|
On September 28 2010 13:44 sikyon wrote:
...
You have a giant confirmation bias here where you're reading Sun Tzu, thinking he's a military genius and then trying to pidgeonhole everything into his theories. You might be able to explain away some things with the art of war but it's so vague that it's very difficult to make non-trivial predictions with it (yes I have read it). Please set aside your availability heuristic and take a look at your analysis from a point of view which doesn't start with "I KNOW ZvT is imba and I KNOW I can explain it with Sun Tzu"
It's true.
But Sun Tzu is a great source of insight. However, one should not ask "Is Sun Tzu right? If so, why?" One should ask, "why did Sun Tzu say that?" Seek the thought process, not the thought.
|
While I agree with the mob in this case, I really don't think the OP should be burned at the cross like this. Man, you guys are pretty vicious.
|
I expected this to be an interesting read but was instead disgusted by a clear confirmation bias.
The most appalling example is point 9, where "intensity" is attributed to stim. Way too literal of an interpretation of intensity. So is the opposite of fighting with intensity a zerg's fungal growth? By that logic the zerg will always have the upper hand by making fatal terrain readily available.
Belongs in the blog section, and definitely don't pat yourself on the back with such an ego-driven comment like "quite definitely CONFIRMED TvZ imbalance."
|
On September 28 2010 15:27 Acritter wrote:
So, what does Sun Tzu say about macro mechanics?
I'm pretty sure he said that if you're a noob, all you have to do is just build a whole bunch of shit, don't worry about micro, and then you can a-move and just fucking kill him.
or maybe that was Day9 Tzu...
|
First, The Sun-Tzu hate in this thread is disappointing.
This writing has withstood the test of time better than the bible without asking or demanding faith from its readers. Claiming that The Art of War has no relevance to modern combat, or more importantly conflict (loose term) in any area of life is like saying that there is no relevance to the Bible's lessons or that it doesn't have any.
Second, the OP.
Obviously massive bias as others have mentioned. TL netizens (I am merely a forum lurker), you should be disappointed by its lack of attempt to be productive. Proving or saying that Zerg is OP does nothing for the players. Send those opinions to Blizzard.
Even so, when I read the Sun Tzu lines, I was still inspired. For example:
"On traversable terrain do not allow your forces to become isolated"
This makes me think, how can I make this happen to my opponent? When a terran is turtling a xel'naga, can I cut off his lines of reinforcement and surround (thus isolating), before swooping in for the kill? What units would be most effective at taking map control of select areas like their retreat to their base?
First the OP acts like a xel'naga tower is merely traversible terrain - it isn't - and then doesn't bother to try to put the idea into practice, merely stating it is impossible to break an isolated terran.
|
On September 29 2010 10:43 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 15:27 Acritter wrote:
So, what does Sun Tzu say about macro mechanics? I'm pretty sure he said that if you're a noob, all you have to do is just build a whole bunch of shit, don't worry about micro, and then you can a-move and just fucking kill him. or maybe that was Day9 Tzu...
Day9 ftw
But I think Sun Tzu also said it, with other words.
If the internet is right, it goes like this:
It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten
to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one,
to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army
into two.
Of course, it is implied that all equations are based on power rather than numbers, which was a given circumstance in china around his time. Armies consisted of trained soldiers generally no army being significantly stronger than another in equal numbers.
Another thing I found in this online version is this:
We may distinguish six kinds of terrain,
to wit: (1) Accessible ground; (2) entangling ground;
(3) temporizing ground; (4) narrow passes; (5) precipitous
heights; (6) positions at a great distance from the enemy.
The part quoted in op is actually 2 chapters later and (at least in my source) called nine situations. It must be some sort of alternate words in chinese for the concept we call terrain.
|
On September 29 2010 10:06 PrinceXizor wrote:
Okay this Very shaky interpretation of my favorite book is forcing me to do a conversion of the entire Art of war into SC2 for every race. And so the project begins.
Part one in blogs. I tried to be an unbiased as possible, I'll update parts in blogs and make a thread when i finish all of the parts. note: i'm using only parts that i've been confident in making the jump from ancient chinese warfare -> space battles with aliens.
|
Sometimes I wish SC1's release date was somewhere in late 2010. ( Yes I said SC1 )
So that way I could stop hearing shitty examples of races "Losing" something from SC1.
|
You misinterpret several things (I am a great fan of Sun Tzu):
Light terrain:
It is land which is under (only) light control of the enemy, meaning, as long as you stay on the move, your army cannot be trapped.
Contentious terrain: gold expos do not fit; rather, it is an area that is advantageous to THE ARMY occupying it (in terms of combat, sustainment); such as high ground.
