Spiritual Trait

[bassist2119]

Regarding superlative strategies,
Careful in how voraciously you seek this. I had discovered a superlative strategy with another game (SMAC) which enabled beating the AI on the highest difficulty level with every faction through every victory condition. I also beat pretty much every player I had faced unless they countered with the same strategy...
...what, then, is the point of playing? Once this level has been acheived, you are merely going through the motions knowing full well that your superior tactic will prevail. There is no flavor; there is no critical thinking or problem-solving; you have effectively destroyed the game for yourself.

 

[yavoon]

Regarding superlative strategies,
Careful in how voraciously you seek this. I had discovered a superlative strategy with another game (SMAC) which enabled beating the AI on the highest difficulty level with every faction through every victory condition. I also beat pretty much every player I had faced unless they countered with the same strategy...
...what, then, is the point of playing? Once this level has been acheived, you are merely going through the motions knowing full well that your superior tactic will prevail. There is no flavor; there is no critical thinking or problem-solving; you have effectively destroyed the game for yourself.

time for new game?

 

[pixiejmcc]

I thinks it is a fairly strong trait when used properly. In late game, when production, commerce, and gold levels are high, not going into anarchy on civics change is pivotal.

Well ur civ output is always relative, so not going into anarchy at any time is great. Being able to switch in and out of civics is brill.

 

[pixiejmcc]

true, the point probably would have been better made with a great scientist. However, not getting engineers from caste system does not make caste system useless for getting a great engineer.

Lets say you've noticed that under your settings the AI averages a certain completion date for a wonder you want. assuming you know you won't have the great engineer on time under normal circumstances, your odds of still getting the wonder might increase by diluting your great engineer points with great scientist points.

Good come back.

 

[JLH Fans]

time for new game?

I wonder as well
As I said,we (my ally in the clan and me)are still undefeated at continents or island map
So I am very interested in a good game,even if we would have lose.
By thy way,I never told to anyone that spi trait is the weakest.
IMO,the waekest trait is protective.
I know it could be useful when U are under siege,but usually it's not me who are under the siege

 

[pixiejmcc]

BLEH. You PREFER a strategy because you have managed to prove that it is better. Everyone's right. Everyone's a winner. ^^

These philisophical musings and arguments over definition have been very amusing to read, if a little ridiculous in reality.

However I will say this: if I am not winning at this game, then I am doing something wrong, someone is doing something better than me, there is a better strategy and I must change MY strategy, no matter what I prefer.

I play MP by the way - and you should too. Forgive me for sounding arrogant, but it seems that SP is mostly AI manipulation. I mean working out when the AI will complete a wonder, to make sure you get it seems silly.

On a kind of related point. To what extent is it worthwhile finding ultimate strategies. For example I am willing to use worldbuilder on occasion to find how the game works exactly. For example in this way I confirmed that siege units do not receive collateral damage. I also enjoy reading these forums to find othe rpeoples opinions on the game. I respect the fact that some people go into quite intense mathematical detail for thorough understanding of game concepts, but I only enjoy reading a shortened analysis of what they have found. I think if I were to look a lot more thoroughly into the game mechanics I would be a better player. But to what extent is this worthwhile? ANd is this the only way to find the best strategies (or, at the very least) better strategies.

 

[pixiejmcc]

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.

Heh. Yavoon was ramming his point home with such conviction, I knew it had to be a good one, I just couldn't tell what it was .

 

[drkodos]

I play MP by the way - and you should too. Forgive me for sounding arrogant, but it seems that SP is mostly AI manipulation. I mean working out when the AI will complete a wonder, to make sure you get it seems silly.

Agreement. Multiplayer is the true test of one's playing abilities. Single player is mostly based upon exploiting AI weaknesses, which remain consistant game to game. In multi-player, one's opponents are not as co-operative or predictable.

 

[acidsatyr]

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.

Relax dude, if you have something smart to say than do so, don’t get pissed off at other people because they don’t agree with you.
All strategy games involve preference factor. We choose our strategy based on the current situation because there don’t exist one single strategy which will always produce win. Even the more dominant ones (at the moment).
If that wasn’t the case, if there was one strategy which wins every time, than the game would not have ANY strategic factor left in it! Do you agree or disagree with this?
Chess differs from a game of civ in a sense that chess doesn’t involve any luck or probability. The game of civ involves luck and probability.
And why did drkodos refute my point about chess? All he said is that in chess, there are clearly tactically good opening and tactically bad openings. Good openings are d4 and e4 for example and not so good is g4. Which is true, but doesn’t really add anything to his or your argument. As far as King’s Gambit goes, it used to be extremely popular opening, but even today it all depends who is on the side playing it! Openings go in and out of the fashion, they are never really completely refuted, as new moves and ideas are introduced, and maybe one day when computers are powerful enough to calculate every permutation of the game will decide that g4 is the best first move white can play, who knows?

