Kurkistan

Thanks for the quote. I wish I had my copy with me so that I wouldn't be stuck just making vague, unsubstantiated statements.

I must confess that I looked. No major damage to my psyche. I found the detailed descriptions of the effects of the metals to be useful. As for possible spoilers: I don't think the two external enhancement metals are known of by at least the end of the preview chapters, and they may play a role in the plot. We also don't "know" feurchemical effects of many of the newer metals yet. I will now discuss the contents of the Ars Arcanum

We have been discussing just how complex soulcast structures can get, so it is a valid point to question whether or not a bridge could be soulcast directly from air. I believe that the answer is that bridges are simple enough to be soulcast directly, without the need for an inital "mold." Arch bridges are essentially just arcs, which I think are simple enough to create without an intermediary structure. EDIT: You could even just think of an arc as a cross-section of a dome, and an arch bridge as an arc with width. I would like to note, tangentially, that it may still be cost-effective to "waste" wood on bridges only to soulcast them into more durable stone. Something to be considered even if you disagree with the following argument. Accepting the idea that bridges are too complex to soulcast from air though, I do not think that this necessitates the construction and transmutation of entire wooden bridges in order to end up with a stone bridge. I can think of several examples where you build a wooden frame in the shape of the desired bridge and fill it with another, cheaper material to be soulcast into stone, after which you can remove the wooden frame and repeat. Even if you cannot recycle the wood from these frames, it would still be far more cost-effective than wasting enough wood for an entire bridge. The question of exactly what can be soulcast and how the input material affects the output makes analysis more difficult: If only one "type" of material can be soulcast at a time, then we are restricted in how exactly we construct and fill our frame. If discrete materials, such as a pile of pebbles, can be soulcast into a unified whole, then that frees up our options immensely. I'm inclined to think that they can, since "air" can be soulcast into solid stone, while it is be no means unified initially. I will assume the most difficult combination of rules: one material at a time and whole->whole, part->part, for my model. The simplest method I can think of using these restrictions is to soulcast water into stone. If a large quantity of water cannot be acquired or transported to the site, then it may be economical to soulcast rocks into water on-site. The process: 1) Build a waterproof wooden frame, in an arch with walls the height of whatever thickness you want the bridge to be. 2) Dig ditches at each end of the bridge to serve as a foundation. 3) Cover the entire bridge snugly with a waterproof canvas, stretching down to cover the far edge of the foundation-ditches as well. --3a) The canvas ought to have a hole in it which aligns with the top of the arc of the bridge. 4) Pour water into the hole in the canvas until the entire structure is filled. --4a) Alternatively, you could fill the bridge with gravel and soulcast the gravel into water on the spot, leaving relatively little space to be filled with "real" water. 5) Soulcast the water into stone and remove the frame. 6) Use your new permanent bridge to "pwn noobs." The same basic process would apply if the rules were less strict, perhaps simply filling the frame with gravel and soulcasting it directly into a cohesive whole. A relaxation on the restriction of only soulcasting one "type" at a time would allow us to be less careful, perhaps mixing sand and gravel for a more even structure or more exactly shaping certain parts of the bridge, such as adding initially wooden crenelations or safety rails, while being less discriminating with the rest I see no problem with creating the bridge out of components soulcast on-site. Just take the method I provide above and use thin panels to create partitions. Soulcast each "block" one at a time into stone and they will support each other when the frame is removed or destroyed. You can see Roman bridges that are still standing today to prove how durable this structure is. EDIT: You could even soulcast the material for the partitions into a kind of mortar after you finish soulcasting the blocks, if you want a marginal increase in stability.

