(Note: This is the third part in my series on Game and Metagame. For some references, I highly recommend you read the first part of this series to get a feel of what I am talking about. There is a rather decent article on Wikipedia about the whole thing, and my article differs from that on several counts, as my attempt is to talk about it from the perspective of everyday games and metagames. Also, I suspect you would have seen the movie 300, and if you haven’t check up on the Battle of Thermopylae here.)

300

I hated 300 (both the movie and the comic). It might have to do something with the way Miller butchered history to present a “fantasy” that was chock full of his overtly idiotic extremist right-wing lunacy. That Frank Miller is kinda cuckoo is a whole other topic, and that his version of the Battle of Thermopylae was a piece of propaganda Goebbels would have been proud of. As someone who is has liked reading about history and ancient cultures since he was in eighth standard (yes I was a bookworm and had a rather slow social life, how did you know?) I was shocked and appalled by the treatment this legendary battle was given by Frank Miller. Miller’s changes had little to do with making the story more accessible and exciting, but more about propagating his own twisted point of view (for which, he would have had Batman take on Al-Qaida in the caves of Afghanistan, had wiser heads at DC not prevailed).

—

With that little outburst out of the way, let’s get down to the brass tacks, namely: Force Multipliers.

In my first article, when I analyzed the game of chess from the perspective of the Metagame, I used a term called the 3M prism which provided three of the force multipliers in any situation. The 3Ms basically defined a player’s chances of winning the game on the basis of the position of the pieces. The 3Ms are Mobility, Mass and Momentum, and I would suggest you read that piece for a better understanding of what is about to follow.

After reading that piece, you would have gained a fair understanding of what I am trying to convey about Force Multipliers, but for the sake of simplicity and elegance, I will formally state here my definition, or rather, the definition I want the term Force Multiplier to have in the context of my articles. The definition is as follows:

—

Force Multiplier: Any factor/element in a game that gives an advantage to a player. It increases the ability of a player to affect the outcome of a game in his/her favour, and it can be gained by both the actions of the players or by randomness or luck. In any game, the possible force multipliers shall be unique, but with the proper metaphors, a set of Force Multipliers can be carried over from one game to another. It is also possible to have a universal set of Force Multipliers that can be applied elegantly to any and all games.

—

For all intents and purposes, the players are assumed to be two abstract entities that are equal in every aspect, and all of their strengths or weaknesses are represented by their force multipliers. To simplify that, see the diagram below:

A bully, a boy and a mace

In this diagram, you can see the bully and the boy being represented by abstract circles, with their respective Force Multipliers being represented accordingly.

It’s very easy to explain all of the above using a very simple example. It’s the fourth standard. You and two of your friends are playing cricket, and suddenly, the ball goes over to another group of kids from another section (who, for the sake of convenience, we shall refer to as the Armies of Mordor). They claim it as their own, and since there are ten of them and three of you, it obviously belongs to them (numbers, a very effective force multiplier). You and your two buddies get together with the rest of your friends (bringing up your number to fifteen, good enough to sweep the floor with those two bit players from the Armies of Mordor). You send a delegation to the opposite side, explaining that they have to give up the ball and control of the basketball court for playing cricket on the Wednesday and Thursday common games periods. The delegation returns with inks on their shirts and torn knickers. It appears that one of the members of the Armies of Mordor has an elder brother in the sixth standard, and he has entered into the equation (superior weapons, another effective Force Multiplier). Now, since none of you have an elder brother, you do the dirty trick, and go as a bunch to the class teachers in the teacher’s room and bawl your hearts out (the moral high ground and outside influence, the dirtiest trick in the book, it might have been outlawed by the Geneva convention, not too sure of my sources here). The class teachers punish the Armies of Mordor and the elder brother is nullified, and you get the ball back, and the prestige that comes with cocking a snook at a sixth standard student. (Based on a true story)

All in all in the above confrontation, three different Force Multipliers were used by the either side, and they are as follows:-

1) Superior numbers
2) Superior weaponry
3) Outside influence/sanction of a higher authority

Now, in any situation that you encounter, you will realize that there always are effective force multipliers. A rather humorous example of this (and an interesting case study) could be the making of groups in a class for a presentation. The key is to see where the girls are going, because having girls is a very effective force multiplier in your arsenal. Another key is to see where the smooth talkers and hard workers are going, because these are the people who will get you the highest marks, and are quite useful as Force Multipliers for the success of any group. A case can also be made that while a certain number of girls/smoothies/hard-workers is desirable, having a surplus is simply overkill, but thats another story altogether.

