EPTsame could easily applied to zvp imbalance
Sun Tzu on Z & T - Page 5
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Minimi][
Germany43 Posts
same could easily applied to zvp imbalance | ||
|
s0Li
United States406 Posts
| ||
|
RexFTW
United States172 Posts
On September 28 2010 13:44 sikyon wrote: Hypothesis: Terrain makes ZvT imbalanced because Terran can manipulate terrain very advantageously while zerg cannot. Unbiased test: PvT with forcefields. Result: PvT is not imba in favor of toss just because they can manipulate terrain at will. Hypothesis disproved, Scientific method >> Sun Tzu. But in a more direct tangent, your explanations are a giant stretch. "Intensity" = stim? No. That's just a unit mechanic. 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" And before anyone starts poking at me, yes, I am ~1000 points in diamond, and I do play random and I'm not saying ZvT doesn't favor T at least in the effort department Wouldn't this be more true if your result line said "result: PvT is not imba in favor of toss because both sides can manipulate terrain, it is balanced"? | ||
|
PeT[uK]
United States412 Posts
| ||
|
Shigia
United States17 Posts
"You may advance and be absolutely irresistible, if you make for the enemy weak points; you may retire and be safe from pursuit if your movements are more rapids than those of the enemy" Zerg being faster than than Terran and retreat. Terran is not OP if you know how to beat them | ||
|
Crackensan
United States479 Posts
This is true to strategy games as well. You would be wise to understand him. | ||
|
osten
Sweden316 Posts
And then 300 pages on how to use Thors. | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
On September 30 2010 09:43 Shigia wrote: Here is how one way zerg is advantageous in ZVT based on Sun Tzu "You may advance and be absolutely irresistible, if you make for the enemy weak points; you may retire and be safe from pursuit if your movements are more rapids than those of the enemy" Zerg being faster than than Terran and retreat. Terran is not OP if you know how to beat them Because terran is slower than zerg right? Cmon bro... T bio and hellions and air are all ridiculously mobile. The only mobile units zerg have are speedlings and mutas. Roach and banelings to a lesser extent, but those aren't really harass units. If you want to use them you need to commit an entire force. If T couldn't put up a PF and 3 turrets and sit back with a glass of lemonade in a lawn chair then sure, Z could utilize harass power. However, no amount of lings will break a PF, and mutas are so bad vs turrets + repair now that you'd have to commit 20 mutas to even get a harass off. That's not a good investment. Zerg mobility matters a hell of a lot more in ZvP, where lings can be useful and the P army is much slower and not capable of such harass like medivac drops. | ||
|
drlame
Sweden574 Posts
| ||
|
seaofsaturn
United States489 Posts
| ||
|
eluv
United States1251 Posts
Creep Speed is Stim movement speed, with no health cost, let's put it that way. There's a reason ling speed, baneling speed, and roach speed are all *critical* upgrades for their respective units. | ||
|
genopath
80 Posts
| ||
|
xiyuema
87 Posts
| ||
|
Escape
Canada306 Posts
Many of these strategies apply to army of mostly equal ability (weaponry, mobility, etc), but SC has 3 different races that have totally different attributes, which makes it really hard to compared directly like "apples to apples". | ||
|
attacknme
79 Posts
| ||
|
amepluie
New Zealand1 Post
Kudos for actually doing some research. I disagree on the whole Bible part mainly because I don't like organised religion, the Bible has way too many contradictions and the Art of War is more of an intelligent read. Also as I am Chinese it has influenced me, my culture and pretty much all of the East much more than the Bible. @OP The way you read the Art of War and then applying it straight away is the equivalent of someone reading every unit and spell description from liquidpedia and then analysis pro games accurately. It just doesn't happen. Add on the fact that Chinese is so hard to translate given all its idioms and cultural references and the archaic nature of the text certainly doesn't help. The reason why the Art of War is so successful in being adapted into business and modern military strategies is the word ADAPTED. The book gives the ability to analysis a specific situation and then react to it. It doesn't say "if an army is 10x your own, you are totally fucked" it will tell you not to engage directly. If you learn some Chinese history ( and you should because it's fucking awesome) there are so many cases where a commander follows written strategy books blindly and get their asses owned . The book shouldn't be applied to a general case like all ZvT. It should be applied when you are actually playing a ZvT and asking how to proceed now that I have this race and the opponent has that race. This leads on to perhaps the most famous quote from the Art of War: So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose. If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself. This could be used to explain why Idra lose to Lotze the second match of GSL where Lotze knew that Idra knew that Lotze praticed a robo build. He knew that reaction Idra will have if he saw a robo and so he faked one to secure his win. Now if we must apply to 9 situations to SC then really there is not much new that people haven't already thought of or done. Most of them are actually basic concepts when it comes to SC and most of what the Art of War suggests are pretty obvious actions. I would like to say this is my adaptation/interpretation of the Art of War for SC and use it to explain why Sun Tzu advices the different actions for the various situation. Now I prefer situation because these situations are not fixed geographic locations but something that could change i.e. when a Terran wall off has been breached it no longer functions as a wall but changes to a small choke. 