I quite liked it. I'm a bit medieval in how I judge books, rarely going beyond "me like" and "me don't like" sentiments (with BS's all going in the "me like" category so far), but I found the concepts discussed here to be well treated. While I haven't played the game, the advertising blurb and what I got from the book painted a fairly simple picture, which BS worked within and expanded upon quite admirably. *SPOILERS - Seriously, just buy it and convert to PDF, or use the free eBook reading app for Google Chrome. It's worth it!* I found the treatment of the "reluctant hero" here to be quite well done, in particular. It is not simply a case of a simple farmer thrust into great events: Siris has embraced his destiny, and conquered it. It is not even just the case of a hero who can never manage to stay retired, always pulled back into conflict whenever he tries to settle down: Siris has never even had even a taste of a life of his own, and thirsts desperately for it when it appears to be in his grasp. This thirst comes through in the text, tying the reader to Siris's frustration and yearning instead of just being shrugged off a few chapters in when more important things pop up and the hero has to "stop whining." Not only has he proven himself willing and able to do what needs to be done, but his success has opened his eyes to the joys of life that he has heretofore denied himself. This makes it all the more bitter for both the hero and the reader when the real world intervenes and forces action upon one who has already gone far beyond the call of duty. As the scope and strength of the enemy is slowly revealed, the reality and impossibility of what Siris will have to do in order to ever fulfill his list sets in for both him and the reader, and we care because the book has made us care to care, as it were. Even though the novella is relatively short, we see a complete and believable character arc: from an excitable youth with his life unexpectedly ahead of him - to a paradoxically listless colossus of a killing machine, thoughtlessly and ineffectively following through on the last command inputted (Kill: Deathless) - to a mature man knowledgeable of his own shortcomings and with a clear goal, chosen of his own free will, in mind. tl;dr: I wax poetic because I really enjoy innovative retooling of tried-and-true tropes in writing, as well as believable character development, especially from a unique starting point.

^And, actually, wood requires emerald to soulcast while stone only requires garnets. That would make it a lot cheaper.

As it turns out, I don't know that much about game theory either . I misremembered what a Nash equilibrium was and just linked to it without reading the page. I really meant to talk about the optimal solution for all players, not just the solution that they would come to when taking each other into account, which is actually what happens in the status quo. I was trying to contest that forced cooperation against their inclinations was the only way to achieve truly optimal outcomes, while the Nash equilibrium reached by competition was sub-optimal. Oops. As to innovations being of essentially equal value to all once they are discovered, I completely agree. In all but the narrowest cases, it is far easier to use a new idea than to come up with one. In a non-regulated competitive system, though, this function of innovation will actually make it less likely than in a cooperative one. An example would be intellectual property laws. The originator takes all of the initial risk, investing capital into the innovation, and is rewarded with control over the end product. The inventor is incentivized to innovate by the rewards gained from either sole use of the new innovation or from fees received for licensing it out. I would hazard to guess that the Alethi High Princes do not have a patent office for military innovation, so any High Prince which takes the risk of attempting innovation will simply see all of the other High Princes copy him at minimal cost to themselves. This will be a net loss in the game because all of the other actors have gained an essentially free bonus while the initial investor was the only one to invest in the innovation. Therefore, innovation is disincentivized in a non-regulated competitive system. I would say that our main disagreement is the degree to which the High Princes would be willing to cooperate. While reading the book, especially given Dalinar's frustrations when trying to organize a join plateau assault, I got the impression that cooperation was simply out of the question. They didn't even bother to set up a rotating duty to police the outlying areas, forcing Dalinar to sacrifice resources for universal benefit with no proportionally larger benefit on his own part (links back to innovation argument). An interesting possibility, but I think it may actually be to our benefit here to look at exactly what resources are being utilized: the soldiers, as you noted. The major costs of fighting the war come from maintaining the camps and replacing soldiers lost in plateau assaults. The price of the camps are essentially fixed, and so not worthy of consideration. The price of lost soldiers, however, is determined by how many battles occur and how those battles go. It's a simple fact that the more off-balance troop ratios are, the fewer casualties are dealt to the larger side, barring tactical concerns and generalship. A 100 vs. 100 fight might have about equal casualties, while a 100 vs. 10 fight would result in almost none of the 100 being killed, certainly not an equal number to those lost on the other side. The Shattered Plains themselves create a very interesting tactical situation, as noted in the books, because the size of the contested plateau places an effective limit on the number of troops deployed, as well as the fact that the size of the army limits how fast it can move for the Alethi. We saw, however, that the joint strategy employed by Dalinar and Sadeas was extremely effective, both outnumbering the Parshendi and attacking from two sides. With more than two armies, say five for instance, all moving efficiently as separate units and converging from separate routes, any battle would be virtually guaranteed to the Alethi, with crushing casualty ratios. Moreover, with multiple armies, Parshendi on contested plateuas could conceivably be cut off completely from retreat, allowing the destruction of entire enemy forces in detail. Therefore, we see that it would be virtually impossible for Dalinar to waster "resources" by forcing cooperation because any cooperative effort is guaranteed to minimize Alethi casualties, as evidenced by his successful cooperation with Sadeas. I believe that in the book attempted scouting parties had simply failed, killed by exposure to highstorms, chasmfiends, or Parshendi. A reconnaissance in force, properly supported logistically, would be necessary for both scouting and attack. The reason no one has done that is because of prohibitive cost and minimal individual gain, especially considering the probability that any one High Prince's army would be defeated by the Parshendi. As to possible cooperation to attack the Parshendi if they felt it necessary, I think this is us disagreeing again on the amount of cooperation the High Princes are willing to consider. In both a world where gemhearts are preeminent and one where defeating the Parshendi is preeminent, what the High Princes are doing in the status quo is essentially optimal, barring cooperation. A valid point. I was a bit optimistic about future cooperation after the defeat of the Parshendi. Something to be considered, certainly. EDIT: But, on reflection, this actually serves as further argument for enforced cooperation as the only way to gain optimal results across the board. Instead of wasting resources fighting each other, staking and enforcing claims for plateaus, the High Princes would be forced to accept an equal distribution of gemhearts earned from a cost-effective process. As a general note, congratulations on being a far more moral person than I am. As soon as I entered into pseudo-game theory mode I threw the moral hazards of treating sentient beings as resources out the window.

