Book 2 – Page 53

[justamessenger]

Russia, WWI.

Also, China in Korea. The USSR had more than sufficient production to meet their needs in WW2.

To Oberon: In my post I mentioned catapults twice, if you read through the whole thing.

As to being able to launch aircraft with only one engine operational, I do not have personal knowledge or expertise on the subject; I was relating what my brother told me on the subject some years ago. I was in the Army. He served on the Theodore Roosevelt, which is a CVN.

[Oberon]

As to being able to launch aircraft with only one engine operational, I do not have personal knowledge or expertise on the subject; I was relating what my brother told me on the subject some years ago. I was in the Army. He served on the Theodore Roosevelt, which is a CVN.

Yay! I have an uncle who was a fire control technician on an aircraft carrier (and a fast frigate,and a few other craft). Does that trump your brother, or not? Just checking on whose relations hold a greater degree of authenticity...

[Infidel]

Russia, WWI.

Ok, so lack of funding/supply like I said. They would have supplied two guns if they could. I don't think there has ever been a situation where there was an abundance of weapons, and they were only handed out so parsimoniously in time of war.

The only situation I can think of there being two soldiers one gun deliberately is sniper/spotter. And the spotter still has a gun.

Funny, I was on the Roosevelt too. It was based in Norfolk when I was on it, now it is in Calli somewhere I believe. Not to participate in this one-uppmanship game, but to acknowledge that the world is a small place. I was on 90-93.

Just about every lesson in the military was paid for in blood. No matter how insignificant. When I first learned that the cross guard for a sword was not originally there to protect the hand from the opponent, but to keep the hand from sliding up the blade during a thrust, I couldn't help but think. How many poor bastards mutilated themselves before the swordsmiths finally relented and added that little feature.

[justamessenger]

As to being able to launch aircraft with only one engine operational, I do not have personal knowledge or expertise on the subject; I was relating what my brother told me on the subject some years ago. I was in the Army. He served on the Theodore Roosevelt, which is a CVN.

Yay! I have an uncle who was a fire control technician on an aircraft carrier (and a fast frigate,and a few other craft). Does that trump your brother, or not? Just checking on whose relations hold a greater degree of authenticity...

I see. I make a statement and it is considered false due to your opinion. I even added equivocal terms like 'may.'

I am glad that your uncle served in the military. Please thank him for his service on my behalf. My brother served on the John Hancock (a destroyer) prior to serving on the Roosevelt. As to whose information is more accurate, who is to say? Again, I am not an expert on such matters. Given your rather direct assertions, shall we assume that you are?

[Estelindis]

Great update. Love Tram's strategic smarts and Slately's realisation of his mistakes. Feel so unbelievably sorry for poor, poor Ossomer. I am really pleased with how Rob and Xin are making us empathise with the Jetstones even though they're antagonists.

[Oberon]

Russia, WWI.

Ok, so lack of funding/supply like I said. They would have supplied two guns if they could.

The only situation I can think of there being two soldiers one gun deliberately is sniper/spotter. And the spotter still has a gun.

Funny, I was on the Roosevelt too. It was based in Norfolk when I was on it, now it is in Calli somewhere I believe.

I wish I could find the reference... There was a competition for sustained fire on the English allied side with machine gun fire during WWII. That was an excellent example of more than one man per gun due to the numbers of supporting men needed to supply the rounds. I'll supply a link if I can find it...

[justamessenger]

Russia, WWI.

Ok, so lack of funding/supply like I said. They would have supplied two guns if they could.

The only situation I can think of there being two soldiers one gun deliberately is sniper/spotter. And the spotter still has a gun.

Funny, I was on the Roosevelt too. It was based in Norfolk when I was on it, now it is in Calli somewhere I believe.

He was on it back in roughly 89-90 if I recall correctly. I know it was right before I enlisted, which was 91.

As to snipers, yeah, that is a very good point.

[justamessenger]

Russia, WWI.

Ok, so lack of funding/supply like I said. They would have supplied two guns if they could.

The only situation I can think of there being two soldiers one gun deliberately is sniper/spotter. And the spotter still has a gun.

Funny, I was on the Roosevelt too. It was based in Norfolk when I was on it, now it is in Calli somewhere I believe.

I wish I could find the reference... There was a competition for sustained fire on the English allied side with machine gun fire during WWII. That was an excellent example of more than one man per gun due to the numbers of supporting men needed to supply the rounds. I'll supply a link if I can find it...

