Spiritual Trait

[particle77]

My point is that you are arguing that one strategy is weaker than another without first identifying a clear goal... How can you have a good strategy without a clear goal?

 

[yavoon]

My point is that you are arguing that one strategy is weaker than another without first identifying a clear goal... How can you have a good strategy without a clear goal?

someone said earlier they go for speed, and I replied that I usually go for robustness of victory. to be truthful often the two are pretty similar. u can object that I haven't stated a goal(even though I have). but it still does not attack the base of the argument. that strategies are not about preference, no matter what goal u go for. if u have some weird goal that greatly changes the strategic environment then u should mention it so ppl are on the same page.

 

[drkodos]

My point is that you are arguing that one strategy is weaker than another without first identifying a clear goal... How can you have a good strategy without a clear goal?

The goal is to win. That is as lucid as one can be.


It is pure silliness to keep thinking and arguing that all roads lead to Rome in this case. They do not.

Sure, there are a lot of ways to PLAY the game, but when the going gets tough, the number of options that provide winning chances becomes smaller and smaller, eventually getting to the point that there are few, and possibly only one, best way to accomplish the goal (winning).

Now, you could argue that going for cultural or domination victories calls for differing strategies and tactics and you would be correct, BUT each victory condition has strategies that make it either easier or tougher to acheive, and those strategies tend to remain mnostly consistant from player to player, game to game at the higher levels of play.

The number of viable winning methods is a very small sample to study.

All that being said, I still think Spiritual is a good trait and can be leveraged nicely to provide winning chances for all victory conditions, on all levels of play.

 

[particle77]

Ok, I guess I'm not clear about what constitutes a "robust" victory. To me a robust victory is a strong victory, which might be an early victory, but might also be a victory by a large point margin, or possibly a more probable victory. Which do you mean, or do you mean something entirely different.

We are arguing in circles though. I still maintain that because strategy is dependent on goals, and because goals are a matter of preference, strategy is very much at the whim of preference.

Obviously not every strategy is equal (although its quite possible for some strategies to be equal). However if we aren't measuring success in the same way, then trying to compare relative values is meaningless.

 

[yavoon]

Ok, I guess I'm not clear about what constitutes a "robust" victory. To me a robust victory is a strong victory, which might be an early victory, but might also be a victory by a large point margin, or possibly a more probable victory. Which do you mean, or do you mean something entirely different.

We are arguing in circles though. I still maintain that because strategy is dependent on goals, and because goals are a matter of preference, strategy is very much at the whim of preference.

Obviously not every strategy is equal (although its quite possible for some strategies to be equal). However if we aren't measuring success in the same way, then trying to compare relative values is meaningless.

robust means able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions. I mean it in terms of % chance of winning given differing scenarios, RNG rolls, and other circumstances. this might lead to a slower win, and if u allow reloads robust quickly loses by a large margin to other quick ways of winning.

and ur still wrong, chosing a goal is a prerequisite to developing a strategy, putting it in w/ strategy then mixing it all up to imply preference is incorrect.

 

[particle77]

and ur still wrong, chosing a goal is a prerequisite to developing a strategy.

You just stated exactly what I've been saying...

strategy is dependent on the goal.

putting it in w/ strategy then mixing it all up to imply preference is incorrect.

preference determines the goal. a goal is a prerequisite of strategy. therefore the best strategy will depend on preference.

 

[yavoon]

You just stated exactly what I've been saying...

strategy is dependent on the goal.



preference determines the goal. a goal is a prerequisite of strategy. therefore the best strategy will depend on preference.

just as absurd as the first time u wrote it. but I guess when ppl are desperate to have some bizzarre idea like "personal preference" be the determining factor in effective strategies then thats what u gotta do.

 

[particle77]

do you not agree that preference determines the goal?

you've stated yourself that the goal is a prerequisit of strategy.

 

[yavoon]

do you not agree that preference determines the goal?

you've stated yourself that the goal is a prerequisit of strategy.

I disagree w/ the idea that picking a goal means strategies are determined by preference. just like i said prior. its a stupid and superfluous ring around the rosy. no matter what goal u pick, the strategies that emerge will not be determined by preference. so in effect no matter what rules u play the game under, fastest win, highest score, whatever. effective strategies will not be determined by preference. effective strategies will ALWAYS be determined objectively. which is the heart of the matter anyway.

 

[particle77]

effective strategies will ALWAYS be determined objectively.

Only once the goal is chosen.

The goal is still determined by preference.

 

[drkodos]

The goal is still determined by preference.

Sometimes.


But I think quite often it is molded by environment, the type of map played on, traits of Civ being played, level of play, and available resources.


I think when people tend to stick to their "preferences" regardless of the above variables, they run serious risk of trying to force their round pegs into the game's square holes. Especially as one goes up the scale of difficulty.

