I just noticed on the Massive Assault homepage that they are calling it a "Think-Based Strategy." How long has that been there? I like it! Very appropriate. Massive Assault really does deserve its own genre (or sub-genre) with all the brilliantly unique things found in this game.

I just noticed this as well. I agree that MA is quite simply one of the best designed games I've ever played, it not THE best.

Having said that, I had quite a laugh over the think based strategy phrase. Isn't thought implied when talking about strategy? Without thought, there can be no strategy!

Of course many people's ideas of strategy are kind of brainless nowadays... many real time "strategies" are won more often with a fast clicking finger than a well thought out plan

yeah...

From what I've seen, real time strategies are nothing more than a clickfest and 'strategy' shouldn't be used to describe them. This is why I stopped playing them after AOE, which I didn't play for long.

I go to sleep at night thinking about this stinking game. It's robbing me of critical rest, so where is the complaint department?

btw... I've read several of your posts Maelstrom, and they are usually very coherent.

I wouldn't mind the opportunity to play some time. Although be warned, I'm still pretty much a n00b, but now with the tournament I've got a few games under my belt.

Hey, I just had a thought(doesn't happen often). Can the public download and watch current tournament replays? Of games in progress?

about definition of strategy...this is difficult problem because in our time the unlucky word strategy became heavily abused by dumb people who do not understand it's meaning.So they actually call the "strategy" any king of activity connected with _planning_ just anything.Probably they think that strategy is a cool intellectual word for making a plan.
So they call ""marketing strategy" "development strategy" "business strategy"
and so on.In same time they do not understand difference between strategy and tactics.
So speaking of so called RTS they should probably be named RTT because there isn't any strategy but just some tactics (very primitive though).But okay...probably they thought - it's about commander in a war so it's strategy.But then there appeared another crazy genre of "Tycoons" and they also began calling it strategy (though it is actually about marketing and management but no war).
So what can be done about this.. nothing actually...but you can see now that there IS reason to introduce a term "think-based strategy" just to make difference between the
"true strategy" (TBS-wargames) and "so-called strategies" (RTS and tycoons)

We've introduced it as well as changed "Overview" page on Jan 29th. We hope it will help our potential players to understand better what is Massive Assault.

Hmmm, my friends are winning mostly with the UNDO-button...is it a better "strategy" ??

hi,

to learn a little about the differences of it maybe...



Iґve understood your words either completely wrong maybe, but here is a right definition of those terms...

in German:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategie

Der Begriff der Strategie stammt aus dem Griechischen und bedeutet Heerfьhrung. Ein Stratege war im antiken Griechenland ein gewдhlter Heerfьhrer (stratos = Heer, agein = fьhren). Strategie meint soviel wie ein zielorientiertes Vorgehen, einen langfristigen Plan, im Gegensatz zur kurzfristigen Taktik als Teil einer Strategie.

Carl von Clausewitz schreibt ьber den Unterschied von Strategie und Taktik: "Die Taktik ist die Lehre vom Gebrauch der Streitkrдfte im Gefecht, die Strategie die Lehre vom Gebrauch der Gefechte zum Zweck des Krieges."

Strategie wird jedoch nicht nur in der Kriegsfьhrung benцtigt, auch in Spielen ist Strategie gefragt: die bekanntesten Strategiespiele sind Schach und in der asiatischen Welt Go. Mit dem Aufkommen von Computerspielen entwickelten sich auch dort Spiele zur Strategie, in denen nur genau geplantes Vorgehen zum Erfolg fьhrt. Computer-Strategiespiele sind zum Beispiel: Warcraft, ...

Die Strategie in der Unternehmensfьhrung zeigt auf, wie (auf welche Art) ein mittelfristiges (ca. 2 - 4 Jahre) oder langfristiges (ca. 4 - 8 Jahre) Unternehmensziel erreicht werden kann. Die Unternehmensstrategie wird von der Vision und dem Leitbild abgeleitet und kann in Teilstrategien unterteilt werden. Daraus weiter abgeleitete Jahresziele finden die Umsetzung der Strategie zum Beispiel im Jahresbudget.

