Spiritual Trait

[Holycannoli]

infact in game theory often strategy games develop dominant strategies.

In my opinion, one dominant strategy ruins strategy games. It then becomes a game of "whoever can pull off that dominant strategy first". That's not strategy!

By "equal potency" I meant "balanced"

A good strategy game is balanced and has many paths to victory Naturally some will be a little better or a little easier than others (no game is that perfectly balanced). But none should be so dominant that all other strategies stand no chance vs it. Luckily I haven't played a strategy game where that's the case. Civ is very well balanced even with some traits naturally being better than others, like financial. It's not so much better that using it or not using it will make or break your game; where you have to use it or you just can't win.

I like to use Rome: Total War as my example. There is no clear-cut dominant strategy in that game. You can mass cavalry if you want and try to outflank any spearmen. You can deploy lots of archers and hope to win from a distance. You can deploy engines on the field like trebuchets or scorpions. You can mass your forces together, or try to hide some in nearby woods. And of course every nation is different.

If that game were so easy that just 1 strategy was practically a guaranteed win it would get boring. If all you needed to do was mass cavalry then there'd be no point in playing since it would become a mere race to get the most cavalry.

Dominant strategies are not a good thing in strategy games. They might point to flaws in game balance. Developers tend to patch games when situations like this arise, usually by nerfing but sometimes by increasing the power/potency of other things.

Hey I just thought of a great CivIV example! Chopping! THAT was a dominant strategy. So what happened? It got nerfed in a patch. It was too dominant a strategy, and like I said that's not good for strategy games.

 

[azzaman333]

and ur own playing inadequacies dont play into which civ/trait/unit is better, its just a reflection of what u've learned and what u haven't.

I take offence to that. My own failures?!
The best civ/trait/unit very much depends on how you like to play, and what you aim for while playing.

Lets, just for a minute, say that Japan is the best civ for Person X, who can beat Deity in their sleep, so he tells Person Y, who has only ever beaten Noble. Person X's strategy normally involves conquering the world with Samurai, Muskets, Rifles and Grenadiers. Person Y doesnt like warring until he gets tanks. Would Person Y be much good with Japan? Unlikely, because Toku's traits dont suit his style as much.

 

[Kartik]

The spiritual trait can be extremely affective if used right. Its usefull if you want a early religon. And it gives you a sort of upperhand.

 

[azzaman333]

The spiritual trait can be extremely affective if used right. Its usefull if you want a early religon. And it gives you a sort of upperhand.

Traits in Civ 4 have nothing to do with the techs the civ starts with.

 

[JLH Fans]

The spiritual trait can be extremely affective if used right. Its usefull if you want a early religon. And it gives you a sort of upperhand.

?!?!
If U are spiritual U didn't have mysticism every time.

 

[bonafide11]

After playing with the spiritual trait enough, I hate going back to a non-spiritual leader. Turns of anarchy become a huge nuissance when you're used to no anarchy. Changing civics and religions every five turns with no consequences is a HUGE bonus.

 

[yungturk39]

A "Spiritual" leader using the "Slavery" civic in decently-sized city can also give you a good way to "draft" fighting units, or anything else for that matter. If you're caught off-guard and have inadequate city defense, provided you've researched the right techs and have access to the right resources, you can completely turn things around by generating the right type of defender to save your city in the nick of time!

I think it's kind of silly to argue which type of leader trait, unit, wonder, etc. is the best one. It's meaningless outside of any situational context. How good these things are depends on how you play. How you play (should) depend on how accurately you're able to assess the situation around you. That's kind of what the whole Darwin-life-and-creation opening to each new game is all about.

 

[yavoon]

In my opinion, one dominant strategy ruins strategy games. It then becomes a game of "whoever can pull off that dominant strategy first". That's not strategy!

By "equal potency" I meant "balanced"

A good strategy game is balanced and has many paths to victory Naturally some will be a little better or a little easier than others (no game is that perfectly balanced). But none should be so dominant that all other strategies stand no chance vs it. Luckily I haven't played a strategy game where that's the case. Civ is very well balanced even with some traits naturally being better than others, like financial. It's not so much better that using it or not using it will make or break your game; where you have to use it or you just can't win.

I like to use Rome: Total War as my example. There is no clear-cut dominant strategy in that game. You can mass cavalry if you want and try to outflank any spearmen. You can deploy lots of archers and hope to win from a distance. You can deploy engines on the field like trebuchets or scorpions. You can mass your forces together, or try to hide some in nearby woods. And of course every nation is different.

If that game were so easy that just 1 strategy was practically a guaranteed win it would get boring. If all you needed to do was mass cavalry then there'd be no point in playing since it would become a mere race to get the most cavalry.

Dominant strategies are not a good thing in strategy games. They might point to flaws in game balance. Developers tend to patch games when situations like this arise, usually by nerfing but sometimes by increasing the power/potency of other things.

