# Engagement in a large-group conflict

Unless the conflict is relatively short, there's a general calculus that approximates how well each group will do:

1. Take everything that can be [purposed](purpose.md) toward destroying the enemy.
2. Distribute it among the people who are both [willing](people-decisions.md) and able to fight.
3. Add in the long-term capacity for other people who are both willing and able to make supplies for the fighters (e.g., food, more weapons).
4. Diminish the capacity by the risks toward non-fighters from opponents (i.e., [logistical supply chain](logistics.md) disruption).
5. Multiply or divide by prevailing [philosophical values](values.md) that can affect everyone:
   - Belief in the importance of the conflict (as opposed to doing it out of [potential](imagination.md) personal gain).
   - Brutality toward enemies (as opposed to the polar opposite of taking prisoners and treating them well).
   - The relative [education](understanding.md) of the groups (which will hinder the like-mindedness of [purpose](purpose.md) but increase [results](results.md) as it scales).
   - Any sense of ownership by the groups over what they're trying to take or defend.

When two or more groups attack each other, their relative size makes a profound difference in the fight's events.

But, there are a few universal aspects irrespective of size or context:

- The lowest-ranking members, unrelated groups, and bystanders are *always* the most harmed. Most of the leadership are using others' power, but tend to [care](people-love.md) more about the [power](power.md) they wield and who they're destroying than any concern over their own [members](groups-member.md).
- If the leaders are [unscrupulous](morality-evil.md), they'll attack their opponents' [symbolic](symbols.md) treasures. By damaging symbols, they damage their opponents' [cultural values](people-culture.md). Depending on the culture, this will sometimes provoke their [desire](purpose.md) for [vengeance](hardship-ptsd.md), but the long-term consequence of this is that the culture is diluted or dismantled.
- If a group starts losing, the [loyalty](trust.md) and [desires](purpose.md) of the individuals in the conflict determine how far and how long they'll keep fighting. If people are driven strictly by [money or opportunities](power-types.md), they won't fight for nearly as long or as hard as those driven by an ideal. People will risk their life for any purpose they want (and are more easily dissuaded from their [duties](people-rules.md) by conflicting opportunities), but will only sacrifice their lives for a perceived [noble](morality.md) cause.
- The members' loyalty determines how much the entire endeavor can advance forward purely to satisfy the [ego](humanity.md) of the attacking leadership. This can only persist, however, as long as those members can advance their own self-interest as well.
- The methods that any groups will even *think* of tie very closely to the group's long-term interests:
  - Nuclear warfare obliterates *everything* (land, possessions, [human labor](results.md), [human skills](understanding.md)), so it's only a last-ditch effort as a means to survive.
  - Constraining power when the other group has a *different* type of power creates a "cold war" or "trade war", which ends up dramatically hurting both sides.

The organization's ability to [educate](education.md) means of attacking and defending (e.g., military training) is frequently the determining factor in a tightly contested battle. However, the ability of an organization to [change](people-changes.md) their tactics relative to what the *other* side is doing can quickly determine whether a group can succeed.

When the organization is [larger than ~50 people](groups-large.md), the [older](maturity.md) leaders will send the younger members with something to prove into the [highest-risk](safety.md) parts of the conflict. The youth will often risk dying for another person's decision, meaning nearly all large-group conflicts that aren't preventing a decidedly [evil](morality-evil.md) thing are in some capacity [immoral](morality.md).

## Large vs. small: large

Larger and more powerful groups tend to assume they have an automatic victory before they start proportional to their [perceived](people-image-why.md) relative size, which is a *major* disadvantage.

The large group will act quickly, but always slower than the smaller group, since they have more to move and often less of a [compulsion to survive](mind-feelings-fear.md).

The larger group's effort will be focused on preserving resources as much as possible. The leadership will constantly [calculate](people-decisions.md) if the effort is worth the cost, since they're usually free to back out any time.

Because of large groups' size, they're a bit more impersonal, and individuals must trust strangers they don't know directly much more frequently. These two factors together mean distrust within a group is disastrous to the harmony of the group proportionally to its size.

Often, a sufficiently [motivated](purpose.md) smaller group can [scare](mind-feelings-fear.md) the larger group away.

## Large vs. small: small

Smaller groups, if [motivated](purpose.md) by an [influential](influence.md) leader, are usually *far* more determined and focused than their larger opponents. In lieu of those leaders, the group *can* consist of [determined](purpose.md) [self-leaders](success-1_why.md). However, without any leadership, the group will focus strictly on [surviving](mind-feelings-fear.md) and won't make any sensible long-term strategies.

