Cyvasse and military strategy in Westeros

[Ebony and Weirwood]

First some background before getting to a larger point.

So a while ago I was reading this piece (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/you-have-to-play-this-1-600-year-old-viking-war-game-cef088ae4e2d) on an ancient viking board game which made the point that it reflecting the greater viking military mentality in its setup and end goals of each side (which are asymmetric in nature). But this isn't a rare occurrence in cultures. The games we play can both reflect and inform a cultures strategic ethos. Chess is a good example too. It establishes an equal start with a symmetric board (except king and queen but 2 bishops etc). The piece moves show the value of that military culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chess#Origin). Of note is that originally the bishop was originally an elephant and much more limited (the name change and expanded role would seem to reflect the rise of the church as an institution). Also the relatively low value and low strength of pawns (commoners) and dynamic nature of knights reflect a battle field truth. The most obvious cultural reflection would be the importance of the king as a vulnerability and a target. Even in modern times, one could make a convincing argument for the evolution of American football reflecting or coinciding with modern military tactics (such as increased speed, communication, and specialization).

So if real world human cultures create games that reflect and change military, how does the Planetosi (remember it came from Volantis to Westeros) version, cyvasse, compare?

We see some key historically important military aspects reflected in the game. The importance and variability of terrain is a very important part of the game and of military reality in the books. Mountains can make a place invulnerable (i.e. the Vale) except to a Dragon. Water and forests can be complications but not game-enders if managed well. Like chess, we see variability in piece strengths and importance. Dragons are critical and powerful like the queen in chess, but so can military technology like trebuchets and catapaults if not wasted. And we see that the king is the crux of the entire game.

So what have I missed? I know the complete rules haven't been laid out by Martin only the general big picture points I've mentioned which makes this somewhat difficult. But, what general Westerosi military culture can we see reflected in this game? The converse may be more compelling though: from what we've read about battles and overall strategy, what cyvasse strategies could exist that we haven't read about (think using a forest to slow soldiers enough to pick them off ala bogmen or using mountains and rivers to create layered defenses)? Or how can the way Tyrion plays reflect his grand-strategy? I think Cyvasse can provide interesting incite into Westeros, so I really want to know what y'all have discerned on the nuances of the game.

[Civility Reigns]

Summer and winter seem like no-brainer additions to any cyvasse ruleset. This cycle of weather is an essential element in the culture and history of Planetos as a whole. I imagine just about every military commander and intellectual would incorporate it in some form into their thought exercises and competition.

On a related note, I'm interested in how games like go would be interpreted in regards to culture and military strategy. It's a very abstract game; no knights, no kings, just stones and a grid.

[Ebony and Weirwood]

Interesting idea on the Summer vs. Winter thing. I agree that winter would have a major impact on real world military actions. Right now, I can only think of issues with troop movement, supply chain, and morale that winter would cause (feel free to add to the list). Only troop movement could really be reflected in the game I think. Could effect the rules regarding the effects of terrain.

So I actually thought about adding my thoughts on go to the OP but decided that it didn't flow right. Basically, many have noted that Go is well-known for its simple rules leading to complex results. There are a mind-blowingly large number of different outcomes for a 19x19 board. Which final outcome happens, largely rests on the personalities of the players. Do they play conservatively, aggressively etc. But a major aspect of Go is that it leads to very protracted games where the player with more patience can avoid being too aggressive too soon. I think it is the patience that reflected or was a product of the culture (think Confuscious's sayings). I've the culture could deal with the long games they would've changed it or moved to a different game. In the military realm, I know go was important to Mao. If I remember correctly, he made his generals play the game. You could also argued that the game helped inform his overall military strategy which revolved around guerilla tactics which in drawn-out conflicts destroy the opponents will to continue. Some people have noted the philosophy of the game informs modern PLA activity. Don't know if I 100% agree with that, but their quiet military advancement over years without (until recently) any overt aggreesive could stem from this long-game ethos.

Also I noticed 2 similar threads that could help with this discussion.