Hey I just thought of a great CivIV example! Chopping! THAT was a dominant strategy. So what happened? It got nerfed in a patch. It was too dominant a strategy, and like I said that's not good for strategy games.

its really irrelevant what u like.

 

[yavoon]

I take offence to that. My own failures?!
The best civ/trait/unit very much depends on how you like to play, and what you aim for while playing.

Lets, just for a minute, say that Japan is the best civ for Person X, who can beat Deity in their sleep, so he tells Person Y, who has only ever beaten Noble. Person X's strategy normally involves conquering the world with Samurai, Muskets, Rifles and Grenadiers. Person Y doesnt like warring until he gets tanks. Would Person Y be much good with Japan? Unlikely, because Toku's traits dont suit his style as much.

this still holds the same false attitudes about strategy games. that it is somehow style and preference and based.

 

[acidsatyr]

But it IS style and preference based, whether you like it or not.
If that was not the case than would you care to explain how (and I am using a game of chess as a reference) top chess players are able to choose and develop personal strategies that enable them to win top competitions? None of them follows one specific strategy, and none of them wins every time. It's because after 2500 years of chess there still doesn’t exist the perfect strategy, and because opponents never play a PERFECT game, whether we talk about computers or humans. Game of civ is much simpler than a game of chess but my point holds true because of its strategic nature.
Until we have means to calculate one perfect strategy, one perfect strategy that will beat a PERFECT opponent every time, until that time we can only try to develop personal styles that suit our own playing style, and our understanding of a game, which is a point of every tactical and strategic game anyway. If that was not the case, how do you explain me beating immortal every time without ever choosing financial trait? My understanding of a game is such that I don't need that trait to beat the game. Is my style perfect? Hardly. But to say that style or strategy of a person who chooses financial over other traits (or any other trait) is better because his understanding of a game is more developed or because financial is "the most powerful trait" is ridiculous. There doesn’t exists best trait. Every trait shines in right circumstances. And that’s why it all comes to style and preference.

 

[angeleyes]

I don't think both of you is completely wrong or right. eg. In civ4-vanille with the financial trait you got your bank with 100% hammer support, but Firaxis changed this. Why? They probably thought financial stronger than the others. But cause you can't calculate everything, intuition, experience, "feeling', personal weaknesses and force come into play. If you can't be objective, you have to be subjective.

 

[drkodos]

.... Game of civ is much simpler than a game of chess ....

As a long time rated tournament Chess player I must disagree 100 percent. Chess has been figured out. Computers can now beat the best players IN THE WORLD when things are on equal footing.

The AI of Civ is much harder to program than a chess program is. There are more variables, more units, and the playing "board" changes every game!

At equal levels (Noble) it is quite easy to beat the AI. The average Human being can beat the AI in Civ. An average Chess player (Rated 1500 or lower) has no chance whatsoever beating a decent chess program.

I have to agree with Yavoon that there are some tactics that are much better than others and that it is not subjective. There is an objective reality that some strategies and tactics are more effective at winning, winning earlier, and are "better" than others.

And Creative is still a good trait, if used correctly, in the right situations.

It's all situational, baby.

 

[Holycannoli]

I think it's because yavoon is talking about imperfect strategy games, where one or two dominant strategies are so powerful that it's foolish not to use them.

Notice I called them imperfect. Strategy games are NOT about one or two dominant strategies! Who told you that? Once a game gets to that point it's flawed and needs patching (or in the case of a game like chess-excellent example btw-, it needs rules revisions) because I doubt the developers intended for there to be one or two dominant strategies. Like CivIV's chopping and how overpowered it was...and later will be CivIV's slavery whipping I'm guessing. It's dominant. It's so dominant it's foolish to use forests their other way (for health and for later on in the game).

Don't you see how wrong you are? And anyway, I really hope you're not talking about CivIV when you make the arguments you're making, because CivIV has no dominant strategies at the moment since there's many ways to win the game.

 

[acidsatyr]

well if anything i can't agree with you about chess being figured out

 

[drkodos]

well if anything i can't agree with you about chess being figured out

Well (and this is if you are a chess player) can you agree that openings such as The Kings Gambit & The Benko Gambit have been busted? And that it is widely knows that certain openings lead to inferior middle game positions and losing endgames and that some openings lead to better positions and better chances in the endgame?

Ever play the Grob? Hard to argue that opening with g4 gives white the same chances of winning as does opening with d4.

Some moves are better than others.


Holycanoli: excellent points. I agree.

HOWEVER, as we have seen is each incarnation of the game, it does get figured out. Bright people crack the code each time. The AI of the current iteration is seriously flawed and easy to outdo. Without giving the computer a "stacked deck" to play with, it would have no chance against a decent human brain. The only way the AI can compete with superior human intelligence is to be provided extra advantages that are not given to the human.

That suggests to me that the game is highly flawed, easily figured out, and it is only a matter of time before the "bust" is made public.


Remember the power of the worker as a warmachine, and you can bust the game at high levels. It is almost a cheat, and it is certainly an exploit.

