![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Zerg Rush
The game is memetic warfare. The opponent has built a spawning pool (a PR industry) and is producing many zerglings (ideas with no real merit: one-hit monsters) in great quantity. The player has developed their tech tree (science) and has used it to build strong troops (verified, rational ideas).
Given enough time, the strong troopers will win (tobacco/cancer, CFCs/ozone, etc etc). Is the zerg-rush model useful in suggesting tactics to use to speed up their victory?
Given enough time, the strong troopers will win (tobacco/cancer, CFCs/ozone, etc etc). Is the zerg-rush model useful in suggesting tactics to use to speed up their victory?
no subject
I think this means that the zerg rush has already failed. The point of rushing is to deny the opponent the time to develop its tech tree, isn't it?
"Is the zerg-rush model useful in suggesting tactics to use to speed up their victory?"
Who does "their" refer to here? The player with the developed tech tree shouldn't be spending time on "ideas with no real merit" because it detracts from their scientific approach in terms of 'actions per minute' and reputation.
no subject
no subject
no subject
If you, as the teching, defending player are at the start, I believe you have to do something to defend against the rush.
If you're past the tipping point in your tech advance, then you've won anyway so you can ignore the zerg.
However, bear in mind that *pure* zerg rush is an all-or-nothing tactic - if as the zerging player you don't destroy the opponent's setup right at the start, you've wasted so much development time that you are almost guaranteed to lose.
no subject
However:
Such a model depends on cheap production of zergs (attack units can be manufactured and distributed cheapily - ie mass media etc.) Often achieved by bulk/size of operation advantages and disposability (who cares if it's wrong, next week will have a neww idea anyway, if fact its a feature, built in design time obsolesence)
Yet:
Turtling technologies require a reduction in operating cost over time. StarCraft etc one replaces existing trees/troops. In a system in which new technicians must be trained and housed, with rising expectations of living standards then we end up with an urban sprawl effect, where progress starts to break up into pockets of rich resources. Thus an overall strategy is required to direct progress into key areas.
And the biggest problem:
The model represents a 2-body system which is moderately predictable/tractable.
The real world behaviour has multiple bodies of self interest, and by its nature is non-tractable *in application*
(thus the point of final analysis as Andy's graph, at the end of the day the question is our the predictions mostly accurate Yes|No <- ie just two states.)
no subject
"Turtling technologies require a reduction in operating cost over time. StarCraft etc one replaces existing trees/troops."
Starcraft tech tree is fairly shallow and generally you don't replace your existing units, you use them. You might be working on making other, better units at the time, but even when they come along you still hang on to the earlier ones if possible because they can give you tactical options.
no subject
It can be used for a strategic strike (eg against a comms center) but is not a commando/specialist raid (eg a bridge). Often used as a hit'n'run or to gage strength/readiness of an opponent. It is also used tactically as a distraction or nuisance, as it should be strong enough to do damage, yet not use up attackers strength or resources significantly. In teams sports it's where a fast moving player will operate to draw 2 or 3 of opposing team off their best strategic position. The aim is to make the opponent play your game, on your terms.
In a very limited game like Starcraft, it stops a turtling player having total freedom. Thus they have to provide some defence rather than reaping the benefits of full reinvestment of capital production in infrastructure/revenue gathering. So a turtle might manage a 500% return of investments by T(10mins), by drawing off 10% by attacking that ASAP, the reduction in the result may be 20-40% of that 500% total, due to the compounding effect of full reinvestment in revenue/infrastructure.
So in your starcraft you keep churning out the first troops and second gen vehicles, even when you have the top of line turrets and most effective equipment? Although possibly the game designers have artifically balanced the playing field for that effect. Such balancing doesn't happen in the real world as such actions are never equal on all players (thus just introduces another player, albeit at the enviromental level)
no subject
IRL, that's not such a popular option. Disposal is quite a large expense (and getting larger as human rights and environment initatives gain popularity). And any enterprise computer tech will tell you what its like with increasing numbers of older equipment (with increasing difficulties of keeping it hooked together)
no subject
no subject
no subject