In any strategy, everything revolves around Defence (my opinion).

Fredsnephew

Strategy is strategy, a game is a game and everything is everything. 
 

I would assert, that it is entirely logical to suggest that a game based solely on defence could not be won.

To win, there has to be an attack element built into a gaming strategy.

someone234

Fredsnephew said:

Strategy is strategy, a game is a game and everything is everything. 
 

I agree to this and this in no way whatsoever disproves the proposed stance I take.

Fredsnephew said:

I would assert, that it is entirely logical to suggest that a game based solely on defence could not be won.

Correct. Pure-skill games and wars end up in draws when two experts at the game face each other. Examples include Chess, Checkers (it ends up with each player having one 'king' each endlessly avoiding the other one) and basically any fighting sport where the fighters are allowed to agree to retreat. What I mean is that if you force a loss by making them have to fight to the death or with a judge panel where even with the same quality of landed hits, one boxer beats the other, then the fighting match won't be non-losable but if you have it so that it's a spar where if both fear the other's defence too much to engage them they can retreat, that is a pure-skill conflict.

Another example is a math or science exam. The 'bell-curve' grading won't work if everyone studied to the fullest extent and understood how to defend against the factors like time, mental strain and complexity of the question as well as defend against 'lazy markers' by wording their answers in such obvious ways that any marker can comprehend their meaning in longer answers then all students would get 100% (this is for science and math subjects only).

someone234

Fredsnephew said:

To win, there has to be an attack element built into a gaming strategy.

To win, there has to be an element of the game that forces luck to triumph skill.

For some games like debating, this is the judging panel whereby a winner HAS TO BE CHOSEN in the end no matter what even if the voter feels they totally defended their sides equally.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

The idea that 'good offence' or 'good attack strategy' is relevant to a game implies something that I believe to not even be possible.

Please come along and try to prove me wrong.

Hungry Hungry Hippos

agsr

In chess, often we say that best defense is offense.  I don't think that in strategy games we can definitely say that defense is more important than offense.  

Pogue

I would like to add a historical part to this. IN WW2, Nazi Germany used something called blitzkrieg. This is German for lighting war. These were deep fast attacks on the enemy (offense). These were really successful in taking out Poland, Belguim, the Netherlands, and France. Also, the Mongols were so feared because they could conquer really fast, that some civilizations surrendered before the Mongols even came.

A game involving offense is Risk. Defense is important, but to win you need offense so you conquer the opponent. 

someone234

@agsr you are quoting sun tzu and in chess all moves are defensive. The best chess players try to take as few pieces as possible and aim to punish the taking of their own pieces much more than to take the opponents' pieces.

someone234

@Pogue if your defence is so predictable and easy to exploit that the enemy can hurt you while you can't exploit their defense just as harshly back, then offense can work. This is because of defence.

someone234

By defense I win. Gg

Pogue

someone234 said:

@Pogue if your defence is so predictable and easy to exploit that the enemy can hurt you while you can't exploit their defense just as harshly back, then offense can work. This is because of defence.

You need an offense to win. The defense will not always last. In the NFL " A great defense doesn't guarantee anything in the NFL playoffs". https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2016/01/04/defense-doesnt-win-championships-in-the-nfl-anymore/?utm_term=.c8f9aeea1f50. ;
You need to be good at both. 

someone234

@Pogue You need offence in games where a win becomes forced. This is because if you have no offence you can't defend against their offence.

What I mean is, if a good striker scores vs you, the only way to defend against that is to score against them and even it out. If your defence is not impenetrable then you defend by making it so that you exploit their defence as often as they do yours.

Pogue

@someone234
But defense is always penetrable. It will not always last. In a war, the defense will not win. "The best defense is a good offense". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offense
Some defenses help set up an offense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts

someone234

@Pogue In all scenarios where the defence can be force-penetrated against the will of the defender, the way to defend becomes to have sufficient offence to even out the harm (even it out only). The way a 'win' happens is if the enemy has in any shape or form invested less into their defence, then they leave more for you to exploit over and over again.

someone234

@Pogue Sun Tzu was incorrect in stating that the best defence is a good offence, I don't care about this famous cliche.

