Friday, 8 May 2015

Five Years of Terror

Given my interest in politics the outcome of the election was less of a surprise to me than to some others.  I know that the 'conversion rate' of Conservative votes to seats has always been much higher than for Labour, so the supposed 'neck and neck' polling would mean more seats for the Conservatives; Labour needed a clear lead in terms of votes ever to stand a chance of gaining an equivalent number of seats; many commentators missed that fact.  There is also the issue of the 'shy Conservatives'.  Unlike with supporters of other parties, a percentage of Conservative voters, this time perhaps 5% of their voters on the day are unwilling to admit that they are going to vote for the Conservatives,  Unsurprisingly even Conservative literature reckoned they would win 303 seats rather than the 331 they attained.  Those howling for opinion polls to be banned should consider that fact.

The other thing is that elections in the UK are won by fear and myths.  This has been the case since 1992 if not longer and was boosted by the spin doctor era of the Blair governments.  In 1992 the myth was about the Labour taxation plans.  In 2015 the myth of the Labour 'over-spend' of 2005-10 causing the deficit, rather than the fact that it came from having to bail out reckless banks.  The myth of over-spend is now so well established that many people will not accept any other view and demand that Labour apologise.  They do not read the actual history, they simply absorb the myths spread by the right-wing newspaper.  Such approaches have actually been more successful than direct support for the Conservatives.  I anticipate comments here saying that I am lying because the myth has become the 'truth' no matter what history actually shows.

The fear this time was the SNP.  This seems to have been effective in increasing the turn-out sufficiently to win a lot of seats by a narrow margin that Labour could otherwise have taken.  This leaves Labour in a very difficult position.  In England they probably need to return to Blairite policies but in Scotland where there has been an abrupt shift in the opposite direction, to the left wing, they will need a completely different pitch, indeed possibly a separate centre-left party.  The Conservatives' scare tactics and myths rather than any policy are what secured them the win.  It is ironic that leading Conservatives have said the campaign was 'positive'.  As I have read commentators note, if this was a positive campaign then Heaven help us if anyone thinks of doing a negative one, perhaps George Galloway and the opponents of Esther McVey gave us a feel for the supposedly positive campaigns of the future.

How does this bring me to the terror I have been feeling today?  The reason is that I am a member of 'working poor'.  Despite having a full-time job, I do not earn enough to pay rent on a single room in a shared house and cover my bills in terms of my car, internet, food, etc.  Only my book sales keep me from going into further debt each month.  My salary is the same as it was in 2009 but obviously the cost of living has continued to rise.  My girlfriend who runs her own business and as a result is dependent on housing benefits to pay her rent.  Her efforts to get work in supermarkets has failed despite completing the third stages of recruitment processes.  As a result of being 'working poor' we are incredibly vulnerable.  I have been fortunate to have been in work since 2012 but know that with current employment law I can be terminated with a month's notice and my income dry up.  There is a good chance my employer will then try to block me receiving unemployment benefit as has happened before and according to Job Centre staff is common these days.  Seeing no sign of this alleged economic recovery benefiting anyone I know or encounter, there is a good chance my job will go as the economy continues to stutter.

What is more frightening is the promised £12 billion benefits cuts that Cameron has promised.  There has been no indication where these will fall, but it seems that child benefits will be cut.  It also seems likely that housing benefit will be cut as more money is taken away from local authorities.  It seems probable that my girlfriend will struggle to pay her rent.  Labour had promised controls on rent and increase the rights of tenants to stop what has happened to me in my life with landlords simply tossing us out with minimal notice when they feel a need to sell the house or it turns out they have been failing to pay his mortgage.  They promised freezes on utility bills which have continued to rocket leading to fuel poverty.  There are also no attempts to ban the locked-in contracts which on  two occasions has meant having to keep paying when the internet service has died or face a charge of £65 to have it fixed or £180 to have it removed.  

It is clear that poverty will increase; as the hare-brained school policies are liable to continue, then opportunities for ordinary young people will be closed off.  The next few years are going to be terrible for the bulk of the population.  In such a situation it seems that prejudice and exploitation will continue to rise.  I have tried suicide before and have failed but today's results and the era it ushers in is the one that that is encouraging me to consider it once more.  I have a good job and yet a bleak future is all that lies ahead of me.  For those who are disabled or dependent on benefits, it is going to be utterly horrendous.

What If Proportional Representation Been Used in the May 2015 UK General Election?

