kryszcztov
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 2,423
@ Zed-F & Sullla :
Now, I really buy into your point which says that there isn't a best strategy for all the games. That wasn't really the case in Civ3, and apparently a lot less in Civ4 (good
). I agree with you, but this was not what I was talking about, or so I think.
I was commenting the "discussion" (TM) between Sullla and Sirian, who were debating about what to do next, in a game already started and well advanced !! That is different. So I feared (and still do) that there would be many different strategies that would be equivalent in terms of result throught the game (at any important crossroad, if you want). Comparing to chess, this doesn't mean that I'd start and play 2 games of chess the same way given 2 different initial positions, it means that I could play the same position through 2 (or more) different ways. Which is quite the opposite.
Now, I like the idea of having multiple paths to victory (since it makes the game more interesting, especially at higher levels), but saying that they're all equivalent has piqued me, to say the least. Maybe you don't play the game as well as you'll do in the future, and thus you can't find out the best solution given a situation yet ? Which would make the process of discovering the game interesting of course. That doesn't mean that you won't win or perform well, I'm not denying that of course. But if you choose the all-religion approach here, and someone tries the current situation with another approach and wins the game 30 turns before you, that could mean that your strategy wasn't the best (regarding the finish date) ? And maybe Civ4 is so well designed that nobody will eventually discover the best strategy given any complicated and uncertained situation ? If this is what Sirian means, then I'm glad to hear it, because it would mean that the game has a huge replay value (how to get better wouldn't only be about counting beans on a definitive strategy, it would also be about choosing the right strategy at many important points during the game, something that Civ3 wasn't very good at). But then could we stay humble and not pretend that all the different decent strategies are all equivalent, and instead say that we lack intelligence and experience ?
We're humans after all, and tell me if I exaggerated some stuff, and good luck with the game. Should be easy here. 
Now, I really buy into your point which says that there isn't a best strategy for all the games. That wasn't really the case in Civ3, and apparently a lot less in Civ4 (good

I was commenting the "discussion" (TM) between Sullla and Sirian, who were debating about what to do next, in a game already started and well advanced !! That is different. So I feared (and still do) that there would be many different strategies that would be equivalent in terms of result throught the game (at any important crossroad, if you want). Comparing to chess, this doesn't mean that I'd start and play 2 games of chess the same way given 2 different initial positions, it means that I could play the same position through 2 (or more) different ways. Which is quite the opposite.

Now, I like the idea of having multiple paths to victory (since it makes the game more interesting, especially at higher levels), but saying that they're all equivalent has piqued me, to say the least. Maybe you don't play the game as well as you'll do in the future, and thus you can't find out the best solution given a situation yet ? Which would make the process of discovering the game interesting of course. That doesn't mean that you won't win or perform well, I'm not denying that of course. But if you choose the all-religion approach here, and someone tries the current situation with another approach and wins the game 30 turns before you, that could mean that your strategy wasn't the best (regarding the finish date) ? And maybe Civ4 is so well designed that nobody will eventually discover the best strategy given any complicated and uncertained situation ? If this is what Sirian means, then I'm glad to hear it, because it would mean that the game has a huge replay value (how to get better wouldn't only be about counting beans on a definitive strategy, it would also be about choosing the right strategy at many important points during the game, something that Civ3 wasn't very good at). But then could we stay humble and not pretend that all the different decent strategies are all equivalent, and instead say that we lack intelligence and experience ?

