Despair and brink of insanity. I appreciate the greatness of God's grace more and more each day.
More than patience, faith.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
notepad: mending wall
No one seems to think it unnatural that people behave toward each other in the way they do; rather, most people think it natural for a certain kind of relationship to be in the norm. We're all humans of course, but I do wonder how far we can empathize with that ideal in the end.
I like sharing my observations regarding life with other people. Not a lot of people pick up the line with which I (or he, depending on the initiator) commence the meta-conversation; those who can I count my closer friends - perhaps simply because I can share and attempt to express life from my perspective. On the other hand, the bait is withdrawn from those who cannot; it's unreasonable to expect everyone to be sensitive to every variety of social signal after all.
It did prompt me to think about the kind of people whom I had this sort of relationship. Suddenly I recalled the fact that someone booked me as a chem tutor a year in advance (yes, ego boost, but that's not the point); he's just a year younger. Yet I'll be expected to fill the role of...a teacher; which in our society connotes a position of seniority. Sure I'll be able to mimic that kind of role, but I had an idea: wouldn't it be helpful for him to treat me as a friend coming over to study rather than as a formal tutor-figure? I figured I'd wear the old black school corporate T or something to signal to 1) remind him that we're not as disparate in age as my role may suggest and 2) create the impression that I'm a fellow student.
On hindsight, when one of the Y7s came back to be an officer, I had felt this most strongly. He's a decent fellow, smart guy; still is. But somehow something had changed and it wasn't his personality. I now believe it was his social role - now having a new kind of authority and consciousness of the social expectations placed on him, he seemed to me just - different.
I as a senior and as a junior. Just a year difference could mean so much in the end.
What of years of difference? Or even decades for that matter. I wondered how many adults I had a relationship with that could be comparable to that between me and my closer friends. I thought about teachers - given that I was just thinking about my chem tutorhood (and the standard I would have to reach to be worthy of that).
To be sure, I have thrown the meta-conversation bait out to my teachers (whether school or private). I did not expect to get a response, firstly because they cannot afford to give me a privileged position by taking the bait (even if they do see it), especially in front of other students. People are perceptive - misinterpretation of signals would be far too risky for said teachers to respond in a completely natural way. In spite of that, I sensed he left a subtle opening - a glimpse of his observations on life. I was satisfied with that.
Tutors don't have the same restrictions and for the most part, they understand my intent when I put out the line. A couple of adults from this category I speak my mind to. It feels strange to talk to adults in such a way so disparate from the usual expectation of a Singaporean student-teacher relationship. I much prefer the master-apprentice dynamic: an acknowledgment of the elder's superiority (an earned respect for demonstrated skill rather than an assumption based off age) and understanding of one's own developing status. I find this latter kind of relationship more meaningful - much like the relationship between closer comrades in my age group.
Age is probably just one of the things which determine our social role and hence the relationships we have. I mean, there's gender, intelligence, interests and all those other things. Gender's a huge barrier for me - I put it up myself last year in fact. But that's another issue.
I sometimes wonder why we can't all be really close friends and share our observations on life with the people who we talk to. I like doing that. It makes me more conscious of my life as a journey (yes, whatever, I may be able to guess what you, the possible IB reader are thinking) where I gain something meaningful in every communication with another mind (not just 'mind' - people are more than that of course).
Why the need for barriers then? Artificiality. Readers will draw their own ideas of this word in this context, but sometimes we're 'artificial' without even thinking. I know decent, artificial people who build fences without even knowing it, without any malice some of us may associate with the idea of an 'artificial appearance'.
Yet, for a rationale as yet unknown to me, society needs barriers.
I like sharing my observations regarding life with other people. Not a lot of people pick up the line with which I (or he, depending on the initiator) commence the meta-conversation; those who can I count my closer friends - perhaps simply because I can share and attempt to express life from my perspective. On the other hand, the bait is withdrawn from those who cannot; it's unreasonable to expect everyone to be sensitive to every variety of social signal after all.
It did prompt me to think about the kind of people whom I had this sort of relationship. Suddenly I recalled the fact that someone booked me as a chem tutor a year in advance (yes, ego boost, but that's not the point); he's just a year younger. Yet I'll be expected to fill the role of...a teacher; which in our society connotes a position of seniority. Sure I'll be able to mimic that kind of role, but I had an idea: wouldn't it be helpful for him to treat me as a friend coming over to study rather than as a formal tutor-figure? I figured I'd wear the old black school corporate T or something to signal to 1) remind him that we're not as disparate in age as my role may suggest and 2) create the impression that I'm a fellow student.