In previous postings, I have looked at how UK general elections since 1922 would have turned out if, rather than the 'first past the post' system in place system in place in the UK had been replaced by proportional representation.  I did this most recently for the 2010 general election: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/what-if-proportional-representation-had.html

The 2015 election is certainly one for this consideration because the different between the proportion of the votes each party won compared to the proportion of the seats they won has probably reached its most extreme.  There are a couple of well-known factors in UK elections which were apparent at this one.  First is that the 'conversion rate', i.e. how many seats a party gets compared to how many votes they received has always been highest for the Conservative Party.  The Labour Party and to an even greater extent, the Liberal Democrats, often have tens of thousands of 'wasted' votes, that win them no additional seats.  In this election such vagaries can be seen at the extreme.  The SNP (Scottish National Party) gained 1.45 million votes which won them a total of 56 seats.  In contrast UKIP (UK Independence Party) won 3.861 million, more than double what the SNP got, but only won 1 seat.  This explains UKIP's sudden support for the introduction of some kind proportional representation, despite the defeat of the proposal of adopting the Alternative Vote (AV) method in the referendum of 2011.

The other known factor is the 'shy Conservative'.  That in polls people who are liable to vote Conservative are much less likely to say they will than supporters of other parties.  This explains the fact that the Conservatives received 2% more of the vote than polls had predicted.

Before I launch into the analysis, there are some caveats.  These calculations are on the basis of direct proportion, so assuming constituencies with equal populations.  The most simple approach is used rather than ones such as AV which alter the proportionality to some extent.  In addition, I assume that unlike, for example, in Germany there is no bar on how few votes a party can get in order to win a seat.  In (West) Germany only parties that achieve above 5% of the vote have been allowed to sit in the Bundestag.  This has meant the absence of numerous small parties at national level and effectively a two-party system since 1949.  The actual number of seats that the party gained is shown in square brackets.  Note, one seat that held by the Speaker, was not really contested.  The current Speaker is a Conservative but does not vote with his party.

2015: 650 seats [Conservative Government]
  • Conservatives: (36.9%); 240 seats  [331]
  • Labour (30.4%); 198 seats  [232]
  • UKIP (12.6%); 82 seats [1]
  • Liberal Democrats (7.8%); 51 seats [8]
  • SNP (4.7%); 31 seats [56]
  • Green (3.8%); 25 seats [1]
  • Plaid Cymru (0.6%); 4 seats [3]
Northern Irish Parties:
  • DUP (0.6%); 6 seats [8]
  • Sinn Fein (0.6%); 5 seats [4]
  • UUP (0.4%); 4 seats [2]
  • SDLP (0.3%); 2 seats [3]
  • Alliance (0.2%); 1 seat [1]

In Northern Ireland a form of proportional representation is used anyway, which is why the figures are not massively different. The adherence to different sides of the Unionist/Republican debate in different constituencies also makes it tricky.

As always I caution that, of course, with a different system other parties may have come forward so that there might not be the parties on offer that there were in our world.  If we look back to the 2010 election, if then there had been proportional representation, UKIP would have had 20 seats in Parliament, whereas with our system they only gained 2 and then only in 2014.  Similarly back then the Greens would have got 7 seats and now would have 25.  Thus representation in the House of Commons would reflect the trends that have been so commented on in recent weeks but because of the system have not come to fruition. 

Under proportional representation Labour would have had 198 compared to 189 in this alternate 2010.  Thus, the system would reflect their difficulty in increasing their support, notably in England.  It did rise a little but this was heavily counter-balanced by losses in Scotland.  In this alternative meaning they declined, in our world, 26 seats overall, their 48 seats lost not only in Scotland but England too.  The failure to break through the 200-seat mark might have been enough to see off Ed Miliband even more than the poor performance in our world.

Proportional representation would not have altered the severe decline for the Liberal Democrats, they would now have a third of the seats they had back in 2010.  In this alternative, it would have still be likely that a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition would have been formed, though with the Liberal Democrats three times stronger than in our world.  In this scenario, they may have gone back into coalition, but unlike in 2010, alone they could not have secured either the Conservatives or Labour a majority.

Even with proportional representation, the often-envisaged Labour-SNP-Green coalition would be no more feasible in forming government than in our world.  Indeed the SNP would only have 31 seats rather than 56 so would be weaker by far than in our current parliament.  Thus, with proportional representation in place what seems would have been the most likely government would have been a Conservative-UKIP-DUP coalition to give David Cameron a small majority.  Given that they had lost two-thirds of their seats as a result of the election (though a better result than losing over four-fifths in our world), the Liberal Democrats are likely to have been reluctant to have participated in this more right-wing coalition.

The first-past-the-post system has given the SNP 25 out of 56 of the seats they won.  It  has denied UKIP 82 seats and the Greens 24 seats.  As Douglas Carswell, the lone UKIP MP now, noted, this has meant, combined, 5 million voters for these parties have been denied something even approaching the level of representation they might expect and in large part given it to the Conservatives and SNP.

