So I was reading . . . (Kebir Blue)

I hope this isn't too jumbled, but I want to reply before I need to log off.

The presupposition of my argument is that there will be an inevitable conflict between a war player and an econ player. Also, if the econ player remains behind protection or exercises superior military skill, then this argument is irrelevant. In war player versus econ player, I'm referencing the type of players that legitimately cultivate primarily military skill versus the type of players that do not.

I should be more clear. Military skill is the determining factor in deciding inferior/superior under the assumption that a war is possible to take place. The capacity of the war player to harm the econ player, which is not able to be reciprocated, is the main reason why military skill is the determining factor. In war, the war player needs only to rely on his ability to prevent harm coming to his empire whereas the econ player would need to rely on the other player's guilt to prevent harm.

You could argue that a war player without economic skill is inferior to an econ player without war skill. However, this has no bearing on the relationship between the players. The relationships among players is the measure of value that I am applying.

Before war levels and disregarding war protected nations (yeah, I know this is a stretch . . . but once again, I'm primarily considering WGC v MOB), the war players do not need to rely on moral imperatives to protect their assets. They can physically protect their assets. The same is not true on the other end.

The reason why war levels and war protection must be disregarded from this consideration is because the primary concern here is the results of unequal skill levels when brought to bear. If the inequality has no opportunity to be exercised, it is superfluous.

Back to the current game state, the game has successfully been divided between peaceful and military with the war levels . . . (whereas I was primarily considering events of the past). As such, the evaluation is irrelevant since military skill cannot be brought to bear against econ players. Economic sense could never really be brought to bear against war players (pointing out lack off profits doesn't really count since the war player cannot be harmed by the econ player, but rather through his own ineptitude).

These generalization are by no means all-inclusive. There can be econ players with better military skill. Military skill is what is relevant here, and the generalizations are meant to divide the players with military skill from those without.

You are assuming those with military are able to use it?

Your quote, WGC vs the Mob, A far superior war regime than the mob at the time on WG. Your arguement has just ended.

I'm just playing with ideas here. I didn't really mean to go anywhere.

It has also occurred to me that the act of war itself could be conceived as an act of ressentiment by players who can't manage their economies to profit so they attack those that can.

Scarlet, I'm probably reading too much moral meaning into the words "superior" and "inferior", and that was my only argument. I actually agree with your application of Nietzsche to this game.

In various previous incarnations of simcountry players who could war could rule the roost, swooping down on non-warriors and taking their stuff at will. Some of the rest would learn how to defend, some would join feds that provided some protection, some would squirrel themselves away in WP. And some, having done none of the above effectively, would complain vociferously when the inevitable happened and they lost their stuff. The moral outrage is always after the event, and part of its effectiveness is in the self-sacrifice, a person believably threatening to leave or actually leaving the game. Each time this happens the moral hand of the poor wargame players is strengthened; being unskilled at defense morphs a little bit more from a weakness into a virtue...and leads to the rise of the "econ only" player. If the rules allowed for real economic hostilities, who knows how many econ players would be exposed as simply unskilled at the game, period.

Nietzsche seems to favor the master morality over the slave morality. I'm more partial to the morality of, for lack of a better term, the middle class: hard working, resourceful, responsible, self-reliant people, neither slaves nor masters, simply free people. And I think the game plays better when its rules encourage this morality.

"If the rules allowed for real economic hostilities, who knows how many econ players would be exposed as simply unskilled at the game, period. " jojo

thanks you for all you just said, that part in particular

the system as it is, is akin to a socialistic system that tries to level the playing field for all players. i would agree with Scarlets and others premise that the game elevates the weak player to a preferred position. in so doing, it takes away the desire to amass wealth and compete. just cut coupons and stay in your hole.

in the past, part of the fun of the game was finding the loopholes and exploiting them as long as possible. the game was with the gm to see how long you could circumvent existing rules. as it is now, there are few if any loopholes which makes the game less interesting for me.

on the other hand, we don't know the effect of the current system and approach to the game from the standpoint of W3c. are they making more money with this approach? from their standpoint that's the bottom line. they're not doing this for charity or as a hobby. it appears that there are more players than there were a few months ago. however, are they paying customers or just free loaders. i would think that there are two agendas at work here--the players and the gm's. And the gm has been trying to be more responsive to the players but neither players or gm have been aware of the unintended consequences of these policies.

could it also be that the whole world of internet gaming has changed in the past few years and that games like this must change to keep up with the times--not just sexier graphics but better ways of creating community and giving interaction opportunities. not having played any other online game i can't attest to whether this has an effect or not, but it certainly should be considered. finding better ways to interact as a community would seem to be of paramount importance and i would say the game is less interactive than in the past. War and feds were certainly a part of that.

