Would you all be interested in a revival of the Global War?
Sept 17, 2016 16:47:10 GMT
via mobile
Napoleon Bonaparte and Quintus Fabius like this
Post by Desophaeus on Sept 17, 2016 16:47:10 GMT
Like, definite, absolute rules that cover all scenarios.
You're talking about narrowing down the zones of ambiguities.
I'm now resorting to geometry to make my point here.
Imagine a circle, but not a perfect circle, more of a circle with micro wobbles in the line, as drawn by human hands. Now try to fit a polygon into that circle. (It doesn't have to be a regular polygon)
A triangle would leave 3 vast areas of missing gap between the triangle and the messy circle. But let's draw a better shape, like a pentagon. It would have five smaller areas of missing areas, but it has two MORE SEPERATE zones of potential clashes. Move up to an octagon, you get the idea...
The more complicated the shape is, it looks better and it seems to fit better, but creates more opportunities of friction when the circle is moving and wobbling over time. Humans aren't constant nor predictable. No reason to deny the fact of our own very nature.
Look at best75 and Frederick the Great, they are generally correct about the money concept, and they intuitively had felt that it wasn't a good idea because it brings a side of complexity. I am in a similar position in agreeing them.
To add, if I go back to the triangle, it is clearly an ill fitting shape and a pentagon is clearly a superior shape with slight more complexity (only 2 more) but covers a lot better scope of area. But it's not profitable to increase the complexity all the way to a 22-sided polygon. I would agree a certain ratio is best somewhere in middle (but preferably closer to low complexity much as optimally possible because we are doing all of those RP games by hand, not a computer program that handles the calculations like a modern game do).
