Does Steele use games theory ?
I felt BP WiH was very realistic, and I found why : it seems that Steele behave like a good poker player !
It became particularly easy to see in Delenda Est : Steele could crush the Indus and Yangze easily, but he damages them just enough (engaging 2 Deimos class cruisers in the fight, which cumulated firepower is just under the UEF 3 cruisers firepower). In the same time he refuses to surrender, forcing the UEF to push farther its assault on the Carthage, AND to engage 3 more cruisers !
replace poker tokens with human lifes and tons of metal : a player can still be back in the game while he has some tokens, so you have to take as many of them as you can in order to get a clear victory.
What Steele makes is not just a simple trap, he creates a new strategic way for the GTVA :
1) GTVA can't attack the earth directly, too many people could die, both from UEF and GTVA, that makes the public opinion for the two factions unstable, so as the end of the war ;
2) The offensive "guerrilla style" methods of the Wargods cans only be responded by a counter guerrilla tactics... leading to a long war, many deaths in a long time, without influence on opinions ;
3) Steele's strategy, easing UEF self confidence gain, is a way to make the UEF elite corps to put all its "tokens" in the same time is the very smart thing to do !
I'm trying to make a "gain matrix" which sum up what i think, but it's harder than for real conflicts since i haven't information like media influence in GTVA and UEF, death/month ratio for each faction and some other stuff we use to modelise real conflicts.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
And yeah, I study strategics at university, and i could not help myself.