@Wipsy The important thing wouldn't so much be cost as strategic value, if the cost was managable. There is far more utility in having reliable, if somewhat expensive, bridges than there is in cheap ones that you don't know will be there in the morning. Also, the king's soulcasting tax wouldn't apply if the construction of stone bridges was supported by the crown. Although, the tax could be used to explain why none of the High Princes have taken the initiative and implemented a strategy like this on their own. . . I believe that your theory is somewhat flawed. First of all, an optimal outcome achieved through independent action assumes that the various High Princes are rational actors whose sole goal is the acquisition of gemhearts in the largest quantity possible. This assumption would allow for uninhibited cooperation and experimentation until a Nash equilibrium was achieved. We can put aside the question of the rationality of the High Princes for the moment: just about any seemingly "irrational" behavior could be accounted for as the expression of an unknown or poorly-weighted goal aside from acquiring gemhearts. Speaking of ulterior motives: the High Princes have goals other than the acquisition of gemhearts. They want honor, prestige, and recognition above that of their peers, the very people who they ought be be cooperating with in order to acquire gemhearts. This eliminates the possibility of cooperation, which is essential for maximal outcomes. Any model which completely excludes the possibility of cooperation is almost certainly weaker than one which allows it. I would also like to question the goal which you have assumed as most important in your "free market" system of competition: the gemhearts, as opposed to the goal of winning the war. These goals need not be mutually exclusive, as they become in the non-cooperative model. In fact, the most efficient way to acquire a maximum number of gemhearts would be to focus almost exclusively on winning the war. The way it works out, even the best competitive strategy between 10 disunited factions is unlikely to win the war against the Parshendi in any timely manner. At best, this "optimal" solution will simply ensure that most of the gemhearts obtainable by the Alethi are secured, while the Parshendi bunker down on their side of the Shattered Plains and live off of the gemhearts that the Alethi can't even dream of reaching. The Parshendi might die off very slowly from that point, but there would be no incentive (and no capability) for a single gemheart-focused High Prince to expend the resources necessary to wipe them out, and in so doing open up the Shattered Plains to his competition. And that brings us to the most efficient way to actually acquire gemhearts on the Shattered Plains: to win the war. With the Parshendi gone and unquestioned control of the Shatterd Plains, the Alethi could simply leave a relatively small permanent expeditionary force on the Shattered Plains. This force could carefully cull the Chasmfiend population and ensure a steady stream of gemhearts to be distributed fairly with minimal risk or cost to all parties. As I alluded to, no individual actor is either capable of or willing to decisively defeat the Parshendi. The model which they are operating under in the books and which is implicit in your own post prohibits any cooperation, even for the goal of acquiring gemhearts. Therefore, the most efficient way to achieve both the "proper" goal of satisfying the Vengeance Pact and the secondary goal of maximizing revenue from gemhearts is to step outside of the competitive system in place between the Alethi and decisively win the war against the Parshendi. tl;dr: Shortsightedness of no-cooperation models means that cooperation to quickly win the war is best in all scenarios. And as for the "the logistics of moving supplies" out to boarder forts, it's my impression that soulcasting is just about the most awesome logistical support ever. Compact and almost infinitely renewable, either a continuous soulcaster on station or a rotating one could keep a fort supplied easily without the need for frequent and vulnerable supply convoys.