 

[particle77]

But I think quite often it is molded by environment, the type of map played on, traits of Civ being played, level of play, and available resources.

agreed, if a players goals are more open ended and allow for adaptation that player is more likely to achieve them.

 

[drkodos]

agreed, if a players goals are more open ended and allow for adaptation that player is more likely to achieve them.

I am not so sure about the "open ended", and exactly what you mean by it, but I think we are close to agreement. I think the trick is to figure out what goal is called for in a given situation. Of course, there are many scenarios where multiple paths/goals are possible, but those games tend to be easier and allow the human player to "run away" with the win.

The tough games (and best, to me) are where the goals are not so obvious, and choosing the worng one is punished swiftly and harshly.

 

[yavoon]

Only once the goal is chosen.

The goal is still determined by preference.

goal's determined by preference, what game to play determined by preference, what to drink while playing determined by preference. effective strategies not determined by preference.

 

[Underdawg]

What Yavoon is trying to say is what he's been saying all along. Effective strategies are not determined by preference. There will always be some or even just one strategy that will be most effective for that situation, just because you prefer something doesn't make it "as good" as the most effective strategy. You could do what you "prefer" but there is always a better way. Doesn't depend what situation.

 

[particle77]

I recognize that once you settle on what you want to accomplish some strategies are better than others at accomplishing that goal.

I'm simply pointing out that in a game where individuals can choose to pursue different goals, suggesting that preference has no impact on strategy makes no sense.

we've agreed that goals depend on preference.
we've agreed that strategy depends goals.

dependencies are transitive.

it follows that strategy depends on preference.

 

[yavoon]

I recognize that once you settle on what you want to accomplish some strategies are better than others at accomplishing that goal.

I'm simply pointing out that in a game where individuals can choose to pursue different goals, suggesting that preference has no impact on strategy makes no sense.

we've agreed that goals depend on preference.
we've agreed that strategy depends goals.

dependencies are transitive.

it follows that strategy depends on preference.

yah cuz if I decided to play civ III instead of civ 4 that'd change my strategy too. its just a shallow observation.

 

[volfan37132]

I seemingly read more disagreement about the spiritual trait - including
veteran players - than I do about any other trait. "Yes, spiritual is good
or no, spiritual is not" I recently played a game as Isabella with Pyramids
and had a good deal of fun with

Police State / Vassalage / Theocracy

and

Representation / Bureaucracy / Organized Religion

There are many combinations that work well.
It does take some micromanaging, but it's worth it to me.

 

[Holycannoli]

Effective strategies are not determined by preference.

No, but your choice of strategy is. Which makes strategy games subjective. Yeah, the strategy you choose will probably the most effective for your goals, but that's natural and can't be argued unless you're just out to have fun and experiment with things. But to say strategy games aren't based on preference is hogwash.

Strategy games are subjective! That's what "strategy" is all about! You choose what you want to do and how you want to do it! That's the very definition of a strategy game. Even if your strategy is less than optimal, you still have that choice.

Strategies themselves are objective. They're based on the most effective means of accomplishing your goals. But when there's many goals to choose from and many means of accomplishing those goals it becomes a matter of preference, not simply what works best. And what works best for one person may not work best for another.

How can guys you say strategy games are not based on preference?

strategy games are not a matter of personal preference.

...from page 1. This is clearly wrong. They are all about preference; otherwise they wouldn't be called strategy games. Even preferring to employ the most effective strategy anyone has ever figured out for that game, it's still preference.

 

[yavoon]

No, but your choice of strategy is. Which makes strategy games subjective. Yeah, the strategy you choose will probably the most effective for your goals, but that's natural and can't be argued unless you're just out to have fun and experiment with things. But to say strategy games aren't based on preference is hogwash.

Strategy games are subjective! That's what "strategy" is all about! You choose what you want to do and how you want to do it! That's the very definition of a strategy game. Even if your strategy is less than optimal, you still have that choice.

Strategies themselves are objective. They're based on the most effective means of accomplishing your goals. But when there's many goals to choose from and many means of accomplishing those goals it becomes a matter of preference, not simply what works best. And what works best for one person may not work best for another.

How can guys you say strategy games are not based on preference?

...from page 1. This is clearly wrong. They are all about preference; otherwise they wouldn't be called strategy games. Even preferring to employ the most effective strategy anyone has ever figured out for that game, it's still preference.

totally and completely wrong, and really almost a non-argument. u argue that because ppl choose to do different things that the evaluation of strategies is subjective?

look this all focuses on the same crap. I dont want to impugn ur ability to do anything. if u want to do something strategically dumb or ineffective, or just generally be an idiot THATS FINE. u just CAN'T then say that ur idiocy is somehow as effective as someone who actually understands the point of effective strategy. ok? got it? read it twice.