Der Strategie geht ein eigentьmliches Rationalitдtsverstдndnis voraus, das versucht einen Ьberblick (Wissen, Objekte) und Weitsicht (Zeit) zu gewinnen. Ein fьr die Moderne typischer Strategiebegriff korrespondiert demnach mit einem Panoptismus, der die Mцglichkeit vorsieht, den Raum und Zeit kalkulierbar zu machen und die sich im Raum befindenden Objekte zu beherrschen.

In der Postmoderne wird dieses Raumverstдndnis fьr gescheitert erklдrt. Es gibt nicht den einen Raum, der kalkulierbar wдre. Damit einher geht die Vorstellung einer reflexiven Strategie, die sich selbst kontingent setzt, indem Sie z. B. die Unterscheidungen mit der sie operiert wechselt. Damit wird der Raum zu einem Vexierbild. Nach dem Linguistic Turn wird Strategie somit nicht mehr mit Ьberblick zu ьbersetzen sein, sondern mit Durchblick, das die Beherrschung des Raums aufgegeben hat, sondern die Welt als Labyrinth versteht, indem es nun gilt, eine adдquate Weise der Bewegung zu finden.

in english (in a correct way, iґm hoping ) :

The term of the strategy originates from the Greek one and means army guidance . A strategist was in the antiken Greece a selected army leader ( stratos = army, agein = lead). Strategy means as much as an goal-oriented procedure, a long-term plan , in contrast to short term tactics as part of a strategy.

Carl von Clausewitz writes over the difference of strategy and tactics: "tactics is the science of the use of the armed forces in combat, the strategy the science of the use of the engagements for the purpose of the war."

Strategy however only in the war guidance not needed, also in plays is strategy in demand: the most well-known strategy plays are chess and in the asiatic world Go . With the arising of computer games plays developed also there to the strategy, in which only exactly planned procedure leads to success. Computer strategy plays are for example: Warcraft ...

The strategy in the management points out, how (in which kind) a medium-term (approx. 2 - 4 years) or long-term (approx. 4 - 8 years) company target to be reached can. The enterprise strategy is derived from the vision and the example and can be divided into partial strategies. From this jahresziele derived further find the conversion of the strategy for example in the annual budget.

The strategy its own Rationalitaetsverstaendnis precedes, tries an overview (knowledge, objects) and distance vision (time) to win. A strategy term typical for the modern trend therefore corresponds with a Panoptismus , which plans the possibility of making the space and time calculable and of controlling the objects which are in the area.

In the postmodernism this space understanding for failed is explained. There is not the one area, which would be calculable. So that goes the conception of a reflexiven strategy, which sits down to contingent, by you e.g. changing the distinctions with that operated. Thus the area becomes a Vexierbild. To the Linguistic turn will be to translate strategy thus no more with overview, but with look through , which gave the control up of the area, but the world as labyrinth understands, by applying now to find an adequate way of the movement.


But long time ago iґd told, i think...

iґve translated this text with google, it was too heavy for my poor english...

any mistakes in it are not mine at this time

that's odd..first this Ipu appeared on this forum yelling like mad something "this game suxx!! this is not a real strategy game!! playing this is a waste of time!!"
and now he cames back and posts here something about strategy.I wonder if he hates this game so much why would he even bother himself visiting this forum.And btw why does he think that after all noncence what he already wrote here we even will bother ourself reading his posts.

Iґd explained my sight in a wrong way, some are unable to understand it or just donґt want understanding...maybe...donґt matter now i think.

In fact iґd just told about missing features and "bugs" of the game as an strategy game, what you had understood is another kind, maybe. Iґd never told that н hates the game, that is again one of these things why iґm really read your postings just with a smile...

And at least, youґve read it, and maybe (if the english of google is correct) it shows to you, how strategy is defined...and not how you want to define strategy in future.

an example: the "heґs a stupid one"-scream from some here about the weapon-reachings not shown in MA told it to me, the red circles are good for tactic, but for a strategic Plan youґve to see reachings BEFORE you want to move...excepting there is a "go back"-button

Thats all to say, i think...

so you want the game to show you what units you can teoretically attack this turn before you decide where to move?what for? such a feature in TBS would be very unusual and rare.There was not such feature in BI 1-3 or PG 1-3.Such a feature would be very difficult to implement and...what for? i can think what i will do without it.I dont think anybody else exempt you Ipu feels such a feature nessessary.And btw- if you wanted such a feature you should had it explained.But you just said "reach of weapons not shown" - how is anybody supposed to understand this?if you write it in such way which nobody can understand thats your fault not ours.
About definition of strategy - text which you quoted is a good example of how you should NOT define anything - making such a broad generalisations so the term itself becames meaningless..The one who wrote is just another example of dumbhead who cant see difference between "strategy" and "planning" in general.I can criticize it more throughly but feel lazy atm..