Ahhh come on! No one noticed "It kinda makes me think of words?". Sigh, Now its just evan more words!

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Only the dead have seen the end of war.
-Plato<!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

In theory, war is simply a means to end, a rational, if very brutal, activity intended to serve the interests of one group of people by killing wounding, or otherwise incapacitating those who oppose that group. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. War, and combat in particular, is one of the most exciting, most stimulating activities that we humans can engage in, capable of putting all others in the shade; quite often, that excitement and that stimulation translate themselves into pure joy. This fact alone is, or should be, enough to lift it out of the realm of the mere utility, as Clausewitz and many of his "realist" followers would have it, and into that of culture.
-Martin Van Creveld
The Culture of War<!-/Quote-!>

We are humans and therefore strive.
Who more challenging and rewarding to strive against than each other?

Arguing superiority about what is merely an inherent element of the human condition is a philosopher's conceit.

1. I disagree.
2. "Striving against each other" doesn't always entail war . . . in fact, it usually doesn't.
3. "Striving against each other" doesn't even make sense as a primary motive for human action.
4. "Striving for something" makes more sense than "striving against each other."
5. The "something" in "striving for something" is best described as a goal.
6. If you disagree, I defy you to explain your own everyday behavior without goals.
7. Superiority is a goal.
8. Stimulation is also a goal.
9. Safety is also a goal.
10. Happiness is also a goal.
11. I would like to point out that your last sentence is clearly unclear.
12. If your last sentence were cleared up, I don't believe it would be meaningful.
13. Reason: You are unclear when you say "Arguing superiority". Do you mean arguing about what is superior, arguing that superiority is a goal, or arguing that superiority is the goal?
14. Reason: You are unclear about what exactly is "an inherent element of the human condition". Do you meaning combat, striving against each other (which is not usually combat), or stimulation-seeking (which again is not usually combat nor must it be)?
15. If your argument were changed to say that stimulation-seeking is a more explanatory goal of human behavior than superiority-seeking (and not even just that but also that warfare is the best method of seeking stimulation), I don't think you could make a strong case.
16. If your argument were changed to say that irrational stimulation-seeking is a better goal than rational superiority-seeking (which itself is best explained as safety-seeking and/or happiness-seeking), I have even stronger doubts about your case.

Dear Scarlet. 1 - 16: Spoken as a true rationalist.

The clarity you seek from me is that there is no true clarity when it comes to human behavior.

Our desires and motivations are as multitudinous as our numbers; but, what we share is the drive for something(s), be it even so humble as mere survival. Regardless of motivations or intent, the drive for conflict to obtain that "something(s)" is inherent to our natures. To claim that you don't struggle or strive against or for anything on a daily basis is self-delusional. (Unless, perhaps, your surname is Hilton?)

Returning to the example of the Economist vs the Warrior vis-a-vis SC, my point would be that both are engaged in the same struggle, albeit against different enemies, with different strategems and measures of success. However, the activity is essentially identical: to strive against adversity and asserts one's will upon an external foe.

My humble view of Neitzche's attempt to rationalize human behavior of nominally predatory sort in the context of morality is that such reasoning is specious, but deconstructing Neitzche is for another day. Bringing up the question as you did, however, is quite valid. My beef is with him, not you.

The larger point is that history amply demonstrates that there is much less difference between War and many other human activities than we might care to admit. Judging by some of your later points, I believe that may apply to you as well. The morality of conflict, as opposed to the natural tendency towards it, is, again, a much larger topic for another discussion.

Don't confuse goals and Modus Operandi with intent, nor choices of obstacles with morality.

As JoJo illustrated, skilled play at all aspects of the game does not imply that one is playing a different game. Though, I would not venture so far to say that the wargamer is superior to the enconomist, who is merely striving against a different adversary.

So should the lamblike enconomist resent the wargame bird of prey? No. For they are two sides of the same coin.

PS. The first post was a bit vague, but I was hoping Mons. Van Crevelds words would speak for themselves in this context.