The analysis of how different proportional representation would have impacted has shown that the scenarios discussed in recent weeks were not massively misplaced.  This is because, as I have seen frequently mentioned, polls measure the anticipated proportion of the vote and as yet the only good way of predicting the share of seats is the exit poll which this time was only out by 15 seats and that neglected the persistent 'shy Conservative' difficulty.  Given that one of those Conservative seats was won by a majority of just 27 votes, it was pretty decent estimation, though, of course, insufficiently close to silence those who at every election howl for the banning of 'inaccurate' polls.  In this case they worked very much in the Conservatives' favour by making their warning about the advance of the SNP sound convincing and getting out their core voters especially in the very tight marginals that Labour had to take in order to approach winning.

P.P. 11/05/2015
This time round, the BBC has done similar analysis: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

drawing on work done by the Electoral Reform Society using the D'Hondt Method of proportional representation approach.  Their figures are not radically different to mine Conservatives: 256; UKIP: 83, SNP: 31.  However, their work corrects my views based on my previous analysis regarding 'conversion' rates.  This shows that only this year, 2015, have the Conservatives needed fewer votes than Labour to win a seat.  Contrary to my sense of what was happening in 1997, they needed about 30,000 more votes to get a seat compared to Labour.  Now Labour needs about 6,000 votes per seat more than the Conservatives.  This does suggest that the party on track to win gains the better conversion rate.  I wonder what the impact of boundary changes will make on this conversion rate.  For UKIP the rate is running at over 3.5 million votes per seat, 100 times greater than for the Conservatives.

Thursday, 30 April 2015

The Books I Read In April

Fiction
'A Rare Benedictine' by Ellis Peters
This was the last of the Brother Cadfael books I had to read.  It was anomalous, featuring three short stories.  The first is set in 1120 when Cadfael is an ageing soldier.  The other two are set in the mid- to late 1130s when he is established as a monk. The stories are fine.  They show Cadfael solving three crimes even when this means him going up against his employer.  They show him using his knowledge of Shrewsbury and supporting the course of true love, all elements that are the backbone of the Cadfael stories.  What seems to be missing, contrary to what Peters notes at the start, is a sense of that transformation from warrior to monk.  It would have been really beneficial to have had 2-3 other stories set in the 1120s.  This would have shown us more of the character's development rather than simply presenting simply some further examples of him behaving in the way regular readers of the series are familiar with.  It is not a bad book, but it could have been a great deal more.

'The Winds of Altair' by Ben Bova
Ben Bova was an author I first came across as a teenager and was very impressed by his 'The Dueling Machine' [sic] (1969).  However, too many of his novels appeared to be space opera which did not appeal.  'The Winds of Altair' (1984) is about colonists being sent to a remote planet, but is more about issues connected to colonisation and religious fundamentalism.  The colonisers make use of mind connection devices to use wolfcats - huge six-legged predators and white apes, to operate machinery on the hostile surface of Altair VI/Windsong to make it habitable for humans.  The story largely features those involved in this connection between the creatures and humans.  This connecting and the sympathy for the indigenous population are very reminiscent of elements of the movie 'Avatar' (2009) with a religious group instead of the military.  The book moves along briskly and handles the big issues well.  The casual racism jumps out until you realise that the religions have made Earth suffering with a population of 17 billion, a racially-segregated planet.  I enjoyed reading the book but then it ends abruptly as if Bova felt he had got his message across and there was no need for any more or the publishers said that he had reached his page limit.  The difficulties of the colonisation, the challenge of the religion and the development of the two romantic relationships are all concluded at speed, though in the case of the relationships, largely unresolved.  This abrupt end is a shame for a book which I otherwise enjoyed.  I may be tempted to find some more of Bova's books in the future, but hope they will end properly.

Non-Fiction
'The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918' by A.J.P. Taylor
This book was first published in 1941 and the revised edition I read came out in 1947.  This is important to note because people would not write a history book this way nowadays.  It is important to note that this is not really about the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary, but as the title indicates, about the Habsburg monarchy in this period.  It is written very much from a constitutional perspective and at times is very dry and complicated when discussing the nuances of political developments at the highest level.  The main flaw of the book is that it rushes through all of these elements very quickly with few breaks.  This leads the reader easily lost.  At times the analysis of the politics seems to be in a vacuum, detached from social and economic developments which form the context.  It improves when covering the first decade of the 20th century, but then with the First World War returns to the break-neck speed.  A slower pace and more summary would have improved the accessibility of the book greatly.