Why did this thread suddenly become an argument about some posts made a hundred years ago or so?

It's a continuation of an argument started a hundred years ago

2 Kolorabi - you see two months ago Ipu made quite a crazy statement and i pointed him to the fact .He not answered me then he was thinking hardly to find himself an excuse and now he found it and came back.

Mrakobes...for you the world is a disc...?
You donґt want to talk about any features or giving helps, just tell your sight of things as wrong as they are maybe, ehh?
If you had looked "hardly" to find a definitition of those terms youґre using allready, you had understood a little bit more, maybe...

If you have read this thread you have discerned that the subject is strategy and itґs definition, not about you or me or your bickering against me...
What is your personal problem with the hint for this subject iґve given?
You donґt have to love me, but please do not only tell untruths about me...thatґs without any level...

If you donґt understand anythink or just owns a question about my posts, please, just ask...iґve looked after a long time in this forum again and thought that i could offer a new sight, but if something like this is unwished iґll never do again so that you could search another foe to bugger...

It looks like the discussion on this thread is getting more and more personal. Actually, thanks a lot guys for your opinions about new definition for Massive Assault!

a more words about definition of stategy. (this my post is going to be mile-long so just dont read it if you lazy )
Modern military science (at least the former-USSR military science but as far as i know western counterparts share the close views ) The strategy is part of military science which studies the problems of planning the country efforts in a war and controlling the whole Armed Forces or significant parts of them.The operation can be called strategical when it's results affect the outcome of all war.Military science can be separated into 3 levels of warfare - tactical level the operational level then strategy.
Tactical level is about controlling small units in combat.Tactics is commanding platoons,companies,battalions,regiments.Operational level is exactly about medium-scale operations and controlling formations like brigade,division,corps,or army.And then strategy is about controlling large-scale operations on a whole front in which participate several armies or groups of armies (fronts) or a whole armed forces.
Examples of strategical-level battles in WW2 - execution of Plan Barbarossa -1941,battle for Stalingrad 1942,battle at Kursk 1943, D-Day (invasion of Allied forces to Europe).
The strategy is a pure military term and using it to describe any kind of civilian activity (such as building plans etc) is a noncence.Uneducated people use it without understanding the meaning of strategy - only because they think that "a strategic plan" sounds more important than just a "plan" though they cannot explain why their plans about what to build next deserve the name of "strategy"

Now let's look at what Ipu quotes to us....
First there are two definitions from ancient Greece and from Carl von Clausewitz.Both of them are strictly about the military meaning of strategy.Both are okay for their time but you see they are a bit outdated..
At times of Clausewitz all strategy was about gathering majority of present armed force in one large army and fate of war was decided by one clash of such armies.In World Wars of 20 century nation armed forces consisted of dozens of armies (each of the size of typical 18-19 century army.)Speaking simply in Clauzewitz's times strategy is about two armies of 100 000 men each fighting in one place but in WW 2 strategy is about like 50 of such armies fighting all around world globe.

But next we read in Ipu's post:


that's an example of what i was arquing against - usage of word "strategy" to describe just any kind plan.Fun part is about it being "goal-oriented procedure" LOL isn't any plan supposed to be goal oriented? if plan is NOT goal-oriented that's not a plan but some crazy ravings.Then it says that strategy in "long-term plan"...hmm..what is long term? Are all strategic plans long-term? Strategic plan Barbarossa (in which like 5 million man participated) was designed to be completed withing 3 months.German invasion to Poland was completed within 3 weeks but who says it was not a strategic plan...

So the autor of the text made a veeeeery broad generalisation but he failed to write anything meaningful about how the "strategic plan" differs from any other "plan".

After that we read there a lot of other fun things - like warcraft being an example of strategy (probably that autor not heard about such games as Panzer General - 1 or Heart of Iron).But i am not about commenting it all.