> And yet we're supposed to believe that "hey, strategic and tactical movement is pretty great" is a new idea?
Well, no -- I don't think that point was really argued anywhere in the article. The tactics of movement are perhaps only recently being formalized, but I think most students of history would agree that all modern military strategy has historical precedent ... assuming that you generalize the tactic broadly enough.
> Frankly, most of the time, size and power win the day.
Hmm. There are two ways I can see to parse this: one is historical -- "most of the time, size and power have won the day" -- and the other is theoretical -- "most of the time, size and power will win the day". I would readily agree with the first, but I'm circumspect about the latter.
I avoid computer games because they're a time sink that I can't afford, but I did get introduced to Sins of a Solar Empire a while back, and I still set aside a little time for it now and again. It is a game that depends very strongly on relative sizes to determine victories. But, my favorite race is militarily also the weakest one. I have the most fun trying to break the game, coming up with less obvious tactics and strategy.
I think there are enough exceptions to the rule of the mightiest throughout history that it's somewhat self-defeating to assume that force size will decide a battle.
> Oracle is still here. Microsoft is still here. Yahoo is still here.
Although there are some parallels, business is different from war. We shouldn't use businesses to make points about military strategies.
> The reason Card writes about weakness combined with movement and agility and brilliant insight is the same reason we are all fascinated with startups---because they're all counterintuitive (read: loses most of the time) and therefore fun to watch.
Well, sure. That doesn't mean that it can't also be a good example of a subject.
> Try fancy-schmancy maneuvers in the no-man's land of WW1 and you're done.
I would counter-argue that WWI in particular was such a messy, horrible, ugly disaster particularly because of the use of non-fancy maneuvers combined with new technology. Trench and chemical warfare was direct force-on-force conflict, and because planes were relatively new inventions, they were de-emphasized despite being exactly what each side needed to win the war.
> I would counter-argue that WWI in particular was such a messy, horrible, ugly disaster particularly because of the use of non-fancy maneuvers combined with new technology.
Most of the military histories of that war I've read don't so much blame the tactics, but technological limitations. Radios were still too large and power-hungry to be practical anywhere but at sea, last-mile telephone cables tended to get cut by artillery as soon as battle started, and optical signalling (e.g. flags) were difficult to make out near the front, leaving commanders basically with runners and carrier pigeons as soon as battle started.
When a local engagement can be won and lost in half an hour to an hour, but the communications RTT is 2-3 hours, maneuver warfare gets impractical (as do a lot of other things, like long range artillery against anything other than fortifications).
> When a local engagement can be won and lost in half an hour to an hour, but the communications RTT is 2-3 hours, maneuver warfare gets impractical (as do a lot of other things, like long range artillery against anything other than fortifications).
Which invalidates the entire GP's reasoning about 'size and power always winning the day'. You can't really compare warfare modes before and after portable radios; feedback loops are different.
Absolutely - although note that, at certain historical time periods, the command and control situation was closer to the current one than the WWI situation. The early 20th century was just a period when weapons ranges and (off-battlefield) transportation speeds had gone up immensely, increasing the effective size of a battlefield from practical shouting/runner range, while battlefield communication still hadn't caught up. On the other hand, there are clear examples of maneuver warfare in ancient times, involving tiny (by modern standards) amounts of space and force.
Well, no -- I don't think that point was really argued anywhere in the article. The tactics of movement are perhaps only recently being formalized, but I think most students of history would agree that all modern military strategy has historical precedent ... assuming that you generalize the tactic broadly enough.
> Frankly, most of the time, size and power win the day.
Hmm. There are two ways I can see to parse this: one is historical -- "most of the time, size and power have won the day" -- and the other is theoretical -- "most of the time, size and power will win the day". I would readily agree with the first, but I'm circumspect about the latter.
I avoid computer games because they're a time sink that I can't afford, but I did get introduced to Sins of a Solar Empire a while back, and I still set aside a little time for it now and again. It is a game that depends very strongly on relative sizes to determine victories. But, my favorite race is militarily also the weakest one. I have the most fun trying to break the game, coming up with less obvious tactics and strategy.
I think there are enough exceptions to the rule of the mightiest throughout history that it's somewhat self-defeating to assume that force size will decide a battle.
> Oracle is still here. Microsoft is still here. Yahoo is still here.
Although there are some parallels, business is different from war. We shouldn't use businesses to make points about military strategies.
> The reason Card writes about weakness combined with movement and agility and brilliant insight is the same reason we are all fascinated with startups---because they're all counterintuitive (read: loses most of the time) and therefore fun to watch.
Well, sure. That doesn't mean that it can't also be a good example of a subject.
> Try fancy-schmancy maneuvers in the no-man's land of WW1 and you're done.
I would counter-argue that WWI in particular was such a messy, horrible, ugly disaster particularly because of the use of non-fancy maneuvers combined with new technology. Trench and chemical warfare was direct force-on-force conflict, and because planes were relatively new inventions, they were de-emphasized despite being exactly what each side needed to win the war.