My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Recently, a player commented on a new guide of mine. The comment implied that I had not written a guide to the nation, but rather a strategy that happened to be specific to that nation. I'm sure he made this implication because he himself had thoughts about a different approach the nation could go in. Clearly if there are subjects I had not covered, my guide must be incomplete. By extension of that logic, nobody has yet written the guide to any nation in my opinion.

This game is so rich with content and mechanics that I feel it impossible to write the definitive work on any particular nation. To illustrate my personal development, my first guide was an attempt to do this with the nation of MA Mictlan. It in my belief is a tragic failure and my worst guide to date. I played with the nation on several occasions afterword and found my assessment of some units to be flat out wrong or incomplete. My assessment of the Moon Priest is a fine example. When I choose a E9S9 bless and learned more on how to utilize astral magic and communions, I found this commander to be my preferred buy more and more. You just can't write everything there is to do with one nation in my opinion, particularly when you are working with a character limit. I could write books on the subject of dominions if someone wanted to pay me an hourly wage.

Then what can one do? My philosophy now is to avoid writing everything there is to write and instead put forth a focused cohesive strategy. Not only that, but make it a point to slim the strategy down to the minimum of what is needed to make it work. I find that guides that spend all of your points for you to be far less enjoyable and assume too much. There are all kinds of games where province count, winning conditions, map layout, and special conditions are wildly different. I find it hard to believe that those points spent in that way is the best for all of these situations.

Surely I want there to be a guide for every nation out there. Ideally I would want there to be more then one for all of them. I would like each one to be large enough that you could base your entire game around it, yet each leaves you enough points to work with so that you can integrate another players strategy into it as well, or perhaps just spend those points on taking that strategy to the extreme, or, even better, allowing the player to work out their own strategy while still having something tested and workable to fall back on. You have to understand that each player has a play style. Cornering that person into your style may not be the best way to help them.

And that's what it comes down to, helping others enjoy this game. That should always be the one thing that sticks in your mind whenever you decide to write a guide. This is my philosophy.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

you're post stopped being interesting to me after the first line since I already know where I stand: Your guides (or whatever) are good and you should continue till you have written one for each nation.

I can honestly say that the Caelum thingie had quite a few tricks that where new to me.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Wouldnt it be a high expectation for everyone to write a guide about a nation and not have it be about a strategy? I see many different views of how to play nations which conflict with others. None are wrong, just different.

Im with you. I want to see a guide for each nation, and preferably more than one for each nation. And strategy guides for game variables.

This is an old quote of mine. I was talking about the strategy books that came out for every game that hit the market for awhile but it still applies.
"There cannot be a strategy guide for Dominions 3. There are two many nations, and too many options within each nation. There would have to be a Strategy Set of Encyclopedias. And even then it would fall short."

Gandalf Parker

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

I agree with you Areaof Effect.
A guide is there to help you make your own strategy with the nation, there are hundres of ways to play a nation. Take Sauro for example, you can take any of the scales to either 3 or -3. You can concentrate on either sacreds, reseacrch, summons, a killer Pretender...

You couldn't even begin to ilustrate all that in a guide.

The point of a guide is to help you understand and learn some handy tips about a nation, and if you're going to depend on a guide completely you're gonna lose, badly.

The best example of my point is Baalz new Niefelheim guide. Completely different strategy with the giants then anyone.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

^(not to OP) Oddly enough I've always thought the big thing about Dominions is that all the optimized strategies start to look roughly the same. Take Sauro, you can make up a strategy that ignores their archers but really is that a preferable thing to do? Sure it's new and something you can win but probably not the most efficient. It's a plus to dominions that you /can/ win with practically anything (I've seen some really awful starts/nations win with sleek diplomacy mixed with good general sense of strategy) but all strategies aren't created equal.

