Combatants 10 Times Stronger Win Only 70% of the Time...

[Rman Virgil]

.

Ivan Arreguin-Toft's strategic interaction theory of Asymmetric Warfare is presented in it's fullest scope in his book "How the Weak Win Wars". If you can't get your hands on the book there is his summary paper available as a free .PDF from Stanford University:

http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci21 ... 202001.pdf

What Ivan did in a nutshell was analyze wars over a 200 year span (1800-1998) and what he discovered is summarized in the title of this topic thread: Combatants that were 10 Times Stronger were Winning Only 70% of the Time...

He proceeded to investigate the whys and wherefores of the 30% losses and thus the title of his work - "How the Weak Win Wars".

Here, let me provide a synopsis:

The essence of the strategic interaction thesis maintains that “same approach interactions (indirect-indirect or direct-direct) imply defeat for weak actors because there is nothing to mediate or deflect a strong actor’s power advantage”. On the other hand, “opposite-approach interactions (direct-indirect or indirect-direct) imply victory for weak actors because the weak refuse to engage where the strong actor has a power advantage."

Interestingly, the WZ Campaign's GPMs made use of this phenomenon, that is operating from a weaker position, some years before Ivan's work was published. I contend that this mechanism is in effect central to the campaign remaining compelling and fresh some 14 years after it's retail release.

How satisfying is it to prevail over superior force strength? Very.

As satisfying in the context of a game as it is in RL. (Another quick example from a different strategy game would be the Queen's Gambit prevailing in master-level play.)

So.... this experience exists in Campaign and is readily created in SP SKI mode vs bots.

Does it exist MP? No.

Is it worth creating such a possible experience in MP mode? I believe yes.

How?

Well for many years I have thought the answer would be in the continued development of Commander mechanics. What experimental work has been possible over those years has not dissuaded me of the viability of that premise. However this line is at an impasse because of a lack of data from competitive MP play-testing for progressive Commander modification refinements. My purpose here is not to rehash any of this particular line of development. If your interested in where that's been left at, you can check-out this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9119&p=102362#p102362

That said, my purpose in this thread is to explore other possible avenues of development to achieve this end (other than Commander modification-development solutions) that I may be blind to because, like all human beings, I too am hard-wired for what is known in the Cognitive Sciences as Confirmation Bias. (SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias )

So I put forth for discussion - are there any other avenues to pursue to create the possibility of prevailing from a position of inferior force strength ? (Along the lines of 30% of the time, let's say.) This assumes, of course, a start of game level playing field for all combatants. It also assumes solutions not involving Commander mods.

Let's frame these possibilities as David versus Goliath GPMs.
.

[iap]

Very interesting discussion topic. I will say what I want after I will read some more opinions.

[Giani]

I am not sure if this thread is for discussing about giving weak armies a chance to win with commanders or giving them a chance to win with other way that isn't using commanders; but I have seen some cases when weak armies win, but of course, the army isn't 10 times stronger, just 2-3 times stronger.

[Rman Virgil]

I am not sure if this thread is for discussing about giving weak armies a chance to win with commanders or giving them a chance to win with other way that isn't using commanders; but I have seen some cases when weak armies win, but of course, the army isn't 10 times stronger, just 2-3 times stronger.

Without Commanders. With modifications to Commanders I think it can be done. With Commanders in their present state I don't think it all possible in competitive MP.

This topic is about other changes that could make it possible. Possible in competitive MP FFA. Changes that don't involve Commanders.

10 times stronger is RL history. In WZ, defeating an opponent whose army was 2-3 times stronger would be a special accomplishment in competitive MP. Do you recall any details of how it was done?

.

[Giani]

...
10 times stronger is RL history. In WZ, defeating an opponent whose army was 2-3 times stronger would be a special accomplishment in competitive MP. Do you recall any details of how it was done?
.

I only remember one of that situations. It was a little army of 10-16 Mantis-scourge-tracks tanks against an army that was of 40-70 python-tracks-heavy cannons. The big army was a bit separated and slow, so it was very easy for the little army to win. Other thing that helped the little army was the high range of their weapons. It happened in the map DA-firefight.