—

Anyhow, back to the Spartans. I hope you’ve either seen the movie, or at least read the link. Anyway, here is the breakdown. Two cultures are at war. One is based on freedom and respect for all religions and races, and gave the world its first human rights charter, and the other is based on slavery and fascism. One of them loses, while the other one wins and forms the core of the western civilization. Really a pity that the slave-owners defeated the Persians eventually, but that can’t be helped now.

Anywho, back in 480 BC, Xerxes was marching up to the Greek city states with one of the greatest armies the world had ever seen. His goal was to cross over to the main cities of Greece and take them by force. His army, which numbered about 200,000, marched and sailed from Persia, and was nearly at the doorstep of Greece. The Greek city states decided to hold the Persian advance at Thermopylae (the hot gates), a small stretch of land which provided the only land route to mainland Greece, and which could be easily held by a small, well stocked force (of about 7000) against a much larger opponent.

Thermopylae

—

Since the Greeks held navel superiority, the Persians could only proceed on land. This also meant a longer, and consequently, more vulnerable supply chain, which meant that any battle would have to be won swiftly and decisively. (Thermopylae cost Xerxes an entire week, by which time Athens was properly evacuated and armaments of the Greek forces was almost complete)

The three days that saw actual battle are hereby quoted from Wikipedia:

First day

On the fifth day after the Persian arrival at Thermopylae, Xerxes finally resolved to attack the Allies. First of all he sent Medes and Cissians against the Allies, to take them prisoner and bring them before him. They soon found themselves launching a frontal assault on the Greek position. The Allies fought in front of the Phocian wall, at the narrowest part of the pass. Details of the tactics are scant; Diodorus says “the men stood shoulder to shoulder” and the Greeks were “superior in valor and in the great size of their shields.” This is probably describing the standard Greek phalanx, in which the men formed a wall of overlapping shields and layered spear points, which would have been highly effective as long as it spanned the width of the pass. The wicker shields and shorter spears of the Persians prevented them from effectively engaging the Greek hoplites. Herodotus says that the units for each city were kept together; units were rotated in and out of the battle to prevent fatigue, which implies the Greeks had more men than necessary to block the pass. The Greeks killed so many Medes that Xerxes is said to have started up off the seat from which he was watching the battle three times. According to Ctesias, the first wave was “cut to pieces” with only two or three Spartans dead.

According to Herodotus and Diodorus, the king, having taken the measure of the enemy, threw his best troops into a second assault the same day: the Immortals, an elite corps of 10,000 men. However, the Immortals fared no better than the Medes had, failing to make headway against the Allies. The Spartans apparently used a tactic of feigning retreat, and then turning on, and killing the enemy troops when they ran after the Spartans.

Second Day

On the second day, Xerxes again sent in the infantry to attack the pass, “supposing that their enemies, being so few, were now disabled by wounds and could no longer resist.” However, the Persians fared no better on the second day than on the first. Xerxes at last stopped the assault and withdrew to his camp, totally perplexed.

Late on the second day of battle, however, as the Persian king was pondering what to do next, he received a windfall; a Trachinian traitor named Ephialtes informed him of the mountain path around Thermopylae and offered to guide the Persian army. Ephialtes was motivated by the desire of a reward. For this act, the name of Ephialtes received a lasting stigma, his name coming to mean “nightmare” and becoming the archetypal term for a “traitor” in Greek.

