Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 17
Great chapter, thanks.
Suuji de Sukuu! Jyakushou Kokka - Vol. 1 Ch. 4.1
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2018
- Messages
- 350
This was interesting, I understood most of what he explained and inferred what I didn't. It was logical and explained why the other country wants and needs this war.
But then again, I'm a CS Major. xD
But then again, I'm a CS Major. xD
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 5,702
There are two types of readers here, it seems. The "nooo math! 😟" side, and the "YEAH MATH! 😝" side. I'm personally in the latter.
That said, it might be the business major in me talking, but...are these simple concepts really enough to analyze a war? It feels more simplistic than what I assume a war discussion would be.
That said, it might be the business major in me talking, but...are these simple concepts really enough to analyze a war? It feels more simplistic than what I assume a war discussion would be.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,049
The math seems sound, but it seems that they're either ignoring the psychology of humans, or they just don't know it.
In psychology, the Prisoner's Dilemma and Nash Equilibrium are interesting because while the theory says one thing, when you test it on actual people, the results often defy the rationally expected results. Especially over multiple testings, "prisoners" will often both stay silent.
It turns out, humans are generally predisposed to support cooperation and punish cheating. If you're not familiar with it, I recommend looking up "The Ultimatum Game," where benefit maximizing would suggest that people always accept, but in reality people will regularly reject the ultimatum in spite of their own benefit.
And even if you manage to make things unprofitable for your opponent, watch out for sunk cost!
In psychology, the Prisoner's Dilemma and Nash Equilibrium are interesting because while the theory says one thing, when you test it on actual people, the results often defy the rationally expected results. Especially over multiple testings, "prisoners" will often both stay silent.
It turns out, humans are generally predisposed to support cooperation and punish cheating. If you're not familiar with it, I recommend looking up "The Ultimatum Game," where benefit maximizing would suggest that people always accept, but in reality people will regularly reject the ultimatum in spite of their own benefit.
And even if you manage to make things unprofitable for your opponent, watch out for sunk cost!
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
- Messages
- 136
Is this really just a math manga?
Group Leader
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2018
- Messages
- 933
Everything has been pretty basic concepts so far. It'd be interesting to see the author try to work in more complex topics.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,655
Whats written here are about correct!?!? I thought author just used big math mumbo jumbo to gaslight the reader
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2019
- Messages
- 406
Aw yiss, this manga delivers (little but solid maths are solid maths)
@AbuHajaar
the bad old francoise dudes from YS came first to mind (and commies, but that's a given)
@ShinGetsu
We need to know if principal port have forts build around or next to said cities, that alone could greatly give advantage to defenders due making nil numerical superiority (usual rule of thumb is attackers need 3x more people that defenders in fortified position) WHILE hurting them more due cost of well trained soldier vs peasant with a lance, but for MC side need 1) said forts exist 2) lure opponents to engage in a siege, plus a bunch of other things:
Marine battles
-difference between ship performance in each category
-raw numbers of each navy
-adjacent coastal terrains
-tildal differency
Logistic (aka the real factor in prolonged battles)
-stability of roads in general
-occurence of bandits
-cities water and food reserves
-local gobernance stability
-reliability of transports
feel free to add things if I forgot something
@AbuHajaar
the bad old francoise dudes from YS came first to mind (and commies, but that's a given)
@ShinGetsu
We need to know if principal port have forts build around or next to said cities, that alone could greatly give advantage to defenders due making nil numerical superiority (usual rule of thumb is attackers need 3x more people that defenders in fortified position) WHILE hurting them more due cost of well trained soldier vs peasant with a lance, but for MC side need 1) said forts exist 2) lure opponents to engage in a siege, plus a bunch of other things:
Marine battles
-difference between ship performance in each category
-raw numbers of each navy
-adjacent coastal terrains
-tildal differency
Logistic (aka the real factor in prolonged battles)
-stability of roads in general
-occurence of bandits
-cities water and food reserves
-local gobernance stability
-reliability of transports
feel free to add things if I forgot something
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2018
- Messages
- 184
@icekatze
I second that. There was a really interesting experiment where an amount of money was given to two people with their powers being as followed: The first decided the division of the money while the second could veto the entire thing, causing both to get nothing.
What happened is that on average the first had to offer the second at least 25%, otherwise the second would veto. This doesn't seem wrong to us emotionally and we might do the same, but mathematically we should be glad if we're even offered a penny, as we've come out richer than when we started.
It's the price of Pride.
However, Realpolitik is a very real thing and numerous leaders have played the numbers like the protagonists to make things work out. The idea of making it just too costly and with too little gains to take a country was (and still is) done by Switzerland. Their entire country is equipped to be turned into a fortress and their entire infrastructure is set up to be destructible, making the country hard to take and worthless when you do.
