| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
gnuvince
Canada73 Posts
The Art of War has been applied to not just military campaigns, but also to business and politics. Most interestingly to this community, a lot of the concepts have applications in Starcraft. I hope you enjoy, and it's only 30 pages long, so you can read it in an evening (though it takes a lot longer to truly understand and appreciate the ramifications of all the points). Sun Tzu - The Art of War | ||
|
BanZu
United States3329 Posts
Some of his stuff is great for quotes (cough cough) | ||
|
Bebop Berserker
United States246 Posts
 | ||
|
Nosmo
Canada210 Posts
edit. At banzu | ||
|
ForTheSwarm
United States556 Posts
| ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." i am soooo applying this to my PvT. | ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
| ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
If you disagree I challenge you to quote something from the book that is both useful and not obvious. | ||
|
Scooge
Iceland144 Posts
On September 10 2009 13:19 cz wrote: Sorry to be a hater, but the book is really pointless to read for educational or improvement reasons. Everything in it is very, very obvious and is stuff you already know. It's one of those books that the intelligista like to brag about reading/applying but don't realize how worthless it actually is. There is historical value in it, though. If you disagree I challenge you to quote something from the book that is both useful and not obvious. for someone so in touch with what the intelligentsia likes, you don't seem that familiar with burden of proof! | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On September 10 2009 13:34 Scooge wrote: for someone so in touch with what the intelligentsia likes, you don't seem that familiar with burden of proof! Just quote something that is both useful and not obvious. I suppose I could rephrase my earlier to post to ask the OP to back up his claims, thus putting the burden of proof on him, but that would take more work. | ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
Thanks for the file | ||
|
tarpman
Canada718 Posts
| ||
|
m4gdelen4
United States416 Posts
On September 10 2009 13:37 cz wrote: Just quote something that is both useful and not obvious. I suppose I could rephrase my earlier to post to ask the OP to back up his claims, thus putting the burden of proof on him, but that would take more work. Just don't fucking come and post in a thread about something you don't like. The thread was titled correctly, it was obvious to you what it was, stay away. | ||
KwarK
United States42691 Posts
| ||
|
mrdx
Vietnam1555 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:38 m4gdelen4 wrote: Just don't fucking come and post in a thread about something you don't like. So basically people should only post in a thread when they like/agree with the idea? This place is called forum for a reason. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:43 Kwark wrote: I agree that most of what it says can be deduced logically but I disagree that makes it useless. The way I see it, most bw strategy is obvious. It's a series of choices and if asked at any given time what to do the average D player can work out the correct one. Sometimes you just need someone to say it. I disagree with this. Or at least to the magnitude of it. Most bw strategy is not at all obvious to the level of what The Art of War is. Think of it like this: the average comment in the book is something like "be aware of what your opponent is doing" or "attack when your enemy is weak, not strong". That's not the equivalent of being given a 5 hat hydra build or learning a proper timing window, it's the equivalent of someone telling you "don't fight 12 zealots with your 3 zerglings, save them instead". What constitutes legitimate strategy in starcraft is an order of magnitude or many steps away from what the Art of War gives, which are just basic, very obvious comments. In other words, if I wrote a 30 page book filled with comments such as: "Don't waste your units, but rather save them." "Always try to be aware of what your opponent is doing and try to negate him from doing the same to you." and I said that those comments should help people improve their bw game, I would be laughed off the forum. That's the equivalent of what the Art of War contains, except I used starcraft terms above. In that same sense, that the Art of War might help anyone improve starcraft is also laughable. That said there is historic value and perhaps some sort of pre-game psych value in the book, but as for learning anything new, that's not going to happen. It's a very, very overhyped book of limited to no functional value. I'm not trying to take away from the OP posting a copy of the book, just stating my view on the book itself. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:38 m4gdelen4 wrote: Just don't fucking come and post in a thread about something you don't like. The thread was titled correctly, it was obvious to you what it was, stay away. This has got to be ban-worthy. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42691 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:58 cz wrote: I disagree with this. Or at least to the magnitude of it. Most bw strategy is not at all obvious to the level of what The Art of War is. Think of it like this: the average comment in the book is something like "be aware of what your opponent is doing" or "attack when your enemy is weak, not strong". That's not the equivalent of being given a 5 hat hydra build or learning a proper timing window, it's the equivalent of someone telling you "don't fight 12 zealots with your 3 zerglings, save them instead". What constitutes legitimate strategy in starcraft is an order of magnitude or many steps away from what the Art of War gives, which are just basic, very obvious comments. In other words, if I wrote a 30 page book filled with comments such as: "Don't waste your units, but rather save them." "Always try to be aware of what your opponent is doing and try to negate him from doing the same to you." and I said that those comments should help people improve their bw game, I would be laughed off the forum. That's the equivalent of what the Art of War contains, except I used starcraft terms above. In that same sense, that the Art of War might help anyone improve starcraft is also laughable. That said there is historic value and perhaps some sort of pre-game psych value in the book, but as for learning anything new, that's not going to happen. It's a very, very overhyped book of limited to no functional value. I'm not trying to take away from the OP posting a copy of the book, just stating my view on the book itself. Bw really is that simple. I watch replays with bad players all the time and those are the things you say. I'll get them to pause and say "what do you know about his build, what should you do against that". If put on the spot they can either work it out or say they don't know enough. If they don't know I point out they should be scouting and they're like "oh yeah :S". Anyone can work that out if asked. What's harder is to maintain that kind of decision making in game. Seriously, everyone understands the basics, like storm against hydralisk or scourge against corsair. It's the decision making that wins it. You gotta apply the basic logical decision making at high speed to your gameplay. That's how you win bw. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:11 Kwark wrote: Bw really is that simple. I watch replays with bad players all the time and those are the things you say. I'll get them to pause and say "what do you know about his build, what should you do against that". If put on the spot they can either work it out or say they don't know enough. If they don't know I point out they should be scouting and they're like "oh yeah :S". Anyone can work that out if asked. What's harder is to maintain that kind of decision making in game. Seriously, everyone understands the basics, like storm against hydralisk or scourge against corsair. It's the decision making that wins it. You gotta apply the basic logical decision making at high speed to your gameplay. That's how you win bw. Yeah I added a bit more to the post you are responding to, making it a bit more clear what I'm talking about. | ||
|
FranzF1
Chile1710 Posts
Leave that for the Mods... they dont need help banning people. @on topic: Thx im going to read this... Ive heard a lot of things about this book... maybe its time to get my own opinion. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On September 10 2009 13:19 cz wrote: Sorry to be a hater, but the book is really pointless to read for educational or improvement reasons. Everything in it is very, very obvious and is stuff you already know. It's one of those books that the intelligista like to brag about reading/applying but don't realize how worthless it actually is. There is historical value in it, though. If you disagree I challenge you to quote something from the book that is both useful and not obvious. Its greatest important lies in its historical significance without a doubt...however... It's also good to read simply because hearing something you already know once again can help you look at it in a different light. There's nothing wrong with that. I would punch anyone in the face that dropped an Art of War quote in a conversation, thread, or anything but a paper involving Chinese history and/or philosophy as well, but no need to hate. EDIT Also...why the hell is this in the Brood War section? Oh, and also, beware, readers...ensure that whatever translation this is is a quality one. I took a primer class to Chinese philosophy, and my professor spent many hours throughout the course talking about the many different translations of whatever work we were reading. I don't remember what that situation was like for Art of War, but most reliable translations (and even unreliable translations) are tied to a publisher...so be careful, and take it with a grain of salt. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42691 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:12 cz wrote: Yeah I added a bit more to the post you are responding to, making it a bit more clear what I'm talking about. We're agreed about the content, it's just logically deduced proverbs. It's just my belief that it's not lack of understanding that holds players back most of the time. They know what to do in theory but they get overwhelmed in the game and make bad decisions. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Also, I do agree that a lot of it is obvious, but that still makes certain parts of it very worthwhile to read. Some of it can be very easily ignored for the most part, like the politics of war, how to manage your populace to prevent rebellion/dissension (though interesting for poli-theory), but as long as you have a general idea of what it is you can skip around. The economic parts of the text are probably the most important to a SC player. I'm still unsure if moral of troops applies to SC players - it certainly does seem to in the case of a someone who gradually gets tired throughout a bo5 series (Bisu comes to mind for certain games). | ||