On war elephants:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/119122-war-elephants/

On knights:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/119019-how-effective-are-knights-as-a-military-force/

[Civility Reigns]

I'm somewhat of a beginner at Go, and it's a topic of interest for me, so I enjoyed your analysis of it. To add to what you said (and, in a moment, make a point about Westerosi culture), a heavy emphasis is placed on a player's experience when playing go, and not just analytical approaches. Since there are so many possible variations in the outcome of Go, and each game takes so many moves (around 240 moves, compared to 80 in chess) simply looking at the current situation on the board and reading ahead to find the best move is difficult for all but the most skilled players, and the most sophisticated computer programs. So, Go players have to play hundreds of games, studying common patterns, tactics and problems, before they can play to their full potential. Playing a match can often be a case of recognizing a situation you've encountered before, and acting according to what you know works and what doesn't. Think too long, and you run out of time.

Cyvasse, and by extension Westerosi warfare, seems very much a game of analytics. You have to look at the configuration of the terrain and the placement of enemy troops, and decide what's the best option and when. A victory is decisive and glorious, while a loss is crippling and humiliating. Aegon plays his dragons and destroys his opponents' armies; Robb utilizes a goat path to launch a crushing surprise attack; Barristan infiltrates a castle and saves his king. Of course this is an oversimplification of what makes a successful commander even in Westeros, but it's these feats that are most remembered and discussed in history, and the experienced commanders often play second banana to the young, talented Roberts and Robbs of the world. Perhaps if there were more Tyrions in Westeros, a game like Go would be more popular.

Anyways, winter and summer. You're right in that troop movements are what's important. Too many extra rules or sudden changes in gameplay would make things difficult to learn and remember. I was thinking maybe special weather-related tiles could be used, or even a piece. Whatever it is, it would have to be simple to understand and decisive in effect.

Also, shogi allows you to capture your opponent's pieces and play them as your own. Once Westeros gets used to the reign of their new undead overlords, they could include a rule like this to simulate wighting.

[Federico]

Quick digression (ie off-topic):

I've oft wondered, if I were Jon Snow (Lord Commander), what might would I have done differently to achieve greater unity amongst the NW. My answer was to create a Cyvasse-like game about defending 'The Wall'. It would help all better understand the pros and cons of closing the tunnels and manning the wall.

[Knight Of Winter]

Since we know scarce of Cyvasse, I'll talk about one of its influences - chess, speculating that Cyvasse follows similar logic.

Naturally, chess pieces could symbolize units and game could symbolize battle. So, various general strategies and considerations are equally important in chess as in real medieval warfare - stuff like: coordinate your pieces, attack your enemy's weakest point, ensure your king's safety, restrict movement of enemy's pieces, find good outpost for your units, better act than react etc.

The problem is, if you try warfare=chess analogies at different, literal level (which is what it seems to me you're asking for, just for Cyvasse), sometimes they become moot or outright ridiculous. Stuff like I'll let my knight jump over my infantry, I don't really need this pawn - I'll let my opponent capture it or The goal is to checkmate your opponent's king and it's irrelevant if I lose my army in the process are not good advices on the battlefield. Thus, I'm not certain how much of "direct" Westerosi military advice can you pull out of Cyvasse game.

I find it interesting to analyze in on symbolical level, though. For example, when Tyrion notes that Young Griff arranged his pieces boldly and aggressively, will it reflect his future army's disposition on real battlefield? Or, when in WOW spoiler chapter, commentating on her cyvasse play

Daemon Sand tells Arianne that she uses her dragon too much, does it foreshadow that Arianne (Dorne) will rely too heavily on Dany (or Targs in general) and forget it has other assets to use?

[Primalsplit]

The thing is, chess feels much more about politics than warfare. At least in the way we know the pieces.

Pawns = Land Armies

Knights = Knights, and maybe thus aristocracy?