Taylor writes that he purged his misplaced wistful optimism for Austria-Hungary and what it could have been between the two editions of the book.  However, what is painful for a contemporary reader is the retention of his bigotry which too often colours what he is saying and imbalances his judgements.  He derides the Austrians and Hungarians perceiving themselves as the superior nations in the empire, with the Poles and to a lesser extent the Italians following on behind.  However, then he generally adheres to their hierarchy of the different nationalities.  He is painfully patronising when discussing the Slovaks and Ruthenes, even the Croats and Slovenes.  He presents a number of these nationalities as if they were infantile and is dismissive of any political or national perspectives they may have.  He is also explicitly dismissive of the French despite the importance of their government in successor states to Austria-Hungary.  I gather his attitude to the Italians was also shaped by the Second World War.  Yet, the problem goes beyond his own time.  His attitudes were old fashioned  even in 1947.  This is emphasised by his disparaging of the term successor states and his constant reference to 'Austria' in inverted commas, even after 1918 when it was a sovereign states.  Though Taylor writes in English in this book his perceptions are those of a German living in the late 19th century.  This handicaps him in making a fair judgement in terms of the various nationalities and distorts how he articulates what went on depending on which of the 'historic' nations was concerned.  The book is comprehensive but is best saved for reference which allows avoidance of its overly-frenetic narrative and the painfully bigoted attitudes towards many of the people being discussed.


Monday, 20 April 2015

Welcoming The Coming Of The End

As I may have noted here before, given my health conditions, I have been told by a series of doctors (I have had 16 GPs since 1988 and have met numerous specialists too) that I have a life expectancy of 51-57 years old, which means 4-10 years remaining.  I have become conscious of my departure in the next few years as my health has deteriorated.  I feel like a man probably thirty years older than my actual age.  My digestion is all over the place and it is often difficult for me to swallow.  My limbs are stiff and my eyes have trouble refocusing after I have been reading or in a dark room.  I also feel incredibly lethargic and when returning from work, which is very sedentary have no urge except to slump watching television and to sleep.  I often sleep for a couple of hours and then return later.  Feeling bloated much of the time means I have little appetite.  However, I have not lost weight, indeed my belly looks rounder than ever before, causing real problems with my trousers.

Perhaps I have been reaching this state for a number of years now but the bullying and the almost incessant problems with cars, holidays and accommodation have been a distraction.  Now things are reasonably settled, largely because I have given up on holidays and rent only a room in a shared house; car problems still persist, I am aware of how far I have deteriorated.  Of course, I have no idea when I will fall dead.  Ten years can seem a great deal, it will work out to be about an eleventh of my life.  I have a feeling I will make it to 57.  I have had more than one dream and other premonitions that I will live until late in 2024 and then will die in a car fire in Spain, during daylight.  Quite precise.  I have had quite a few premonitions in my life that have proven to be true.  Often I have ignored them, for example in the case of two of the jobs I was bullied in, much to my personal cost.

How do people react to a recognition of mortality?  I heard an interview last week with blues musician Wilko Johnson who was diagnosed with cancer in 2013 and was given 10 months to live.  His tumour in and around his stomach grew to be 3 Kg (6.6lbs) before it was removed, along with his pancreas, spleen and parts of his stomach and intestines.  He had done a farewell tour and album, but then last year was cured.  He has been left at a loose end now he has recovered.  However, what he had done in response to death was to rush around and do things.  Maybe I am not close enough to it yet to feel that urge.

I have been working on a number of partially completed novels that I have written over the past twenty years and have enjoyed returning to them.  I am a better writer than when I began some of them, but I have liked going back to the characters and finishing off their stories.  However, I realised, now that I am working on a full-length Braucher novel, that I simply do not care.  I do not mind if I finish it or not or whether it gets out into the public domain or remains locked up behind passwords on my laptop's C drive.  Many people facing imminent death have a 'bucket list' of things to achieve before they go.  However, reflecting on this, I could think of absolutely nowhere that I wanted to go or any activity I wanted to do.  I have no desire to see the Grand Canyon or swim with dolphins.  There certainly is no point in me learning anything new.  I know I will gain no new skills before I die and there is no point in all these adverts for language learning that I receive.  Given my digestion problems I have no desire to eat any particular foods.

I have booked to return to the hotel in Sables d'Or in France: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/memories-of-sables-dor.html  that I visited when I was five and apparently before that in my mother's womb.  However, that was simply because have had so many disastrous holidays I could think of nowhere else to go.  If I do not make it, I will not be fussed.  It is almost due South of where I am living at present and it seems that I can reach it without much difficulty.  I do not really need a holiday but am conscious of the censure from colleagues for not going away especially from those who insist on putting themselves into dangerous situations around the globe.  Why do amateurs keep on insisting on climbing Mount Everest?  However, having had only two weeks of successful holidays since 2005, that have not ended prematurely and costing me hundreds of pounds, I am not optimistic that even this simple holiday will work.  Yet, they do not fail sufficiently.  I have not been at risk of my life at all.  I would be more than happy to give up my place in the lifeboat for someone else who wants life, when the catamaran goes down off the Channel Islands.  I have found myself incompetent: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-challenges-of-suicide.html and too cowardly: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/trouble-after-suicide-fails-is-that-you.html  to succeed at suicide, so it has to be something from outside that ends my life and I would be grateful if it got a move on.  I would like a heroic death, but given my luck it is bound to be humiliating, but I trust I will be on my way by then so will no longer care.

