy suddenly faces superior numbers and we have a sudden advantage in numbers. People seldom use this, even if the game allows it, but it deserves a mention.
6 Strategy of the central position
Strategy of the central position is a method used by Napoleon that allowed him to defeat even numerically superior enemies. Applicable when the enemy is split in parts that we can defeat, it consists of sending small units to delay enemy groups while we deal with one. If the enemy was coming in two columns of 10 000 each, Napoleon would slow down one with a detachment of 3-4000 and engage the other with 16-17000. The first column was delayed by the French and so Napoleon would destroy the second one before marching to help his heavily outnumbered detachment. Thus, he maintained an economy of force (Dupuy 1984:163). Napoleon used something similar on a large scale during his last 100 days. When France was about to be invaded from all sides and Napoleon simply didn't have enough armies to win everywhere, he dispatched smaller units to Spain and on the Eastern border while the main big army set to Brussels to defeat Wellington first, followed by the Prussians further away and so on.
http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/img/map_France_1815.gif
A variation of this was used by the Wehrmacht by the end of WW2. When the Red Army was approaching Warsaw, the Polish resistance rose against the Germans in August 1944. The Poles were driven back and eventually divided in several separate areas in the city centre. The divided Polish groups were all pinned down and the Germans overrode them one by one during September. Like Napoleon, the Germans maintained an economy of force by only trying to overrun (and succeeding) the Poles one island at a time. Similarly, we want to try to divide the enemy force in manageable groups, as much as the game mechanics allow it, and overpower each group one by one.
http://www.warsawuprising.com/images/map3b.jpg
CALCULATIONS
Time Friendly dps ENY dps
1 30 – 2.5* = 27.5 25 – 3 = 22
2 27.5 – 2.2 = 25.3 22 – 2.8 = 19.2
3 25.3 – 1.9 = 23.4 19.2 – 2.5 = 16.7
4 23.4 – 1.7 = 21.7 16.7 – 2.3 = 14.4
5 21.7 – 1.4 = 20.3 14.4 – 2.2 = 12.2
6 20.3 – 1.2 = 19.1 12.2 – 2 = 10.2
7 19.1 – 1 = 18.1 10.2 – 1.9 = 9.3
8 18.1 – 0.9 = 17.2 9.3 – 1.8 = 7.5
9 17.2 – 0.8 = 16.4 7.5 – 1.7 = 5.8
10 16.4 – 0.6 = 15.8 5.8 – 1.6 = 4.2
11 15.8 – 0.4 = 15.4 4.2 – 1.6 = 2.6
12 15.4 – 0.3 = 15.1 2.6 – 1.5 = 1.1
13 15.1 – 0.1 = 15 1.1 – 1.5 = -0.4
* this number is the average amount of dps we lose after our fleet is shot by the enemy. 25 enemy dps is applied to our ships. Each ship has 10 hp, so when our fleet takes 25 points of damage, we lose an average of 2.5 ships for the purpose of simplification.
To begin with, wargaming is not real war. It is a simplification, which represents real things like firepower or freshness of the troops through numbers. War is the duel of two 'individuals' on a grand scale, according to Clausewitz. When two armies of soldiers fight in wargaming, every individual troop has a certain amount of 'health' or 'hit' points and 'damage' points. When a soldier fights another soldier, both periodically inflict damage to each other depending on their 'damage' points. This is subtracted from each soldier's hit points (abbreviated HP) and they inflict damage until one is dead. In real life it's more complicated and wargames usually have things like magic or morale to spice things up. In the artificial environment of wargames, however, the most basic way of looking at a fight is two troops draining each other's HP as fast as their DPS (damage per second) allows them. These simplifications are the set of axioms on which the manual is built.
For that reason two armies fighting is similar to two soldiers hitting each other. Each reduces the enemy's hit points periodically until one is dead. Only the group sizes vary. These are two space marines (from StarCraft). Each has 40 hit points and deals 5 points of damage per second. In the most basic conditions, they will both destroy each other in 8 seconds.