Gold is for the mistress -- silver for the maid --
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade."
"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all."

So he made rebellion 'gainst the King his liege,
Camped before his citadel and summoned it to siege.
"Nay!" said the cannoneer on the castle wall,
"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- shall be master of you all!"

Woe for the Baron and his knights so strong,
When the cruel cannon-balls laid 'em all along;
He was taken prisoner, he was cast in thrall,
And Iron -- Cold Iron -- was master of it all!

Yet his King spake kindly (ah, how kind a Lord!)
"What if I release thee now and give thee back thy sword?"
"Nay!" said the Baron, "mock not at my fall,
For Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of men all."

"Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown --
Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown."
"As my loss is grievous, so my hope is small,
For Iron -- Cold Iron -- must be master of men all!"

Yet his King made answer (few such Kings there be!)
"Here is Bread and here is Wine -- sit and sup with me.
Eat and drink in Mary's Name, the whiles I do recall
How Iron -- Cold Iron -- can be master of men all!"

He took the Wine and blessed it. He blessed and brake the Bread.
With His own Hands He served Them, and presently He said:
"See! These Hands they pierced with nails, outside My city wall,
Show Iron -- Cold Iron -- to be master of men all."

"Wounds are for the desperate, blows are for the strong.
Balm and oil for weary hearts all cut and bruised with wrong.
I forgive thy treason -- I redeem thy fall --
For Iron -- Cold Iron -- must be master of men all!"

"Crowns are for the valiant -- sceptres for the bold!
Thrones and powers for mighty men who dare to take and hold!"
"Nay!" said the Baron, kneeling in his hall,
"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of men all!
Iron out of Calvary is master of men all!"

-Rudyard Kipling
Cold Iron

Actually, the main clarity that matters to me is clarity of language (if such a thing existed, then there would be a lot less conflict).

For example, "To claim that you don't struggle or strive against or for anything on a daily basis is self-delusional." At first glance, this statement is true. However, the point that I was arguing that "striving for" explains behavior AND is the cause of any "striving against" that occurs. Basically, I'm saying that "striving for something" is both necessary for action and sufficient to explain action AND that "striving against someone" is neither necessary for action nor sufficient to explain action.

Another example, "Don't confuse goals and Modus Operandi with intent, nor choices of obstacles with morality." First, the confusion is not between (goals and Modus Operandi) versus (intent). I believe the serious confusion is confusing goals with methods. If you said, "Don't confuse 'the consequence that is striven for (x)' and 'the method that is the striving (y)' with 'belief that doing y results in x,'" you can see where there is no confusion. In fact, this would draw forth the course that actions follow:
1. I desire x.
2. I believe doing y will result in x.
3. Therefore, I do y.
While 2 may be false sometimes, it explains 3 in terms of 1. Now, I think that an alternative explanation . . . when made clear . . . would not adequately explain any behavior. Digressing, the reasoning that you seem, as near as I can tell, to be using is (x = striving for something, y = striving against someone):
1. Everyone does x.
2. All y is all x.
3. Therefore, everyone does y.
This argument has a faulty premise since it is very much possible to strive for something against nobody . . . often it is even possible to strive for something with someone. This makes 2 false, and the conclusion is invalid. Back on point, the problem with the interpretation that I proposed is that it inadequate to explain why I desire something. The problem is easily rectified by the following reasoning (a = to survive, b = to thrive, x = a particular end, y = a particular means):
1. I desire a or b.
2. I believe that a or b requires x.
3. Therefore, I desire x.
4. I believe doing y will result in x.
5. Therefore, I do y.
As far as I know, competing demands don't present much difficulties to this model. Sometimes the desire for b will conflict with the desire for a. I don't think human behavior is complicated. I think simply that false beliefs in 2 or 4 are common. Anyway, this is my personal viewpoint. As far as I know of Nietzsche, he would replace a and b with the 'will to power' . . . which is similar to your suggestion of "assert[ing] one's will upon an external foe".

