One Hour One Life Forums

seth

Member

Registered: 2018-02-28

Posts: 93

Solutions for casual genocide and asymmetric violence

Casual Genocide

I haven't experienced swords in the game yet, but from what I'm hearing it sounds like swords are not being used by rival villages in order to get at one villages resources, or to end some inter generational conflict, but rather for individuals to engage in the joy of mass murder (violence for violence sake), or - if the opponent is armed - in war for war sake.

In advanced societies, there's a way to make sure that individuals don't draw an entire society into war - one can't just pick up a gun and go invade a neighboring territory.

The recent discovery of an ancient battle ground concluded this:

“This implies that the resources the people of Nataruk had at the time were valuable and worth fighting for, whether it was water, dried meat or fish, gathered nuts or indeed women and children. This shows that two of the conditions associated with warfare among settled societies—control of territory and resources—were probably the same for these hunter-gatherers, and that we have underestimated their role in prehistory.”
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- … Muk1cUg.99

Of course this is an obvious thing to us - in our history, great bloody conflicts have a great cost, and so the gain must surpass that cost. Right now, the gain is pleasure of killing in the consequence environment of a game that lasts an hour.

I think there's a lot of potential in this feature but it needs to be refined in a way that doesn't result in what can be called "casual genocide" - an unthinking execution of a an atrocity for no real purpose.

Asymmetric Violence

I woke up this morning thinking about fences. How I would set up fences to protect an entire town from the threat of casual genocide. I would create a few rooms near the entrance with pieces of paper instructing visitors to drop their backpack by a door, and then move away. Their backpack would be inspected and then given back to them and then they could enter. That way new visitors could be safely allowed entry into the society.

That's when I realized that I had recreated TSA.

Even given the threat of onslaught by a neighboring civilization, it seems an unreasonable leap to our present state of assuming everyone foreign must be treated like a dangerous killer in order for the safety of everyone else.

Really, that only came around when people had the ability to engage in massively asymmetrical violence. Bombs and automatic weapons.. In a real civilization, 2 people with swords would not be able to take down 20 people without swords. Because for humans even a tree branch can be used as a weapon - meaning in desperate times, even a farmer can have some combat effectiveness.

An army should be required for most aggressive combat, or waging a war with an advanced civilization, but everyday people should have some measure of defense.

Call to Arms

Someone had mentioned a watch tower to observe an approaching enemy - what if there was a "call to arms" bell that you could ring, which would render tall objects (gardening hoe, straight shaft) useful as defensive weapons which could disarm people brandishing swords for a short period of time? This could reduce the asymmetry of these weapons..

If a culture with little interest in war could still fend off an attack with this simple bell, then war would likely require a greater army to be successful - so perhaps this could work..

War Drum

While I'm playing armchair game designer, another thing that would make war require more consensus could be the addition of a war drum - you can't go to war without a war drummer!

He is the weak point of the attack - in order for swords to be used again, they must hear the beat of the war drum. If he's killed, the attack will pretty much have to be ended, and without him, any one individual is going to lack effectiveness.

Mass Sword Ownership

People have mentioned sheath for swords, which I like, but of course it can't be the only thing. It mirrors a society where you walk down the street and everyone has a gun with a holster. Far from feeling safe, you have the knowledge that at any moment an incredibly violent scene could break out with bullets flying all over the place. And even if it doesn't, that threat is always there.

I think the effect of living in a village where everyone has sheathed swords would be the same - a constant anxiety about the threat of genocide which manifests itself as hyper vigilance against invisible enemies.

Reasoned Conflict

Hmm.. Looking back, I'm realizing none of this addresses property, which is of course the goal of much of these changes. Yes we can use fences and private ownership to fend off genocidal terrorism - but that's a rather extreme use case!

I really am interested to see what happens if different civilizations are capable of harvesting different items from the earth. In that case, the only way other civilizations would be able to get certain things would be be from theft or trade, which seems to me a good recipe for private property.. and for reasoned conflicts among civilizations.

Last edited by seth (2019-05-12 16:13:37)