Bishop = Religious authority

Rook = Castles

Queen = Secondary royal authority figure

King = Royal authority figure

But I should say it's not completely black and white. Knights also resemble cavalry in battle, like knights; with their good mobility and manuever (that can pass other units so quickly as if they jump over them). Pawns being levies, with a potential to charge headlong into combat at the beginning of battle. King also being a fat guy who can barely move his arse, and thus being a liability.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

If you wish to discuss the military of Westeros (and Essos), you should probably refer to this thread: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/91171-come-into-my-castle-the-ways-of-warfare-in-westeros-updated-and-psa-regarding-troop-quality/. Often.

[Ebony and Weirwood]

Thanks Bright for the link. Interesting stuff there.

Primal, I think the pieces in chess did develop into more political roles as time went on, but if you look at its original pieces and their moves it's more military in nature.

Rooks --> chariots : same moves

Knight --> calvary: same moves

king --> king: same moves

pawn --> foot-soldier: basically the same moves

queen --> advisor: one square diagonally only

bishop --> war elephant: (varied by region) 2 squares diagonally (no more no less) and can jump a piece. The old Indian version added front and back as well.

So we can see the move being much more reflective of some military realities. Foot soldiers are limited. Calvary is dynamic. Chariots are faster than calvary, but less able to quickly change direction (though I could be wrong). This also touches a bit on Knight's point that chess isn't a perfect 1-1 for warfare. I agree that it doesn't work for somethings and the lack of knowledge of the game limits us. But some points hold. Yes, it would be stupid to have your calvary literal jump over the infantry, but they are more than capable of coming from the rear to engage in battle. But on a less literal level, I think how the pieces move tells us a lot about how that culture values that military unit.

Knight also points out a fantastic point that how a character plays cyvasse tells us something meaningful about their demeanor and general military thought. Aegon is noted as bold in positioning and Arianne on her overuse of the dragon. I don't see these necessarily as symbolic, but more an incite to their character and maturity which in turn can help tease out future events. I see Aegon's boldness as tied to an arrogance of sort. Arianne's reliance on the dragon could reflect an immaturity with the game (both cyvasse and the game of thrones) or her focus on overt power not situational power. She clings to the easy solution and the most powerful piece not necessarily the right one. Her crowning of Marcella reflects this. She wanted to make big, quick move through a major power structure, queenship. We see Doran's conservative long thinking nature. I'd bet he's a rather conservative flexible cyvasse player too. I'd be interested to know more about Tyrion's play-style too.

Civility, It appears to me that Go would depend on knowing you opponent too. If you can judge you opponents tendencies, you could cut 10 possibly developing patterns down to 3 or 4 and better play those. And what constitute a decisive, humiliating victory in cyvasse and westerosi warfare aren't too different. The less experienced winning, total annihilation of the otherside, or a quick victory through sneaky methods (think 3 move checkmate) would all be humiliating in cyvasse as on the battle field.

[Knight Of Winter]

Rooks --> chariots : same moves

Knight --> calvary: same moves

king --> king: same moves

pawn --> foot-soldier: basically the same moves

queen --> advisor: one square diagonally only

bishop --> war elephant: (varied by region) 2 squares diagonally (no more no less) and can jump a piece. The old Indian version added front and back as well.

So we can see the move being much more reflective of some military realities. Foot soldiers are limited. Calvary is dynamic. Chariots are faster than calvary, but less able to quickly change direction (though I could be wrong).

I found this list of Cyvasse pieces on wikia:

• Rabble
• Spearmen
• Crossbowmen
• Light Horse
• Heavy Horse
• Trebuchet
• Catapault
• Elephant
• Dragon - the most powerful piece in the game
• King

1) Yes, it would be stupid to have your calvary literal jump over the infantry, but they are more than capable of coming from the rear to engage in battle. 2) But on a less literal level, I think how the pieces move tells us a lot about how that culture values that military unit.

1) There actually was a French King who literally did just that. He sent his archers first, and then, unsatisfied with their performance - just ordered cavalry to ride over them and engage the enemy. It ended just as well as you could expect.