I thought your Caelum guide looked pretty standard (except for the frost brand, I thought that was kinda neat). (nevermind I thought you were referring to someone you weren't) *Edit

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

I agree that a guide should lay out a specific strategy or set of tactics for a nation. To try and write every possible strategy in any depth would be way too much work (if its even possible) and to just generally describe the characteristics of a nation wouldnt have any value.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

I do think the strategy you describe if you do it should be the best strategy there is.. of course that can be debated but it should at least be a contender.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Well, I disagree. I think any strategy guide only needs to (1) be effective enough to give you standard early expansion, (2) not leave you crippled in the mid or late game, and (3) offer some new ideas.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Hey AoE

I don't think theres any problem with what you did, but rather what we call them or what we expect.

If we called them *A* strategy guide .. to X... I really think that is more appropriate.

I think no one can lay out *the* definitive guide; theres always interesting twists and alterations as the game develops. But *a* strategy guide suggests a course of action and a plan of attack - which like it or hate it still gives the reader a plan of attack.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Being "the best strategy there is" also runs into the problem of:
Large map
small map / blitz
CBM
MP
Solo/AI
MegaGame/Allies

So "the best strategy" becomes "the best strategy for xxxxxxx" which seems to be part of the problem here. And some strategies and guides are just plain fun on a large map against lots of AIs. It doesnt make them not guides.

I suppose for clarity we could come up with more labels. What many people seem to consider a "guide" would be something to guide you. Mostly likely to a victory, in an average game.

The problem then is the many other guides. They arent really "tips". And they generally involve more than what would just be a "tactic". I guess we could call them "Strategies". We would still have overlap since the author gets to decide what they feel it is but Id be willing to call mine more of a strategy than a guide. Or even an alternate game scenario. Ive never meant any of them to be winning mp strategies even if I didnt say it.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Well, I disagree. I think any strategy guide only needs to (1) be effective enough to give you standard early expansion, (2) not leave you crippled in the mid or late game, and (3) offer some new ideas.

Well that is totally ridiculous, if it's giving a regular quality strategy that offers nothing more than what players usually do then there would be no need for it. A strategy guide should improve the quality of your game after reading and using it.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

When you said that in your head, where was the emphasis?
Was it "the qaulity of your game."?
Or was it "the quality of your game."

What game would it improve? If its mega map? cbm? solo?
What game would it need to improve the quality of to be considered a "guide"?

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

I think all good guide's I've readcould have improved megamap, cbm, solo and MP games. And that is because they include tactics better than what the average player usually uses.

So to answer the first question I mean it should improve the gameplay of the average player and not be on a level they already know. (obviously a guide won't improve the games of the best players here)

Ow and the emphasis is on all words I use, they are all important, actually I've been thinking to post in all CAPS in every post but ... well I decided not to, ain't I nice?

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

For me, quality is measured in "how much fun am I having". New ideas are fun, unless they are totally broken. I've played Caelum mammoths, and doing the same thing again would not be as much fun as trying out an army of Storm General commandos.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

You don't need a strategy guide then, you need a thread with silly idea's which could be usefull.. there is a differce, I think a strat guide should help you in SP (which most fun idea's could do) but also in MP (which is a bit more demanding)

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

I think it all comes down to what you're looking for in a guide. For example, I'm with Aezeal, in that when I'm checking a guide for a nation, I'm expecting to be able to improve my game with the nation after reading it. If a guide specifically said, "A different approach to etc etc nation" then I'd expect to see some variation. Otherwise, I'm fine with just something that reads pretty standard, gives a good analysis as well as some strategies.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

I don't have any real expectations when reading a guide, I'll judge it at the value of what it teaches me. Sometimes it will greatly influence my gameplay, other times I'll learn some neat little trick or how to put my gems to better use in the early game.

I would rather ask from the author of a guide "What are you trying to teach who?"
Sometimes guides are explicit, sometimes it takes quite some thought on how and where to apply the strategies continued within...
You'll usually see statements such as "use your sacreds to expand", but nothing about how to script them or which commander to use. Those guides would be for the intermediate player, who knows how to apply useful and concentrated information into their ordinary gameplay.

