Strategy

Strategy is a long-term plan of action designed to achieve a particular objective. Strategy in various contexts often consists of tactics and management. Within the context of Superpower: Classic, it is how players decide, prioritize, and pursue national objectives. Strategy further exists within the context of policy, the rules of general conduct of the nation towards particular issues. Policy may proscribe a particular strategy, enable other kinds, or simply leave it to the individuals making the decisions. The relationship between policy and strategy is not essential to understanding strategy in Superpower: Classic, though it enhances the player's understanding of strategic thought.

Strategy: Real and Imagined
Before any discussion of strategy takes place, players should be aware of the differences of strategy applied in real life on national levels, and strategy available in Superpower: Classic. There are limitations imposed upon national conduct that are not imposed upon players, but the extensive number of variables in making any decision related to national affairs makes it difficult for any single person to collect, organize, and apply all relevant information to that decision. Thus, nations have been historically restrained by a combination of factors: internal conflict and ambition, bureaucratic momentum and overlap, and the knowledge in-depth gained from technical information not easily understood by amateurs but summarized by subject-matter experts for officials. In contrast, without these restraints, players are more flexible with the options they have available, and what consequences they consider acceptable. This is a double-edged sword, however, as players can find themselves foiled by a lack of information or overloaded with information that they cannot possibly organize effectively. In Superpower, it is important for players to establish objectives within the constraints of available information.

The Elements of General Strategy
Because Superpower:Classic is a particular kind of game, it defines various sets of applicable strategies. A sound strategy identifies realistic, time-bound, attainable, and constructive objectives. The strategy, based upon national capabilities and the political situation, measures the most effective means of attaining those objectives. Strategy ultimately is a framework defining the ends and means of a particular course of action. For Superpower, this framework consists of political, economic, military, and social variables on the individual, state, and international levels.


 * Realism defines the practicality of an objective and whether or not the objective fits within the historical momentum of the country's development.
 * Time-bound establishes a target date for completion.
 * Attainability determines whether or not the objective be achieved given the nation's current and future capabilities.
 * Constructive defines whether an objective moves a country closer to realizing its national interest.

When determining the means toward achieving a particular objective, the player must consider if the action or actions are compatible with the objective sought. That is, the means should not move the player away from his country's national interest. A player should be careful in this assessment -- while a particular course of action may appear to achieve the immediate objective sought, it may erode other aspects of the national interest. For example, many players consider a military strike against Iran to be within the national interest of the United States because it will destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities and improve US national security. But military action against Iran may have the consequence of raising global oil prices or further eroding US credibility, both of which would be severely damaging to US interests other than security. Thus, players ought to consider the full range of consequences for every action, many of which are not intended.

Further, all strategy depends upon national capabilities. Capabilities are those abilities or capacities available to a nation-state which enable it to take action. Strategy in this sense is effects-based, in that all strategy aims to generate a particular effect, regulating the means to a lesser importance. The means are measured by what effects they generate, not vice versa.

Lastly, strategy depends upon the understanding of power by a player. How a player perceives power to be generated and applied will influence not only which strategies seem more effective, but also in how the national interest is defined. Up until recently, the national interest has been exclusively defined by national security. The idea of human security shifts the emphasis away from the state level to the individual level. Accordingly, the perceived objectives and problems change from military capabilities to questions of poverty and famine. How a player defines power will determine through which lens he will analyze the national interest and the objectives necessary to fulfill them.

Order-Based Effects
Order based effects measure the relationship between an action and its consequences over time. A player should always endeavor to consider the likely consequences of an act through time. Effects are measured based upon their placement in the "order" -- that is, an immediate consequence is a "first order effect", a follow-on consequence is a "second-order effect", and so on. There may be one or multiple first order effects, and a dozen second-order effects for every first order depending on the act. Consider when a player puts the opponent's king in check during a game of chess. The first order effect is the opponent's reaction to check, whatever it may be, and any other change to the status quo (i.e. relationship between pieces). If the opponent moves in a manner which compels the original player to react, the player's next move becomes the second-order effect. Or, the opponent may be unable to compel a player to act in a particular way; the freedom of the player to act is also a second-order effect. This kind of approach enables a player to measure the relationship between ends and means through time, and thus able to formulate viable long-term strategies.

How a player manages this kind of analysis by identifying the consequences which will have an impact upon his objectives will determine the effectiveness of this approach.

Problems in Strategic Thought
While strategy aims to achieve a particular objective, it may not always do so. There are many reasons why this may be the case, and many of the originate from the nature of information available when formulating strategy.

Perfect Information
Perfect information is the complete knowledge of the status of all things at all times. That is, a player has available true and accurate real-time information and is thus able to accurately measure actions and their consequences. A state of perfect information is not at all possible, generating false or misleading perceptions of situations. Players making decisions on these perceptions will face unintended consequences, some of which may be unmanageable. A state of imperfect information exists when a player cannot attain full knowledge of a particular issue or set of issues. Consider in a chess game when a player excuses himself from the board for the restroom. His opponent may make a move in his absence, or deviously rearrange the pieces in his favor. Unless the absent player retained full knowledge of the arrangement of the game board, he will not fully understand the situation of the game when he returns.

Complete Information
Complete information defines knowledge that is available to all players equally. What one player knows, others also know. The perceived relationship between players often depends upon what information is available to those players. However, players often do not know or understand the objectives and intentions of others, and therefore base decisions upon incomplete information. An example of complete information is a game of chess. Players know and understand that the objectives for both in the game is to put the other player's king in check. Incomplete information may be introduced if a third person promises one of the chess players one million dollars for arranging the pieces on the board in a particular fashion. The nature of the game has changed from simply achieving checkmate to winning one million dollars. This may not be known to the player's opponent and he will continue operating under the assumption that the game is one of complete information.