One must bait the hook properly.



And yes, I am a master baiter.

 

[angeleyes]

.... CivIV has no dominant strategies at the moment since there's many ways to win the game.

but what do you think of the aggriculture trait in civ3-conquest. That one was dominant.

 

[yavoon]

But it IS style and preference based, whether you like it or not.
If that was not the case than would you care to explain how (and I am using a game of chess as a reference) top chess players are able to choose and develop personal strategies that enable them to win top competitions? None of them follows one specific strategy, and none of them wins every time. It's because after 2500 years of chess there still doesn’t exist the perfect strategy, and because opponents never play a PERFECT game, whether we talk about computers or humans. Game of civ is much simpler than a game of chess but my point holds true because of its strategic nature.
Until we have means to calculate one perfect strategy, one perfect strategy that will beat a PERFECT opponent every time, until that time we can only try to develop personal styles that suit our own playing style, and our understanding of a game, which is a point of every tactical and strategic game anyway. If that was not the case, how do you explain me beating immortal every time without ever choosing financial trait? My understanding of a game is such that I don't need that trait to beat the game. Is my style perfect? Hardly. But to say that style or strategy of a person who chooses financial over other traits (or any other trait) is better because his understanding of a game is more developed or because financial is "the most powerful trait" is ridiculous. There doesn’t exists best trait. Every trait shines in right circumstances. And that’s why it all comes to style and preference.

a difference of opinion does not imply a preference. and even though drdkoos has beatan up ur attempted chess analogy pretty badly, there is still a greater point u can't grasp. effective strategy is not at the whim of preference, and mere disagreement is not an indication that it is.

infact I find it hilarious ur still using the same tired "unless we figure out the game 100%" strategy is about preference. could there be a worse argument to bring forward multiple times?

u r horribly and completely and fundamentally wrong. sorry.

 

[yavoon]

I think it's because yavoon is talking about imperfect strategy games, where one or two dominant strategies are so powerful that it's foolish not to use them.

Notice I called them imperfect. Strategy games are NOT about one or two dominant strategies! Who told you that? Once a game gets to that point it's flawed and needs patching (or in the case of a game like chess-excellent example btw-, it needs rules revisions) because I doubt the developers intended for there to be one or two dominant strategies. Like CivIV's chopping and how overpowered it was...and later will be CivIV's slavery whipping I'm guessing. It's dominant. It's so dominant it's foolish to use forests their other way (for health and for later on in the game).

Don't you see how wrong you are? And anyway, I really hope you're not talking about CivIV when you make the arguments you're making, because CivIV has no dominant strategies at the moment since there's many ways to win the game.

is chess flawed? because there are tens of thousands of chess openings and yet only a handful are even considered.

the idea that civ is balanced strategically is a dumb opinion. and ur idea of "there are many ways to win a game." probably comes from the fact that u win all ur games because ur not playing a high enough level that would require u to refine ur lackluster strategies. maybe if u stepped up to the plate and asked urself, "what is the best way to win a civ game." u could start on the road to understanding ideas of strategy, and this inane idea of preference could wither away.

 

[particle77]

effective strategy is not at the whim of preference

Preferences generally govern ones goals.
Strategy generally involves a plan of action to achieve ones goals.
The best strategy for achieving one goal is not necessarily the best strategy for achieving all possible goals. therefore an effective strategy is certainly dependent on the preferences of the player involved.

As an example: Is the best strategy for winning a game with the highest possible score the same as the best strategy for winning as early as possible? Is a strategy that always wins, but with a low score, better than a strategy that sometimes fails, but generates a much higher score when successful?

These are decisions that are left to personal preference, and they may impact trait choices to some extent. both financial and spiritual have higher payoffs as the game progresses. aggressive on the otherhand tends to be stronger early in the game. If you are aiming to win fast aggressive appears to be the stronger trait, but if you are aiming for a high score it may not be.

 

[yavoon]

Preferences generally govern ones goals.
Strategy generally involves a plan of action to achieve ones goals.
The best strategy for achieving one goal is not necessarily the best strategy for achieving all possible goals. therefore an effective strategy is certainly dependent on the preferences of the player involved.

As an example: Is the best strategy for winning a game with the highest possible score the same as the best strategy for winning as early as possible? Is a strategy that always wins, but with a low score, better than a strategy that sometimes fails, but generates a much higher score when successful?

These are decisions that are left to personal preference, and they may impact trait choices to some extent. both financial and spiritual have higher payoffs as the game progresses. aggressive on the otherhand tends to be stronger early in the game. If you are aiming to win fast aggressive appears to be the stronger trait, but if you are aiming for a high score it may not be.

ur example is superfluous because it presupposes the goal and not the strategy to achieve it. if u want to have a different goal it is possible(but not guarenteed) that differing strategies will emerge as more effective, but no matter what goal u pick the strategies that emerge as effective will not be at the whim of ur preference.