Sounds like fun! Well, until cleaning the MGs afterwards, lol. As to the runners, I am not sure if they count as part of the crew for the MG, and in combat situations I don't believe any of them would be without a personal firearm of some sort.

How long did they go for? Leave it to soldiers to come up with creative ways to pass the time,lol.

[Oberon]

I see. I make a statement and it is considered false due to your opinion.

Please! Never consider your position to be false due to opinion. Just back it up better than by asserting that your brother says that it is so...
Really.
It is rather simple.
Use facts, not stories your family has shared.
And I am not denigrating the military service of your relatives, that is outside of the discussion.

[Infidel]

I wish I could find the reference... There was a competition for sustained fire on the English allied side with machine gun fire during WWII. That was an excellent example of more than one man per gun due to the numbers of supporting men needed to supply the rounds. I'll supply a link if I can find it...

This is a regular gun, and not a mini-gun or some other gun that would normally require a crew to operate?

Supposedly, even back in the days of the English longbow, the Shooters were fed by an assistant. So I can see how someone shooting to get maximum rounds off might benefit from an assistant. After you use up the clips on you, you need someone else to supply you more. And depending on the gun design, it might be easier and faster for the person standing next to you to load your gun, than reloading it yourself. Nowadays guns are designed with reload speed in mind. WW1 was a travesty with that french Chauchat light machine gun.

Light machine guns, meaning one person can carry, but two to operate, or crew of 2. Maybe that's what they were using in the ww2 example, light or mini machine guns?

[Oberon]

Sounds like fun! Well, until cleaning the MGs afterwards, lol. As to the runners, I am not sure if they count as part of the crew for the MG, and in combat situations I don't believe any of them would be without a personal firearm of some sort.

How long did they go for? Leave it to soldiers to come up with creative ways to pass the time,lol.

Yes! It was a combat exercise, and not just for fun. It went for days on end. Damn it that I cannot recall the situation.

[Oberon]

This is a regular gun, and not a mini-gun or some other gun that would normally require a crew to operate?

It was a crew supported gun.

[GaryThunder]

Wow, this has drifted beyond retrieval. Fun times.

[╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛]

I cannot help but theorize the erfworlder may suffer a similar inability to remain on topic... it could explain why they do not inovate: they cannot focus on anything for long enough to do something coherent no matter how intelligent they are.

It would not be as dumb as it sound since they are all born fully formed and educated with their particular views and opinions. It have the potential to create a very disfonctionnal mass of thinker from diverse background (even if only in MK), popped with very different views that could think a lot but would not be pushed toward any action by this heavy thinking. Maybe this forum is has a lot in common with MK... on the other hand, maybe it is late and I should go to bed.

[BLANDCorporatio]

No, no, and thrice, no. The fact that we didn't invent the transistor back when first splitting flint does not make us "naturally incurious" or anything.

Ok, please don't make a rediculous argument, assert that it is somehow representative of my argument, disprove your rediculous argument {snip}

Brush up your rhetoric. That first paragraph is merely the intro, stylistic spice to give the post more flavour than a mere recitation of reasons pro or con. You'll note that the rest of the post addresses your initial argument as written. To wit, I brought (lack of) infrastructure as a way to explain slow tech progress-

No, infrastructure is not necessary. Invention is necessity, and time. Yea, I watch stuff like that too. It really shows how most modern education is more indoctrination than true education. It's even more embarrassing when they start asserting that whatever must have been built by aliens because it can't be done with modern methodology.

I doubt you've watched stuff like that. This is not about how they built the Pyramids, or Stonehenge, or for that matter the infinitely more challenging to design cathedrals or barrels. It's about: you're on a deserted island. Make a fridge. Nope, there aren't parts of one conveniently scattered about.

I also think that when you say "infrastructure is not necessary", you yourself are doing some rhetorical spice. You don't really believe that if you managed to grab the most detailed schematics of a car, and found yourself in Dark Age Britain at Camelot, you'd be able to build one, do you?

Technical progress has been progressing, as well and regressing in stops and starts. It has certainly not been moving strictly forward. In point of fact, one of the hallmarks of the middle ages is a relatively long period lacking in new technologies. Nearly all innovation was simply modification of existing technologies. In other words, back to the types of arrowheads.

Nearly all innovation today is the very same thing. There's precious few things that were honestly groundbreaking. The transistor was one, and we're still chugging along off its back to this day.

You also explain why humanity's tech progress has been slow, without resorting to natural incuriosity. So maybe we agree after all.