That is the one great thing about knowing you have a reasonably limited amount of time left - you no longer need to care.  Once I have gone, I will have no control over what moronic things people might say about my book.  Amazon actually bans the posthumous sale of books if you self-publish, presumably that is limited to ordinary people, not literary greats.  I have already stopped worrying about my career.  It was destroyed by the bullying of two managers who because of personal prejudices decided it was the appropriate thing to wreck my life.  I kept hoping that I could get back to the level that I had in 2009 if not beyond that and now am aware that unless this job goes bad too, this will be my last entry on my CV.  I do not have to worry about my pension as I will not be alive to collect it.  Even if I live ten more years, I will have left well before retirement.

I do care about what will happen to the UK, but these days it is the way I might care about the plastic bag island in the Pacific Ocean, I mourn it, but know I can do absolutely nothing about it.  I am throwing myself right into the current election as this may be my last or at most, the penultimate one I will witness.  However, with so much, a weariness comes over me.  I am just tired of how appallingly so many people are behaving and the energy they put into telling you how essential their nastiness is.  I am tired of how badly so many people drive.  I am tired at how every company tries to rip you off and insists that their various ways of screwing money out of you is customer service in your interest.  It tires me that they feel obliged to lie as if we are morons.

In many ways as the burden of life begins to lift but on the other hand I become ever more tired, perhaps I am becoming like the bulk of the population, walking along oblivious to everyone around me, not interested if I put myself or them in danger as I lap up the 'vital' rubbish coming through the phone.  In my case it is coming through my head rather than my phone, but maybe society has finally made me conform.  Perhaps if this does drag on for four years let alone ten, I will become tired of waiting.  I can certainly tell you now that if I died before I finished this posting, I would be more than happy to be relieved of having to live this tedious existence a moment longer.

Monday, 6 April 2015

An Atlas Of Imaginary Worlds 17: Rooksmoor's Guide To Creation Of A Fantasy World - An Easy Example

This posting is a sequel to my brief 'how to' guide about the easy creation of fantasy kingdoms which I posted in January 2013.  I cannot believe it was that long ago: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/an-atlas-of-imaginary-worlds-16.html  This latest iteration was prompted by a couple of things.  One was an article in 'The Guardian' about how the status of fantasy literature has been rising, especially as a result of the success of George R.R. Martin's 'A Song of Fire & Ice' series and the 'Game of Thrones' television series that came from those books, now in its 5th season.  You can read it here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/03/george-rr-martin-game-of-thrones-and-the-triumph-of-fantasy-fiction  The article has a small quiz about different lands created for various fantasy series.  The other prompt was stumbling across a map of the 67P Churyumov–Gerasimenko comet that the ESA probe landed on in August 2014. It seems made perfectly for a fantasy map especially as the regions have been name after Ancient Egyptian mythological characters.


As it is a solid, you get some repeated as we are looking at different faces of the irregular comet.  However, these could easily represent colonies of one country on another of the three continents.  Ash might be a colonial power like Britain, France or Spain, perhaps even the Netherlands or Portugal, from our history.  Nut seems to be a narrow coastal country pinned in by high mountains like Chile.  The dominant powers seem to be Imhotep on the south-western continent, Ma'at, Babi and Seth on the eastern continent.  Perhaps the people of Serqet are like the Tamils of our world split between northern Sri Lanka and southern India.  On the north-western continent maybe they were force inland by the arrival of Maftet.  

We could look at the global picture in two ways.  Perhaps the north-western continent is crowded with a range of powers fighting for territory with people looking for colonies in the much larger eastern continent.  Conversely the eastern continent might be the dominant one with countries having enclaves; the Ma'at lands on the western continent certainly seems something like Hong Kong or the German control of the Shandong peninsula in China in our history.  What is it that the people of Apis have that has allowed them to survive and not be engulfed by Ash or Imhotep?  The same could go for Hapi, perhaps important traders on what looks like comparative low-lying ground at the end of the long gulf.  Do they play off one against the other?  What is the history of Anubis?  It lacks colonies.  Is it actually a break-away from Atum which still surrounds it on three sides and itself lacks colonies.  Has there been a civil war or an ethnic one.  Could Atum be the Biafra to Anubis's Nigeria?