2) Oh, definitely. I know that in some early versions of chess Queen was replaced by Vizier - it was unthinkable that a woman could represent second most important piece on the board.

Keeping that in mind, what do we know about Cyvasse pieces and their movement (I don't know whether your list is "official" or speculation). Obviously, dragon being most powerful piece is pretty starlight-forward, but what about the others listed above? How powerful are they in general and in relation to each other? Gah, even the littlest bit of info from Martin could provide lots of food for thought.

What seems certain is that players arrange their pieces in starting phase of the game - and that starting disposition suggests what kind of game they want to play (e.g. bold as Aegon or defensive and conservative as Brown Ben).

Knight also points out a fantastic point that how a character plays cyvasse tells us something meaningful about their demeanor and general military thought. Aegon is noted as bold in positioning and Arianne on her overuse of the dragon. I don't see these necessarily as symbolic, but more an incite to their character and maturity which in turn can help tease out future events. I see Aegon's boldness as tied to an arrogance of sort. Arianne's reliance on the dragon could reflect an immaturity with the game (both cyvasse and the game of thrones) or her focus on overt power not situational power. She clings to the easy solution and the most powerful piece not necessarily the right one. Her crowning of Marcella reflects this. She wanted to make big, quick move through a major power structure, queenship. We see Doran's conservative long thinking nature. I'd bet he's a rather conservative flexible cyvasse player too. I'd be interested to know more about Tyrion's play-style too.

I like this interpretation - interesting line on thinking.

[Ebony and Weirwood]

My reference to chess pieces was based on the History of Chess wikipedia. I'd think the cyvasse pieces on the wiki are based on the text. I have the kindle version of the series so when I have more time I may go through a read any place that mentions the game and see if I can find something new or compelling about the gameplay. May be a while till I get to that though. Interesting point about the starting positions indicating a starting disposition. But the starting look could also be used to lure one into a trap (think Rob and a goat trail). You'd feign an obvious weak point then close in around them.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

The list on the wiki is mostly speculation and taken from a fan creation.

50-75% of it is mentioned in the books sometimes, but the rest is just speculation.

[Primalsplit]

Thanks Bright for the link. Interesting stuff there.

Primal, I think the pieces in chess did develop into more political roles as time went on, but if you look at its original pieces and their moves it's more military in nature.

I just wanted to say I agree with you. It is probably how it turned out. Chariot - Rook also makes utter sense. As for the war elephant - bishop, that piece is still called elephant in Turkish.

It seems like the only thing underrepresented is archers. Though, some other chess variations have pieces that resemble archers and/or mounted archers.

2) Oh, definitely. I know that in some early versions of chess Queen was replaced by Vizier - it was unthinkable that a woman could represent second most important piece on the board.

Well, I guess it is more of a political structure thing. In Turkish the piece is still called Vizier, as women didn't have that kind of formal power throughout it's history; whereas Viziers were prominent figures. It is not the game that is misogynistic, it is the societies. Game is merely representing it. Queens on the other hand, were quite the powerful women in European monarchs. It only makes sense how it turned out like this.

For all cyvasse enthusiasts, check this out: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/115701-just-finished-a-browser-version-of-cyvasse-nine-tile-cyvasse/

[bgona]

This is an interesting discussion.

You are forgeting about that people of the books can be arrenged as Chess (or Cyvasse) pieces.

Bishops were the viziers, the people that the King counsulted.

The movements of the Queen were improved by the importance of the Isabel I (Spain). Because Chess came from India, thru muslims to Europe. But it was France that changed the name of Viziers to Bishop due to the importance of Catholic religion.

I really think that is important all the references about each one play Cyvasse (it is telling how they think, how they react). We know that Myrcella is a good Cyvasse player. Better than Trystane.

Sometimes I have wondered if all Sansa at King´s Landing is a chess movement (a pawn that arrives at enemy terretory reaching the top then it is transformed at a Queen, because that is how chess moves). And I am sure that they are more chess implication at the books.