And so, firstly and most basically, hitting first, before the enemy, gives an advantage.
1 More important is numerical superiority. Numerical superiority works by allowing us to drain the enemy hp faster than he drains ours. Consider a fight between warships in the sea. Each has 10 hp and deals 1 dps. We have 30 and the enemy (abbr. ENY) has 25. Initially, we will be hitting with 30 dps and they will be hitting us with 25 dps. As the following wrong table describes,
We will win
We win but it's actually wrong. This table assumed that all troops live to the very end, taking equal damage. This means that the enemy has retained his full firepower of 25 dps for the whole fight. BUT, in reality both we and the enemy will have our different ships take damage randomly, some dying before the others. This means that we will lose some of our dps capability and by the end of the combat we will drain enemy hit points SLOWER than we did when we started. Consider the same fight. Only now each time the ships hit each other they mangle the hulls, disable cannons and wreak havoc among the crew. This reduces the fire capability. Also, some of our ships take critical damage and sink, while others are lucky and stay afloat while their comrades blow up beside them. RTS's universally have this chaotic damaging and this means that the whole dps of the army is reduced throughout the fight.
What people may not realize is that if the enemy is less numerous, his dps is reduced faster than ours. Because the enemy troops will more frequently die before ours die, the enemy will lose his firepower faster than we do. The situation will look somewhat like this
The formula is available dps minus the dps lost after each enemy bombardment (due to our ships being shot at, hulls destroyed, cannons disabled, etc.). The calculations are at the end. As you can see, we wipe out the enemy's firepower faster, and although we lose some dps in the fighting, the enemy loses it even faster. Which, by the way, is exponential decay.
The yellow area is our advantage without considering the enemy's loss of firepower due to our bombardment. The green area is our advantage when this is taken into account. These calculation clearly show how numerical superiority works in a simple RTS environment of identical units (that has no morale, etc.). If it's getting narrow it's a bad sign – we are out-gunned and may lose.
When things become more complicated, with varying units and movements, the lines will vary greatly, but Part 2 explains this.
2 Focusing fire
Focusing fire is ordering nearby troops to simultaneously fire at enemies one by one.
In most RTS's units deal their full damage regardless of whether they are at full health, 50% or just 1 hp. So, as long as our units are alive, we will keep our dps and damage all over our troops is not much of a worry.
Two armies have both a hundred troops, totaling 1000hp and 200 dps. Ours focuses fire and the other hits at random.
After the first exchange of thoughts, our troops will have only 80% hp left but will be still alive, amounting to 800hp and 200 dps. The enemy will have lost 20 men, leaving him with 800 hp in 80 unscathed men who only maintain 160 dps.
After the next salvo, we will have 640hp and ~180-190 dps left (some troops are less lucky than others) but the enemy will have 600hp, 60 men and only 120 dps.
Thus, focusing fire is the way to reduce the enemy dps as fast as possible.
Depending on the game mechanics or, in real life, on the technology, hitting as many enemies as possible may be a better option. But it's all about the mechanics. The chief factor is how much firing capability is lost from enemy fires. Clausewitz points out the effect of fires during the Napoleonic wars:
'1000 men fire twice as many shots as 500, but more shots will take effect on the 1000 than on the 500 because it is assumed that they stand in closer order than the other. If we were to suppose the number of hits to be double, then the losses on each side would be equal. From the 500 there would be for example 200 disabled, and out of the body of 1000 likewise the same; now if the 500 had kept another body of equal number quite out of fire, then both sides would have 800 effective men; but of these, on the one side there would be 500 men quite fresh, fully supplied with ammunition, and in their full vigour; on the other side only 800 all alike shaken in their order, in want of sufficient ammunition and weakened in physical force.' (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1946/1946-h/1946-h.htm#2HCH0022)
In most games, soldiers are not programmed to get tired or shocked from being fired upon, so this is nothing to worry about, as long as they are alive and capable of dealing damage.
