Strategy Guide for Strategic Command

[Urban Shocker]

Hello all...newly purchased the game and am loving it. Forgive me if this has already been mentioned but as I have been playing I've been reminded of a book by BH Liddell Hart entitled STRATEGY. While this book covers the span of warfare from the ancients to WWII and beyond it would be a perfect companion to playing SC2. In the book Liddell Hart goes over how important battles and wars were won and lost by using the indriect approach (diplomatically and on the battlefield). The scale and at which most battles are discussed harmonizes nicely with SC2.

Here is the link:

Strategy by Liddell Hart

[JerseyJohn]

Greetings Urban. I liked that book too, had a copy back in the sixties when Lidell Hart was still among the living and his books were very popular in the United States.

Sun-tzu also discusses the indirect approach quite a bit in The Art of War . It was interesting to read somewhere that the Roman emperor Tiberius, as a general, used similar tactics regularly against the German tribes; things preventive campaigns to destroy provisions they might have built up for a planned campaign against the Romans.

Anyway, what drew me here -- I'm a lurker these days -- is your screen name. Always good to see an oldtime baseball player remembered.

[Urban Shocker]

That's my boy! I always liked his name so I co-opted it as my avatar. I also thought a name like that would be a good name for a rapper.

As for SC2, I regularly think of where the "indirect" approach might be applied to good effect.

[jon_j_rambo]

Reading this:

http://www.ww2livebait.com/

[pzgndr]

When I wrote the Strategy Guide for SC way back when, I specifically referenced BH Liddell Hart in the introduction:

Numerous references about the Second World War in Europe are readily available. New players who may not be familiar with WWII history or grand strategy may want to read a couple of excellent books by B. H. Liddell Hart - History of the Second World War and Strategy. Also, The Second World War by John Keegan offers an excellent overview of the action, politics, and major themes of the war. There are many more fine books, and players interested in the historical outcomes of the various campaigns are encouraged to seek them out. Knowing what broad sweeping decisions actually occurred in the war and why they were made will help players make their own decisions during a game.

It's appalling how little of history many in the general public know. I was talking with a young woman a few weeks ago and Bastogne and the Battle of the Bulge came up. She had absolutely no clue what I was talking about! Unbelievable.

Most wargamers at least know something about the games they play, or are at least willing to go find out and learn. But still, I continue to see several "groups" of players: those who know history and desire a realistic simulation at the exclusion of all else, those who know history and also desire plausible alternatives within the context of the conflict, and those who either don't know history and/or don't care about the historical context and want to play out implausible alternative histories.

HOIers, for example, boasting about how they played as Romania and "beat" the game to conquer the planet always struck me as immature at best and stupid at worst. Wargames should offer, and perhaps enforce as necessary, realistic and historically accurate simulations with plausible optional paths to victory. But of course, gamers need to know their history to appreciate such "restrictions."

[arado234]

Your right pzgndr but in all ww2 games you have to strike a playable balance or it becomes to predictable.But you are right in that somethings should be hardwired into any ww2 game.If the game is any good which sc2 is then its usually been done.The fact that in sc2 the allies can act like or worse then the germans makes the game somewhat unrealistic(the allies did force some neutrals to their way of thinking)but it makes it unpredictable which is fun.Thats what its about.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

I was talking with a young woman a few weeks ago and Bastogne and the Battle of the Bulge came up. She had absolutely no clue what I was talking about! Unbelievable.

This reminds me of an organic chemistry class I had. My professor was a waregaming buff so we would often be discussing wargames and ww2 before and after class. One day a girl in the class who was just out of high school commented that the US should have never gotten involved in ww2 and that the Germans weren't doing anything wrong. Amused, my professor asked what about German tanks rolling through Paris? The Reply: "Oh, that wasn't THAT bad..."

[Minty]

Liddell Harts's history of the first world war is incredible. I mentioned it in more detail in the forum a few months back.

Castles of Steel the follow up to Dreadnought is incredible too. forget author's name

[n0kn0k]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Most wargamers at least know something about the games they play, or are at least willing to go find out and learn. But still, I continue to see several "groups" of players: those who know history and desire a realistic simulation at the exclusion of all else, those who know history and also desire plausible alternatives within the context of the conflict, and those who either don't know history and/or don't care about the historical context and want to play out implausible alternative histories.

I've been on a game designer school for some time.

The first thing they learn you is that "realistic" games aren't fun to play, or profitable to make.

Of course there are exceptions to that rule, but I'll give you a few examples.

- "realism" with the use of time would make wargames like flight sims, naval sims and shooters pretty boring.

It would take you hours to just fly or sail to the target.

- "realism" with the use of micromanagement options.

Realism would give so many options that it would take way to much micromanagement to play a game, and it would become tedious fast.

- "Realism" with "enemy" population in a game.

Games are always stacked with those evil enemy characters.

