If there's a lesson here, its that strategy
gamers might benefit from doing some reading.
You have to play sc2 or similar games for years before that kind of advice becomes applicable (since there is so much basic skill to pick up before the game becomes that strategic), and by the time you know the game well enough to find the correct analogy to something written in The Art of War you've probably already discovered it yourself.
In short, I think there are very few if any sc2 players that would benefit (in terms of improving their game at least) from reading The Art of War.
>You have to play sc2 or similar games for years before that kind of advice becomes applicable (since there is so much basic skill to pick up before the game becomes that strategic), and by the time you know the game well enough to find the correct analogy to something written in The Art of War you've probably already discovered it yourself.
You seem to be saying that by the time they are playing at a level where general strategic advice becomes applicable, they'll already have learned it. This is a little circular.
Also, I think it probably takes a couple of months, before you get to the strategic level, not years, but that's just an opinion.
You seem to be saying that by the time they are
playing at a level where general strategic advice
becomes applicable, they'll already have learned
it. This is a little circular.
Can you point where the circularity comes in?
I said that by the time the advice that can be learned from reading TAOW becomes useful they would have already learned it from their "battle" experience.
What I am saying is that reading it in book form will at most provide an "aha - that's why this strategy I've been contemplating is good!" moment, rather than a new idea about how to play the game.
I've been playing sc2 on and off (mostly off) since it was released and am a diamond league player & most of the time the game is still more about paying attention and tactics rather than high level strategy for me.
And I am pretty sure I would have not have even got to this level were I not already a somewhat competent wc3 player.
Maybe if you play 10+ hours per week of sc2 every week since it came out you would not need years to master the game, but as a busy professional with little free time and many games I doubt you could ever reach that level in a matter of months without having played a lot of sc1/wc3 beforehand.
EDIT: take a look at http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Battle.net_Leagues#Lea... - 80% of players are at platinum league or less, where the game definitively requires more getting over basic tactics than high level strategy. I would bet you can win with a marine/zergling/zealot rush in almost every match in these leagues if you have sufficiently superior micro to your opponent.
By definition, platinum or below is the bottom 80% of the player base. No matter how good the sc2 population gets, around 80% will ALWAYS be platinum or below.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the skill level for platinum or below will always be static though. For example, the korean server is generally regarded as more difficult. A platinum player on the NA server might only reach gold there (or might still be platinum but lose more).
But you are definitely correct that their mechanics are the main thing that separates most top players. I would emphasize macro as being much more important than micro though.
In short, I think there are very few if any sc2 players that would benefit (in terms of improving their game at least) from reading The Art of War.