- CtE is different from other "strongest" tactics in no other way than that it is a new approach. --> Incorrect, and this is the point YOU are avoiding.
This is the one of two central elements of my argument (the other being that limiting play options is inherently bad barring sufficient justification for doing so), and thus I will defend it.
Strongest space victory involves researching lots of techs and building lots of parts.
Strongest diplo involves fastest to tech & build UN.
Strongest space victory includes building military units. Worker stealing, capturing as many cities as efficiently as possible, and grabbing land are core elements of successful *fast* space runs. How many competitive space games not forced into isolation or unusual neighbors/disadvantageous terrain (which would also nerf CtE) haven't involved a game that is essentially "shore up domination but then stop and tech"?
Now, we already have overlapping "strongest" approaches; for military victories, you must conquer cities. For space victories, you must conquer cities. Oh sure, you CAN win space w/o conquering cities, just like you CAN win culture without CtE...but in neither case will it be competitive. And in both cases (space and CtE), you must invest at least some resources into multiple things to attain an optimized approach (military and
,
and
)
Strongest diplo involves fastest to tech & build UN.
What's the fastest way to tech? I think you know the answer to this. Space wins and UN wins both are predicated on tech (with tech trades being the single most broken widely accepted mechanic in the game, but that's a topic for another thread). Is it inherently bad that both space and UN are both predicated on tech by the way?
On top of this, vassals have to vote for you...
So we can conclude that other victory conditions overlap towards one unifying approach (and one that does not necessarily logically mesh with the end goal) considerably (with military conquest of a hapless AI a core element, which gets forced on players during most victory conditions), and look at the culture itself, since it's the core focus of this thread:
Strongest culture now involves almost no actual culture.
That's an odd stance to take to seek to refute my argument. Certainly, the game counts the mission as "spread culture". You really do attain culture, and you spend resources (specifically
, GPP and
) to attain the
required for the mission. Are monastaries fundamentally stronger culturally than propoganda? Does one form of
control trump another when it comes to
? What truly is culture in reality?
I say this because your assertion that spread culture mission is not "actual culture" is absolutely critical to your argument...and yet by definition the culture produced is, in fact, culture. Just as you can get more
by capturing cities to some extent than you can by strictly focusing on
buildings, so too can you get more
via a combination of
investment and
investment. Also note that the
investment is absolutely crucial to this being the faster approach! Without it, a player could not compete with traditional approaches. So you are not, in fact, using "almost no culture", but rather using significantly less, but still investing in artists and great works. You are also investing in culture via espionage, and that's far less implausible to reality than is being implied.
Despite your claim, actual
is being produced, just as
can produce actual
or
, which space games rely heavily upon. So no, I'm not the one avoiding this. A more efficient way of producing an output within clearly defined game paramaters is *not* inherently bad and since you are, in fact, producing culture to win the culture victory there is also yet to be evidence that this is materially different from other optimized approaches to other VC.
I don't like the overtone that implies that support for the status quo equates to desire to protect 'records'
I'm not saying that you said it, but I absolutely have seen other posters say it outright. Seeing as how that has literally been said on the forum elsewhere, there is *good reason* to believe that it could possibly be used as a basis for voting regardless that this isn't HoF. I hadn't even considered the possibility until it was mentioned. I could give further reasons but that type of thing is better saved for PMs...or ignored since it's not really police-able. Regardless, it wasn't meant as a slight towards you. I am very frustrated at the lack of opposing stances that are willing to argue in detail for them. I applaud that you're trying to do so; it makes the discussion so much more enjoyable.
By the way, allowing CtE would be the status quo. I messed up in my wording earlier. This has literally been possible since the inception of BTS, and is a strategy unique to BTS. Part of the reason I'm demanding strong criteria is specifically because it *is* a rules change to ban CtE.
Mastering culture optimization seems to me a far bigger barrier than managing a spy economy where you can focus all resources into spy points.
Unless I sorely misinterpreted Kaitzilla's approach, he absolutely is *not* investing literally all of the resources into
, but rather most of them with a chunk still going into straight
. It appears a balance of the two (favoring more so
) is what would emerge as the fastest. Despite that it's obviously *faster* than straight culture, whether it is actually less or more planning-intensive has not been elucidated by anybody in detail.
At last, spy missions that fail, although not costing at all in spy points (a chance), cost in spies. Each time you proceed a mission, you undergo RNG.
I would love if we could eliminate RNG as a serious factor from the game, and admit it's unfortunate that yet another tactic would rely on it to a degree (but then again, the most recent BOTM uses huts
), just as military conquests rely on RNG to a degree. However, if we start using this as a basis for banning tactics, we open a rather giant (and even MORE contreversial) can of worms, and that's too rich for my blood in this particular thread. One hot debate at a time!
It's premature to assume an optimized CtE VC would rely on GPP luck though. Kait pointed out that you need the
, and it's not necessarily dependent on great spies if you can get it another way (a strong hint). Also, you absolutely need artists in this strategy too, reducing to a degree the pressure to generate
early and buying time to unlock more gspy producing buildings.
I for one would love to see Jesusin return and shatter some records using CtE. I truly believe his mastery of the traditional culture approach would, after adjustment, translate. Exploration of the mechanic and really pushing its potential are a lot more interesting to me than banning it for legacy/preference reasons alone.
On a side note...
You haven't played a GOTM since botm 29 in 2010
That isn't, strictly speaking, true. I have downloaded a few games since then, particularly the deity ones. I haven't submitted one since BOTM 29 is more likely. If I can get civ IV going again (freaking monitor), I'll be participating in the current HoF Gauntlet and there's a good chance the next immortal/deity BOTM cycle games also.
But the other reason I care is that I value the integrity of this competition and look at its spoilers from time to time. BOTM 10 taught me a great deal about this game. I feel like if we snuff out an optimized strategy for no reason players will be denied something new to learn and perfect, and I don't feel like the benefits of denying players that outweigh the costs. Why am I attached to BOTM? Precisely because of its long-time high standards and what they have done for my experience in civ IV. If I believe that a choice would compromise those standards, of course I'm going to argue against it.
I fear to know the reason.
Gooby pls. That was an awesome picture by the way
. I stole it, who knows what horrid uses you might have unleashed by letting me get my hands on "realistic Dolan".
.