3 Achieving numerical superiority through maneuver
Maneuvering is the movement of troops during the battle. If we plan the movements of our units well we can mass superior firepower at some enemy units while avoiding encounter with others. It is like focusing fire on a bigger scale, so that our battalions kill more enemy battalions than he kills. For example, here comes the enemy, at random, in urban terrain.
Here, both sides are of equal strength. The Red enemy will march in our general direction, without regard for a whole lot, by 3 nearby paths. We will send our troops in the two planned areas, where we will have numerical superiority.
The enemy expects us to also march more or less in his way, so he finds his middle group alone, while we are fighting the rest of his army with our full force.
Now his central group, which we kept away from before, is outnumbered by our force and will be destroyed.
I haven't seen this done a lot, probably because it requires too much planning and 'S=vt' calculations and it's easier to just keep the army in one place.
4 The out-calculation nature of wargaming
In this example, nothing prevents the enemy from doing the same. In fact, he may choose to split his force into more than 3 groups and move around in various ways, out-maneuvering us. If he tries to, we should then predict where he may be going – all likely directions – and calculate the direction of our troops in response. In reality, neither person knows all the calculations of the enemy. People attack as soon as it seems advantageous, not knowing how much has the enemy foreseen. As a result, whoever has pre-planned the most movements wins. In its very basic form, wargaming is about out-calculating the enemy.
I imagine real war is a lot like this, too. Napoleon, at least, would plan campaigns and movements in great detail, making himself prepared for anything and assuring his battalions, when on the battlefield, will be supported by other battalions and so on. It worked well enough.
5 Achieving numerical superiority through surprise
When a player moves his army around the map and sees an enemy army coming his way, he moves away if the army is stronger. He attacks if the army is weaker and the odds are favorable. Some games have ways to make troops invisible (WarCraft3, BFME2, etc.) and we can thus hide half our army. If we then parade the visible half in front of other players, they will usually pursue and can be led to the hidden troops. There, the enemy suddenly faces superior numbers and we have a sudden advantage in numbers. People seldom use this, even if the game allows it, but it deserves a mention.
6 Strategy of the central position
Strategy of the central position is a method used by Napoleon that allowed him to defeat even numerically superior enemies. Applicable when the enemy is split in parts that we can defeat, it consists of sending small units to delay enemy groups while we deal with one. If the enemy was coming in two columns of 10 000 each, Napoleon would slow down one with a detachment of 3-4000 and engage the other with 16-17000. The first column was delayed by the French and so Napoleon would destroy the second one before marching to help his heavily outnumbered detachment. Thus, he maintained an economy of force (Dupuy 1984:163). Napoleon used something similar on a large scale during his last 100 days. When France was about to be invaded from all sides and Napoleon simply didn't have enough armies to win everywhere, he dispatched smaller units to Spain and on the Eastern border while the main big army set to Brussels to defeat Wellington first, followed by the Prussians further away and so on.
http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/img/map_France_1815.gif
A variation of this was used by the Wehrmacht by the end of WW2. When the Red Army was approaching Warsaw, the Polish resistance rose against the Germans in August 1944. The Poles were driven back and eventually divided in several separate areas in the city centre. The divided Polish groups were all pinned down and the Germans overrode them one by one during September. Like Napoleon, the Germans maintained an economy of force by only trying to overrun (and succeeding) the Poles one island at a time. Similarly, we want to try to divide the enemy force in manageable groups, as much as the game mechanics allow it, and overpower each group one by one.