(Xel'Naga do fit in such as they give better sight and thus improve ranged weapon use for T, easier surrounds Z.)
Starcraft has no equivalent for unit support; in real life, unit capacity decreases without support. Therefore "heavy terrain" is only relevant in such it is an area under control of the enemy, being trapped is a substantial risk.
Harassment (as someone noted) is not relevant in this context, as it does not comprise your (main) army.
I get the impression, what the OP really wants to say is: TvZ is imba! And then goes and tries to bend Sun Tzu (unconciously) to underline this. :-)
Certainly, Blizzard's current maps favor T as open ground is rare, compared to SCBW's (more evolved) maps.
Try to adapt. Yes, T's units are all ranged, fungal growth does not help much....as long as you engage their immobilized, but still ranged forces. Thought of ignoring them, and going for on of their bases instead?
FG further increases your already superior mobility.
Use your production flexibility. T currently would counter most of your ground army? The next production rounds, only get air. T struggles to get an airforce? Put all your larvae into ground units - thus create (relative, unit-counter-wise) superiority.
The T camps? Expand and get only workers in the next round, allowing you to create superior numbers to match his better position.
With good information, and having the initiative, P and T really have a hard time to keep up with this kind of flexibility.
And: use your fast production capacity. The T's army is a slightly stronger? Engage it, trade a part of his army for yours, and crush the remainder with your next wave, before his reinforcements arrive.
(Warning: you need a good feel for this, at which point your losses are higher than his)
Good luck, broodling :-)
|
On September 29 2010 11:30 Mataza wrote:
Day9 ftw
But I think Sun Tzu also said it, with other words.
If the internet is right, it goes like this:
It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten
to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one,
to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army
into two.
Unfortunately, this is a historical mistranslation. More modern translations read
It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, be able to divide them; if equal,engage them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them.
(I.e., divide HIS army when only outnumbering him 2:1)
|
On the whole reinforcing an army in enemy territory bit, you could nydus queens to your army to heal them, just a thought might balance out that part of the terrain matchup.
|
Wow this was an amusing read! Not only because of the wierd errenous paralells born of the same rage I feel on this matchup, but because of the ones that were completely utterly correct and inspiring.
Saying it has nothing to do with SC2 is bullshit, this is a strategy warfare game, he writes about exactly that and has become famous because he made his stuff generic (it applies to many things while staying completely logically true) like csfield says, it's moronic to say "attack where your oppenent is weak" does not apply to this game.
You can pull paralells into any matchup or actually even any different game, so it's not specifically this that makes T imba. You just misinterpited(sp?) some bullet points.
|
Trying to healing frail Z units in battle..not worth trying. Macro instead, Z units are cheap.
Healing outside battle using queens and nydus....not useful again, Z army is so mobile, walk back home instead.
|
On September 29 2010 10:06 PrinceXizor wrote:
Okay this Very shaky interpretation of my favorite book is forcing me to do a conversion of the entire Art of war into SC2 for every race. And so the project begins.
Don't you find Clausewitz more relevant? Or at least more straightforward in his portrayals of concepts?
|
OP think more about his other advice, like baiting him into attack (make your apparently weakest positions your strongest and vice versa). Tzu's advice on terrain is only 1/5 or less of the book. Army composition and battlefield maneuvering have similar parallels to Sun Tzu. I suggest you read them.
|
21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If
he is in superior strength, evade him.
22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
[Wang Tzu, quoted by Tu Yu, says that the good tactician plays with his adversary as a cat plays with a mouse, first feigning weakness and immobility, and then suddenly pouncing upon him.]
23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
Keep Pressure on your opponent.
If the terran has his army away from home, do some ling harass.
Keep your units around the map in flanking positions.
If your opponent sieges, run away and wait for him to unsiege in order to engage.
|
Man, it'd be totally kickass if Sun Tzu was alive and he did dailies like Day9 does, but only about micro.
Just imagine it. It would be hilarious.
|
With all due respect, I think many people here are not interpreting Sun Tzu correctly. The Art of War contains many principles that have stood the test of time (that's why it's still taught in U.S. business school and military academies today). It also has advice which is clearly specific to ancient era warfare and can be more or less disregarded. So it's important, especially with the translation barrier, to be rigorous about which is which, and not to let our metaphors get too imaginative.
Unfortunately, OP's analysis of Sun Tzu's "nine grounds" is grossly out of line with the intended meaning of the text. This is not based on my personal opinion, but on the work of later Chinese military philosophers, and of modern translators and Sun Tzu scholars. In order below:
+ Show Spoiler +(1) "Dispersive ground" is not supposed to be your home base. It is ground in which the local warlords are in conflict. Sun Tzu advises not to fight on dispersive ground, because soldiers recruited there are likely to have local interests and may not be reliable in battle. This has nothing to do with SC2, at least not that I can see.