|
LeoTheLion
China958 Posts
11. If we wish to fight, the enemy can be forced to an engagement even though he be sheltered behind a high rampart and a deep ditch. All we need do is attack some other place that he will be obliged to relieve. If it were so obvious, why are half of D+/C- PvT games lost because P gets to 200/200, doesn't know what to do, so he suicides his army into a well established tank line? | ||
|
zeppelin
United States565 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:45 LeoTheLion wrote: From Chapter VI: Weak points and strong: 11. If we wish to fight, the enemy can be forced to an engagement even though he be sheltered behind a high rampart and a deep ditch. All we need do is attack some other place that he will be obliged to relieve. If it were so obvious, why are half of D+/C- PvT games lost because P gets to 200/200, doesn't know what to do, so he suicides his army into a well established tank line? The vast majority of people consider themselves above average, nowhere is this more apparent than in theorycraft. | ||
|
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
Here is quote I though of: "He who uses protoss, takes life too easy" "He who uses terran is anti-conformist" "He who uses zerg is a decision-maker" | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:45 LeoTheLion wrote: From Chapter VI: Weak points and strong: 11. If we wish to fight, the enemy can be forced to an engagement even though he be sheltered behind a high rampart and a deep ditch. All we need do is attack some other place that he will be obliged to relieve. If it were so obvious, why are half of D+/C- PvT games lost because P gets to 200/200, doesn't know what to do, so he suicides his army into a well established tank line? You are saying that the idea of attacking somewhere to force an enemy to leave his well-defended position to defend the attacked place is not an obvious idea / tactic? That was a new idea to you? | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:57 Licmyobelisk wrote: Damn! Thank you going to read this... Here is quote I though of: "He who uses protoss, takes life too easy" "He who uses terran is anti-conformist" "He who uses zerg is a decision-maker" He who plays starcraft, is baller. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42691 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:03 cz wrote: You are saying that the idea of attacking somewhere to force an enemy to leave his well-defended position to defend the attacked place is not an obvious idea / tactic? That was a new idea to you? This is precisely my point. Bad players can deduce that concept themselves but they still don't integrate it into their play because they don't bear it in mind when making decisions. The advice is solid, yes it's obvious but most mistakes are obvious, they still get made. It reminds me of when I was playing poker and I put a load of post-it notes around my screen with basic shit on them like "don't bluff someone who doesn't know how to fold". Sure, it's really obvious but sometimes you just need a reminder to keep it in your mind while making decisions. | ||
|
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
he who is aussie, is always awesome <3 lazz!Anyway, here is something we can use in theorycrafting: 5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. So meaning, it's not about cheesing and waiting for too long to go 200/200 push, but to provide excellent timing when opponents has his pants down is the way to victory | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:08 Kwark wrote: This is precisely my point. Bad players can deduce that concept themselves but they still don't integrate it into their play because they don't bear it in mind when making decisions. The advice is solid, yes it's obvious but most mistakes are obvious, they still get made. It reminds me of when I was playing poker and I put a load of post-it notes around my screen with basic shit on them like "don't bluff someone who doesn't know how to fold". Sure, it's really obvious but sometimes you just need a reminder to keep it in your mind while making decisions. Right but different statements are on different levels of the 'obvious' scale, if everything is obvious. The Art of War is on the very lowest rung of that ladder. While you might be able to deduce everything if you understood how everything worked and had enough time, there's a strategy forum for a reason and any quotes from the Art of War would not be anywhere near the level expected to post there. | ||
|
viewer
Canada662 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:45 LeoTheLion wrote: From Chapter VI: Weak points and strong: 11. If we wish to fight, the enemy can be forced to an engagement even though he be sheltered behind a high rampart and a deep ditch. All we need do is attack some other place that he will be obliged to relieve. If it were so obvious, why are half of D+/C- PvT games lost because P gets to 200/200, doesn't know what to do, so he suicides his army into a well established tank line? The problem is more that a D+/C- player in PvT is going to feel like there is nowhere they can attack that will force the T player to divert his forces, and you have to get into more complex things like map control, how to gain it, etc. I mean, there's a feeling at some points that your army composition is all wrong when you hit 200 before your first confrontation, and then that you will have no HT or Arbs to break their maxxed out 3/3 push. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42691 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:10 Licmyobelisk wrote: he who is aussie, is always awesome <3 lazz!Anyway, here is something we can use in theorycrafting: 5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. So meaning, it's not about cheesing and waiting for too long to go 200/200 push, but to provide excellent timing when opponents has his pants down is the way to victory Fabius "Cunctator" (The Delayer) was successful against Hannibal Barca precisely because of his unwillingness to give battle. If turned into a Sun Tzu proverb it'd probably be 'On the subject of fighting a tactical genius while you have strategic advantages, don't'. | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
