"The conduct of War is, therefore, the formation and conduct of the fighting. If this fighting was a single act, there would be no necessity for any further subdivision, but the fight is composed of a greater or less number of single acts, complete in themselves, which we call combats, as we have shown in the first chapter of the first book, and which form new units. From this arises the totally different activities, that of the FORMATION and CONDUCT of these single combats in themselves, and the COMBINATION of them with one another, with a view to the ultimate object of the War. The first is called TACTICS, the other STRATEGY... therefore, tactics is the theory of the use of military forces in combat. Strategy is the thoery of the use of combats for the object of the war."
- Karl Von Clausewitz "On War"
Book II. On the Theory of War
I speculate that the real argument is one every gamer has at heart... the balance of complexity versus the "fun" factor. As it has been said before, there are certain types of games that appeal to a wider degree of people. This idea pervades even the cerebrum candy, "RTS" games present in the current day. It can be seen by the obvious schism between turn-based historical "strategy" games and the "tactical" real-time or "RTS" style games. Naturally both style of gameplay involve varying levels of complexity, but it could be argued that based on the definition proposed by Karl Von Clausewitz that what we really have here is the misnomer of "RTS" upon the "tactical" real-time game. I will venture further by saying that turn-based games can best fit the analogy of "strategic" war games. They can incorporate all of the components classically thought of in the planning and directing of a military campaign including logistics, intelligence, and strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
"The conduct of War is, therefore, the formation and conduct of the fighting. If this fighting was a single act, there would be no necessity for any further subdivision, but the fight is composed of a greater or less number of single acts, complete in themselves, which we call combats, as we have shown in the first chapter of the first book, and which form new units. From this arises the totally different activities, that of the FORMATION and CONDUCT of these single combats in themselves, and the COMBINATION of them with one another, with a view to the ultimate object of the War. The first is called TACTICS, the other STRATEGY ... therefore, tactics is the theory of the use of military forces in combat. Strategy is the thoery of the use of combats for the object of the war."
- Karl Von Clausewitz "On War"
Book II. On the Theory of War
I speculate that the real argument is one every gamer has at heart... the balance of complexity versus the "fun" factor. As it has been said before, there are certain types of games that appeal to a wider degree of people. This idea pervades even the cerebrum candy, "RTS" games present in the current day. It can be seen by the obvious schism between turn-based historical "strategy" games and the "tactical" real-time or "RTS" style games. Naturally both style of gameplay involve varying levels of complexity, but it could be argued that based on the definition proposed by Karl Von Clausewitz that what we really have here is the misnomer of "RTS" upon the "tactical" real-time game. I will venture further by saying that turn-based games can best fit the analogy of "strategic" war games. They can incorporate all of the components classically thought of in the planning and directing of a military campaign including logistics, intelligence, and strategy.