On hindsight, when one of the Y7s came back to be an officer, I had felt this most strongly. He's a decent fellow, smart guy; still is. But somehow something had changed and it wasn't his personality. I now believe it was his social role - now having a new kind of authority and consciousness of the social expectations placed on him, he seemed to me just - different.
I as a senior and as a junior. Just a year difference could mean so much in the end.
What of years of difference? Or even decades for that matter. I wondered how many adults I had a relationship with that could be comparable to that between me and my closer friends. I thought about teachers - given that I was just thinking about my chem tutorhood (and the standard I would have to reach to be worthy of that).
To be sure, I have thrown the meta-conversation bait out to my teachers (whether school or private). I did not expect to get a response, firstly because they cannot afford to give me a privileged position by taking the bait (even if they do see it), especially in front of other students. People are perceptive - misinterpretation of signals would be far too risky for said teachers to respond in a completely natural way. In spite of that, I sensed he left a subtle opening - a glimpse of his observations on life. I was satisfied with that.
Tutors don't have the same restrictions and for the most part, they understand my intent when I put out the line. A couple of adults from this category I speak my mind to. It feels strange to talk to adults in such a way so disparate from the usual expectation of a Singaporean student-teacher relationship. I much prefer the master-apprentice dynamic: an acknowledgment of the elder's superiority (an earned respect for demonstrated skill rather than an assumption based off age) and understanding of one's own developing status. I find this latter kind of relationship more meaningful - much like the relationship between closer comrades in my age group.
Age is probably just one of the things which determine our social role and hence the relationships we have. I mean, there's gender, intelligence, interests and all those other things. Gender's a huge barrier for me - I put it up myself last year in fact. But that's another issue.
I sometimes wonder why we can't all be really close friends and share our observations on life with the people who we talk to. I like doing that. It makes me more conscious of my life as a journey (yes, whatever, I may be able to guess what you, the possible IB reader are thinking) where I gain something meaningful in every communication with another mind (not just 'mind' - people are more than that of course).
Why the need for barriers then? Artificiality. Readers will draw their own ideas of this word in this context, but sometimes we're 'artificial' without even thinking. I know decent, artificial people who build fences without even knowing it, without any malice some of us may associate with the idea of an 'artificial appearance'.
Yet, for a rationale as yet unknown to me, society needs barriers.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Thus sprach groß Bruder
"Changes to Singapore's political system are in the works and yesterday, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong spelt out three principles that will guide these amendments...One, they must be fair to all political parties; two, they should result in a strong, effective Government after an election; and three, they must ensure diverse views are represented in Parliament."
But!
2 > 1
And we already have 3.
But!
2 > 1
And we already have 3.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Breaking News To-day
Victory in Europe has been achieved to-day; mainly by American forces over a period of 3 years and with some help from Allied powers.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
CoH - An analysis of the Four Knights Opening US vs Wehr
US:
Engineer 2: 140MP
[Barracks]
Rifle 1: 270MP
Rifle 2: 270 MP
Rifle 3: 270 MP
{Grenades}
Rifle 4: 270 MP
{BARs}
A pretty standard US start, going solid on the barracks units. Getting 4 rifles helps with the capping power early game, though swapping Rifle 1 with Jeep 1 confers a few things:
- Intel
- Jeep utility moves such as the Jeep push (with requisite micro)
- Sniper hard counter
- Unsuppressable unit for flanking
At the cost of:
- Firepower
- Capping power
- Health
Only recommended if you know how to get the most out of the Jeep push and early harassment to force capping pioneers to retreat. Do not engage Volksgrenadiers without rifle support (since such a matchup depends a fair bit on cover, which Jeep push solves and hence can tilt engagement in favour of rifles). Buying more than 1 Jeep is generally not recommended since Panzerfausts and any AT obsolete them later.
Grenades help during flanking maneuvers, especially against the almost inevitable MG42 the typical Wehrmacht player will use as his centrepiece. Of course, there should be sufficient units with which to flank with, hence the rationale for getting grenades after Rifle 3. Munitions may or may not be in short supply at this point, depending on whether an engineer has been upgraded with a flamer or not, or if mines have been built. BARs will likely make unsupported Volks obsolete, except maybe MP40 volks at short range.
