USH'S MATRIX GAME 2006 THIRD ASSIGNMENT- 'The Fortress'

The predominant weapon in battle five is the musket.

Didn't notice it, well, I suppose that rules that one out. Hmmm.

Well the muzzle-loading rifled musket was the most common fire arm during the American Civil War, but I'm guessing you mean muskets from before the invention of rifling...

Berserker slowly looks over the battlefields. Berserker knew why the commandeer of the machines would want these. Besides the obvious that you get to see every tactic you could you also get to know they enemy.

But why no moderen battlefields?

A musket is smoothbore by definition. If it is rifled it is a rifle.

-

Fair question, Berserker, though you may need to define that term.

"So this King likely learned warfare based on human history.... But doesn`t he have unlimited ability to accumulate knowledge as a Machine? Would it make him possibly better than any human military genius in history? Do Machines even trully understand the meaning of word genius?" -Melkor wonders aloud.

Modern as in Gulf War and up. I would also think of future battles that have yet to come. Also you would think the leader of the machines would have something on his fight with the humans

Also I think the last one is the Civil War could be WW2 though BAttle of the Rhine

The 5th Battle I'm for sure is Napleonic warfare probably the Battle of Waterloo.

I think its obvious that the battles start from the earliest to the last.

Machines can read a dictionary, so what do you mean by 'understand'?

Originally posted by Newjak
Modern as in Gulf War and up. I would also think of future battles that have yet to come. Also you would think the leader of the machines would have something on his fight with the humans

Also I think the last one is the Civil War could be WW2 though BAttle of the Rhine

The 5th Battle I'm for sure is Napleonic warfare probably the Battle of Waterloo.

I think its obvious that the battles start from the earliest to the last.

Last one I'm thinking is one of the World Wars as well, but again, my knowledge of history isn't great enough to identify specific battles.

The diffrence between logical reasoning that Machines should be masters of and the brilliant spark of genius, perhaps? It is scary to think that Machines have no area in which they are inferior to humans....

Originally posted by Newjak
Modern as in Gulf War and up. I would also think of future battles that have yet to come. Also you would think the leader of the machines would have something on his fight with the humans

Also I think the last one is the Civil War could be WW2 though BAttle of the Rhine

The 5th Battle I'm for sure is Napleonic warfare probably the Battle of Waterloo.

I think its obvious that the battles start from the earliest to the last.

You aren't sure about brightly coloured uniforms on the Rhine.

And no redocats at battle 5, which is always a giveaway.

There are indeed no 21st century battles.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
The diffrence between logical reasoning that Machines should be masters of and the brilliant spark of genius, perhaps? It is scary to think that Machines have no area in which they are inferior to humans....

Well, if we assume that genius is something beyond a machine, what does genius achieve? Does it have value in its own right or only in what it produces? And the same question again, narrowed down for warfare alone?

"Hmmm" Barb whispers, looking closely at the Depictions. "What strategic value would come from studying such dated battles and tactics?"

Fair question. Simply as a means of strategy or tactics these things have no relevance to today.

Diorama 2 doesn`t happen to be the battle of Issus, by wild guess?

Well, perhaps warfare can be reduced to logic, at the end, if we take apart and analyze all elements? But there is a factor of the ability to take risks, make quick decisions, and understand your opponents.... actually personality traits of the commander may be a big issue. But perhaps everything at the end can be reduced to logic, propabillities, numbers...

But if we see war as a huge game of chess, shouldn`t the Machine always have an advantage?

Maybe as a study of how humans act in situations of war and possibly how they act out of desperation?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, if we assume that genius is something beyond a machine, what does genius achieve? Does it have value in its own right or only in what it produces? And the same question again, narrowed down for warfare alone?

In my opinion, genius only has value through what it produces. Otherwise, it's simply wasted potential.

And while the strategy itself would not be very useful today, it is still a window into how humans think and act, which could be the King's best weapon.

But how do you classify the work of genius as having value?

Edit- and yes, I think understanding human personality in regards to warfare would be the main goal here.

Interesting thoughts all.

If genius only matters for its results, then consider the situation from a Machine point of view. if they can get results that are as good as that genius produces- why need genius?

-

If warfare was a game of chess, machines would be unbeatable.

But it took them much longer to create a programme that could win at, say, Go.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
And while the strategy itself would not be very useful today, it is still a window into how humans think and act, which could be the King's best weapon.

And here we get into my specialty!

If you work out how someone thinks, you can also reasonably figure out how they may act or react in a certain situation. Likewise, you can often figure out what someone may be thinking because of their actions. About the only things you can't reasonably predict is a stroke of genius or act of desperation - though studying how people act can at least give you some slight idea of how they may act when desperate.