[stiv]

However this line is at an impasse because of a lack of data from competitive MP play-testing

This is the one thing that that turns all discussion about balance and game mechanics into mere bar-talk and opinion. Without data, it's all talk.

As for Combatants that were 10 Times Stronger were Winning Only 70% of the Time, that sounds like pretty good odds to me. But history is full of examples where numerical superiority was not the deciding factor. Like the Battle of Agincourt, or the Six Days War in the Middle East.

I would argue that WZ is much closer to modern combined arms warfare than any asymmetric conflict. At least until the Scavengers become a force to be reckoned with.

[NoQ]

WZ has quite some room for the weaker to defeat the stronger. Many players, even good ones, seem to underestimate the importance of army positioning and formations (also, high oil games on flat terrain seriously undervalue these concepts).

[Rman Virgil]

.

...
10 times stronger is RL history. In WZ, defeating an opponent whose army was 2-3 times stronger would be a special accomplishment in competitive MP. Do you recall any details of how it was done?

I only remember one of that situations. It was a little army of 10-16 Mantis-scourge-tracks tanks against an army that was of 40-70 python-tracks-heavy cannons. The big army was a bit separated and slow, so it was very easy for the little army to win. Other thing that helped the little army was the high range of their weapons. It happened in the map DA-firefight.

Let me summarize my interpretation.

~ The weaker army out-ranged the stronger.

~ The terrain favored the weaker army such that it could harass the spread-out, un-massed, slower & stronger army with it's greater ranged weapons.

And lastly, a deduction on my part -

~ The weaker army's main center of gravity, it's home base, was not under deadly assault so that the player had the time to focus on this picking-off tactic of the stronger army in a battlefield center of gravity.

===========>

However this line is at an impasse because of a lack of data from competitive MP play-testing

This is the one thing that that turns all discussion about balance and game mechanics into mere bar-talk and opinion. Without data, it's all talk.

Indeed. It can be frustrating if you are into advancing actual work on evolving the game. Sometimes to the point of losing interest.

As for Combatants that were 10 Times Stronger were Winning Only 70% of the Time, that sounds like pretty good odds to me. But history is full of examples where numerical superiority was not the deciding factor. Like the Battle of Agincourt, or the Six Days War in the Middle East.

I would argue that WZ is much closer to modern combined arms warfare than any asymmetric conflict. At least until the Scavengers become a force to be reckoned with.

I agree.

On Scavs role in particular there are 2 directions.

~ One being a result of Map design.

~ Two being a result of a player in total control of their deployment.

=========>

WZ has quite some room for the weaker to defeat the stronger. Many players, even good ones, seem to underestimate the importance of army positioning and formations (also, high oil games on flat terrain seriously undervalue these concepts).

I understand this to reflect the power of a map maker's design to create the conditions which a weaker army can exploit to their advantage over a stronger army.

Which is to say that a map design can create a level playing field to start but still favor a weaker army's maneuver ability over that of a bigger, stronger, army as would look to be the case in Giani's example above? (Along with the caveat on having the time opportunity of being able to shift the center of gravity conflict from the Main Base to the field or in theater.)
.

[Rman Virgil]

.

In my previous responses I mentioned Center of Gravity (aka CoG) several times. It was my short-hand for a critical concept in RL warfare that very much applies in this discussion. In fact, CoG is embedded in WZ's fundamental design in the form of the Main Base.

I think it's important to this discussion going forward to be grounded clearly about CoG. I say this because it appears at this early stage of discussion that in order for a weaker army to prevail over a stronger one, any means that would facilitate shifting the conflict from the Main Base CoG to a battlefield CoG will promote triumph by way of asymmetric engagement tactics. This is not to minimize the value of the map design component but rather to say there is a tandem dynamic that comes into play as a prerequisite condition to exploit.

Here are a couple of quick ref's that define the concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_ ... (military)

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... .cfm?q=363

.

[Per]

If you manage your units on a choke-point, so that all your units are firing, while only a few units of the enemy are firing, at the same time, then you can indeed win over overwhelming odds. Especially if you have repair units thrown in for good measure.

You can also run around the main army of the enemy to hit undefended, vital structures.

Then you can build some counters to what the opponent is building - cyborgs vs rockets, or VTOLs, for the two best (and perhaps only real) examples.