 

[yavoon]

Relax dude, if you have something smart to say than do so, don’t get pissed off at other people because they don’t agree with you.
All strategy games involve preference factor. We choose our strategy based on the current situation because there don’t exist one single strategy which will always produce win. Even the more dominant ones (at the moment).
If that wasn’t the case, if there was one strategy which wins every time, than the game would not have ANY strategic factor left in it! Do you agree or disagree with this?
Chess differs from a game of civ in a sense that chess doesn’t involve any luck or probability. The game of civ involves luck and probability.
And why did drkodos refute my point about chess? All he said is that in chess, there are clearly tactically good opening and tactically bad openings. Good openings are d4 and e4 for example and not so good is g4. Which is true, but doesn’t really add anything to his or your argument. As far as King’s Gambit goes, it used to be extremely popular opening, but even today it all depends who is on the side playing it! Openings go in and out of the fashion, they are never really completely refuted, as new moves and ideas are introduced, and maybe one day when computers are powerful enough to calculate every permutation of the game will decide that g4 is the best first move white can play, who knows?

its like u couldn't have a valid point if it hit u in the nuts. luck does not change the idea of effective strategy. just look at poker. seriously u just dont understand the idea of effective strategy. stop. the rest of ur post is the same tired and wrong point u tried to make before.

 

[acidsatyr]

Lol

 

[yavoon]

BLEH. You PREFER a strategy because you have managed to prove that it is better. Everyone's right. Everyone's a winner. ^^

These philisophical musings and arguments over definition have been very amusing to read, if a little ridiculous in reality.

However I will say this: if I am not winning at this game, then I am doing something wrong, someone is doing something better than me, there is a better strategy and I must change MY strategy, no matter what I prefer.

I play MP by the way - and you should too. Forgive me for sounding arrogant, but it seems that SP is mostly AI manipulation. I mean working out when the AI will complete a wonder, to make sure you get it seems silly.

On a kind of related point. To what extent is it worthwhile finding ultimate strategies. For example I am willing to use worldbuilder on occasion to find how the game works exactly. For example in this way I confirmed that siege units do not receive collateral damage. I also enjoy reading these forums to find othe rpeoples opinions on the game. I respect the fact that some people go into quite intense mathematical detail for thorough understanding of game concepts, but I only enjoy reading a shortened analysis of what they have found. I think if I were to look a lot more thoroughly into the game mechanics I would be a better player. But to what extent is this worthwhile? ANd is this the only way to find the best strategies (or, at the very least) better strategies.

I agree, a human is more fun. but MP is impractical for me. and it doesn't change the argument one bit really. as for how I play, I almost always am trying something, usually subtle, sometimes dramatic. to gain a larger understanding of dynamics and effectiveness. I infact often replay SP games after I've won/lost them to try and discern more effective ways to do things. I dont often replay the whole game, but I make a lot of saves so I can look at different points in the game and compare them.

 

[drkodos]

And why did drkodos refute my point about chess? All he said is that in chess, there are clearly tactically good opening and tactically bad openings. Good openings are d4 and e4 for example and not so good is g4. Which is true, but doesn’t really add anything to his or your argument. As far as King’s Gambit goes, it used to be extremely popular opening, but even today it all depends who is on the side playing it! Openings go in and out of the fashion, they are never really completely refuted, as new moves and ideas are introduced, and maybe one day when computers are powerful enough to calculate every permutation of the game will decide that g4 is the best first move white can play, who knows?

Perhaps I misuderstood your point.

My point was that a player has a wide range of choices for opening in Chess (just like stratgeies in Civ) but that many (perhaps most) are not strategically sound.

BTW: King's Gambit is busted. It is not seen in GM play at all. There are several openings that have been successfully refuted, aka "busted". That does not mean they cannot be used as surprise weapons. A HUMAN opponent can be unprepared or psychologically effected by unorthodox moves. But, a computer cannot be fooled or suffer mental anguish because an unsound or unexpected opening salvo is played.

There are many chess openings that have been laid into antiquity because they are inferior. Do they come back every once in a while? Yes, but as soon as one does their homework, these unsound openings get knocked back into the backwaters where they belong.


Therefore, the point is that in both Chess and CIVILIZATION there is a best strategy to be employed and it is determined by the unique game being played, not the participants that are playing it.

