Good evening. I think some Sun Tzu's philosophies great applied to this kind of game like "The outcome of the battle (war in the original) is known knowing the method, the time, the leadership, the terrain and the rules." I wrote "battle" because I think wars extend for a long time and because of other parameters are involved like alliances for example, economy, logistics, etc. Another one that I like a lot is: "know thyself and your enemy, and you are going to win two battles; Know thyself but not your enemy, and you will have a win and a loss. Know neither thyself and your enemy, and you always going to lose." What are your favorite quotes? 

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

I guess this is the easiest one : "si vis pacem para bellum"

I dont agree with this statement because diplomacy can break a faction or a country. For example, when I used to play Total War: Three Kingdoms, I had the faction with the highest amount of food and I was always making trading it to get a lot of money from the most dangerous faction and the others while I only provided enough food for my main enemy - the one with the highest amount of money  - to survive but drastically reducing his potential to create new armies. Meanwhile I still had a lot of food and much money from all the trades. 

I guess this statement can be understood not only on a military level, but on all the others levels too : economic, diplomatic, cultural and so on.

I mean, it's just a matter of where you put your strenghth on, and how you can counter/block your opponent, or at least, prevent him from brutally attacking you (which you described in your example).

Иногда нужно проиграть в битве, что бы выиграть в войне! 

kaspersky wrote:

Иногда нужно проиграть в битве, что бы выиграть в войне! 

"Inogda nuzhno proigrat' v bitve, chto by vyigrat' v voyne!"

If Google translate works well, it should mean : Sometimes you need to lose the battle to win the war!

"The God of war hates those who hesitate" is my favorite war quote. In short it says that in war there is no room for second guesses.

Sun Tzu's Art of War applies really well to 4X, and strategy games in general. My favorites have to be those along the lines of "Appear stronger when you are weaker," meaning if you are lagging behind, you should at least make sure the enemy would hesitate attacking, create a visibility of a great army when there barely is one, and I think there was "Appear weaker when you are stronger" I think at least there is, to bait the opponent into attacking you in a battle where you have advantage.

kaspersky wrote:

Иногда нужно проиграть в битве, что бы выиграть в войне! 

Почему ты считаешь, что участники этого форума обязаны понимать русский язык?

Salterius wrote:

Sun Tzu's Art of War applies really well to 4X, and strategy games in general. My favorites have to be those along the lines of "Appear stronger when you are weaker," meaning if you are lagging behind, you should at least make sure the enemy would hesitate attacking, create a visibility of a great army when there barely is one, and I think there was "Appear weaker when you are stronger" I think at least there is, to bait the opponent into attacking you in a battle where you have advantage.

Yeah this is similar to my fav Sun Tzu quote which goes along the lines of "The epitome of strategy approaches the formless, if I can discern the layout of my enemy's forces while keeping my own a secret then i can attack where he is weak."

Definitely applies to 4x games but then again so does Machiavelli.. 

There is obviosly a lot in Sun Tzu´s work that works in 4X games. However things like the nine situations are hardly well simulated in 4X-games. 

Morale/loyalty and support/supply was a big contributor to victory or loss in times of old. Sun Tzu knew that a good general should foster loyalty to his advantage and if that fails will put his soldiers to situations where failure or fleeing is not posssible.

Simulating something like this could be interesting. For example Paradox games try to simulate it, but morale seems to work more like different hit points. In Imperator Rome they tried to simulate loyalty, but there it also a bit lacking, as it is basicly a timer to civil war, which affects very little actual gameplay as in making generals or their loyal troops better than unloyal troops.

Garithosthefirst wrote:

Yeah this is similar to my fav Sun Tzu quote which goes along the lines of "The epitome of strategy approaches the formless (...)

  Good evening people. What does this epitome statement mean?

"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt."

GTI wrote:

I dont agree with this statement because diplomacy can break a faction or a country. For example, when I used to play Total War: Three Kingdoms, I had the faction with the highest amount of food and I was always making trading it to get a lot of money from the most dangerous faction and the others while I only provided enough food for my main enemy - the one with the highest amount of money  - to survive but drastically reducing his potential to create new armies. Meanwhile I still had a lot of food and much money from all the trades. 

上兵伐谋，其次伐交，其次伐兵，其下攻城

Therefore, the best strategy for the use of troops is to defeat the enemy's strategy, the second is to destroy the enemy's diplomacy, and the third is to attack the enemy's army, and the lowest strategy is to attack the enemy's city. Siege is the last resort.

The Art of War is more likely to say, one of the great philosophical works than the tactical manual. There's some people already talked about the importance of preparation before actually getting into the war and how you behave when you start the war, and I mean, yeah technically you can apply the theory of the Art of War into the game. I watched some of the combat videos of the Humankind and the system and the terrain parts are better than Civ series but more simple than the Total War series. However I believe it's still good enough to apply any kind of 'tactics' while you fight.

I have a printed copy of The Art of War and I don't understand some Sun Tzu statements because they are not applied in a context. But I was able to understand most part of his philosophy. 

For example, Sun Tzu's statement: "Treat your prisoners well"; Depending on the prisoner and how much he likes his faction, he is unlikely going to betray it to side with the new one. at the first opportunity, the prisoner will backstab the faction leader !

In my opinion, this (a little long) quote is the closest thing to a "general 4x strategy manual":
"
. If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
. If he is in superior strength, evade him.
. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him.
. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
. If his forces are united, separate them.
. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them.
. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .”
"

Thank you for the explanation ANGRYABOUTELVES!

"The essence of war is violence! Moderation in war is imbecility!" - Fisher

"Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln" (war is a continuation of policy by other means) - Clausewitz

and, as mentioned earlier,

"Parabellum".

Or in other words, war is, or at least should be, performed for a purpose. Fighting for the sake of fighting is pointless. You go to war because you desire something that cannot be obtained by words alone. When you do go to war you don't pussy around. You are either fighting your enemy or you are not. If you are willing to use violence against your enemy, use ALL of it.

And if you want peace, perpare for war.

Having said all this, Fisher was... an interesting historical figure. History is probably a better place because he was not actually allowed to dictate foreign policy. However his point was that war involves the direct application of violence. Foreign policy (Clausewitz's point) can involve the threat of violence (which is also part of the Parabellum concept) but once you decide to use that violence, use it. To paraphrase from the Shlock Mercenary web comic, 'There is no such thing as overkill, there is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload''.

So how does this relate to 4X? Going to war should be for a reason, both for players and AI. Why are you at war? What are you trying to achieve? What do you want and/or what are you trying to stop the other nation/kingdom/empire doing against you? Remember in the real world wars can be very expensive to maintain. Either you have to have a large percentage of your population called up as feudal type levy - which means they are don't at home doing things you can tax them for - or you are paying large amounts of mercenaries to do the fighting for you. Either way extended wars start costing the earth and you shouldn't be allowed to fight 1000 year wars just for the convenience of it.

Or something :D

“To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” – Sun Tzu

My FAVORITE !!!

I want to become CHINA

The fact that you asked that question shows the strategem of your mind. I beilve like others have said, to apply it to all parts of the games and life, is very fundemantal. High Ground, know your terrain, let your enemy come to you, enemy of my enemy is my friend.