PDA

View Full Version : Theories of Fortification: Deterrence - Active and Passive, and Human Nature


p0intman
2013-01-28, 02:34 AM
Allow me to be clear on a few things. Deterrence is the concept of deterring any one person or group of persons from continuing any current action, be it a line of conversation, or approaching any facility where they are unwanted. Deterrence relies on the ability to convince the unwanted parties that continuing on this course is a poor choice and that the outcome for them should they do so anyway is adverse for reasons that are relevant to their own desires and goals. Deterrence is an active part of our daily lives, and can be explained with examples such as you do not run a red light, because the outcome of doing so is the likelyness of a fine, being pulled over, or at worst, getting into a car crash. The term fortification is defined as any one object that is used to obstruct or block off an area so as to deny passage of unwanted or unauthorised parties from entering the protected space. Fortifications take the obvious examples of walls, fences, barbed wire so on and so fourth.

Now for an example that is relevant to us.

Joe Casual happens upon an amp station that doesn't have any enemies in it, "Great!" he thinks, seeing it at first, as an *opportunity* to start a fight with a suprise attack. So he runs around and looks for an entrance. Fortunately for him, amp stations have pathways dedicated to foot soldiers at each side of the base. So he looks at the map, "Shit!" he says, "there are generators preventing me from getting to the capture point, and disabling them will alert any nearby enemies to my presence. How can I do this as sneakily as possible?" Having looked at it, he comes to the conclusion most of us would: you can't, because all avenues are built to alert defenders to the relevant threat, in order to encourage "big fights" in this situation.

This is passive deterrence: The size and scope of the task at hand is simply too big for one guy to take on. Trying to do so alone is next to impossible at best, foolish at worst. Worst still, the high walls and fortifications present make hiding from any defenders a daunting task for one lone wolf. In the above example, both deterrence and fortification worked hand in hand to deter somebody from going on with what they had initially planned.

Joe Casual, not one to give up, and wanting that damn base, goes back to his warpgate and gets a squad full of guys together, thinking it'll work fine now. He thinks he has a reliable number of people to possibly begin to take the task at hand. They get a sunderer and head over there, somehow not being seen. They start hitting the base and blowing generators up, and taking the outlaying bases. Its going pretty well, it doesnt seem so hard anymore. But then a 36 person platoon shows up with tanks, air power and ams units. They're well organised, well equipped and they outnumber joe casual and his squad 3:1. The squad, not wanting to wreck their K/D and seeing it for what it is, flees.

That is an example of active deterrence. The relevant goals to the majority of the squad were to set up a farm to pad their K/D, they don't want to be the ones being farmed. The odds stacked against them were simply too large for them to overcome, and they were not prepared for it, and did not expect it. Lets continue with the example, shall we?

Joe casual, having turned into joe hardcore-addict, does not give a fuck. He goes back to his warpgate and regroups his squad into a full platoon. He gets the ear of an outfit leader who happens to have a hundred guys, and they were heading in that general direction anyway. They roll together in a massive blob, and the thirty guys flee. Joe casual has his amp station, finally. But, where did the defenders go? Weren't there a large number of hostiles here not long ago? Surely, he'd seen them on his way in. They'd seen him, too, he'd swore he'd been shot at by them.

They left, despite the carrot being shown to them in the form of rewards and exp and kills, it wasn't tempting enough, it didn't have potential to be worthwhile. Why? Because the base was too easy for attackers to take, in a huge zerg. Why bother when they'd just turn into being farmed in short order? It wasn't going to be a satisfying, long, drawn out fight that they were seeking.

Unfortunately, Deterrence works both ways. The defenders, this time, were deterred from fighting. Why? Because it was they who were going to be farmed by this huge force.

Changes the rewards would do more for defense than changing base design will.

You see ghoest? I know more about human nature than you do.

Rothnang
2013-01-28, 03:26 AM
The current situation is more like: Joe casual just walks into the base, starts rigging generators, and lols the entire time at how helpless the defenders are against one guy, because they can't be everywhere at the same time, and the stupid base has no internal sensors to find intruders.
He gives a hand full of poor sods who want to keep the base in fighting shape occupied with minimal XP gain for an hour and ruins their fun.

I would much rather see a system where Shields must be shut down by occupying terminals, which only stay tripped as long as someone holds them, and the Generators to destroy the shields are located behind them. That would create a situation where you need a certain number of people to get past the shield at all, and the defenders would have a clear means of pushing out the attackers. Put the pressure on the attackers, having to hold on to multiple locations at the same time, rather than screwing over the defenders by forcing them to be everywhere at the same time while a small group of attackers can give them the runaround for hours.

Mietz
2013-01-28, 07:07 AM
Couldn't lone Joe Casual just pull a Sunderer and gate-crash through the facility shields?

Figment
2013-01-28, 07:48 AM
I've not encountered any detering fortifications in PS2.


I have seen three million possible avenues of attack per base though that allow you to completely ignore any defenders on something that looks like a rather empty touristic Chinese wall of sorts.


I play Light Assault a lot... Can you tell?

Rothnang
2013-01-28, 08:46 AM
The thing about walls is, if you have one person trying to jump over the wall it doesn't take one person to defend against it, it takes a hundred, since you can't know where the attacker will go over, and you can't be everywhere at the same time.

p0intman
2013-01-28, 10:45 AM
The point was, buffing defense rewards won't matter if you can't viably hold off a large number of people and it doesn't come down to simply numbers. I am aware that my example has several holes in it, but that isn't the point.

Lonehunter
2013-01-28, 11:04 AM
Was going to put in my time to read this, but you're lil kindergarten quote at the end proves how much you don't belong on PSU