Matrix Games Forums

Nemo,

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

The answer: obviously is that you show him a bigger fear he never realised he had... and then he realises that what he was protecting against was NOT the worst thing that could happen to him.

why not show him a bigger fear he realises he had before ? Then he will realise that what he was protecting agaisnt was NOT the worst thing that could happen to him and he could/should have known better.

I think I would like that even better...

Hartwig

Hartwig,
 
What you suggested is exactly what I had said.

Nemo,

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hartwig,

What you suggested is exactly what I had said.

is it ? I thought you were fond of a fear he never realized he had, thus realizing he should have had that fear adds to the effect, whereas I was fond of a fear he did realize before, thus making a conscious wrong decision join the stream of thoughts. Personally, if I am asked something I don't know and never knew that does not upset me, but if I know I knew it, I may annoy me, make me discontent with myself. Even better: Many a person likes to keep looking back at these incidents beyond a short analysis of what went wrong for some strange reason, spending their CPU on what may have been and why it was not rather than on what is or will be.

However, maybe there is in fact less of a difference than I thought originally, which may depend on the nature of fears. To clarify, why don't you expand a bit about the nature of fears. If you say there is a fear, but he never realized he had it, does that imply that there is an intrinsic set of fears in us which just needs to be stirred up to arrive in our consciousness ? Or does it imply that a new fear is created. If so, how does one go about that, specifically in the WitP framework ?

One problem which I see here is that there is a context to every event. Losing 4CVs as Allied is bad, but if that takes out 3 Japanese CVs early in the war, may be good anyway. Losing India may be bad, but if it clears the way for an early and successful Allied thrust towards the home islands it may be good. Thus I think it may be difficult to actually use a "general fear" successfully. If my loss achieves something, I will gladly take it. If I can draw your troops deep into my territory, to an area where they may pose a potential strategic danger, but if I know I can stop them there and pince them off, I will gladly lose that territory and make you believe in your success, then show you that that move you chose was one you should have feared. Even nicer than replacing a fear with a bigger fear [:D]

If there is no approach using general fears, how do you recognize specific fears. You already mentioned one way, looking at a response. Moving the KB may indicate that there is a fear or a felt threat. But to counter that response, you want to rely on another, never realized fear - how do you find out about that one ? Or do you really create it from scratch ? That may be possible, but doesn't it take a lot of time and thus is difficult to use as a tactical countermove ?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and clarification

Hartwig

Is there really such a thing as a deep-set fear which you've never realised was possible OR are all fears things which you have realised but some of which you've discarded as being too terrible to consider?

When they occur you say "I never even thought that was possible" when what you should really say is "I never even examined that possibility although IF I had I would have realised it was certainly possible."

John3rd's play is a good example of this. He discards many options without fully examining them and then says "it never even crossed my mind" even when those things were clearly discussed in his AAR. So, he was aware of the issues, he just chose never to examine and analyse them properly.
 
Showing an opponent a "new" weakness is the same. There is no such thing as new but there IS such a thing as a weakness he chose to never consider. ( aka one he never knew he had.... on a conscious level. On a subconscious level of course he realised it was there but consciously he discarded it so quickly that it is the same as though it never ever existed to him prior to its realisation.).
 
You see this throughout military history where commanders are confronted by things they choose not to consider and just "shut down" mentally.

As to your points on Zen....
 
Well, looking back to learn is helpful. Looking back to regret, wasteful. What was was. What is is. The was can inform the is but should never detract from it.

Cryptic but true.