In any case, this build order goes up against the following:
Wehr:
Pioneer 2: 120MP
[Wehrmacht Quarters}
Volksgrenadiers 1: 280MP
MG42 1: 260MP
Volksgrenadiers 2: 280MP
MG42 2/Sniper 1/Bike 1: 260/340/180MP
Later:
Volksgrenadiers 3: 280MP
The typical Wehrmacht opening is very much more variable simply because of the sheer diversity of units which can be built from T1. While the US start depends heavily on flanking with Riflemen, the Wehrmacht T1 can afford to use specialized units to open their game. The MG42 will likely be the focal point of all flanking efforts at this point, which is why the build order has 3 Volksgrenadiers queued; these should be kept in the vicinity of the MG in order to inflict heavy damage on any flanking or grenading riflemen. The MP40 comes in handy for this role, especially with the 2.400 buff. In addition, having a higher number of Volks around lets you recrew the MG if it dies (only do this after the engagement is over, but if possible, do not let it fall into US hands). Focus fire on any flame engineers, or use a sniper if you have one.
The main objective for these two openings will usually be:
US: Push Wehr off the map
Wehr: Inflict losses while holding on to territory
The US objective really is a reaction to the Wehrmacht one. Because of the immobile nature of MGs, it favours the Wehr player to start capping and fight when the Riflemen are encountered, where the MG is subsequently deployed in the Fog of war and sprung upon the US player. Thus the US player retreats, and the Wehr player moves on. This is a more conservative playstyle which usually ends up in the Wehr player stopping at a good part of the map where a medic bunker can be set up and the MG put inside. Hence, it is the US player's ideal objective to be able to keep this bunker from happening; to do that, the US player must push the Wehr player off with a good flank. Bearing in mind that Riflemen have a higher cap rate than Volks and Pioneers, consistently getting pushed off the map (and hence losing map control) is a bad thing for the Wehrmacht player.
On the other hand, while it is in a way easier for the Wehr player to play defensively and with a greater diversity of tools, the US player can afford to be pushed off a couple of times before the bunker goes up and the game becomes hard to dominate at this stage. Also, while putting the MG out of the equation is a main objective, do not forget the Volks, since they are the real damage dealer. Any Wehr player worth his salt should support his MG with Volks around it or around the building it's in. In order to avoid the Volks, a diversion is usually necessary, which involves letting one of your rifle squads get suppressed by the MG42. Then, immediately after that rifle squad gets suppressed (cover is a must for slowing damage taken), take the rest and flank around, putting them into pieces of cover around the MG; a flame engineer and grenade works here too. MG42s in buildings cannot re-target, which means it will keep shooting at the baiting rifle squad until the rifleman dies or retreats, or until the MG42 gets out of the building. It's usually safe to flank it from at least 3 directions.
Still, the US player should try to end said engagement quickly, because, assuming that 3 rifles have been built, and are up against 2 Volks and an MG, chances are a 2nd MG, Bike or maybe sniper is on the way, the timely appearance of which could upset your attack. Therefore throw as many useful units as possible into the fight, such as engineers which can be upgraded with flamers. Even the Jeep can contribute: Given sufficient micro skill, you can Jeep push the Volks around, causing their damage output to drop drastically, and which gives your rifle squads or flame engineers the window of opportunity to run in and kill the MG without taking too much damage. Should the MG be nulified in this way, the superior close range firepower of the riflemen should kill the Volks too (especially if the Volks are still being pushed around). Of course, the Wehr player won't stick around to get killed; at most to stall if he has sufficient Volks left to put up a good fight (which is where grenades and grenade techniques come in handy). In any case, by taking out the MG without too many losses, the US player will achieve his objective, which should be followed by capping in that window of opportunity (until the next attack or harassment).
Engineer 2: 140MP
[Barracks]
Rifle 1: 270MP
Rifle 2: 270 MP
Rifle 3: 270 MP
{Grenades}
Rifle 4: 270 MP
{BARs}
A pretty standard US start, going solid on the barracks units. Getting 4 rifles helps with the capping power early game, though swapping Rifle 1 with Jeep 1 confers a few things:
- Intel
- Jeep utility moves such as the Jeep push (with requisite micro)
- Sniper hard counter
- Unsuppressable unit for flanking
At the cost of:
- Firepower
- Capping power
- Health
Only recommended if you know how to get the most out of the Jeep push and early harassment to force capping pioneers to retreat. Do not engage Volksgrenadiers without rifle support (since such a matchup depends a fair bit on cover, which Jeep push solves and hence can tilt engagement in favour of rifles). Buying more than 1 Jeep is generally not recommended since Panzerfausts and any AT obsolete them later.