What about the Khepry, seemingly pushed to the periphery of two continents?  Down on these extreme southern coasts, what is the climate like - bitterly cold or very hot and humid or desert like?  What about the people of Aten in long valleys.  If these continents are on a sphere, is there travel between their two regions?  Perhaps they are undeveloped tribes left in the inaccessible regions of these continents.  Have I mistaken Maftet are the aggressors and it is they being pushed into the remote regions of their rugged land?

Starting with this map, I have adopted a very geo-political basis.  However, maybe the different regions represent different religions, with Ash as a religion of fisher people along the northern coasts and the religion of Ma'at only becoming established in a port on the north-western continent.  Perhaps Hapi is a religion only found in the most urban areas of the world.  Khepry seems ostracised no matter how you look at it.  However, perhaps controlling the trade across the Wide Sea or the Black Ocean they are far better off than they might look.

Do each of the colours represent an ethnicity, even a species?  Is there common ground between the Aten, Apis, Nut and Hatmehit or between the Ma'at and the Ash or the Aken, Bastet, Anuket and their southern cousins, the Imhotep?

The image though a scientific one can easily trigger off lots of ideas for a fantasy story.  The nature of the continents, the topography and the regions marked on them generate lots of prompts for plots.  As I have noted before, there is always a danger that you might simply transfer the British or the Chileans or the Biafrans into your fantasy world.  However, with changes and crafting you can move them away from that start point.  One you develop your story the different kingdoms or religions are likely to take on a life of their own and so will soon be unidentifiable as their Earth equivalents.

You might not want to use Egyptian names; Imhotep is well known.  However, you can use them as a start point as I noted in my previous posting on creating worlds.  Move them forward one vowel or consonant and immediately Ash becomes 'Etj' (though I might break the rule on that one and stick with Eti) or Urg, if you go back one.  Ma'at becomes 'Ne'ev' or 'Lu'us' both pronounceable.  Imhotep, perhaps the one needing most immediate change becomes 'Onjuviq' or 'Elgisan' the latter one much better than the former.  Nut probably needs to go too, 'Pav' or 'Mos' both are feasible.  Khepry sounds like it is the result of this process but could become 'Ljiqsz' or 'Jganqx' both very hard.  The system might need modification so 'h' goes on to 'i' rather than j; and r back to 'p' rather than q and p on to 'r'.  It is probably worthwhile treating y as a vowel. Thus Liirsa or Jganru are a little better.

Of course, sorting out your world is just the first stage of your fantasy novel.  While less picturesque, far more vital are the characters and you will have to turn to someone else for advice on them.  Unlike George R.R. Martin I find it hard to have amoral characters or see through the eyes of evil ones.  Like a lot of people I also hold back from killing off the nicest ones, so there would be no 'red' wedding in mine.  Perhaps you have more courage and skill than me and can succeed like George.  Remember it has taken him over twenty years to get there.

Saturday, 4 April 2015

'Total War: Attila' - Tiresome

I have been a fan of the 'Total War' games since the first 'Shogun:Total War' released back in 1999.  Being both interested in history and the possible alternatives, epic games covering decades and even centuries, combining both battlefield and strategic levels have appealed to me.  However, as the years have progress, despite the increased sophistication and the improved graphics, I have become more and more frustrated with basic flaws in the games, despite all the different settings, that never seem to be resolved.  With the advent of 'Total War: Rome II' new problems were introduced which now seem to be adding to the growing list.  See my previous posting about Rome II for what I see as these tedious problems: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/total-war-rome-ii-same-old-problems.html 

I am still excited by a new 'Total War' game and pre-ordered the latest 'Total War: Attila' back in November 2014.  A flaw in downloading meant that until an update in March 2015, despite reporting the problem to Steam, I was unable to run it.  Once it was functioning I was keen to play.  The 'Barbarian Invasion' expansion (2005) to the original 'Rome Total War' (2004) featuring the late Western and Eastern Roman Empires and the migrating barbarian tribes was always a favourite of mine and so I was keen to play this updated version of that expansion for the 'Rome II' approach.

The game is certainly visually stunning.  However, some of this causes problems.  In 'Rome II', the different troop and building types are represented by symbolic images.  This makes it easy to distinguish between them.  With 'Attila' they are represented by my realistic images.  This makes it difficult to tell at a glance between similar units.  It is particularly a difficulty telling between the range of buildings many of which look pretty much the same.  It is important to tell, because unlike with 'Rome II' each province has to have sufficient food rather than this being the case right across your empire.  It also has to have a sufficient level of sanitation.  This can be hard when you only control part of a province because the rest is held by an enemy, an ally or has been made desolate.  Desolation is a new factor cause by barbarian tribes laying waste to a region.  It can be revived by colonisation if you can spare enough money.  