Herodotus reports that Xerxes sent his commander Hydarnes that evening, with the men under his command, the Immortals, to encircle the Allies via the path. However, he does not say who those men are. The Immortals had been bloodied on the first day, so it is possible that Hydarnes may have been given overall command of an enhanced force including what was left of the Immortals, and indeed, according to Diodorus, Hydarnes had a force of 20,000 for the mission. The path led from east of the Persian camp along the ridge of Mt. Anopaea behind the cliffs that flanked the pass. It branched with one path leading to Phocis and the other down to the Gulf of Malis at Alpenus, first town of Locris.

Third Day

Basically, the Greeks got pwned.

—

Now, let’s take a look at the force multipliers that came into play and whether they benefited the players or not.

1) Strength in numbers/Mass: The Persians had the numbers. However, that meant nothing since they were not deployed on an open field, and hence, did not have enough Mobility.

2) Superior weapons/Momentum: The Greeks had weapons far superior to the Persians, as well as an advantage due to the narrow terrain that did not allow the Persians to deploy their famed cavalry. This allowed them to dictate the terms of battle to the Persians, or in other words, the Greeks carried the Momentum.

Greek Phalanx

3) Ability to deploy forces according to their strengths/Mobility: The Greeks were first at the pass, but could not retreat properly due to the fear of being cut down by the Persian cavalry. However, they did have strong navel and logistical support, while the Persians did not have adequate navel support, and could not settle down for a long battle on the pass, which is why they had to spend their resources wastefully. I would go as far as saying that the Persians, in this case, had negative Mobility.

However, on the third day, things changed dramatically:

1) Strength in numbers/Mass: The Persians could suddenly deploy a larger force, which meant that the advantage of Mass shifted in their favour, although not by much.

2) Superior weapons/Momentum: The Greeks were winning because of their longer spears, which gave them superior range against their opponents. However, once the Persians deployed around them could comfortably bring their archers into play in the second half of day 3, the advantage went to the Persians. Also, the Persians could now trap the Greeks in a pincer movement if they stood their ground, or run the Greeks down with their cavalry if they retreated. The balance of Momentum shifted to the Persians again.

3) Ability to deploy forces according to their strengths/Mobility: Once again, the Greeks lost all advantage once it became clear that their flanks and rear were exposed to the superior numbers of the Persians and that their options had become very limited, the advantage of superior terrain would no longer help the Greeks, and on the open plains, they could be easily out maneuvered by the cavalry or even the Persian light infantry. Advantage: Persians.
As you can see, it was actually quite easy to re-apply the Force Multipliers from chess onto a real-life battle. However, the same force multipliers could also be applied to any other game with a little bit of change. This is exactly why every marketer should read Sun Tzu’s the art of war, since it offers a rather detailed view of how to conduct a campaign and how to identify the Force Multipliers.

It should also be noted that anyone who plays a game often enough gains an intuitive understanding of what the force multipliers for that game are, but it takes more than an intuitive understanding to successfully implement them. Xerxes used the simplest and the least effective Force Multiplier, namely numbers, and almost lost the battle. The Greeks used a rather more interesting Force Multiplier, and gained an insurmountable advantage for a time. When making business decisions, it should always be kept in mind that the big can always be toppled by the small if they use the proper force multipliers. IBM was brought low by Microsoft, and the U.S car makers lost to the Japanese.

I should also point that even though I have re applied the 3M model to an actual battle, the 3M model should not be taken as the definitive set of Force Multipliers. That is not to say that there will not be a definitive set of Force Multipliers. It is my belief that that set of Force Multipliers exists, and they would be abstract enough in their meanings to be tailored to fit any situation, yet not as abstract to lose any sense of context within a real world problem.

Also, I thought it would be interesting to see some discussion on a specific problem, so I would like to see your opinions in what constitutes a good use of a Force Multiplier in an activity as ordinary as forming a team to do an assignment, to something as complex as the current Afghan war. I would also appreciate it if you guys could bring up your own examples to discuss this concept.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Related posts:

1. Game and Metagame: Part 1… A game of Chess
2. Game and Metagame: Part 2… Grinding, The Indian Education System, Quake III and World of Warcraft
3. The force of Force India!
4. Google and the ebook war
5. LTTE and the war in Sri Lanka