The Erfworld time period is set in what is a technologically stagnant period for Earth. They thought they had figured out everything there was to know about war too. It is going to be a while before the renaissance.

Ok, but what about war? Would you be able to find anyone today that would be better, consistently and always better, at leading the armies of the period, than the better generals of that period? This is actually what we are discussing here.

I'll be generous and allow our modern-day general to lead troops from the rear, and if you want I'll disregard morale effects. Even with these provisions, I doubt anyone alive today would do a better job at leading the Mongol army than, say, Genghis Khan or some of his generals. Or even Barbarossa, who wasn't a Mongol.

This is a ripe time for a little paranthesis. One thing the Mongols (and other great empires) got down really well was rapidly sending messages over long distances. Should you find yourself in Dark Age Europe, setting a similar system up will make you very popular with the local warlord, even if you wouldn't touch leading armies with a ten foot pole. Indeed, Parson's flier relay is a nice analogue of this. OTOH, you'll never be able to tell a Dark Age european knight anything new about cavalry usage in the same way that Parson could just say "hey guys, I think you should let yourselves fall now".

I don't presume to know what a poster means, only what they say. I disagreed with the words used.

Even the law is sometimes interpreted "in spirit", other times "in letter". It's not presumption, it's reading between the lines. And in this case, by loudly saying what I think the poster wanted said gives them the chance to correct me if necessary, or might improve a slight miscommunication.

I want to understand Erfworld's culture, too. I'm not mocking understanding them, yet I think there's a definite line between understanding how their world works, and boggling at why it isn't more like something else. Erfworlders aren't curious about rules exploits, previous to Parson introducing the concept. That's fine, I can accept that, and it's interesting to me that their culture must be very traditional and somewhat repetitive- although they have big thinkers, game-changers are few and far between (and apparently all Arkentool-attuned), such as Charlie manipulating the system of warfare for profit.

I don't think going "Okay, they do nothing but warfare, how come they haven't exploited all this to high heaven, why aren't they acting this way!" is trying to understand Erfworld, I think that's going back to "Why don't they do things the way we would do them". Understanding would come from trying to figure out WHY they haven't tried to get a deeper level of understanding of their own reality.

Fair enough.

I think the problem is that it's not simple to make judgements like "so and so species is incurious" or "so and so is an obvious thing". There's no obvious threshold.

Infidel thinks humans are naturally incurious. For whatever reason, their threshold for curiosity is not met. I think we are, as a species naturally curious. So for some reason my threshold is met. Maybe, in our discussion, we'll get to figure where each other's threshold is placed and why.

Same thing with obviousness. Falling "exploits" to me should have been "obvious", if only because falling should happen fairly often to allow for some impromptu experimentation and discovery, even if by chance, of some exploit or other. Obviously, not everyone shares the same threshold for obviousness

In any case, from where I stand, it seems to me that Parson can too easily find things no Erfworlder has thought of before. To explain my position, I'll often rely on comparisons to shared knowledge between us the posters- namely knowledge about our species and its history.

I think magic is the real split here. A world with magic can afford to live in medieval stasis for far longer than it reasonably should, because they already have solutions to most of the problems technology has been called upon in our world to solve.

This is an interesting point, but I think it doesn't explain the surpriseability of Erfworld warlords. I can accept that if some things just go POP into existence, you might not feel the need to innovate and improve them. But one thing certainly doesn't just POP in a way that you like- wars. You actually need to fight, to plan, to strategise ... and if you don't you lose and if you lose you die. So there's plenty of pressure to innovate here.

Plus, to draw a comparison with Earthworld, we have tech today that is by middle age standards magic. And yet tech progress has never been faster. So there's that.

[GaryThunder]

This is an interesting point, but I think it doesn't explain the surpriseability of Erfworld warlords. I can accept that if some things just go POP into existence, you might not feel the need to innovate and improve them. But one thing certainly doesn't just POP in a way that you like- wars. You actually need to fight, to plan, to strategise ... and if you don't you lose and if you lose you die. So there's plenty of pressure to innovate here.

On whom, though? Regular warlords seem to have plenty of tactical flexibility on the battlefield, at least within their sphere. Look at the escalating battles between Transylvito and Carpool, as narrated by Caesar. Chief Warlords and Rulers, the strategists, don't seem to vary their methods appreciably, it's true, but keep in mind how hidebound and tradition-venerating most of Erfworld is, particularly the Royal sides. And at least from what we've seen, the Royal sides try to make sure they remain the big dogs in town so they can keep warfare "proper" and "honorable," in much the same way as Stupidworld warlords and generals did during the massed-infantry-combat phase of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance. Since combat is formal to the point of being ritualistic to the clashing Royals and they (usually) have the collective might to quash any non-Royals who start making waves, stagnation is an inevitable result.