[Stannis's Lawyer]

The Alfil becoming a Bishop means nothing. In France it became a Fool, that does not mean that in France the jesters were all-powerful. In Russia the Queen was traditionally an Amazon, that does not mean that Russian queens were more powerful than English, French, or Spanish ones. In Xiangqi the palace was formed, that does not mean that Chinese generals never left their houses. Nor did generals live in palaces.

[Stannis's Lawyer]

This is an interesting discussion.

You are forgeting about that people of the books can be arrenged as Chess (or Cyvasse) pieces.

Bishops were the viziers, the people that the King counsulted.

The movements of the Queen were improved by the importance of the Isabel I (Spain). Because Chess came from India, thru muslims to Europe. But it was France that changed the name of Viziers to Bishop due to the importance of Catholic religion.

To be frank, this is a horrible post about chess history.

1. Bishops were Alfils. Elephants. The Queen was the Ferz (the Vizier).

2. The movements of the Queen was improved because Shatranj was too slow, and there is some dispute over the exact country where the queen gained superpowers. Also, note that the Russian Queen was an Amazon despite Russian queens in the 1450s not being particularly strong.

3. In French, it's a fou. The English changed Alfils to Bishops because the tusks looked like Bishop's hats.

[bgona]

Thanks to say so jajaja.

I am not a chess master. All I know is reading so if I am writing something wrong I like to know and correct myself. I write here to learn. If I know everything I won't write. So thanks for illustrate me.

It is the first time that I read one writing Shartanj and not Saturanga.

I didn't know about the Russian implications at the game.

I still saying that the movements of the Queen were changed as a consecuence of powerful queens at 1400.

I can't say if the queens are the viziers and the bishop the elephants of the shaturanga.

But I know and I recognize that chess is important at ASoIaF. And do I like to find this connections.

And I hope that you also.

About the bishop as alfiles I know that I read about it long ago and that it changed the name at France, that after at England changed again I didn't know. Anyway I will try to find it to two you where I read it. What I can say that the french name wasn't Fou (at least I didn't recall that name, the crazy, it was another one).

[Stannis's Lawyer]

Thanks to say so jajaja.

I am not a chess master. All I know is reading so if I am writing something wrong I like to know and correct myself. I write here to learn. If I know everything I won't write. So thanks for illustrate me.

It is the first time that I read one writing Shartanj and not Saturanga.

I didn't know about the Russian implications at the game.

I still saying that the movements of the Queen were changed as a consecuence of powerful queens at 1400.

I can't say if the queens are the viziers and the bishop the elephants of the shaturanga.

But I know and I recognize that chess is important at ASoIaF. And do I like to find this connections.

And I hope that you also.

About the bishop as alfiles I know that I read about it long ago and that it changed the name at France, that after at England changed again I didn't know. Anyway I will try to find it to two you where I read it. What I can say that the french name wasn't Fou (at least I didn't recall that name, the crazy, it was another one).

Oh, I see.

:cheers:

[bgona]

Sorry: I have read again (too much interruptions while writing).

Are you saying that at France the Queen was named Fou?

Sorry that I understood that were the alfiles.

About saturanga right now I can't recall if it exists any queen. I know two elephants, also (I believe) 2 viziers. And what I recall more is that it could be played by 4 at the same moment (or at least that happened with the one that we had at home).

And maybe that can be also carry to tve books with so many players and differdnt interests.

[Stannis's Lawyer]

Sorry: I have read again (too much interruptions while writing).

Are you saying that at France the Queen was named Fou?

Sorry that I understood that were the alfiles.

About saturanga right now I can't recall if it exists any queen. I know two elephants, also (I believe) 2 viziers. And what I recall more is that it could be played by 4 at the same moment (or at least that happened with the one that we had at home).

And maybe that can be also carry to tve books with so many players and differdnt interests.

In France the Bishop is the Fou, hence in France a Bishop moving to h1 would be notated as Fh1.

In Chaturanga there is one Vizier. Xiangqi has two. Four-player Chaturanga is Chaturaji, which is Sanskrit for "four kings".