The key problem is that even if you have a good level of food supplies you will typically find one or more provinces starving leading to unrest.  You will also find that disease caused by a lack of baths or reservoirs is far more prevalent than in 'Rome II'.  Thus, as with 'Rome II' you find yourself incessantly fighting uprisings and pumping money into keeping people alive, leaving little for fighting off opponents or developing your empire.  This is one problem of recent Total War games, they end up becoming 'Total Management' because unless you load up modifications provided by amateurs you will find yourself simply struggling not to lose your empire to famine or uprising, even on the Easy setting.  These things did happen, but bear in mind the Byzantine Empire, what had been the Eastern Roman Empire, lasted until 1453CE, a thousand years after this game is set.

Many problems that were seen as early as 'Medieval 2 Total War' (2006) and have never been rectified.  One is catapults that move around the battlefield as fast as heavy infantry and, even in thick fog or when firing into a forest or up a steep hill, are able to hit your soldiers more precisely than laser-guided weapons of today.  In turn, your catapult weapons will miss the opponents despite firing repeatedly even at a static line across flat terrain with perfect visibility.  Ships will always hunt you down when you move at sea, covering hundreds of miles to be in the correct place, again something even challenging with modern technology.  

Armies even from factions which are not friendly will precisely co-ordinate so your defenders will face wave after wave of attackers.  Even if good at fighting on the defence you are strained when the third army in a row, twice your strength comes down the same road to get you in a single turn.  The AI (artificial intelligence - i.e. the one controlled by the computer) player never makes mistakes and for some reason while you can not march past its armies and constantly seem to be just that little bit short of catching them, your opponent will always have the precise amount of movement necessary; can march right through your zone of control and in 'Attila' will often even fight you and march off and attack someone else or a different town in the same turn, all things you will be unable to do.  I cannot understand how a barbarian horde, i.e. consisting of the entire population including non-combatants, can march faster and farther than a trained Roman army.  A crucial difference is that, unless you are extremely lucky, your neighbouring armies do not support each other.  In contrast, the AI ones are always in perfect balance and you find some armies supporting more than one offensive, something I have never been able to achieve despite very careful positioning.

The big mistake that was added to these flaws in 'Rome II' was limiting the number of armies.  In 'Medieval 2 Total War' one useful function was that you could strengthen garrisons without need for a general.  Now you are limited to 16 armies and if you are trying to control an empire as large as the two Roman Empires or the Sassanid you find yourself struggling to get from one end of the empire to the other with enough force, exacerbated by the blocking zone of control problems noted above.  City garrisons are utterly pathetic, no matter how much you develop the buildings in a city.  Rebels even revolting slaves turn up with far more experienced soldiers and crucially soldiers equipped with better weapons and more advanced armour than you can even recruit in your empire, despite them coming from that empire.  Thus, some towns are lost almost on a constant basis.  You have to leave armies to garrison in case an opponent by-passes you as they very often can which again means no expansion of your own empire.

Another flaw which came with 'Rome II' and continues with Attila is disappearing units.  I accept there are issues about line of sight on a bumpy or forested terrain.  However, even on flat plains for some reason units disappear even when walking towards you.  The problem is that any soldiers you have sent marching towards them stop dead once the unit fades and do not resume their march if it reappears.  Similarly missile troops and catapults stop firing at it and again simply spectate if it reappears.  Yet, your opponent keeps firing incessantly and with great accuracy.  

Since 'Rome II' the default setting for marching an entire army on the battlefield is that it fans out.  This causes many to set off away from the enemy.  Similarly trying to congregate them back when they have chased off the opponent sees them heading in random directions.  The soldiers have no sense of self-preservation to turn and face an attacker or aid their fellow soldiers right next to them.  Control of units has deteriorated severely since the days of 'Medieval 2 Total War'.

All of these flaws mean that you need to be able to see into the future and amass soldiers in precisely the right location to see off an opponent.  You will incessantly have to be fighting for the smaller towns and villages as their defence is so feeble.  At times it seems that the AI will not let you hold a particular town and even opponents with a few and poor territories are able to field vast, well-equipped armies that outstrip anything your country can produce.  Now, a new element in 'Attila' is that if you start hiring mercenaries their prices rise so it even proves difficult to bring in supplementary forces quickly or put in ones suited to a local environment, especially as all your money is going into building local farms and water supplies rather than recruitment buildings.

The key problem with so many barbarian tribes is that they are incessant and it is easy to find yourself at war with fifteen to twenty factions.  They are not as hard to destroy as they were back in 'Barbarian Invasion', but there are simply so many bent of destroying everything.  As has long been the case, the diplomacy system is largely pointless.  You struggle to find anyone to trade with you let alone ally with you.  Allies simply drag you into more wars and yet rarely assist you.  Trade partners often remain hostile and break off trade at random leading to a sudden drop in income.  I emphasise that these problems are playing at the 'Easy' level by someone with 16 years' experience on these games.

