Don't mind this, since I often work from different computers and such due to school obligations and similar. I need somewhere to write down my thoughts that I can access easily. It is merely a hobby. *Waves hand* "Move along"
Posted by Ten10dix on Oct 26th, 2012
Perspective and the Numbers Game
An attempt on a objective point of view in regard to the conflicts and arguments that arise.
Most arguments and conflicts seem to arise due to different perspectives and point of views. Does one tactic effectively counter another? Do 6000 troops always beat 5000 troops? Logic cannot provide an answer to such questions without any background or additional details because of the many different circumstances or variables that could influence it. If we force the logic, then the answer to both is Yes, and thus it would tend serve as a basis for the immediate line of thought in a conflict. Especially for the one who counters the tactic, or the one with the most troops. Why shouldn't he win?
It could perhaps be considered the Achilles Heel of the Roleplay. A Roleplay, set in a universe as large as Star Wars, is not only powered by the roleplayers imagination, but also by the wealth of thoughts, "Facts" and ideas of many others, whom created the universe, that all contribute to the roleplayers own view of that universe. But not all see things the same way.
Someone who reads about the canon Star Wars space tactic, one of the few actually explained, called the Ackbar Slash might come to the conclusion that it is something that is impossible, or at the very least very hard to counter. An enemy, may devise a tactic that he fully believes makes the Ackbar Slash null, or inefficient. Even if that tactic was truly a stroke of brilliance, odds are that the opponent would see it as a "cheap" move to make a canon, solid and proven tactic useless, as to undermine the move. The reason itself is valid enough, after all, the goal is to win from an In Character perspective. However the opponent might see it as a bad excuse made up on the spot as to not lose the battle, instead of a realistic and logically sound tactic and because, depending on the tactic, his own tactic with which he thought he was gonna turn the tide of battle in his favor, now may end up costing him the battle instead, causing him to protest against the effect of the counter-tactic. While it may seem as mere arrogance, stubbornness or however you would describe it, or even if it is somewhat based on truth. It all is still connected to mere perspective. Both thinks their tactic is superior, not as a result of any form of Ego or similar, but simply because the way they see it. Their tactic is reasonable, the others is not.
Another scenario pits one roleplayer with 5000 men against another with 6000 men. The roleplayer with the lowest amount of men is depending a city and have been preparing for its defense. In this roleplayers mind, he or she cannot imagine that any kind of invading force below 8000 men could take the city without resorting to extreme measures, which for the sake of the argument, is not relevant in this case. The opponent roleplayer, prepares for an invasion with his 6000 men. He is aware that the defender have the most favorable conditions, yet he believes that his extra 1000 men is enough to even the odds. Both are confident that they will win with the troops they have and the tactics they have at their disposal. At one point or another, they will start to disagree, first one uses a defensive tactic that kills many of the others attacking men. The attacking roleplayer disagrees and shows this by suggesting an alternative event to what the defender "suggested" would have happened. In a way, these initial steps is actually a positive thing, as it makes the opponent aware that he is taking it a bit to far and often enough he might even realize that perhaps his move took things a step to far. The issue often arises if the attacking roleplayer believes that the defenders move, not only was large inefficient, in contrast to what the defender believes and thus takes advantage of this "Flaw" be causing extensive casualties on the defender instead. This liberty, as one could call it, comes from the perspective and opinion that "You screwed up, and now I am gonna take advantage of it" line of thought. Why not? Obviously the defender must agree on this.
If only that were the case one could easily think, and that it went both ways, but whenever both roleplayers believes themselves the obvious, and eventual winners. Something that may change these self-made "facts" or assumptions based on for example the; "6000 beats 5000 almost no matter what" line of thought, causes a conflict of perspective that only absolves if a compromise is made, or if one of the players objectively makes the conclusion that defeat is actually possible.
As long as both subjects maintain the idea that they will win, or that their tactics are either infallible or largely superior. The battle will drag on in two ways, either constantly abrupt by arguments, which may or may not lead to compromises, or a continuous series of counters, and counters, and counters where neither will yield to the fact that maybe they are the ones losing. From their perspective, the opponent is being stubborn, unrealistic and illogical and therefor sees the need to continue the fight and through a multitude of more and more complex lines of thoughts that are supposed to convince the other that they are winning. In reality, or from an outside perspective, things will quickly seems like they become, what the players would accuse each other of being; "Cheap" as one would say.
The Jamming of communications
A hypothesis have been made that, when jamming an enemy's communications, you in effectively jamming all if them. Literally reducing communication to word of mouth...
Out of writing juice. Stay tuned for the next episode of Headhunters brain go nuts!