1. Dispersive ground - it's pretty much just your base where you have quite a significant advantage i.e. You have home advantage at your base because there is less travel distance, maybe some defense structures, your army is usually well positioned and your harvesters can come help in emergency (perhaps not so good an advantage for the last one). With so many advantages it's obvious under most circumstances that you don't go attack it. 2. Light ground - it's pretty much just the area where you can poke at your opponent without losing much. Of course you want to keep moving in this situations. You wouldn't run your lings up a ramp to scout and then leave them there to die or leave your army near the enemy for no reason and giving them time to flank you. 3. Contentious ground - While a gold expo does grant an economic advantage if you can get it running, it doesn't normally give you an tactical advantage and lots of games are lost when someone gets too greedy and can't defend the gold. A more appropriate example would be high ground and most SC players who have never read the Art of War all know not to engage that unless they have vision. 4. Traversable ground - This one the OP really got it wrong. This is places where both sides can move freely. While it may read like it is anywhere with open space it will no longer be the case if a Terran has sieged some tanks or when Zerg establishes map control with mutas. A more subtle example is when say a Protoss opponent gets an observer and basically has map hack of your army and he can freely move about knowing he won't meet your army while you have to expect danger at every turn. The advice the Art of War gives about not getting isolated is because your army can meet your enemy at anytime and if you have a small force meeting their entire army....you will probably lose your small force. 5. Focal ground - This does apply although you have to adapt the meaning. The original text describes it as a place where you have access to/control of the rest of the empire and the advice is to make alliances. My interpretation is when you are in a situation of map control and the advice is to expand as making alliances in RL gives you extra resources like expanding in SC. 6. Heavy ground - This is probably the least applicable of the 9 situations. The original text describes when you are deep in enemy territory and have no steady supply of food to harvest the enemy's crops which will sustains you and weakens your enemy. While there are times when expansions are bypassed or when you have difficulty getting reinforcement there is no SC situations where you can 'feed' off your opponent's resources (wish we had engineers and silos from C&C). 7. Entrapping ground - While the text mentions terrain that will generally slow an army down it probably refers to the many tactics that have been employed in these areas such as archers above ravines or burning of mountains with whole armies in it (isn't Chinese history wonderful). So with that it can be interpreted as situations where you are trying to pass through a vulnerable place. So perhaps trying to get up an ramp that might be force fielded could be considered entrapping ground. The advice then remains the same as moving through quickly. 8. Encircled ground - Couldn't really tell how the OP interpreted this but traditionally it's a situation such as when a fortress guards the one road through the mountain and it would take months to go around the mountain. In these situations the enemy often send out small cavalry forces, with the help of downward momentum, charge the footmen and deal massive damage before retreating back to the fortress. This is SC could be a siege line with drops to harrass, colossus walking up and down cliffs with army at the front to guard it or muta harass with spine crawlers and ground army defending the base. 9. Fatal ground - This is actually written more about morale, another reason why ground is a bad translations. A famous example is the Battle of Jingxing where the commander forced his smaller army to be backed up against the river with no hope to escape and the end up winning through ferocity. Now this clearly does not translate into stim. It translate into simple human nature. When you do a drop and your medivac gets killed you just let your units do as much damage as possible. When the enemy pushes to kill your base you try to kill him off and if you don't you die. The Art of War is extremely robust that is why it is used in so many different ways. The core of the book is about analyzing yourself, your opponent, your army, their army, positions, situations etc etc. It maybe ancient but it has so much use and the whole book actually looks into a lot more aspects than position such as discipline and morale. The hardest part is interpreting the information rather than following it's advice and that is why lots of people read it and few master it. | ||
|
ashaman771
Canada114 Posts
In SC2 your troups do exactly what you tell them to do instantly. Not to poo on your thread, it's well written. | ||
|
winternova
48 Posts
| ||
|
whomybuddy
United States620 Posts
| ||
| ||