http://www.warsawuprising.com/images/map3b.jpg
CALCULATIONS
Time Friendly dps ENY dps
1 30 – 2.5* = 27.5 25 – 3 = 22
2 27.5 – 2.2 = 25.3 22 – 2.8 = 19.2
3 25.3 – 1.9 = 23.4 19.2 – 2.5 = 16.7
4 23.4 – 1.7 = 21.7 16.7 – 2.3 = 14.4
5 21.7 – 1.4 = 20.3 14.4 – 2.2 = 12.2
6 20.3 – 1.2 = 19.1 12.2 – 2 = 10.2
7 19.1 – 1 = 18.1 10.2 – 1.9 = 9.3
8 18.1 – 0.9 = 17.2 9.3 – 1.8 = 7.5
9 17.2 – 0.8 = 16.4 7.5 – 1.7 = 5.8
10 16.4 – 0.6 = 15.8 5.8 – 1.6 = 4.2
11 15.8 – 0.4 = 15.4 4.2 – 1.6 = 2.6
12 15.4 – 0.3 = 15.1 2.6 – 1.5 = 1.1
13 15.1 – 0.1 = 15 1.1 – 1.5 = -0.4
* this number is the average amount of dps we lose after our fleet is shot by the enemy. 25 enemy dps is applied to our ships. Each ship has 10 hp, so when our fleet takes 25 points of damage, we lose an average of 2.5 ships for the purpose of simplification.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
On how to live
About a month ago I presented my views on how biology can provide a purpose in life to my professor. I was mostly correct, but there was one flaw in my logic (genetic similarity does not count, but rather Hamilton's rule does) and so my personal philosophy for 6 years was proven wrong. Here is what's left.
First, I must not die. I must keep my body healthy.
Second, I must pass my genes. I don't care about what thinkers say life should be lived for. When they talk about God or soul, it's all vacuous nonsense to me. I believe in science and science tells me that I must ensure the future of the collection of genes that is I. Therefore, I must have children that will not live in poverty and that can raise children of their own that will not live in poverty. So, I must raise children, keep them healthy, and educate them to become responsible and capable parents.
My children are 50% identical to me, my grandchildren are 25% me and the generation after is 12.5% me. Therefore, I need to live in such a way that the world 2 or 3 generations after me will be a good place for the survival of five/ten/twenty individuals that are thusly related to me. I imagine, I should support my relatives, help them live and educate their children, and also not ruin the environment for them in any way that threatens their survival. Also, at the very least, I must not hinder progress in science and medicine. I must assist it, by giving some of my time and money, but not necessarily more than 5-10%, which is what my genetic descendents will require of me.
I think this way of life is more good than evil. As long as there is free trade in the world, the side effect of people pursuing happiness will be the improvement of the living condition and with it - the existence of our genomes.
After that, I am free to choose what to live for. A normal person will choose happiness and so do I. There are, however, two things that give me positive emotions. Let us call them "pleasant" and "profitable." The pleasant things, such as sex or entertainment, make me happy at the moment, but on the next day the memory of them usually doesn't make me happy again. I need to repeat what I did to bring happiness back. The profitable things, such as work and achieving things, don't make me happy at the moment. They are boring, but once I've finished them, they make me happy when I think of them. For example, studying for SAT's was not pleasant, but knowing that I have 2190 and 800 (regular one and world history respectively) makes me happy even today. Sometimes, you can have both, like when you are winning a tournament in something you enjoy.
Pleasant things make me really happy for a limited period of time, say a few hours or days. I may have played X or watched Y yesterday, but today I'll be bored and not pleased. Profitable things make me a little happy, and the memory of past successes elicits less enjoyment than entertaining. However, the trickle of happiness lasts for many years ahead.
Sad things I remember, but their sadness eventually wears away. Pleasant things I remember, too, but the pleasure they bring exists only in the moment.
Interestingly, from this follows that there is a certain amount of profitable things that once you do, will provide you with many trickles of happiness every day that can compensate for the hours of enjoyment. I can choose to cease all games, films and such, and go train and be an olympic-tier athlete, study chemistry/psychology/medicine and gain some really useful skills, and visit a historical site in a cultural pilgrimage of sorts. Then, after the years it will take me to accomplish this, even if I get a mundane job, I will be feeling as good about myself in the office as if I were entertaining.
