$60.00
$20.00
Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Twilight Struggle» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Sankt style? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
bob lawblaw
msg tools
So I read in another thread here someone refer to "theory style" as opposed to "sankt style". I've read all of theory's strategy articles on twilightstrategy.com about 4 times over (pretty much every time I come back to the game after a long hiatus, I'll just read through them all as a basics refresher). I'm very curious about the difference between these "styles". Can anybody (perhaps sankt himself since I've seen his handle on the threads here) expound on the differences between "sankt style" and "theory style"? Is there anywhere I can find as comprehensive of a card-by-card sankt style strategy summary akin to twilightstrategy.com?

Thanks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Koenig
Germany
Fuerth
Bayern
flag msg tools
Tom is crazy!
mbmbmbmbmb
As a starter check out these two threads if you haven't seen them already

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1591329/unorthodox-strategy

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1597286/some-ts-thoughts-to...

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Valentine

Texas
msg tools
mb
It's really the difference between a short term (sankt) vs. long term (theory) emphasis. Another way to think of it is vps now vs. ops now. Short term focuses on vps and space benefits now, with the object of getting an auto or wargames win. That typically means playing cards for vp events, spacing opponent cards (especially ones that would give vps), getting mil ops and denying opponent mil ops. Long term focuses on board position and scoring vps later when regions score, including in final scoring, and stacking the deck for later turns by permanently removing opponent cards. That means playing cards for ops and managing bad opponent events by timing when the event is triggered. One example would be as the USSR and drawing Duck and Cover in the Early War. Theory style typically plays the card for ops, even though it means giving up 3 vps, especially if it gives some long term positional advantage. Sankt style typically spaces the card. I don't think there's many hard and fast rules for either style. It's really more a difference of emphasis.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sputnik Ma
China
Beijing
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
MichaelVal wrote:
It's really the difference between a short term (sankt) vs. long term (theory) emphasis. Another way to think of it is vps now vs. ops now. Short term focuses on vps and space benefits now, with the object of getting an auto or wargames win. That typically means playing cards for vp events, spacing opponent cards (especially ones that would give vps), getting mil ops and denying opponent mil ops. Long term focuses on board position and scoring vps later when regions score, including in final scoring, and stacking the deck for later turns by permanently removing opponent cards. That means playing cards for ops and managing bad opponent events by timing when the event is triggered. One example would be as the USSR and drawing Duck and Cover in the Early War. Theory style typically plays the card for ops, even though it means giving up 3 vps, especially if it gives some long term positional advantage. Sankt style typically spaces the card. I don't think there's many hard and fast rules for either style. It's really more a difference of emphasis.


3VP and 2VP potential mil ops is really huge. I will space it whichever style I played...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riku Riekkinen
Finland
Jyväskylä
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
mkuymkuy wrote:
3VP and 2VP potential mil ops is really huge. I will space it whichever style I played...


Then you can never reach "pure Theory"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ziemowit Pazderski
msg tools
There's more. About a year ago, when I believed I've already seen every possible viable strategy, I've met an opponent on Chantry, whose play made my jaw drop. He employed something that might be called "Pure Europe strategy" - as the Soviets he literally didn't play anywhere else.
The key to this strategy was playing destal ASAP and using it to move all influence from North Korea and Iraq to Europe. After taking France in T1, every turn would start by a coup or realignment in Europe. USA can't reliably defend from that by lowering DEFCON below 4, since after Destal there are no Soviet battlegrounds to coup outside Europe!
Naturally, this plan will be worthless most of the time, if only US player gets his hand on NATO, Fidel, Nasser or luckily loses the AI War, but from time to time it will actually work.
I recall I won that game, but by the time I did, my opponent did manage to control Europe, so it was a close call.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
King in Green
Japan
flag msg tools
mb
mkuymkuy wrote:
MichaelVal wrote:
It's really the difference between a short term (sankt) vs. long term (theory) emphasis. Another way to think of it is vps now vs. ops now. Short term focuses on vps and space benefits now, with the object of getting an auto or wargames win. That typically means playing cards for vp events, spacing opponent cards (especially ones that would give vps), getting mil ops and denying opponent mil ops. Long term focuses on board position and scoring vps later when regions score, including in final scoring, and stacking the deck for later turns by permanently removing opponent cards. That means playing cards for ops and managing bad opponent events by timing when the event is triggered. One example would be as the USSR and drawing Duck and Cover in the Early War. Theory style typically plays the card for ops, even though it means giving up 3 vps, especially if it gives some long term positional advantage. Sankt style typically spaces the card. I don't think there's many hard and fast rules for either style. It's really more a difference of emphasis.