(2) "Light ground" does have an application to SC2, but it is not your ramp or your expo, or any physical location on the map (this is why "grounds" is a better translation than "terrains"--we're not talking about physical spaces so much as we're talking about situations that arise). Rather, light ground occurs when you have penetrated into your opponent's space, but not deeply, and the soldiers "can all get back easily." This strikes me as analogous to a harass, e.g. with mutas or reapers. Sun Tzu's advice is simply, "On light ground do not stop," which applies nicely.
(3) "Contentious ground" does certainly imply a watchtower, choke point, or gold mineral patch, as OP says. However, how that translates to terran imba is beyond me. Any race can take and fortify contentious ground. Sun Tzu's cryptic advice not to attack on contentious ground is clarified by a response from contemporary General Cao Cao, who said, "It is not advantageous to attack an enemy on a ground of contention; what is advantageous is to get there first." That should be sound advice for contentious ground in SC2.
(4) "Traversable ground" is space where one may come and go easily, which in Sun Tzu's time meant largely that there was a system of maintained roads. His instruction, in Thomas Cleary's translation, is "let there be no cutting off of trafficked ground." This is explained in contemporary commentary as a precaution against destroying roads, which may need to be used later to transport supplies. Not very applicable to SC2.
(5) "Focal ground" or "intersecting ground," which the OP writes off as being about alliances, is actually ground in which geographical or strategic arteries intersect. The centers of many maps (e.g. delta quadrant) are clearly intersecting ground. Sun Tzu's advice on intersecting ground is to "form communications," presumably meaning to establish alliances. I think however that it's not a big stretch to interpret "form communications" as keeping a large active recon ring around the intersecting ground. If you're fortifying the center of a big map, it's clearly important to have strong map control and recon.
(6) "Heavy ground" is when you've penetrated deep into enemy territory. The critical difference between heavy ground and light ground (articulated by the generals who campaigned with Sun Tzu) is how easily one can retreat form it. Heavy ground, which occurs when you use a large immobile force (e.g. tanks and thors) to push far into an enemy base, is very difficult to retreat from. Sun Tzu's advice on heavy ground is to "plunder" supplies, because it will be difficult to supply an entrenched army. That's not really applicable to SC2. However, with a little interpretive license we can probably say that "plunder supplies" means focus on destroying production facilities and economy.
(7) "Entrapping ground" is mountains, forests, and swamps. It is distinct because it is impossible to build any fortifications there, and so Sun Tzu advises any army to keep moving as quickly as possible, rather than risk being forced to defend in a spot where they can't fortify. Since there's almost nowhere in SC2 where you can't build, this isn't very applicable.
(8) "Encircled ground" is, as OP said, any situation where a small number of well-situated units can take out a large force if it maneuvers carelessly. However, Sun Tzu's advice is not, "On encircled ground, a-move and the bitch and moan about imba." What Sun Tzu does say is, "On surrounded ground make plans," and Cao Cao adds, "Bring surprise tactics into play." This is in fact great advice for zerg against a terran turtle. If the front is turtled, don't push the front. Use surprise tactics--nydus, drops, etc--to punish the terran's static position.
(9) "Fatal ground" occurs when units have no possibility to retreat alive, and only a slim possibility to live if they stand and fight. For Sun Tzu and other Chinese military philosophers, the distinctive thing about dying ground is that soldiers will be more motivated to fight if they have no chance to retreat, and so Ancient Chinese generals would intentionally put troops on dying ground in order to make them fight with more resolve. (See Chen Hao: "Put them on dying ground, and then they will live.") In SC2, all this really means is that if your units are screwed, you should do as much damage as possible, rather than trying to kite away when it's obviously hopeless. Stim is one micro tool that helps with that, but there are plenty of others.
The biggest misinterpretation, though, is in trying to use Sun Tzu's principles to demonstrate race imba. Sun Tzu wasn't writing about situations predesigned to be as equal as possible. He was writing about how to handle a multitude of situations that could occur in real conflict. I believe, as others have said, that if Sun Tzu was alive today he would advise you to study the matchup more and work harder to exploit terran weaknesses. Also, if you're going to read the Art of War with SC2 in mind, I recommend chapter 3 as a great place to start, especially for ZvT. It is all about the philosophy of how to defeat someone without ever being forced to confront them on their own terms. Other responses below.