AFAIK Art of War is not complete; half of the volume of the book are lost through time. In BW terminology, it will make a D- noob become D+ but it won't make a D+ into A+ | ||
|
Exteray
United States1094 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:43 Kwark wrote: I agree that most of what it says can be deduced logically but I disagree that makes it useless. The way I see it, most bw strategy is obvious. It's a series of choices and if asked at any given time what to do the average D player can work out the correct one. Sometimes you just need someone to say it. The problem is that most of its use comes after the fact, when analyzing what went wrong, and for that you can find a quote to meet any need. It's like Nostradamus' predictions. Yeah, he vaguely described something that happened, but he also said a lot of shit that's irrelevant and even contradictory to itself. Not that anyone is going to read Jomini for BW, but if you do like reading about the practice of war stuff like Jomini, Clausewitz and Thucydides is way better than Sun Tzu. | ||
|
NeSeNVi
67 Posts
| ||
Pholon
Netherlands6142 Posts
| ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
Sun Tzu is self evident to us because the idea have been floating around for thousand of years, applied to different things and build up on in detail, which includes BW. It is like reading a book in 2000BC about how 1+1=2. That said, if you are teach someone unfamilar with strategy at all, it is a okay guide. For skilled strategists in BW, you have to learn the useful ideas from the book long ago to have gotten anywhere and thus it teaches nothing new. It can help as a reminder when one is stuck though. | ||
|
BanZu
United States3329 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:55 Pholon wrote: I completely agree with cz - by all means read it, it's fun enough and has historic value, but dont expect it to revolutionize your SC play in any way I'm pretty sure everyone is on the same page here. No one thinks it'll do wonders. | ||
|
Lokomis
United States72 Posts
If you disagree I challenge you to quote something from the wiki that is both useful and not obvious. ---- Apologies for the recycled ridicule. At the risk of being silly in doing so the point to be made was that one could just as easily have memorized build orders, units sizes, building/ability/upgrade costs and still be a complete simpleton in regards to basic strategy. "Not likely," you might say, but not all that far-fetched either. I'm sure plenty of players can proxy dark temps in five minutes but if they still lose every time regardless of a flawlessly executed build order then the issue falls back on the very basics that have been assumed to be common knowledge. I hold no doubt that plenty of players have played through the campaign modes managing to either turtle, out-mass or fluke their way to wins without ever developing upon their knowledge of strategy, only to turn around get stomped game after game online. tl;dr: On September 10 2009 16:12 viewer wrote: whats obvious to you isnt always obvious to everyone else. | ||
|
wbirdy
Singapore335 Posts
| ||
|
jtype
England2167 Posts
Yes, a lot of it is common sense and logic, but that's just what philosophy is. As Kwark said earlier, most mistakes that players make (this applies even at pro level too) are obvious ones. So what's the merit of reading this book? Well, reading it and studying it can help you to keep it's philosophies in mind, leading to more effective decision-making, in and out of the game. We all need constant reminders. Why are military commanders and business strategists around the world still encouraged to know that book off-by-heart? Because it's information is effective and useful. I've written extensively in my blog (on another Starcraft site), applying Sun Tzu's quotes directly to SC and received positive feedback. You never know, reading the book might help you think of a new (or at least, new to you) strategy or tactic that can help you to be more successful in future SC matches. | ||
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
| ||
|
gnuvince
Canada73 Posts
On September 10 2009 21:17 jtype wrote: I've written extensively in my blog (on another Starcraft site), applying Sun Tzu's quotes directly to SC and received positive feedback. Do you have a link to those articles? | ||
|
LeperKahn
Romania1839 Posts
| ||
|
jtype
England2167 Posts
http://starfeeder.gameriot.com/blogs/Mastering-The-Art - I must warn you though, they are very basic and aimed at newbies. | ||
|
Afasia
Finland70 Posts
| ||
|
St3MoR
Spain3256 Posts
| ||
|
wok
United States504 Posts
For example, if in PvP, your opponent goes proxy pylon into 2-gate proxy rush, knowing those general principles will be insufficient to achieve victory. In fact: there are 2 contradicting goals: 1.) to destroy the production facilities 2.) to make sure your economy is stronger than your opponent's. Both of these points have proverbs describing how to accomplish these goals, but lacking knowledge of the very small space that sufficiently optimizes the two parameters... You are not going to win. | ||