A third example is, "My humble view of Neitzche's attempt to rationalize human behavior of nominally predatory sort in the context of morality is that such reasoning is specious," This misses the point of Nietzsche's quote, and this fact would be more obvious if spoken in clearer terms. As it is, it appears as a difference of opinion. If translated clearly, it seems to mean, "My view is that Nietzsche misleadingly and wrongly tries to explain exploitation through (or as) morality." If this is what is meant, then his point has been missed. The main point of the quote is to explain morality as something that results from the reaction of the exploited to the exploiters (which is not the same as "rationalizing nominally predatory behavior in the context of morality"). The imagery of lambs and birds of prey is intended to illustrate that it is because of the weakness of the exploited that such a reaction takes place, and the reaction is to the strength of the exploiters. If you instead argued on the basis of the genetic fallacy, you could get further refuting the idea behind the quote because Nietzsche appears to intend to discredit [Christian] morality on this basis.

Moving on, the "larger point is that history amply demonstrates that there is much less difference between War and many other human activities than we might care to admit." I agree . . . but in agreeing, I do not agree with the appraisal of war found in your quote. I do not believe that exhilaration trumps utility in explaining the existence of war. The apparent problem that Van Creveld appears to be trying to solve is the reality that utility does not entirely explain war. Personally, I think groupthink, irrational behavior from pressure for conformity, (and sometimes an individual's or small group's desire for power) would go further than exhilaration in explaining the apparent anti-rational reality of war.

As far as the "Economist" versus the "Warrior", I don't believe you are accurately understanding the reality of the economic game. The economist is competing not against any particular person, but instead, he is competing against the market and himself attempting to extract yet more profit. In truth, how much anyone else makes is not relevant to the Economist and making more money does not allow the Economist to exert his will upon anyone. The question: How exactly does he exert his will? Only the Warrior is capable of "assert[ing] one's will upon an external foe." This is the key difference between the two types and the main point intended by Nietzsche's quote.

I would venture to say that the Warrior is superior to the Economist precisely because the Warrior will be able to exert his will upon the Economist (unless the economist happens to be a better Warrior, but I'm contrasting extremes here) and the Economist will not be able to do the same. "So should the lamblike enconomist resent the wargame bird of prey?" Should? I don't know. Replacing 'should' with 'does'? In the current system, no, because there are protections in place that guarantee that both players are separated . . . they are playing different games. In the old system, yes, evidenced by the various wars that have occurred between Economists and Warriors.

LOL. Once upon a time, I knew a player in SC. She was a wildcat of a girl and a philosophy major, if I recall correctly. Gifted intellect and wonderfully direct personality.

She used to terrorize LU with a group of rabble rousers with some sort of predilection for the color pink.

I believe she wrote a landmark tutorial for the game on these forums as well.

You remind me of this person, Scarlet.

As to your argument, I humbly submit before you kick my old ass any further.

I agree with your argument, and conclusion, but not Fascist Freds, for Heinleinian reason:

The soldier is morally superior to the civilian because the soldier defends and is willing to sacrifice himself for the body politic; whereas, the civilian does not.
- paraphrase

I will recommend Van Creveld's work to you, however.
His position is that War is fought for different reasons. The rationalist approach of analysis may have some merit when applied to the managers of warfare, both political and military, but rapidly distintigrates when applied to the warriors who fight it.
With these, one must look to the fundamentals of human nature. The raw and ugly facts of what we are capable of doing to each other for the most selfish of irrational reasons. My own personal experience leads me to agreement with this.

Ironically, this is not a criticism of the warrior in any way, though by current cultural norms it would appear so.

But then there is the rub. Current cultural norms do not mesh with the historical reality of the nauture of conflict.

And that was the point that I was ultimately attempting to make, albeit, in my decidedly inept way.

Whom ever could that be? haha I try to stay off the forums for the most part now days, too much effort to respond to drama, and "Forum" based players, yes thats right, forum based players. No econ, no war, just forums. lol

Sorry to disappoint, I'm only an English major that used to roam GR under the name John Fire.

I can summarize my disagreement with this:
I don't think enjoyment of fighting is a sufficient cause in most individuals' decisions to go to war. This isn't to say that individual's don't, can't, or shouldn't enjoy fighting . . . only that I don't think this alone will cause somebody to fight. The obvious exception is if somebody doesn't seriously believe they might come to harm or death.

Forum players. ;)
Everyone knows the pen is mightier than the sword. Too bad though, I only have a keyboard here and the Warriors have bombers.

Well, John, firstly, well met and it's a pleasure to make the acquaintance of someone of your demonstrated intellectual caliber.

As to your disagreement:
Let's adress that in 3 stages or levels.