Plus, to draw a comparison with Earthworld, we have tech today that is by middle age standards magic. And yet tech progress has never been faster. So there's that.

You're missing an important distinction. We have tech today that fits Middle Ages standards of magic, yes, but that's because we never had magic and were forced to come up with our own solutions. Our tech level today is the product of centuries of driving impulses to create, innovate and invent that simply wouldn't ever arise in a society where spells solve problems without need for significant innovation. Sure, innovation is useful, new items and new linked spells and such, but the broadest purposes of the various casters don't change over time - Healomancers heal, Dollamancers fabricate, Thinkamancers (mostly) communicate, and their innovations in these fields are generally, as has been said, mere improvements on existing technologies rather than totally new ideas. You're a Healomancer, you're popped knowing pretty much all the Healomancy powers there are (except for the really unorthodox uses, but that's an Erfworld-wide blind spot), and any abilities you don't have now, you'll naturally gain as you level. No need to come up with radical new ideas and theories when everything is handed to you.

For that matter, magic leads to incuriosity and stagnation far more than technology does. Magic just works, you don't have to know how it works.* You cast the spell and the effect happens. Because you are not required to understand the explicit nature of the cause and effect of the spell's operations, you aren't nearly as pressured to examine that nature's base principles and find room for improvement as technology users are. For a tech user to build a device that does something, he has to understand every step of the process involved in doing that thing and how to make his device do that. He (or others through his documentation) can then examine that process and seek to refine or replace it. Magic users don't generally have such a keen understanding of the fundamental nature of their magic (Thinkamancers, perhaps, excepted) as that, and so have a vital avenue for innovation sealed to them.


* Yes, some magic systems use complex systems of ritual that border on physics-level difficulty. But Erfworld's magic system is pretty much point and click.

[MarbitChow]

Look at the examples. Ansom used his carpet for the entirety of TBfGK. This item saved him from having to have a mount, which could possibly be killed separately from him. It was a clear advantage. The blaster bracer Ossomer employed was also a clear advantage. It had both damage and knock-back capabilities. The jet pack Cubbins and Ace created is untested, but it is again able to be used without employing a separate mount which can be killed. Hats allow for remote messaging. The eyebooks allowed for remote chat between the top units. Duncan's item allows him to make battle calculations without resorting to a mathamancer. There is a wealth of history supporting the utility of items and the market for them.

Yes, but none of these imply a MASS market, and markets are what drive innovation. The rarest units (chief warlords, casters, overlords) get a couple of items. No one is churning out 1000s of flying carpets with mounted shock bracers and passing them out to Wrigley and his buddies. And almost of these examples only grant abilities that other units already possess. Dwagons can fly, so granting flying to a non-flyer is done by a carpet, or a jet-pack. Thinkamancers can send messages, so the eye-books let people send messages without having a Thinkamancer handy. These aren't innovations, they're just granting abilities to units that don't have them by default.

The best items all appear to be created by tri-mancer links, and since links are considered risky, there's a good reason why no one is churning out magic items other than scrolls.

Look, I'm not saying that items aren't useful. I'm just arguing that constant warfare could prevent exchange of ideas, and units popping fully-formed could prevent establishing any formal method of learning or investigation.
Both of those are required to be able to create advances beyond what Erfworlders are already getting without effort, just by spending shmuckers.
Archers pop with their bows, and their bow attacks (probably) improve as they level, so why bother inventing guns? If you need to do twice as much damage as a regular archer, just pop 2 archers.

[╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛]

Wasn't it said somewhere that it was warlords who were deseigning cities as they rebuilt them? Would that mean that if Parson Razed Spacerock and was on the spot he could rebuild it in a fashion similar the cities of Stupidworld? Would that possibly influence units popped/ poppable there?

[the_tick_rules]

I'm pretty sure the city would pop GK units but he could probably design it, which could be interesting.

[╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛]

I'm pretty sure the city would pop GK units but he could probably design it, which could be interesting.

If only for the effect on culture, much like that Jetstone's city wich popped all the best warrior and then Ace...

OTOH, Sizemore would probably be the one to rebuild (maybe he will get incapacited?)the city since he can reduce the cost simply by being a dirtamancer...