Re PrinceXizor, + Show Spoiler +Where does Sun Tzu state that terrain is the least important of the five elements of war? I believe what you're referring to are Sun Tzu's five factors to be assessed before engaging in battle. In the text, he presents them in this order: the Way, the weather, the terrain, the leadership, and discipline. However, he never says one is more or less important than the others. I think a good general is supposed to assess all five factors, no matter what. Unfortunately, these five factors don't have an obviously useful application to SC2.
Re SageJTN, + Show Spoiler +Sun Tzu has not withstood the test of time better than the Judeo-Christian Bible. Yeah, it's amazing that we still read a 2,500-year-old treatise on military philosophy that was originally carved into planks of bamboo. But the Bible remains by far the most published book in human history, and probably altered the course of Western history more than any other single document. Unfortunately, the Art of War doesn't quite live up to that standard.
Re Mataza, + Show Spoiler +you are correct, translating the nine situations in Chapter 11 as "nine terrains" is misleading and also confuses them with the terrains discussed two chapters prior. "Nine situations" is fine, personally I prefer Cleary's "nine grounds." The point is that we're discussing situations that arise in relation to geographical terrain--not just the terrain itself.
Re gREIFOCs, + Show Spoiler +I actually find Clauswitz unbearably dense and cryptic, and have never been able to apply his work to anything in real life. I'd be very interested to hear how you apply Clauswitz to SC2. Maybe there is something in his work that I'm not seeing.
|
This is great stuff man. But I have to say [like most of the previous posters] that there are way too many other factors that are involved in SC2. Someone mentioned macro. Someone else probably stated the fact that SC2 is a game fought with pixels and precise human control rather than the control of real human beings and warriors.
Regarding the ideas that Sun Tzu brings up about the usage of terrains: GREAT! It has tons of effect on how a battle SHOULD and will end up if said situations present themselves. And I think 90% of the time [even in an RTS] they will, but we've got to realize that we are dealing with advanced technology being put into the mix. I'm sure if Sun Tzu had in his arsenal forcefield, broodlings, big fruit overlords that he would revise a lot of what he says.
Once again great post, but this is quite a ways away from ever proving, even in the slightest, the imba of terran. (not saying that we are or aren't =D)
|
eeeeeeeehhhhhh
couple things
criticism first then support.
1. While this post is in regards to both strategy (Sun Tzu) and Starcraft 2. It is not a Starcraft 2 strategy thread and thus doesn't really belong in the SC2 strat section. You are not asking for help dealing with a situation nor are you informing people on how to deal with a situation.
2. You can only apply certain facets of the AoW to Starcraft. While much of Sun Tzu's masterpiece is still relevant to this day. The book was ultimately written for legions of soldiers whose main modes of transport were by foot and horses. Armies for whom, morale, transportable supply, disease, obedience, and control. Starcraft units don't need to bring their supplies with them, they are not traveling for hundreds of miles. They will not flee when outnumbered, and they will never disobey their commander. I am not saying that this invalidates all of your arguements, but it must be taken into consideration.
3. You are looking at a terran players ability to use terrain to their advantage as an imbalance, but it has not occured to you that it may just be a racial trait. Yes terrans can take better advantage of chokes both defensively and offensively, however, they have disadvantages as well. You can immediately make 14 hydralisks upon completion of the hydralisk den, it will take the terran player much much longer to build 14 ghosts upon completing an academy, or 14 medivacs off of a stargate even with a reactor.
While it is easy for terrans to defend from a still position, with each additional base they take, it is harder and harder for them to spread their defensive forces and still keep all of the bases secure.
Your creep allows you to move units quickly from one base to another. It is also easier for you on multiple bases, to replenish your army. If you and a terran player both wipe eachother's armies out, you will be able to pull 21 hydras out in the time that they can make 1 siege tank, 4 marines, 2 marauders, and two medivacs. You can make 42 hydras 60 seconds later.
Terran still has some imbalances, but they are not the ones you think. Their T1 units are very powerful for their costs. 2 marines can beat a hydralisk in a fight without any upgrades. This is because during the early game terrans have to dedicate their SCV's to producing thier production buildings. As a result a terran's early push will have less money worth of units in it and therefore they need that efficiency. Later on however, the T player can mass infantry units and use that efficiency to destroy other players unless they have aoe. Their units still need to be balanced a bit to take care of those 1.5 timing pushes, but other than that they only have a few questionable air units.
I appreciate your plight and admire your relating AoW to SC2. This post is insightful and intelliegent. However, it is not a strategy post and it is now a valid reason to explain imba. If you believe that terrans are imba because their terrain advantages are better than other races advantages, that is different. But arguing imba just because a race has advantages that you do not is not accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