You also see that in games with animals.

like 20 or so bears on a piece of land, ready to be killed by the heroic player that wants to level up.

The thing is bears don't stack up on a small piece of land

They gave us a bunch of other examples, but it all comes down to this.

People don't like realism at all, but they don't know that.

People like to experience things that they otherwise wouldn't.

It needs to be emersive in a way like movies are, and does not require the strict realism that some would advocate.

[Retributar]

Is that like for example drinking 'Fake/Imitation Beer'...'so-like' i can fantasize that im having a supposed Beer anyway,...even though im really not???.

So that i can then pretend to enjoy the 'Beer' experience without risking becoming an 'Alcoholic'!???.

...??? "Great Flying Leaping Lizard's"...what a bunch of Horse-Puckies. If i want a non-realism game...then i'll play 'Mario-Brothers'!!!...or something!.

[n0kn0k]

You're missing the point

They are just saying that not all aspects of realism will make a good and profitable game.

So adding to much of it will make a tedious and boring game.

It's all pretty vague though, Game Design Theory, since the industry is still in it's infancy

[Retributar]

True n0kn0k ...to a degree what you say is true!,...too-much detail/realism can make the game a nightmare!. However, whatever is done [Regard's Realism/Detail/Micromanaging] it should done so as to not detract from being able to easily play the game!. YET!!!...i personally do derive satisfaction from as much 'Realism' and or usefull micromanaging as can be incorporated without 'Oversalting' the meal...as it were!.

[Minty]

Realism in this game would be: germany loses every single time. whatever you do. guess what? awful game! So this is a great game cos it allows a "win" for germany to be the slightly plausible scenario of taking more ground than historically happened so that USA/USSR/UK surrender and say "yeah well national socialism is a persuasive argument after all" so a "win" is to do a little better than history.result is a great game.

[Guest Mike]

Realism is not the same thing as detail, and people who put the 2 in the same bracket really piss me off!! :mad: :mad:

One of the best figure-wargames in the last 40 years has a command and control system that is nothing more than a d6 - you roll it and it gives you 1-6 points that you can spend moving your troops - moves can take from 0-3 points depending on complexity, etc., and the result is a very "realistic" wargame - but the mechanism is blindingly simple.

Germany losing every time is not so much realistic as predictable, however there is somethign to be said for a game where that does happen, and the victory conditions are actually how LONG it takes Germany to lose - eg if it hangs on until late 1946 then it's a substantial Axis victory - if it collapses by mid 1944 it is a major allied victory, etc.

However that would obviously take a particular type of person to be able to play Germany!!

Realism in terms of wargames is NOT the same as blindly having history repeat itself - it never has been - if it did it wouldn't be a game, it would be a documentary!

Realism in games means that decisions and actions you make in game have "realistic" outcomes. Nothing else.

However there's a lot to this relatively simple statement - "realistic outcomes" require "realistic" starting conditions, and also that only "realistic" decisions can be made.

[pzgndr]

Realism in games means that decisions and actions you make in game have "realistic" outcomes. Nothing else.

Bingo. Going back to what started this thread, BH Liddell Hart's STRATEGY, what point is there playing a "wargame" that casts aside historical context and invalidates Hart's thesis?

When I mentioned "realistic and historically accurate simulations with plausible optional paths to victory," I meant that such game outcomes should be believable. And being games, there should also be a reasonable chance of victory for both sides, however defined, so that both players can enjoy the game. That necessarily means some tradeoffs and compromises with "realism", but when those become implausible and the outcomes unbelievable, then the game becomes nothing more than shallow entertainment.

For some folks that's OK; they're looking for fun. But for many (most?) wargamers looking for a challenging simulation of a historical conflict within reasonable bounds, the game needs to be realistic and plausible. Not perfectly, but enough. And that too is in the eye of the beholder.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Realism in terms of wargames is NOT the same as blindly having history repeat itself - it never has been - if it did it wouldn't be a game, it would be a documentary!

hehe. I've been repeating that for years now. That and the calculator bit.

[Blashy]

Germany losing every time is not so much realistic as predictable, however there is somethign to be said for a game where that does happen, and the victory conditions are actually how LONG it takes Germany to lose - eg if it hangs on until late 1946 then it's a substantial Axis victory - if it collapses by mid 1944 it is a major allied victory, etc.

Yep, this is why I always make a mod with a more historical output of USA MPPs and change the Victory conditions so that Axis "wins" a major if both Germany and Italy are alive or "wins" a minor if either of them are Alive by August 31st 1945.

[targul]

Right on Pzgndr.

It is a game so fun is important but for me it is not fun unless I am competing against real possibilities in WWII.

Fantasy is just not for me. I want the game to stay within the groundwork of the diplomacy, economics and environment of WWII when it strays to far from these I just get bored quickly.

I feel a true victory when most of the history remains but I still am more victorious then was historical.