The only improvements with 'Rome II' that are also seen in 'Attila' is with the agents.  These used to be really pathetic in 'Medieval 2 Total War' and could not be kept alive.  Now they stand a decent chance and I have managed to get at least one of each - Spy, Dignitary and Champion up to the top level.  They add to the game and the armies.  Though I note that the Merchant has not made an appearance, they lived such a short time it was simply a waste of cash.

I appreciate the effort that has gone into 'Attila' in terms of getting it looking great and historically accurate.  What is infuriating is the persistence of gameplay flaws which have now been in place for a decade and seem to be worsening.  In many ways, as I have noted before, Sega and Creative Assembly seem to be leaving enhancement up to the amateur developer community rather than actually resolving these themselves.  They have been stubborn in not addressing flaws that mean it can be tiresome playing when hard work and clever strategy is defeated by the great advantages the AI had with its armies.  What is worse is that such situations are anachronistic and it is a shame to find that your wonderful Roman legions are effectively coming up against 21st century armies.

Tuesday, 31 March 2015

The Books I Read In March

'Monstrous Regiment' by Terry Pratchett
This is one of those Pratchett books which highlights the problems of a writer becoming so great that no-one feels they can edit their books any more.  I found this the least humorous of the Discworld books I have read.  There have been many I have laughed out loud to, but this one really dragged.  It is very much in the style of 19th century stories about ruritanian kingdoms, in this case Borogravia a central Discworld duchy which has been inconclusively at war with its neighbour for many years.  It follows a group of new recruits, most human but also including a troll, an Igor and a vampire.  It is not too much of a spoiler to reveal that the bulk of them turn out to be women who have joined up either to escape abuse or to find a lost male relative/partner.  The trouble is that the characters wander around the countryside for much of the book with no clear destination in sight, leaving the reader feeling much the same about the book.  

There is gentle satire about army life, war movies and women dressed as men.  However, it is incredibly flabby and many elements are laboured and repetitive.  Some references, such as the vampire having flashbacks of the Vietnam War of our world, will not engage even adult readers let alone the general target audience of teenagers.  The book is terribly overwritten and even the conclusion in the castle that the unit relieves drags on and on.  Pratchett seems to have forgotten that the sharpest humour comes from tightly-written text not in hammering home supposed jokes.  This book would have been better for being cut by a third, around 150 pages.  It is well worth putting it alongside earlier Pratchett books, such as 'The Colour of Magic' (1983) published twenty years earlier and seeing how much shorter that book is.  I was very disappointed with this book.  I will not stop working my way through Pratchett's books but maybe will expect less of the newer ones.

'Hawksmoor' by Peter Ackroyd
This book came highly recommended to me by a friend, I think in part due to the similarity to my name and certainly because he loves the parts of London featured in the book.  I was very irritated by the book and regret having read it.  I was glad it was less than half the length of 'Monstrous Regiment'.  Though published in 1985 the book fits in with too many of those rambling, often drug-influenced books of the 1960s and 1970s.  Instead of the real architect Nicholas Hawksmoor (1661-1736) who built six churches in Central and East London in the 1710s, it features the fictional Nicholas Dyer (1654-1715) as the architect overseeing these six churches and an additional fictional one.  Like Hawksmoor, he worked for Sir Christopher Wren and alongside Sir John Vanbrugh.  The book keeps jumping back and forth in time between 1712-15 and 1984-5.  In the modern day a Detective Superintendent Nicholas Hawksmoor is investigating the murder of boys and men at the seven churches built by Dyer.

There are so many problems with this book.  First Dyer writes in an 18th century idiom with lots of capital letters thrown in and random spelling.  He is a Satanist and is intent in not only on building occult shapes into the churches but sacrificing boys and men in the foundations to give power to those he sees as gods.  This would be fine as a concept but his narrative rambles so badly that it is literally very easy to 'lose the plot'.  He seems to morph into an unnamed tramp who lives from the 18th century into our time. There are lots of coincidences between things Dyer and Hawksmoor encounter.  Both men appear to go mad.  Dyer's churches may be incomplete before he is replaced by Vanbrugh and Hawksmoor is certainly taken off investigating the impossible murders (the time of death nor the weapon can be told, there are no DNA traces).  The two characters end up wandering around London in their insanity.

Unfortunately this description gives more structure to the narrative than is actually the case in the book which regularly dissolves into random descriptions.  For the first couple of chapters it seems fine but then completely loses the plot. Twice it flits into being a play script rather than a novel.  It is as if Ackroyd had a jumble of ideas in a folder and simply jammed them into the novel and then lost interest, tossing it aside in a shambolic state.  This is certainly one of the books I regret ever reading and I recommend you staying away from it.  I am upset that its title is so close to my surname and I dearly wish a far, far better book had been given that title instead.