|
gnuvince
Canada73 Posts
On September 11 2009 00:11 jtype wrote: http://starfeeder.gameriot.com/blogs/Mastering-The-Art - I must warn you though, they are very basic and aimed at newbies. Thanks! | ||
|
Iaaan
Canada578 Posts
Still nice to have a hardcopy tho ^^ | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + The translation used was done in 1910, but still. | ||
|
bdams19
United States1316 Posts
TEACHER YOU FORGOT TO GIVE US HOMEWORK | ||
|
Pufftrees
2449 Posts
| ||
|
Teejing
Germany1360 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:10 Licmyobelisk wrote: he who is aussie, is always awesome <3 lazz!Anyway, here is something we can use in theorycrafting: 5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. So meaning, it's not about cheesing and waiting for too long to go 200/200 push, but to provide excellent timing when opponents has his pants down is the way to victory haha, and i thought you was referring to blizzards delay xD | ||
|
538
Hungary3932 Posts
On September 10 2009 11:46 BalliSLife wrote: He who has 1-1 upgrades should move out ROFL | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2801 Posts
| ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On September 10 2009 13:48 heyoka wrote: Its worth reading but yeah its really overrated. Its really more a "philosophy of how to set your mind when you go into battle" than anything but people seem to treat it like it actually has advice on how tactics work or something. Thanks for the file It's hardly overrated because of the reason you stated. A young strategist reading this book can learn lessons that might otherwise take years. When I was a little kid, I played video games all the time. When I got into competitive gaming (fighting games), I almost always considered very powerful moves 'cheap' or exploiting existing bugs 'cheating'. But if I had just read this book, I could see that when in a competitive situation, it's not about following the rule book, it's about winning despite the rule book. This kind of philosophical outlook is capable of turning a bad strategist into a master strategist practically overnight. I've never seen anyone recommend this book based on their learning of battle tactics or some nonsense like that. This book is recommended across many industries because of the mindset that it inspires. Reading this book will not make you a better manager or first base or Starcraft player directly, but it will open your mind up to what 'strategy' really means and how to optimize your path to your goals intelligently and consistently. I mean sure, if you've played chess for 35 years, you could probably write this book yourself, but the point is I can give this to someone that's never had any real inkling of what 'strategy' actually is, and it will blow their mind and give them incredible insight into problem-solving. Everything in the book is, as others have said, completely obvious in hindsight, but the organization of thoughts will teach you how to think instead of what to think. That is really the key to this book. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
So if you ever heard a politician say the war(s) in the middle east were just to get sadam hussein, or find weapons, or whatever bullshit reason. That is the secondary objective. The primary is gaining the foothold on the oil (and/or allies in the region to share wealth). | ||
|
Polyphasic
United States841 Posts
On September 10 2009 13:48 heyoka wrote: Its worth reading but yeah its really overrated. Its really more a "philosophy of how to set your mind when you go into battle" than anything but people seem to treat it like it actually has advice on how tactics work or something. Thanks for the file this book was nice for stupid kings who after many generations, become totally disconnected with war. it's a good primer. consider it war 101 for political dumbasses. many of the things in starcraft are too specific for this to be applied. obviously you don't roll out with 10 vultures to try to kill 20 goons. but in real life 2000 years ago, these things are harder to predict. | ||
|
saritenite
Singapore1680 Posts
| ||
|
white_box921
United Kingdom967 Posts
On September 17 2009 10:49 CharlieMurphy wrote: The art of war is basically just common sense stuff. Any seasoned BW player will already know and understand many of concepts. Fighting from high ground, importance of seige weaponry, flanking, etc. The better parts of the book come from information such as 'no war without a gain in resource'. because financially war is expensive. There is no way you are going to fight a war with someone if you do not have a monetary gain (be it natural resources,farmland, people/slaves, whatever). So if you ever heard a politician say the war(s) in the middle east were just to get sadam hussein, or find weapons, or whatever bullshit reason. That is the secondary objective. The primary is gaining the foothold on the oil (and/or allies in the region to share wealth). best post I have read in a while, and this is from an American, I am even more impressed. | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 3265Mini  576ggaemo 338BeSt 245Larva 200firebathero  175Barracks 140Mong 66IntoTheRainbow 10Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
WardiTV Summer Champion…
WardiTV Summer Champion…
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