Grenades help during flanking maneuvers, especially against the almost inevitable MG42 the typical Wehrmacht player will use as his centrepiece. Of course, there should be sufficient units with which to flank with, hence the rationale for getting grenades after Rifle 3. Munitions may or may not be in short supply at this point, depending on whether an engineer has been upgraded with a flamer or not, or if mines have been built. BARs will likely make unsupported Volks obsolete, except maybe MP40 volks at short range.
In any case, this build order goes up against the following:
Wehr:
Pioneer 2: 120MP
[Wehrmacht Quarters}
Volksgrenadiers 1: 280MP
MG42 1: 260MP
Volksgrenadiers 2: 280MP
MG42 2/Sniper 1/Bike 1: 260/340/180MP
Later:
Volksgrenadiers 3: 280MP
The typical Wehrmacht opening is very much more variable simply because of the sheer diversity of units which can be built from T1. While the US start depends heavily on flanking with Riflemen, the Wehrmacht T1 can afford to use specialized units to open their game. The MG42 will likely be the focal point of all flanking efforts at this point, which is why the build order has 3 Volksgrenadiers queued; these should be kept in the vicinity of the MG in order to inflict heavy damage on any flanking or grenading riflemen. The MP40 comes in handy for this role, especially with the 2.400 buff. In addition, having a higher number of Volks around lets you recrew the MG if it dies (only do this after the engagement is over, but if possible, do not let it fall into US hands). Focus fire on any flame engineers, or use a sniper if you have one.
The main objective for these two openings will usually be:
US: Push Wehr off the map
Wehr: Inflict losses while holding on to territory
The US objective really is a reaction to the Wehrmacht one. Because of the immobile nature of MGs, it favours the Wehr player to start capping and fight when the Riflemen are encountered, where the MG is subsequently deployed in the Fog of war and sprung upon the US player. Thus the US player retreats, and the Wehr player moves on. This is a more conservative playstyle which usually ends up in the Wehr player stopping at a good part of the map where a medic bunker can be set up and the MG put inside. Hence, it is the US player's ideal objective to be able to keep this bunker from happening; to do that, the US player must push the Wehr player off with a good flank. Bearing in mind that Riflemen have a higher cap rate than Volks and Pioneers, consistently getting pushed off the map (and hence losing map control) is a bad thing for the Wehrmacht player.
On the other hand, while it is in a way easier for the Wehr player to play defensively and with a greater diversity of tools, the US player can afford to be pushed off a couple of times before the bunker goes up and the game becomes hard to dominate at this stage. Also, while putting the MG out of the equation is a main objective, do not forget the Volks, since they are the real damage dealer. Any Wehr player worth his salt should support his MG with Volks around it or around the building it's in. In order to avoid the Volks, a diversion is usually necessary, which involves letting one of your rifle squads get suppressed by the MG42. Then, immediately after that rifle squad gets suppressed (cover is a must for slowing damage taken), take the rest and flank around, putting them into pieces of cover around the MG; a flame engineer and grenade works here too. MG42s in buildings cannot re-target, which means it will keep shooting at the baiting rifle squad until the rifleman dies or retreats, or until the MG42 gets out of the building. It's usually safe to flank it from at least 3 directions.
Still, the US player should try to end said engagement quickly, because, assuming that 3 rifles have been built, and are up against 2 Volks and an MG, chances are a 2nd MG, Bike or maybe sniper is on the way, the timely appearance of which could upset your attack. Therefore throw as many useful units as possible into the fight, such as engineers which can be upgraded with flamers. Even the Jeep can contribute: Given sufficient micro skill, you can Jeep push the Volks around, causing their damage output to drop drastically, and which gives your rifle squads or flame engineers the window of opportunity to run in and kill the MG without taking too much damage. Should the MG be nulified in this way, the superior close range firepower of the riflemen should kill the Volks too (especially if the Volks are still being pushed around). Of course, the Wehr player won't stick around to get killed; at most to stall if he has sufficient Volks left to put up a good fight (which is where grenades and grenade techniques come in handy). In any case, by taking out the MG without too many losses, the US player will achieve his objective, which should be followed by capping in that window of opportunity (until the next attack or harassment).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)