Fascism

Defense is the action of resisting an attack. If you attack first and penetrate the opponent's defense first, then you don't need defense. 

In chess, gambits are a type of strategy players use in which they give up material in favor of attacking lines. In some these gambits, this strategy is taken to the extreme. The player doing the gambit lets the opponent freely attack his pieces offering little resistance. However, he gains important attacking opportunities which usually end up making him win. 

This is a great example of one these types of gambits: 

Center Game Accepted: Danish Gambit, 3...dxc3 4.Bc4 5.cxb2 6.Bxb2



In this variation, white does not try to put up a fight at the beginning and sacrifices two pawns. Only after then does it start attacking, but after it starts attacking, there isn't much need for a defense. There will be constant checkmate and forced checkmate threats that black has to address and he won't be able to set up attacks effectively. 

someone234

@Fascism So, if black had played for perfect defence and not taken the bait, they'd have inevitably beaten white who gave up perfect strategy in the hopes they can bait black to be non-defensive in their actions.

Since both faltered from perfect chess strategy (yes that exists, as in a perfect playstyle) but white intentionally did so whereas black seemed to go with the flow and not think ahead, white ended up with the better defence in the aftermath.

Gooberry

Mutually assured destruction is an example of a Military strategy that does not revolve around defence, or really incorporate much defence at all.

In addition:

- The best strategy Hungry Hungry Hippos does not revolve around defence.

someone234

@Gooberry in Hungry Hungry Hippos, the act of eating first DEFENDS against others. Hesitation is not defence in a game where first to react is assured victory. In fact, HHH is designed such that any offensive move is rendered futile. You cannot in any shape or form stop another going from the process of grabbing the ball to losing the ball unless multiple do it at once and even then the defender will retain most.

You are correct that in HHH, Sun Tzu's ethos applies but in most situations it does not.

Mutually Assured Destruction is EXACTLY an example of where everyone is playing optimally and is happily sitting back and relaxing knowing others will play optimally too. The first to nuke others is going to get piled on and this is what ensures the safety of all, the knowledge that the leaders will all play optimally unless they want their people to be made an example of.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry in Hungry Hungry Hippos, the act of eating first DEFENDS against others. Hesitation is not defence in a game where first to react is assured victory. In fact, HHH is designed such that any offensive move is rendered futile. You cannot in any shape or form stop another going from the process of grabbing the ball to losing the ball unless multiple do it at once and even then the defender will retain most.

You are correct that in HHH, Sun Tzu's ethos applies but in most situations it does not.

Mutually Assured Destruction is EXACTLY an example of where everyone is playing optimally and is happily sitting back and relaxing knowing others will play optimally too. The first to nuke others is going to get piled on and this is what ensures the safety of all, the knowledge that the leaders will all play optimally unless they want their people to be made an example of.

Unfortunately the issue here is your definition.

Typically a definition of defence means performing including actions to mitigate or reduce the potential impact or consequences of an attack.

You seem to define defence, especially in the HHH as an act that prevents defeat.

For example, one could mount a pre-emptive strike on an opponent, and completely avoid the necessity of defending against one of their attacks: and despite this being offence only, you seem to classify this as a defensive strategy.

That is an absurd semantics argument on its face.

someone234

@Gooberry If the enemy had such a bad defence that the PES worked to full efficiency, then the enemy's defence is why you won.

Sure, it's an offensive move but if they had had a better defense, you'd realise how what you did in your PES was.

someone234

@Gooberry In HHH, eating first when most balls are down defends those balls from other's grasps.

Add onto this that then there is no way for them to penetrate your clamped down hippo unless all shake you about at once and that even then you retain most balls, it's defensive in nature to clamp down first because you are defending against the enemy doing something that you can not defend against or offensively exploit in their defence afterwards.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry In HHH, eating first when most balls are down defends those balls from other's grasps.

Add onto this that then there is no way for them to penetrate your clamped down hippo unless all shake you about at once and that even then you retain most balls, it's defensive in nature to clamp down first because you are defending against the enemy doing something that you can not defend against or offensively exploit in their defence afterwards.

Ignoring the fact that I’m not entirely sure what you meant by “you are defending against the enemy doing something you can’t defend against”: HHH revolves around actively obtaining balls: attacking.