What are these "profitable things" I am talking about? To give a fuzzy definition, they are achievements and accomplishments, but also building and securing. They are climbing Everest or helping build a library, or accumulating money for oneself for times of need. For me it's also knowing things and finding answers to questions. I hold them prima facie valid and true, but the specific things that I want to achieve are probably defined by my upbringing and education.
Now, most importantly, consider this. You are mortal. You will be on this world for 70-80 years or less and you can't change it. One day you will face death or maybe some crippling condition. I can say with certainty that at least yours truly, when on the deathbed or in the final seconds of consciousness in a car crash or chemo clinic or a rapidly descending airplane, will ask oneself whether s/he is happy with how life was lived. By my observations, when people approach death they wonder if there is some point in life and whether their years were well-lived. I will definitely spend the end of my life in fear if I knew that I had wasted the time available.
It is for these few moments of ultimate crisis that we must structure our lives, then. I know that I will look back and evaluate my life, using my logic and reason. Therefore, what will make me ready to die is the knowledge that 1. I have done my duty to my genes and 2. I have lived life happily. Happiness, I think, is in this case rooted in doing as many productive things as possible. Our memories will have lost most of the pleasure or pain that belong to the old events, such as death or sex. But the profitable things, the achievements we earn, will keep on glowing in the mind. The more profitable things I have done, the more houses I have built or firms I have guided to growth or trees I have planted, the better-lit will my mind be once the final moment comes when pleasure is no longer possible.
That moment will certainly come. Until genetics enhances us with ways to repair our telomeres, we are doomed to die. We face one last moment of evaluating the past and, it seems, the amount of profitable things and achievements will be the only thing that eases our passing with peace of mind and not fear and regret.
I think this logic is more good than bad, too. In the end of the day, even if your work and sacrifice put into building your life and family don't make you euphoric, you will still have a home and security. If, on the other hand, you live hedonistically, unless you live off another person your life will be pockmarked by worries, debts and obligations. I've spent a couple of years like that before high school and I know. Also, this probably means that the net amount of happiness in both these lifestyles is the same. Only in the more responsible and work-conscious lifestyle it's spread more evenly. Most importantly, the hedonistic life is worse for the future of your genes.
So yeah - take care of your genome and live a life of sustainable happiness.
First, I must not die. I must keep my body healthy.
Second, I must pass my genes. I don't care about what thinkers say life should be lived for. When they talk about God or soul, it's all vacuous nonsense to me. I believe in science and science tells me that I must ensure the future of the collection of genes that is I. Therefore, I must have children that will not live in poverty and that can raise children of their own that will not live in poverty. So, I must raise children, keep them healthy, and educate them to become responsible and capable parents.
My children are 50% identical to me, my grandchildren are 25% me and the generation after is 12.5% me. Therefore, I need to live in such a way that the world 2 or 3 generations after me will be a good place for the survival of five/ten/twenty individuals that are thusly related to me. I imagine, I should support my relatives, help them live and educate their children, and also not ruin the environment for them in any way that threatens their survival. Also, at the very least, I must not hinder progress in science and medicine. I must assist it, by giving some of my time and money, but not necessarily more than 5-10%, which is what my genetic descendents will require of me.
I think this way of life is more good than evil. As long as there is free trade in the world, the side effect of people pursuing happiness will be the improvement of the living condition and with it - the existence of our genomes.
After that, I am free to choose what to live for. A normal person will choose happiness and so do I. There are, however, two things that give me positive emotions. Let us call them "pleasant" and "profitable." The pleasant things, such as sex or entertainment, make me happy at the moment, but on the next day the memory of them usually doesn't make me happy again. I need to repeat what I did to bring happiness back. The profitable things, such as work and achieving things, don't make me happy at the moment. They are boring, but once I've finished them, they make me happy when I think of them. For example, studying for SAT's was not pleasant, but knowing that I have 2190 and 800 (regular one and world history respectively) makes me happy even today. Sometimes, you can have both, like when you are winning a tournament in something you enjoy.