3VP and 2VP potential mil ops is really huge. I will space it whichever style I played...


I played D&C AR1 turns 2 & 3 in a game tonight. And it felt good! Opponent headlined Purge T1 & Containment T2 and those 6 ops ensured multiple favourable scorings + mil ops could be had via events. But I certainly have thought harder about justifying a play of D&C and other cards recently as this debate continues.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riku Riekkinen
Finland
Jyväskylä
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Its kind of hard to put the strategy together as an article, so hats to Theory for that. There are so many ifs & buts for every card that people always want to complain about something. The thread aobut the strategy says its for intermediate players, so experts should find their own way. Playing cards for quick VPs was kind of major trend at then, so many of the things in the blog were very controversial & new. In fact I was called mad (and sometimes angrily) for claiming that leaving WG open is even plausible. The forum games were introduced for the reason that we could discuss cards with something framing the discussion (not in a complete vacuum).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kris Wei
China
flag msg tools
Riku Riekkinen wrote:
Its kind of hard to put the strategy together as an article, so hats to Theory for that. There are so many ifs & buts for every card that people always want to complain about something. The thread aobut the strategy says its for intermediate players, so experts should find their own way. Playing cards for quick VPs was kind of major trend at then, so many of the things in the blog were very controversial & new. In fact I was called mad (and sometimes angrily) for claiming that leaving WG open is even plausible. The forum games were introduced for the reason that we could discuss cards with something framing the discussion (not in a complete vacuum).


Frankly, I do not appreciate forum game in current form. Some expert players do have their own strategy, and mixing them by voting cannot get a good result (e.g. if you space Defectors in T1-AR1, giving a 5-vp D&C in T2-AR1 will totally ruin the former move, but that 2 moves might be voted in one same game, which would cause a worse result than any other possible combination of these 2 moves). Then the result makes amateurs can't see the reason of an expert suggesting the moves, which caused the opposite of the original impetus of forum games.

On the other hand, if all suggester are from one school (so-called Theory style maybe), that problem won't happen,and that's the reason I quitted some discussion of former forum game. But if so, why don't you just let the greatest in that school(yes, I mean Z) to do the game? If use Z as a standard of THEORETICAL player's strength. I do not think a mixture of 80%Z, 85%Z, 90%Z and 100%Z can synthetize a 110%Z.

- OK, we can't make a Z vs. Z match XD.

Apology to Z if my words may do offense.

I'm not saying all players are THEORETICAL, still many expert guys have their own playing method, such as Riku, Janusz, etc.

Anyway, honor to KIG for organizing these games.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
King in Green
Japan
flag msg tools
mb
Well, I agree that forum games do have the problem of not enough planning for the future in their present open form. Many voters are new players who are picking up the game after all. Ziemowit's journal was very interesting for the last game though.

