Balanced SP approach? Or EXTREME SP approach?

Which do you guys think is better? Getting an SP that gives you benefits that your CIV lacks? OR... getting an SP that doubles the effects of your CIV benefits?

For instance, a BALANCED approach would be like playing like the Zulu (which is 100% geared to war-monger) and going down the TRADITION, LIBERTY, or PIETY tree (which focus on non-warmonger approaches). Another instance could be Rome (a builder CIV) going down HONOR, or England (a naval-CIV) not choosing COMMERCE.

An EXTREME approach would be for the Zulu to go down HONOR, doubling its fighting power but weakening it elsewhere. Another instance would be BYZANTINES, CELTS, or ARABS (religious UA civs) going down PIETY, and EGYPT going down TRADITION.

Another way to look at it, is that a BALANCED approach has you ADAPT to whatever situations you find in the game, whereas an EXTREME approach has you already knowing which strategies you'll more than likely take regardless of the game situations.

Thoughts?

By extreme, I mean I try to get every possible SP.

Most games I have

Finished tradition
3 policies in liberty
Finished Rationalism
Finished one of commerce (usually) exploration (archipelago) aesthetics (culture win)
Order/freedom get two third tiers.
extra policies go into patronage. Usually 3 in patronage.

Because Civ 5 is a race to be the first to achieve one of four distinct victory conditions, the game very strongly pushes you towards doubling down on your strengths, at least on higher difficulty levels. That is, as Alexander of Greece, you'll have a much easier time winning going for a Diplomacy win. I also feel like it's "more fun" to use the civ's ability to its fullest. If you're not warmongering as Shaka, then why'd you pick Shaka? Doing the reverse feels like something I'd do if looking for a weird artificial challenge, sort of like playing One City Challenge. For example, if you'd have more fun trying to win via Science as Alexander, or via Culture with Shaka, go for it! Maybe drop a difficulty level though.

I usually adapt. It's a much more fun approach than most arbitrary strategies, and tends to make for a more successful empire. (for me, anyways.) That being said, I don't actively choose policies that don't go with my civ choice, I just like thinking more about my current situation, and what would benefit me most in the next 20-30 turns, as opposed to an end goal.

Extreme is general the way to go. If you're multiplying something good, you get more extra than multiplying something bad. Then again, some of the SPs don't multiply - instead they add or enhance. Example: the city defense SPs help with a balanced approach and don't assist an extreme approach.

I chose the 3rd option. I go dynamic, whatever suits me at the time. I don`t even think about it really.