1. As far as player's in SC, you certainly have the experience to know that swag raiding in the only objectively rational causi belli for aggressive SimWar and that is largely dependent on the game rules at any particular time as to whether such is even economically viable. Surely, you would agree that most SimWars are the result of personalities and general boredom? Enjoying a good fracas to alleviate the ennui?

2. On the personal scale of the real world, kids don't generally volunteer for Combat Arms or combat duty in order to increase their prospects for career opportunities after they get out. There very much is a warrior ethos alive and well, always has been.
Therefore, I have full confidence in stating that individuals do choose to "go to war" for the thrill and challenge of it, assuming of course the choice is even offered. Been there and done that. We're all allowed to be young and stupid. Warfare depends upon it.

3. At the highest levels of the real world and at the lowest common denominator of the "common people", history is replete with examples of conflicts being intiated with great passion and exuberance for the fight alone, not rational National Interest. Revenge for real and imagined slights to National Honor have been grounds for war for millenia. One only need examine European history cursorily to find that few of those wars fought over the last centuries had any real provocation.
I believe it was Kant who postulated in the late 18th century that wars were largely the plaything of an arrogant and complacent European aristocracy. He had a point at the time. Of course, his further premise that the common masses, freed and given political voice in democratic and republican governments would never voluntarily wage aggressive wars quickly proved to be as wrong as wrong can get.

So my worthy friend, I will have to dispute your position on every level.

Fire Away.

Post Script. I was rather suprised that as a man of literary training, you had no commentary on old Rudyard's work as applied to SC?

To be honest, I'm arguing with you more than I'm disagreeing with you.

Regarding point 2, I've thought it over, and I can definitely understand it. Although I personally wouldn't fight for the challenge of it alone (given that the stakes are so high and I'd rather save my effort for fighting the Marxists and neo-Marxists), I can see people doing so on an individual level.

Regarding point 1, I'm going to say that non-economically viable wars make rational sense when considering that this is just a game, a wargame at that (or at least the game I signed up for is), and I want to eventually get my money's worth.

Regarding point 3, I think the leadership-level reasons for starting war, even when they are irrational or poorly thought out, have more to do with the reasons than the fight itself. Considering revenge against National Honor, the point seems more to prevent any infringement on the nation by proving itself in a fight (thereby forcing the opponent into submission) than the fight alone. Even in cases where something is obviously detrimental to rational national interest, I can see war being declared with the false belief that this something is promoting national interest. When considered in the larger scheme of things, this would mean that I am drawing the thinnest of distinctions between promoting national pride through fighting and the fight itself. To be honest, this is splitting hairs.

Regarding the poem, I'm not quite ready for tackling poetry so rather than talking out of my behind I think I'll keep quiet. I'm still early on in my literary training.

I've actually come across Durkheim in my readings. Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, contrasts Durkheim's view of the origins of morality (to bind a society together) to J S Mill's individualistic, utilitarian view. He sees them as complementary, as opposed to Mill alone being sufficient.

Laguna have you read it? Scarlet? Anyone else? I recommend it.

Can't say I have.

For the last years, I have been stuck reading eco papers and following the blogosphere. It has been taking me 5 months to read a novel from the Spanish Civil.

Unless it is an engaging romance novel, I can't be bothered. Thanks anyways, JoJo. :P lol

I thought I had read most of Kipling's works, and I don't know how I missed the poem above; I don't reall reading it before. I guess I hadn't read him as much as I thought. Thanks for posting it, MVC.
I have some large ideological differences with Nietzche, which I may possibly post later when I can think a little more clearly...
There is a lot to think about in this thread.

OMG, y'all need help!!! Surely you dun read educational material????? NERDS! :P

Kiss, Kipling and Nietzche aren't exactly educational, more inspirational. Philosophy type stuff.

Now if you want educational I can recommend some good stuff on multiverses, string theory and particle physics in general. But even that is becoming old hat now, we need to look outside the box more. Where God meets Science.

My dissertation I will name 'Does God Wear Shoes?', in your honour.

lol philosophical...educational...a bit more braniac than the novel I'm currently reading - "Slow Heat in Heaven" ha ha ha ha

What a great dissertation, and a topic I think worthy of a simcommunity debate!!! :P

Heh, it's still in development.
I will try to put together a lucid outline of the direction I'm going and maybe start another thread hoping for some thoughtful input from the simcommunity.

Probably bore everyone and make me sound completely senile though. Not hard to do nowadays.