Breeble's Art of War
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Some definitions would be helpful here.On dispersive ground, therefore, fight not. On facile ground, halt not. On contentious ground, attack not. On open ground, do not try to block the enemy's way. On the ground of intersecting highways, join hands with your allies. On serious ground, gather in plunder. In difficult ground, keep steadily on the march. On hemmed-in ground, resort to stratagem. On desperate ground, fight.
Read the book, not the excerpt from it, and it will all become clear.drachefly wrote:Some definitions would be helpful here.On dispersive ground, therefore, fight not. On facile ground, halt not. On contentious ground, attack not. On open ground, do not try to block the enemy's way. On the ground of intersecting highways, join hands with your allies. On serious ground, gather in plunder. In difficult ground, keep steadily on the march. On hemmed-in ground, resort to stratagem. On desperate ground, fight.

BTW, it can be found online very easily, don't even bother getting it from a library).
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
I've done a bit of work in researching different thinkers in my studies, and I always have tried to apply what Ive learned to the games I played. The problem with applying any of these theories is that Wesnoth doesn't have rules that portray moral. Therefore Sun Tzu's greatest lesson about ching and cheng (ordinary and extraordinary force) which is attacking forces from flanks, ect. doesn't really apply. They can be helpful in larger maps, but its not really that useful. That also rules out people like Liddell Hart and his indirect approach. Also Sun Tzu aimed his analysis at leaders of nations, while Wesnoth really is an operational strategy game.
I think there is some useful discussion about aims in war and the sort. I've also viewed formations and terrain differently.
Because of this, probably the most applicable theorist that comes to mind is Carl von Clausewitz and his magnum opus On War. his description is less centered on moral, and is aimed at the operational level of war. I think in particular his discussion about phases of war is particularly useful for the game.
I think there is some useful discussion about aims in war and the sort. I've also viewed formations and terrain differently.
Because of this, probably the most applicable theorist that comes to mind is Carl von Clausewitz and his magnum opus On War. his description is less centered on moral, and is aimed at the operational level of war. I think in particular his discussion about phases of war is particularly useful for the game.
Last edited by Noy on April 12th, 2005, 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Actually its not as good as other translations out there. I've got the Samuel G. Griffith translation and its very very good, that also explains the translations and historical stories, as well separates out which comments are actually from Tzu or from people from later centuries. Most translations don't do that.stormoog wrote:Well, yes, and because the copyrights have expired ages ago, I got a cheap Penguin paperback copy. No money going anyware, in other words.ebo wrote:Project Gutenberg has a copy of the Art of War that can be read for free.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/132
Furthermore, if you're looking for a good Clausewitz translation, look for the Peter Paret version.
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: April 17th, 2005, 8:57 pm
If you're talking about translation accuracy, I must ask:Noy wrote: Actually its not as good as other translations out there. I've got the Samuel G. Griffith translation and its very very good,
Do you know how to read ancient Chinese?
Also, I'd be curious to know how a translator would separate "authentic Tzu" from material added by other authors, seing as Tzu himself is a somewhat nebulous historical figure (I'm not saying he didn't exist, but some scholars seem to think he may not have).
Not trying to battle you here; I'd just like to understand your sources.
Take that plank out of your eye.
Re: Breeble's Art of War
Not sure why the topic about Art of War is called "Beebles art of war" but anyways I believe it could be brought back to attention after 5 years of sleep.
Basicly there could be a sticky (or a part in the common sense topic) saying "Just read Art of War". This is by far the best strategy advice Ive ever seen after a few hundred strategy guides of different games. After reading it for about 10th time you will probably still find new ways and things to apply.
"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist
only seeks battle after the victory has been won,
whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights
and afterwards looks for victory."
Hope its OK to advertise good things
Basicly there could be a sticky (or a part in the common sense topic) saying "Just read Art of War". This is by far the best strategy advice Ive ever seen after a few hundred strategy guides of different games. After reading it for about 10th time you will probably still find new ways and things to apply.
"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist
only seeks battle after the victory has been won,
whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights
and afterwards looks for victory."
Hope its OK to advertise good things

Lamps and Megarace http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30708