Pleasant things make me really happy for a limited period of time, say a few hours or days. I may have played X or watched Y yesterday, but today I'll be bored and not pleased. Profitable things make me a little happy, and the memory of past successes elicits less enjoyment than entertaining. However, the trickle of happiness lasts for many years ahead.
Sad things I remember, but their sadness eventually wears away. Pleasant things I remember, too, but the pleasure they bring exists only in the moment.
Interestingly, from this follows that there is a certain amount of profitable things that once you do, will provide you with many trickles of happiness every day that can compensate for the hours of enjoyment. I can choose to cease all games, films and such, and go train and be an olympic-tier athlete, study chemistry/psychology/medicine and gain some really useful skills, and visit a historical site in a cultural pilgrimage of sorts. Then, after the years it will take me to accomplish this, even if I get a mundane job, I will be feeling as good about myself in the office as if I were entertaining.
What are these "profitable things" I am talking about? To give a fuzzy definition, they are achievements and accomplishments, but also building and securing. They are climbing Everest or helping build a library, or accumulating money for oneself for times of need. For me it's also knowing things and finding answers to questions. I hold them prima facie valid and true, but the specific things that I want to achieve are probably defined by my upbringing and education.
Now, most importantly, consider this. You are mortal. You will be on this world for 70-80 years or less and you can't change it. One day you will face death or maybe some crippling condition. I can say with certainty that at least yours truly, when on the deathbed or in the final seconds of consciousness in a car crash or chemo clinic or a rapidly descending airplane, will ask oneself whether s/he is happy with how life was lived. By my observations, when people approach death they wonder if there is some point in life and whether their years were well-lived. I will definitely spend the end of my life in fear if I knew that I had wasted the time available.
It is for these few moments of ultimate crisis that we must structure our lives, then. I know that I will look back and evaluate my life, using my logic and reason. Therefore, what will make me ready to die is the knowledge that 1. I have done my duty to my genes and 2. I have lived life happily. Happiness, I think, is in this case rooted in doing as many productive things as possible. Our memories will have lost most of the pleasure or pain that belong to the old events, such as death or sex. But the profitable things, the achievements we earn, will keep on glowing in the mind. The more profitable things I have done, the more houses I have built or firms I have guided to growth or trees I have planted, the better-lit will my mind be once the final moment comes when pleasure is no longer possible.
That moment will certainly come. Until genetics enhances us with ways to repair our telomeres, we are doomed to die. We face one last moment of evaluating the past and, it seems, the amount of profitable things and achievements will be the only thing that eases our passing with peace of mind and not fear and regret.
I think this logic is more good than bad, too. In the end of the day, even if your work and sacrifice put into building your life and family don't make you euphoric, you will still have a home and security. If, on the other hand, you live hedonistically, unless you live off another person your life will be pockmarked by worries, debts and obligations. I've spent a couple of years like that before high school and I know. Also, this probably means that the net amount of happiness in both these lifestyles is the same. Only in the more responsible and work-conscious lifestyle it's spread more evenly. Most importantly, the hedonistic life is worse for the future of your genes.
So yeah - take care of your genome and live a life of sustainable happiness.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Facebook Fanpage Advances
On Facebook I am the admin of the Beef Jerky page. About 2 years ago, when it started getting popular, I found myself restricted from posting things on the wall. Facebook had suspended me for violating the rules of adminship, even though I had done absolutely nothing wrong. Furthermore, I have neither advertized my page, nor allowed other Beef Jerky pages to advertize on it (spam it) without deleting and banning whenever the interface allowed it.
Since then the page kept growing until it reached a stable fan count of about 53 000.
For the record, here's some interesting stuff from my inbox
And here is the page itself
Am I being bullied to sell it? Time will show.
Since then the page kept growing until it reached a stable fan count of about 53 000.
For the record, here's some interesting stuff from my inbox
And here is the page itself
Am I being bullied to sell it? Time will show.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