If you’re saying that this form of active attacking is now a good form of defense this argument is a perfect illustration of why the best defence is a good offence.

Now, as to your other reply: you seem to have changed up your definitions again:

Its clear that there are multiple classes of strategies that don’t revolve around defence: overwhelming force removes the necessity of defending against  counter attack: scenarios where any level of defense is impractical: mutually assured destruction for example.

You’ve argued that overwhelming offence is a type of defence (thus proving the best defense is an offence that renders the need for defense irrelevant), and now seem to be arguing that planning a solely offensive strategy to overwhelm an opponents defence is itself technically revolving around defense.

While this is semantically and technically true: it’s not what any reasonable person would interpret a “strategy that revolves around defense” means, and clearly not what you assumed this phrase to mean prior to you making this definitional argument.

As such your reply is accompanied with the scrape of moving goalposts as your whole argument moves towards meaningless semantic tautology.

someone234

@Gooberry Na, you misunderstood me a lot here.

Overwhelming offence never works unless your opponent is insufficiently defending in the first place.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Na, you misunderstood me a lot here.

Overwhelming offence never works unless your opponent is insufficiently defending in the first place.

And that’s pretty much my observation.

Youve changed your definitions into a tautology by claiming that a strategy “revolves around defence”, if it is a 100% attacking strategy with 0 defence, as such a strategy depends on the opponents defence being weak.

That is just tautology and unrelated what any normal person would consider
the phrase “a strategy revolving around defense” would mean.

someone234

@Gooberry Now think about it the other way around and you'll see how it isn't a tautology.

Try and make strategy revolve around attack and offense and you come up with hit-and-miss strategies that never get you the highest winrate.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Now think about it the other way around and you'll see how it isn't a tautology.

Try and make strategy revolve around attack and offense and you come up with hit-and-miss strategies that never get you the highest winrate.

You’ve decidedly to implictly define offence to be something explicitly revolving using a semantic definition.

This means your argument is tautology, because you implictly chose your definitions to require your conclusion.

Or in other words, you're now arguing that all strategies revolve around defence, by defining an offensive strategy as revolving around defence.

An offensive orientated strategy that doesnt include defence is most possible if you use appropriate terminology and definitions.

someone234

Gooberry said:

An offensive orientated strategy that doesnt include defence is most possible if you use appropriate terminology and definitions.

@Gooberry Such a flawed strategy only works against dumb opponents.

someone234

@Gooberry Actually no, to be offensive without regard for defence is to be without strategy.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Actually no, to be offensive without regard for defence is to be without strategy.

A strategy may consider defense, and deem defence unnecessary: and so it has regard for defence but doesn’t revolve around it:  this is largely a broadly different argument from your original one as stated.

An offensive strategy that determines defence is unnecessary given, say a major disparity of force or practicality: is a strategy that doesn’t revolve around defence by definition.

Multiple examples of these have given which refute your original point.

Your counterarguments are now mostly semantic: an attempt to redefine the terms, and now implictly attempting to redefine the argument itself in order to wriggle out of the examples.

someone234

@Gooberry so if the only reason one ended up at the offensive strategy is because no better results could be achieved by a better defense, then this is not revolving around defense?

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry so if the only reason one ended up at the offensive strategy is because no better results could be achieved but better defense, then this is not revolving around defense?

If the strategy doesn’t revolve around defense: then it stands to reason the strategy doesn’t revolve around defense.

someone234

@Gooberry so if the offensive strategy resulted from no foreseeable defensive strategy working better, then this is not revolving around defence?

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry so if the offensive strategy resulted from no foreseeable defensive strategy working better, then this is not revolving around defence?

You’re asking whether a strategy that doesn’t revolve around defence, revolves around defence.

How can a strategy that doesn’t revolve around defence, revolve around defence?

someone234

@Gooberry it does revolve around defence. If you can feasibly opt to heavily penetrate the exploitable defence of the enemy and can furthermore calculate that your own defenses will be insufficiently exploited in retaliation, this is the only way to conclude that the offensive strategy is viable.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry it does revolve around defence. If you can feasibly opt to heavily penetrate the exploitable defence of the enemy and can furthermore calculate that your own defenses will be insufficiently exploited in retaliation, this is the only way to conclude that the offensive strategy is viable.

