I am now reading: The Art Of War

sort

Cliver5

23 days ago

I am now reading: The Art of War

+3 / -1

Chungoose

23 days ago
(edited 23 days ago)

Yeah but godde would beat sun tzu in a 1v1

+9 / -0

SmokeDragon

23 days ago
(edited 22 days ago)

i prefer the war of art

as in holi the indian art festival

im not so sure modern rts games work like medieval military campaigns..

they probably work like: skill x apm x (position + composition + timing).. so if you get the right units at the right time in the right place and can micro (apm). your probably going to do quite well if you know how to use them (skill)

medieval military campaigns have some crossovers but with many differences..

from what i hear most campaigns are won with betrayals, spies, assassinations, bribes, ect.. the money and shadow.. like the saying.. the pen is mightier then the sword..

but in zero-k the sword is mightier then the pen.. because you cant convince the enemy team to dgun the super just as it finishes.. there are no betrayals.. its all about the sword.

unless you count convincing a lob to not make a second starlight right next to a half finished one 'is that diplomacy?'

+1 / -1

Aquanim

23 days ago
(edited 23 days ago)

I unironically think that The Art of War has a surprising amount of relevance to playing Cloakyfac in ZK. To some degree it is also relevant to the other factories, and Zero-K in general.

quote:
Now the army's distribution of force is like water... The army's distribution of force avoids the substantial and strikes the vacuous. Water configures its flow in accord with the terrain; the army controls its victory in accord with the enemy.

Some factories like Tank or Shield are quite happy to match strength against strength, but Cloaky would very much prefer to go where the opponent is weak.

quote:
Thus if I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. If we are concentrated into a single force while he is fragmented into ten, then we attack him with ten times his strength. Thus we are many and the enemy is few.

This quote, and quite a few other parts of The Art of War, might sound obvious. But then again, "don't stall energy" is obvious too. The trick is to reflect on it and figure out how to make it happen in your actual play of the game.

+5 / -0

Cliver5

22 days ago

Hahah, don't worry about the dislikes! I find it funny how this post, out of all, got the dislikes, compared to my campaign-of-a-list. Better this one than any other.

Other than that, thank you for the short notes! I'll continue reading: The Art of War.

+1 / -0

Cliver5

19 days ago
(edited 19 days ago)

I'm on the part where "don't attack a fortified position" is an advice. Maybe Zelenskiy needs to spend more funds on forts and stuff.

But a day later, I'm upset at how many lobsters make tons of mistakes Sun Tzu preached not to teach, cheer when they stomp on the enemy right as the enemy is about to destroy them. My lord, if they're not going to follow the book, I swear I'll leave the forts up to be destroyed by the enemy, and my forces would gladly serve the enemy! Seriously, what don't they understand about "it's important to prevent defeat more so than to win?"

But anyway, this is just a short vent I wanted to make. I'll likely be making a ~~longer~~ better report later.

+0 / -0

Tarkin

19 days ago
(edited 19 days ago)

avdiivka and bakhmut were both fortress cities and still fell....
Fortified positions only work so long as your enemy is not willing to commit the required forces....

Ie: all porc useless if your enemy decides to mass up a 100 hermits :(

+0 / -0

Cliver5

19 days ago

Good point... Usually, to destroy a fortified city, one has to have numerical advantage beforehand. If one can feed an army outside of city and it's worth it? Sure, last 3 months or 3 more.
Still, I think that it's kind of pointless, even in terms of Zero-K. Aggression just prompts more aggression, and especially in real world scenario, such aggression invites a foreign army to reap the ruins. I think that's a valuable lesson.

+0 / -0

skigear

19 days ago

Sun tzu says not to attack a fortified position probably because ideally you attack around the fortified position, e.g. you siege the city by capturing the surroundings and wearing the enemy down instead of trying to directly storm it. When you storm a fortified position you play into the fortified position's advantage. Of course you can break down fortifications with tools like catapults, trebuchets, battering rams, cannons, underground bombs, tanks, bombs, etc, but that's still more expensive than just going around it

+1 / -0

Tarkin

18 days ago
(edited 18 days ago)

Going around fortifications has always been an interesting choice....
In the age of castles, they were self sustaining strong points, where bypassing them without significant blocking forces would just lead to a mobile war behind the lines since the castle garrison can always sortie.

Modern fortified cities instead largely work based on their value as a target and their unique positions. If your enemy HAS to take the city as part of their war goals, then fortifying it can delay its capture while getting positive attrition. Also, these fortified positions often interdict supply lines/transport routes like highways, railways, rivers. Bypassing is almost impossible since the enemy cannot sustain their logistics without control of the fortified position. Also what are you going to do when someone in the city goes to the roof of an apartment and starts shelling you with rpgs from above :(

With the exceptionally mobile nature of modern forces, the risk of bypassing leaves the danger of encirclement as well, which is why breakthrough attacks always seek to get a strong anchor point like a river/city to defend the flanks/center of the thrust from attack.

Hence, you want or practically need to envelope a city and force its surrender/storm before any other advances, and why fortified positions are still relevant these days.

+3 / -0

Cliver5

18 days ago

Thank you for the overview, Tarkin! I didn't know.

+0 / -0

Cliver5

18 days ago
(edited 18 days ago)

A bit of wellness tips from Sun Tzu Himself From His Grave:
Chapter V. ENERGY
7. There are not more than five musical notes, yet the combinations of these five give rise to more melodies than can ever be heard.
10. In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack—the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of manœuvers.
11. The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle—you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?

Have a good day! Sorry for the anger yesterday <3

+0 / -0

FinnishLime506

18 days ago

any other war books relevant to the topic? does musashi's book of five rings count

+1 / -0

Cliver5

5 days ago

Chapter VII. MANEUVERING

7. Thus, if you order your men to roll up their buff-coats, and make forced marches without halting day or night, covering double the usual distance at a stretch, doing a hundred li in order to wrest an advantage, the leaders of all your three divisions will fall into the hands of the enemy.

... oh.

+0 / -0

katastrophe

5 days ago
(edited 5 days ago)

Most strategic thinking I have is shaped by the lessons of my go-teacher. There seem to be concepts (overextention vs overconcentration for example) that are very universal to strategy. That is probably very obvious to people that are into this a lot longer than me, so feel free to call me major obvious.

Cliver5 I have not actively seen you play yet, so the following is not specifically directed at you, just to be clear.
When reading books about this, take a step back. Yes, sun tzu is a classic. How high is the chance that it was the most brilliant strategist of all times that is a source of unquestionable wisdom? Kind of low. Why do I say that? Because you shouldnt just read the content of the book. You should also try to reconstruct how sun tzu got to that very content. The way he thought about things, to formulate his concepts in a world where (maybe) noone else had written them down before. Corny line: Don`t listen to sun tzu, try to BE sun tzu... (uh cringe)
What does that mean for zk: zk, as well as most other games, are about optimizing. You need to analyze the game on a fundamental level first. How does it work mechanically. Units, eco etc. Then try to find ways to maximize effectiveness and efficiency.
Bluntly speaking: If you want to play zk well, suntzu will probably help you, but the games manual (strategy and eco-guides etc.) will get you way more mileage and form the foundation on which you can apply sun tzus ideas to their full potential.

I will close with one of my beloved go-provebs:

Don`t hunt when your house is burning.

+1 / -0

Forum index > Off topic >