5 ms·

> What about event planners, nurses, military officers? As a Dutch ex-Navy officer, we just called this "friction" as everyone had read Von Clausewitz during o

by WJW 2y ago

> What about event planners, nurses, military officers? As a Dutch ex-Navy officer, we just called this "friction" as everyone had read Von Clausewitz during officer training and was familiar with the nuances of the term. Militaries overwhelmingly address this problem by increasing redundancy, so that there are as few single points of failures as possible. It is very rare to encounter a role that can only be filled by a single person, a well designed military organization will always have a plan for replacing any single individual should they accidentally die.

staticlink 2y ago
I suppose the 'bus facor' is not so hypothetical in the military.
- mro_name 2y ago
  …it may have a different name, though…
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
aredox 2y ago
Also wrt. solutions in the military setting: a strong NCO corp, competent and enabled to take on-the-spot decisions. But it is not "oh, we have solved friction". It trades the "combat" friction of having to wait for orders (possibly compounded by the weather, comms jamming, your courrier stepping on a mine, etc.) and turns it into "strategy" friction of having subordinates taking initiatives they shouldn't have taken. But I'd argue (like modern armies do) the tradeoff is worth it, and the strategic level has more resources to overcome their friction than combat troops engaged in a fight. But it wasn't always the case (cue the famous tale of a Roman consul, Manlius [0], who executed his own son for disobeying, even though he was victorious ). [0] https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-A-613 https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-A-613 https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=haaren&book=rome&story=manlius https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=haa...
- throwup238 2y ago
  > But I'd argue (like modern armies do) the tradeoff is worth it, and the strategic level has more resources to overcome their friction than combat troops engaged in a fight. I think the tradeoff is practically mandatory for modern armies. The high mobility they require just to avoid artillery strikes and engagements with armor makes top down command impossible to implement in a symmetric conflict.
  - mcswell 2y ago
    I have heard that there is much less of this in the Russian army than in NATO countries' armies--and before that, less in Eastern European countries' armies. The Ukrainian army apparently had to be trained out of that (although IIUC, that training began soon after the fall of the Soviet Union). I'd enjoy hearing any comments about this--true, false, true-but, etc.!
pjc50 2y ago
"The graveyards are full of indispensable men" -- attr. Napoleon "I can make a brigadier general in five minutes, but it is not easy to replace a hundred and ten horses" -- attr. Lincoln (exact words vary by source) It's noticeable how few computer wargames simulate any of this, instead allowing for frictionless high speed micromanagement.
- justin66 2y ago
  That first quote is normally attributed to Charles de Gaulle. [0] I wonder if it would have been in character for Napoleon to reflect on the indispensability of anyone but himself. [0] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/21/graveyards-full/?amp=1 https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/21/graveyards-full/?am...
- adrianN 2y ago
  I think we would need better AI to make games where you can only give high level commands enjoyable.
  - WJW 2y ago
    Doubtful tbh, at least in the context of the article. The problem for games that simulate war (or any other environment with "friction") too closely is not that the AI is not good enough, it's that such environments are just inherently not "fun" and thus not good material to make games out of. Games work on a tight gameplay loop where the player can have feelings of agency (they can influence what happens at all) and mastery (they can get better at influencing what happens with practice). For this you need to have a relatively predictable relation to actions and outcomes. Having the game randomly lose the orders you give to a unit without any feedback is kinda the opposite of that.
    - throwway120385 2y ago
      Requiring you to manage a messenger corp in order to dispatch armies past your borders might be a good example of a mechanic that generates friction though.

by WJW 2y ago

staticlink 2y ago

I suppose the 'bus facor' is not so hypothetical in the military.

mro_name 2y ago
…it may have a different name, though…
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

aredox 2y ago

Also wrt. solutions in the military setting: a strong NCO corp, competent and enabled to take on-the-spot decisions. But it is not "oh, we have solved friction". It trades the "combat" friction of having to wait for orders (possibly compounded by the weather, comms jamming, your courrier stepping on a mine, etc.) and turns it into "strategy" friction of having subordinates taking initiatives they shouldn't have taken. But I'd argue (like modern armies do) the tradeoff is worth it, and the strategic level has more resources to overcome their friction than combat troops engaged in a fight. But it wasn't always the case (cue the famous tale of a Roman consul, Manlius [0], who executed his own son for disobeying, even though he was victorious ). [0] https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-A-613 https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-A-613 https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=haaren&book=rome&story=manlius https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=haa...

throwup238 2y ago
> But I'd argue (like modern armies do) the tradeoff is worth it, and the strategic level has more resources to overcome their friction than combat troops engaged in a fight. I think the tradeoff is practically mandatory for modern armies. The high mobility they require just to avoid artillery strikes and engagements with armor makes top down command impossible to implement in a symmetric conflict.
- mcswell 2y ago
  I have heard that there is much less of this in the Russian army than in NATO countries' armies--and before that, less in Eastern European countries' armies. The Ukrainian army apparently had to be trained out of that (although IIUC, that training began soon after the fall of the Soviet Union). I'd enjoy hearing any comments about this--true, false, true-but, etc.!

pjc50 2y ago

"The graveyards are full of indispensable men" -- attr. Napoleon "I can make a brigadier general in five minutes, but it is not easy to replace a hundred and ten horses" -- attr. Lincoln (exact words vary by source) It's noticeable how few computer wargames simulate any of this, instead allowing for frictionless high speed micromanagement.

justin66 2y ago
That first quote is normally attributed to Charles de Gaulle. [0] I wonder if it would have been in character for Napoleon to reflect on the indispensability of anyone but himself. [0] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/21/graveyards-full/?amp=1 https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/21/graveyards-full/?am...
adrianN 2y ago
I think we would need better AI to make games where you can only give high level commands enjoyable.
- WJW 2y ago
  Doubtful tbh, at least in the context of the article. The problem for games that simulate war (or any other environment with "friction") too closely is not that the AI is not good enough, it's that such environments are just inherently not "fun" and thus not good material to make games out of. Games work on a tight gameplay loop where the player can have feelings of agency (they can influence what happens at all) and mastery (they can get better at influencing what happens with practice). For this you need to have a relatively predictable relation to actions and outcomes. Having the game randomly lose the orders you give to a unit without any feedback is kinda the opposite of that.
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    Requiring you to manage a messenger corp in order to dispatch armies past your borders might be a good example of a mechanic that generates friction though.