In your example, the strategy doesn’t revolve around defense.

The rational going into coming up with the strategy may likely have considered defence: but it doesn’t revolve around defense either.

you're mixing and matching terms and definitions; confusing something considering X with something
revolving around X, and confusing the process of creating X with X.

someone234

@Gooberry how did you define 'revolves around'?

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry how did you define 'revolves around'?

Pretty much as per common usage:

to have someone or something as the main or most important interest or subject.

someone234

@Gooberry so even if the action is offensive, the strategy revolves around the enemy's defence system vs their own.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry so even if the action is offensive, the strategy revolves around the enemy's defence system vs their own.

Only if you define your argument as a meaningless tautology, that isn’t what you’re initial argument is, nor what any reasonable person would assume it to mean: where being 100% offence revolves around defence because you are attacking defences.

someone234

@Gooberry you don't speak for all reasonable people nor for 'anyone' other than yourself. Don't come to my debate and taunt me like this you petulant crybaby. if you've got an issue with my semantics, leave my debate.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry you don't speak for all reasonable people nor for 'anyone' other than yourself. Don't come to my debate and taunt me like this you petulant crybaby. if you've got an issue with my semantics, leave my debate.

I don’t “have an issue” with your semantics; I’m simply explaining how your use of semantics and definitions to make your point makes your argument largely meaningless, for the reasons stated.

The logic you’re using could be used to argue that a vegetarian diet revolves around meat. Losing revolves around winning, winning revolves around losing, and execution revolves around being alive.

Its a neat rhetorical trick; but largely meaningless tautology, and definition based nonsense.

If you feel that a logical argument that points out rheotirical tricks is “taunting”, or that pointing out that choosing definitions and semantics drive the debate into irrelevance is being “a petulent crybaby”; perhaps you should consider leaving your debate.

someone234

@Gooberry winning revolves around losing but losing doesn't revolve around winning.

A bad player doesn't need to understand how to consistently win but a good player needs to understand how to lose in order to avoid most (not all but most) things that lead to that and keep winning often.

someone234

@Gooberry you can't make losing revolve around winning because it is the loser who can end a game faster, not the winner. In fights the tap out is something you can't prevent the opponent doing. Try playing chess to lose and you will see how much more power there is in losing than winning.

someone234

Strategy revolves around defence not offence, this is not a tautology but a provable fact.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

Strategy revolves around defence not offence, this is not a tautology but a provable fact.

You’ve defined offence as revolving around defence.

this means your argument is that a strategy that doesn’t revolve round defense, revolves round defence.

that is indeed tautology.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

Strategy revolves around defence not offence, this is not a tautology but a provable fact.

You’ve defined offence as revolving around defence.

this means your argument is that a strategy that doesn’t revolve round defense, revolves round defence.

that is indeed tautology.

someone234

@Gooberry you can deny the truth saying it's tautology but you can't argue against it and win.

Try again later.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry you can deny the truth saying it's tautology but you can't argue against it and win.

Try again later.

Saying it isn’t a tautology over and over again is not really an argument.

A tautology is a logical statemnt that is inherently true in all conditions: like saying an apple is an apple.


A strategy can revolve around defence: I defence is a central and primary aspect of that strategy; or it may not, in conditions where the strategy is primarily offensive.

The original contention, that all strategy revolves around defense, is obviously false. 

In order not to lose the debate, it seems you have redefined the terms to be tautology: by defining your terms such that if a strategy doesn’t revolve around a strategy, it does.

So; it is clear your argument is now a tautology, and that you have decided not to defend the original claim any more (probably as its wrong), and if the only reply you have now: is simply saying I’m wrong, I guess you must have conceded this point too.

someone234

@Gooberry shall I copy and paste where I explained that less defense can only be present in a strategy if the opponent is more exploitable in their defence than them?

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry shall I copy and paste where I explained that less defense can only be present in a strategy if the opponent is more exploitable in their defence than them?

Only if you don’t mind posting my rebuttal:

That you you are confusing the considerations that went into the strategy with the strategy itself.