I have actually been thinking about proposing another forum game but in a different format- group vs group rather than group vs pro. Possibly as the Americas vs the rest of the world, or even try a Theory-style vs Sankt style forum game if there was interest for that among Chinese players. One problem would be that the hands could no longer be published openly with so many people participating on either side though, so I think decisions would be made by individual players who volunteered to participate rather than by vote. Quality of play might or might not improve but it could be fun .
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sputnik Ma
China
Beijing
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I might do that with D&C 2 years ago but not now. Chinese players are all brainwashed by Kris Wei......
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sputnik Ma
China
Beijing
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Paul Harding wrote:
Well, I agree that forum games do have the problem of not enough planning for the future in their present open form. Many voters are new players who are picking up the game after all. Ziemowit's journal was very interesting for the last game though.

I have actually been thinking about proposing another forum game but in a different format- group vs group rather than group vs pro. Possibly as the Americas vs the rest of the world, or even try a Theory-style vs Sankt style forum game if there was interest for that among Chinese players. One problem would be that the hands could no longer be published openly with so many people participating on either side though, so I think decisions would be made by individual players who volunteered to participate rather than by vote. Quality of play might or might not improve but it could be fun .


That will be very odd. I guess it is very straightforward to ask Kris and Z playing for several rounds....
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riku Riekkinen
Finland
Jyväskylä
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I don´t see what is wrong with current forum games. Forum wins its fair share. And there is no dominationg player (I mean a player who´s plan go always through). So I mainly see possible problems as really only possible, but not really happening.

Group vs group games reduce speed to half. Also if you need some kind of registering it raises the bar to join the game. Also one group can find itself almost empty. I have also experienced this kind of game and I would say open system is hugely better. Maybe if there would be way more intrest in forum games, one could form 2 large enough groups.

Also style vs style could be fun, but requires at least as big group as the normal group vs group. Also I think even Theory doesn´t play Theory style and is Sankt would write down shortly how to play each card usually, he wouldn´t play by it always. So styles in my opinion are more like ideals.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
King in Green
Japan
flag msg tools
mb
The forum games have been a good teaching tool. They let people observe, vote, or propose plans, so there are multiple levels of participation. (Although the idea of an annotated game between Z&K is a nice one, there aren't enough annotated games between top players!) I learned a lot reading the first one vs Darren. The fact that a few games were actually won with the help of advice from top players like you Riku is a welcome bonus However, I have got a bit tired of moderating & organising them for now, and so was wondering if there'd be any interest in a different system which requires less moderator intervention, and maybe offers a different experience.

On the Sankt/ Theory debate I have found from experimenting with play styles that seems like it pays to make a decision early on how you'll play and stick with it if possible. As Kris says, there's little point in spacing Defectors and then playing D&C if you have other options. Though this game is usually more tactical than strategic.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sputnik Ma
China
Beijing
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Riku Riekkinen wrote:
I don´t see what is wrong with current forum games. Forum wins its fair share. And there is no dominationg player (I mean a player who´s plan go always through). So I mainly see possible problems as really only possible, but not really happening.

Group vs group games reduce speed to half. Also if you need some kind of registering it raises the bar to join the game. Also one group can find itself almost empty. I have also experienced this kind of game and I would say open system is hugely better. Maybe if there would be way more intrest in forum games, one could form 2 large enough groups.

Also style vs style could be fun, but requires at least as big group as the normal group vs group. Also I think even Theory doesn´t play Theory style and is Sankt would write down shortly how to play each card usually, he wouldn´t play by it always. So styles in my opinion are more like ideals.


By the way, it seems that you are the author of TwilightStrategy? A really awesome blog and very well organized articles for newbies. Can you tell me something similar for Paths of Glory?

Thank you very much.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riku Riekkinen
Finland
Jyväskylä
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Theory wrote TwilightStrategy. I did something to Paths of Glory, but never got energy to finish. I send the links, if you want further, its of course better to start a thread in PoG forum.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sputnik Ma
China
Beijing
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Riku Riekkinen wrote:
Theory wrote TwilightStrategy. I did something to Paths of Glory, but never got energy to finish. I send the links, if you want further, its of course better to start a thread in PoG forum.


Thank you Riku. I already got the geekmail.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.