 

[drkodos]

its like u couldn't have a valid point if it hit u in the nuts. luck does not change the idea of effective strategy. just look at poker. seriously u just dont understand the idea of effective strategy. stop. the rest of ur post is the same tired and wrong point u tried to make before.

POKER?

yavoon, forgive me if I have misunderstood your point....again.


Please. Strategy in poker is a marketing device designed to get idiots to pay and play. The very best strategy can lose repeatedly. Idiots defeat seasoned professionals all the time at the poker table, and that never happens in real games of strategy. A 1600 player will NEVER beat a GM. It just does not happen. There is no river in the Chess endgame.

The current incarnation of tournament Poker is one of the great scams foisted upon unsuspecting dolts. I salute those people that came up with the concept of fooling a bunch of 20-something college idiots into forking over their parents money.

Now, make sure one of you posts up and tells me how much you've won at the poker table, and what a fool I am. Do not allow my professional gaming experience working in Vegas Casinos deter you from trying to defend your position.

I have the most fool proof system of getting money from casino's.


Get a job there.

 

[acidsatyr]

You are absolutely right; there are strategies which are better than others. But WHO is say, in a game of CIV, which one is the best, that’s the point?
If I can win on very high level using specialist economy and philosophical civ., and somebody else wins by using cottage spam and financial civ. than who is right and who is wrong, get it? In a game of chess there is only one way you can play really. Not so in Civ. Different means to one end.
And you are right about chess, computers can't be fooled. But, like I said, I think you will agree, we can't deny that there is a possibility that any one of these mentioned openings will rise to the top competition, once again.

 

[yavoon]

You are absolutely right; there are strategies which are better than others. But WHO is say, in a game of CIV, which one is the best, that’s the point?
If I can win on very high level using specialist economy and philosophical civ., and somebody else wins by using cottage spam and financial civ. than who is right and who is wrong, get it? In a game of chess there is only one way you can play really. Not so in Civ. Different means to one end.
And you are right about chess, computers can't be fooled. But, like I said, I think you will agree, we can't deny that there is a possibility that any one of these mentioned openings will rise to the top competition, once again.

we are to say, thats why we discuss things. nice to see u admit that strategy isnt preferential though.

 

[yavoon]

POKER?

yavoon, forgive me if I have misunderstood your point....again.


Please. Strategy in poker is a marketing device designed to get idiots to pay and play. The very best strategy can lose repeatedly. Idiots defeat seasoned professionals all the time at the poker table, and that never happens in real games of strategy. A 1600 player will NEVER beat a GM. It just does not happen. There is no river in the Chess endgame.

The current incarnation of tournament Poker is one of the great scams foisted upon unsuspecting dolts. I salute those people that came up with the concept of fooling a bunch of 20-something college idiots into forking over their parents money.

Now, make sure one of you posts up and tells me how much you've won at the poker table, and what a fool I am. Do not allow my professional gaming experience working in Vegas Casinos deter you from trying to defend your position.

I have the most fool proof system of getting money from casino's.


Get a job there.

poker deals w/ variance, but variance over a large number of hands isnt luck. poker strategy is actually very mathematically and psychologically rigorous. uncertainty does not negate strategy.

as for ur post. I dont know why u made this bizzarre plea about how to not try and take money from casinos? in poker games the casino is only raking, so ur really not even playing them.

 

[acidsatyr]

we are to say, thats why we discuss things. nice to see u admit that strategy isnt preferential though.

and where did i say that?
It is preferential.

 

[yavoon]

and where did i say that?
It is preferential.

"there are strategies which are better than others"

its like ur in such a big hole that there's no point admitting the fundamental and horrid way ur wrong and u just have to keep up the fight for the sake of the fight.

 

[pixiejmcc]

I agree, a human is more fun. but MP is impractical for me. and it doesn't change the argument one bit really. as for how I play, I almost always am trying something, usually subtle, sometimes dramatic. to gain a larger understanding of dynamics and effectiveness. I infact often replay SP games after I've won/lost them to try and discern more effective ways to do things. I dont often replay the whole game, but I make a lot of saves so I can look at different points in the game and compare them.

Just wondering why you find MP impractical. Seen as a few of you have agreed that MP is in many ways a better test of skill, it's a shame you don't come and play. And now I will shamelessly plug the ladder at www.myleague.com/civ4players, which you must join if you want to play some quality games against (mostly ) quality players.

I have heard of others assessing saves. I am quite thorough in improving my game, but haven't used this method yet. Please give me an example of how you have used this method and how you have found it useful.