However, I think this is pretty much the only things you can do. If you compare to a game like Starcraft 2 (why not, it is the most popular RTS out there), then it has far more both strategic and tactical depth than this game.

Just to mention one thing I noticed recently - since units in Warzone are so slow to turn, it is much harder to retreat a losing force, and come back to fight another day (pulling in reinforcements on the way back, and hiding behind static defenses). This means that more often, whoever wins the first big fight, eventually wins the game.

It is the focus on allowing skill and tactical decision to make a big difference, and meticulous attention to detail, that has made Starcraft 2 such an exciting game to not only play, but also to watch. We have much to learn.

[iap]

I would like to ask the experienced players if they remember a game where a good strategy have won a great power?

NoQ and Ilunavar always say that the best strategy is to take the most oil in less then 30 seconds, then you will almost sure to win, and this is exactly the opposite then the situation discussed.
I even remember some threads saying how it is important to oil rush without thinking, and how the game outcome will be determined on how fast you do exactly the right moves and build exactly the right buildings in the game's early stages.

To solve this there must be a game mechanics that does not relay only on oil amount. I guess there are some answers in NRS or NTW but I never tried them.

[NoQ]

Just to mention one thing I noticed recently - since units in Warzone are so slow to turn, it is much harder to retreat a losing force, and come back to fight another day (pulling in reinforcements on the way back, and hiding behind static defenses). This means that more often, whoever wins the first big fight, eventually wins the game.

Correct micromanagement on retreat is hard to master, but it is possible. It depends on range and speed and terrain. The main idea is that you shouldn't actually run backwards like dumb (then your losses will be horrible), but rather continue fighting, just slowly moving backwards in average (probably at much lesser speed than that of your units; but in this case your and enemy losses will be more or less equal or at least comparable, so it's not really bad) and looking for a reason for your opponent not follow you. I need to talk more about it some day.

the best strategy is to take the most oil in less then 30 seconds

No, that's not true. If you do that, you can loose the game while the opponent digs no oil at all, just merely spending his initial money on mg viper wheels. Starting the game by capturing oils instead of by building a factory or a lab is one of the most stupid starts possible.

[Giani]

I only remember one of that situations. It was a little army of 10-16 Mantis-scourge-tracks tanks against an army that was of 40-70 python-tracks-heavy cannons. The big army was a bit separated and slow, so it was very easy for the little army to win. Other thing that helped the little army was the high range of their weapons. It happened in the map DA-firefight.

If you manage your units on a choke-point, so that all your units are firing, while only a few units of the enemy are firing, at the same time, then you can indeed win over overwhelming odds.

That is what happened. Their units didn't have long range weapons and the army was separeted because it was slow and not all the units had reached the place where the little army was.

And lastly, a deduction on my part -

~ The weaker army's main center of gravity, it's home base, was not under deadly assault so that the player had the time to focus on this picking-off tactic of the stronger army in a battlefield center of gravity.

The weak army was in front of his base and it didn't need much time to focus on the tactic. It was the enemy that made himself lose the battle. The player of the weak army micromanaged so that the units shoot from far and don't get close and that stuff.

[Iluvalar]

Yeah, I've been stressing that as well as "everyone who is the first to CONTROL the oil". And I use that as a special bad argument against map that give too much oil at some key-points.

I don't agree with per about "cyborgs vs rockets" since as we talk, the rocket players have a free upgraded arty weapon that appear from nowhere when they research for anti-tank. "cyborgs vs cannon" is better.

The NRS mod solve most of what per talk about, I might come later to talk about these solutions...

[Rman Virgil]

.

Looks to me that at this time the 30% weaker army win opportunity can only be advanced through several specific map-making designs combined into one map of which creating the terrain conditions for The Battle of Thermopylae tactic (480 B.C., aka, "The 300") is but only one of those conditions. A couple of the other conditions would involve Scavengers and introducing at the start of game a secondary CoG that is readily defensible as a natural citadel with a finite, but not insignificant, resource cache. Done several years ago now but like Commander modifications mentioned at the beginning here, at an impasse due to a lack of competitive MP play testing data to refine the new set of start of game variables introduced to achieve the 30% goal. It's like deja-vu all over again.

.