When that group is significantly smaller, their only reliable tactics come through [fear](mind-feelings-fear.md) (e.g., terrorism and guerrilla warfare) and [creatively](mind-creativity.md) using their environment (i.e., tactics). Both of these techniques can often give the means for a group to confront another group 10 times larger than they are.

Often, the smaller group will try to gain support from another group or increase their members. They'll [show stories](stories-storytellers.md) of suffering, destruction, oppression, and devastation, from the larger group and will usually portray themselves as [innocent](morality-justice.md) [victims](hardship-ptsd.md). Sometimes, they'll merely appeal to [morality](morality.md).

Their victory will [appear](people-image-why.md) decisive and usually is, though the smaller group has a slim chance of winning if they have at least a specific resources:

- A superior tactician to the larger group who can more efficiently use everything.
- Superior [technology](technology.md) to the larger group that magnifies group members' combat effectiveness.
- Time to spread out the engagement, which give more room to strategically think and wear down the larger group's morale and resources.
- Enough of a [social revolution](trends.md) to empower the smaller group where the larger group is [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) of them.

However, victory for the smaller group is far more complex than the opportunistic goals of their larger opponent:

- The "[win conditions](math-gametheory.md)" for the smaller group are far more specific, and are sometimes simply survival.
- They've put up enough of a fight that the larger group doesn't [anticipate](imagination.md) their victory is worth the cost. This can be either in lost resources or bad [image](people-image-why.md).
- The larger group has lost so much to the conflict that they can't continue it.
- The smaller group has lost everything the larger group would have [wanted](purpose.md).
- Another group has distracted the large group. This often arises from that third group seizing the opportunity to take that large group's [power](power.md) while they're distracted.

Often, to become the larger group against a common enemy, several groups will ally together for that specific [purpose](purpose.md) alone. Their alliance is almost always temporary. It's not uncommon for *that* alliance to become its own conflict after the other group is eliminated. Often, one group will betray the other group's [trust](trust.md) from that previous alliance to gain [power](power.md) in the exchange.

However, the smaller group will often surrender. If they do, they're either absorbed into the larger group as [slaves](slavery.md) or permitted to persist as [subsidiary groups](mgmt-badsystems.md). In modern society, the slavery is often much more nuanced and goes by other names.

## Evenly matched

Groups *hate* to be evenly matched both from how much destruction it can cause and how [uncertain](understanding-certainty.md) the results will be. Thus, they work very hard to overwhelm their opposition as much as possible, and typically do it at the same time.

A close battle between two [large groups](groups-large.md) quickly becomes extremely dramatic and intense. Since both sides have similar [resources](power.md), both of them will do *anything* to get an edge on the other:

- Military and communications [technology](technology.md) developments.
- Recruiting *any* other groups. This can include pretty much anyone who sympathizes with the battling group, and can be public or private.
- [Manipulating their image](people-image-distortion.md) to imply their opponents are less capable. This is especially useful when the groups are contending for the [decision](people-decisions.md) of a third group, but works when there's anyone undecided over where they want to [place their allegiance](understanding-certainty.md).
- Most war strategies involve cutting off resources from their opponent. This can include core needs (e.g., food, water), military supplies (e.g., guns, ammunition), or communications technology. At the farthest, a group can destroy its *own* supplies so the enemy doesn't receive it (scorched earth policy).
  - Each unit, squadron, battalion, and legion must be as self-reliant as possible to ensure they're safe from any disruptions.
- Diplomatically ending any further conflict is the greatest net win for everyone, but it's not always in the interests of a group that's significantly more powerful.

APPLICATION: Large-scale conflicts still involve individuals with uniquely separate [purposes](purpose.md), and people shift their loyalties as they gain [understanding](understanding.md). It's not uncommon for low-ranking soldiers who saw the horrors of combat to hate a sustained conflict more than their comparatively well-protected commanders. Only [highly influential](influence.md) people can draw everyone together.

For the sake of [drama](stories-storytellers.md), [history](stories-storytellers.md) tends to portray battles as evenly matched when they were decisive and overwhelming victories.

## 3+ groups

Often, when a match persists evenly among two groups, a *third* group may gain enough [power](power.md) to destroy either of the original two. If that happens to where both groups see that third group as a threat, the two groups will often stop their conflict and attack the third group. The teamwork from the joint effort often provokes a shared desire for peace after they defeat that third enemy, though it can create a new, smaller conflict among those two if [resources](power-types.md) are scarce.

Sometimes, the smaller group has *more* power than the larger group (e.g., governments give individuals more rights than a corporation). When this happens, the larger group will see themselves as evenly matched or outclassed, and *they* adopt the attitude and [perspective](people-image-why.md) of a more mobile and fast-acting small group.

APPLICATION: A third attacker in a large conflict may be advantageous by either side, but they can't be [trusted](trust.md). They may attack either group at any time or change sides.