On a general note, I despair at the number of times I'm going to need to reread the early books in the Stormlight archive just to remember all of these details for each new book. Its a happy despair, but still despair. @Sunblesser Ah, thanks for catching that. @Tortellini Ok then, soulcasing complex structures is a go! Now the only question remaining, as you noted, is cost. As to point 'c,' I completely agree on the strategic effectiveness of fortifications, even, nay especially, against Shardbearers. Nothing says "armor piercing" quite like a ballista bolt to the face.

Nice post. 1) It was my understanding that the gemhearts are exclusively used to generate food. I haven't read the book in a few months and there is the possibility that food was simply the only use mentioned in the text, but this would result in only the value of emerald going down. Even this depreciation of relative value might not have to happen, though, or at least not to any large extent, because the vast majority of the soulcasting done with the gemhearts is simply for the purpose of supporting the encampments of the Highprinces. This could either be just for food production or for all types of soulcasting, but the economic result is essentially the same either way. The war on the Shattered Plains, which would otherwise be a massive drain on the food production and general economies of all of the Alethi Princedoms, would therefore be much closer to an economic neutral, self-sustaining with minimal input and output. The soldiers that would otherwise be producing food without the need for soulcasting are now eating food that is only being produced by soulcasting which, in turn, would not have been possible without their efforts. 2) Quite an interesting extrapolation of the strategic benefits of soulcasting on the large scale. Barring practical limitations, I agree that this would be an excellent strategy for the conquest of the Shattered Plains, much like the "ink spot" method used to counter guerrilla warfare. Practical limitations are the key of the matter though, so I have to wonder exactly how well the Alethi would be able to deploy soulcasting strategically. As to the stone bridges, there is the question of exactly how quickly and/or economically wooden bridges could be "transmuted." Especially if gemhearts are limited to food, the cost may simply be prohibitive. As to creating/transmuting complex structures, my understanding was that soulcast buildings were basically limited to domes. Even if this is not the case, and greater complexity is possible, the question once again comes down to the limits of what can be soulcast in bulk. As a small piece of evidence that soulcasting many small objects is more economical than a few large ones, I would like to note that one of Bridge Four's duties was to collect smallish stones because they could be soulcast into food more easily than large ones.

Yeah, the ritualization of the siege was what struck me the most. Thanks for replying, btw.

Hello all. Short time lurking, first time posting. As I was reading the umpteenth nipple-piercing spear thrust in the Iliad the other day, my mind naturally skimmed to more interesting topics. While I'm sure that comparisons could be drawn between many works of literature, certain parallels between the fall of Troy and the Way of Kings seemed readily apparent to me as I thought more about it. I could dive into the minutia of similarity and ignore vastly different contexts, as is always fun in such comparisons, but I will instead try to just lay out a few broad-stroke comparisons between the war upon the Shattered Plains and the Trojan war. Feel free to yell at me 1. Alethi and Greek cultural similarities. -Both the Alethi and Greeks are warlike peoples, with many who consider themselves themselves rulers in their own right and lead personal troops into battle under the banner of a loosely obeyed ruler. 2. The precipitating event for war. -The cause in both cases was an unexpected breach in hospitality. Assassination in the one case and wife-stealing in the other. I will admit to differences in degree, as well as to the fact that Paris absconding with Helen was not approved of by the Trojans, while the Parshendi seemed to have planned out their betrayal. 3. A pact binding the warring princes to the war. -The Vengeance Pact keeps the Alethi at the Shattered Plains while the pact made between Helen's suitors to support the right of whoever wed her bound them to the siege of Troy. 4. The extreme length of the wars. -5 years for the vengeance pact and 10 for Troy. I'm reaching here. 5. Ritualization of the war. -Both the Iliad and the Way of Kings establish a virtual ritualization of what is supposed to be a war to the death. The attacking army is in an extremely well established, completely unthreatened base camp from which they regualarly sally forth to fight the enemy at a position between their two camps, to no real result. 6. Last one, I promise: Looting of precious armor -Yes yes, different contexts and all of that. But every third line in the Iliad seems to be someone jumping into the middle of the battle to claim the body of the foe they just defeated and strip him of his armor. Think about it. Ok, thank you for reading. This is almost certainly just the lonely, unloved child of a sleepless and distracted mind reading too much Homeric verse, but I thought it might prove of interest to those of you who are more sane. It would also be amusing if I turn out to be right somehow, and Sanderson goes: "Oh yeah, I totally based that off the Iliad" at some point. I do doubt that possibility, though.