On another topic: I don't like what they did to Lanchester's law. First of all, it has a form for ancient battles with spears and such. It's linear then, not squared as it is with guns. The reason is how Lanchester's law works. It's not a strategic formula, it's an engagement formula that goes by attrition.
Lanchester's law roughly works on the assumptions that guns make most other considerations, besides who has the most guns, inconsequential. So that number alone is needed for calculating the force value. It also assumes that unequal forces will become more and more unequal as the fight goes on. So if you have 30 men vs 10 and every 10 men kill one every one unit of time. After one you have 29(30) v 7(10) followed by 28.3(30) v 5.1(10), 27.79(30) v 2.4(10), before total annihilation. That compounding effect is why you should square the numbers not multiply the weapon effectiveness with the number of weapons.
Lanchester put this as a linear function when it comes to melee weapons because a single soldier can only ever engage one other soldier with a melee weapon, while that is not true for guns.
Finally, I've got a bad feeling about guns in this series. I was sure we were going to see something set in the early gunpowder age, given the guns, but they just said both armies are armed with spears. Even during the early gunpowder age the gun had become a massive part of armies. Armies still used pikes with pike and shot becoming the mainstay tactic of early fireweapons, but then the author would have mentioned guns as well. Not to mention that early guns were horribly inaccurate due to not being rifled. My bad feeling is that the author forced guns into the story only for the sake of the classic game-theory gunmen scenario and is going to relegate them to something of a ornamental weapon, not deal with their massive accuracy (it was that accuracy as well as bayonets that led to the pike being completely abandoned. A pike was needed because a gun was worthless as a melee weapon and because the lack of range due to accuracy meant that you didn't have enough shots to efficiently deal with an enemy force) and start losing the thinking part of the manga (which is the brunt of it) due to lack of planning and thought going into it.
I second that. There was a really interesting experiment where an amount of money was given to two people with their powers being as followed: The first decided the division of the money while the second could veto the entire thing, causing both to get nothing.
What happened is that on average the first had to offer the second at least 25%, otherwise the second would veto. This doesn't seem wrong to us emotionally and we might do the same, but mathematically we should be glad if we're even offered a penny, as we've come out richer than when we started.
It's the price of Pride.
However, Realpolitik is a very real thing and numerous leaders have played the numbers like the protagonists to make things work out. The idea of making it just too costly and with too little gains to take a country was (and still is) done by Switzerland. Their entire country is equipped to be turned into a fortress and their entire infrastructure is set up to be destructible, making the country hard to take and worthless when you do.
On another topic: I don't like what they did to Lanchester's law. First of all, it has a form for ancient battles with spears and such. It's linear then, not squared as it is with guns. The reason is how Lanchester's law works. It's not a strategic formula, it's an engagement formula that goes by attrition.
Lanchester's law roughly works on the assumptions that guns make most other considerations, besides who has the most guns, inconsequential. So that number alone is needed for calculating the force value. It also assumes that unequal forces will become more and more unequal as the fight goes on. So if you have 30 men vs 10 and every 10 men kill one every one unit of time. After one you have 29(30) v 7(10) followed by 28.3(30) v 5.1(10), 27.79(30) v 2.4(10), before total annihilation. That compounding effect is why you should square the numbers not multiply the weapon effectiveness with the number of weapons.
Lanchester put this as a linear function when it comes to melee weapons because a single soldier can only ever engage one other soldier with a melee weapon, while that is not true for guns.
Finally, I've got a bad feeling about guns in this series. I was sure we were going to see something set in the early gunpowder age, given the guns, but they just said both armies are armed with spears. Even during the early gunpowder age the gun had become a massive part of armies. Armies still used pikes with pike and shot becoming the mainstay tactic of early fireweapons, but then the author would have mentioned guns as well. Not to mention that early guns were horribly inaccurate due to not being rifled. My bad feeling is that the author forced guns into the story only for the sake of the classic game-theory gunmen scenario and is going to relegate them to something of a ornamental weapon, not deal with their massive accuracy (it was that accuracy as well as bayonets that led to the pike being completely abandoned. A pike was needed because a gun was worthless as a melee weapon and because the lack of range due to accuracy meant that you didn't have enough shots to efficiently deal with an enemy force) and start losing the thinking part of the manga (which is the brunt of it) due to lack of planning and thought going into it.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2018
- Messages
- 1,056
Yikes. This is a pretty terrible way to write a manga. I thought there would be more actual story and plot points where it would be solved by math in intervals. Instead every point of the conversation is just the author vomiting out formulas and game theories in quick succession. It's like reading one of those cheesy education is ~fun~ kind of books.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2018
- Messages
- 11,246
I am confused
Math is not one of my stronger subjects.
Math is not one of my stronger subjects.
Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2018
- Messages
- 65
But Lanchester's laws already proven to be faulty in Vietnam war.... Sigh... Stupid author...