Thinking that all guides should be equally suited for everyone, or even containing something for everyone, seems a bit silly, but I don't think anyone expects that.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Actually some of the best mp guides tended to ruin my solo play if I used them. And didnt do much for my enjoyment of mp. I can understand the strong desire to win in others but it doesnt define my idea of the best gaming experience. That concept of guides, in my opinion, when taken to the extreme leads to the people who enter a forum and the first thing they want are the cheat codes to a game. (Im not saying anyone here of course, its just my view of an extreme I-want-a-guide-to-win viewpoint)

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

The problem then is that some would call it a tutorial. We do have a thread label for tutorial. I think as far as this thread goes we might be talking about tutorial, guide, and tips. Maybe FAQ. But even then we seem to be lacking enough labels for everyone.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

I'm not too convinced by that argument. How can you rate something as "best mp guide" when earlier you, yourself mentioned that under your opinion, there is no "best" of anything because of variables?

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

So there's no strategy in scripting?
Or even in buying a cheap commander early, or leading with a mage to use the battlefield spells you will soon have researched?

Perhaps you are speaking broad strokes, which is what I'm thinking right now, where Strategy Guides should be general advice and guidelines instead of formulas for "this is the best way to expand and win"?

Just asking because I think your stance could be expanded on. It feels as if you like a Socratic kind of guide, where the "teacher" has a dialog with the student so he can find his own way of approaching the problem.

That's just one kind of guide to me, though quite useful I sometimes like something more comprehensive "tutorial"-like, and sometimes just a near numerical analysis so I can see exactly why jotun skinshifters lose to blessed jaguar warriors with certain backup.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Your right. I wanted to put "best mp guides" in quotes.
But I didnt want to give the impression that I was saying they werent great guides. The general consensus here on what the best guides are probably should be considered as best guides.

I just wanted to point out that it doesnt mean best for everyone. Im against trying to limit the definition.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

I'm pretty sure I am the player that made this comment, and I really did not intend to crawl under your skin at all. <3

All I meant, was that when I think of "Guide", I think of something that at least goes into detail about the basics - your standard description of the basic strengths and weaknesses of the nation, description of units and commanders, that sort of thing.

I didn't mean to detract in any way by stating that I didn't see your strategy post as a guide per se, it was simply that you had focused only on the mechanics that you wanted to highlight, and that's perfectly fine. I just see a guide sitting down and explaining the differences in recruitable types first, so you have a quick reference as to the various capabilities of the Caelian troops for example, rather than only specific mention of map move or armor in the context of why you are using those units a specific way, as opposed to other units.

It had nothing to do with the fact that I have a very divergent over-arching strategy worked out (that I AM kind of proud of, just as I think you should be proud of your own work with Caelum), because regardless of how you use the tools provided with the nation, you are still using the same tools. It's just that your description of how to build a rocking chair, didn't start with an assessment of the various tools available to a woodworker, but rather only described them in the context of the project that you were displaying.

I for one like your strategies, and think you're an excellent player, but my respect for you won't change my own semantic differentiation between a Guide, and a Strategy. ;)

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

@ Jim - You didn't crawl under my skin at all. I love you Jim. In that I-don't-know-you-but-I-always-love-to-hear-what-you-have-to-say sort of way. See, now I'm trying hard to dispel any sort of creepy vibe I might be giving off.

Rather, I was originally just going to say that it's a strategy guide and not a nation guide and that a true nation guide could not be made. It then evolved into something larger and I just wanted to make a discussion out of it. I understand your point-of-view, but I feel I did address most of the units in one way or the other. Some I felt needed no introduction.

By the way, I can't wait to see what you've cooked up. :cake:

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Sorry,

Failed my MR against 'creepy vibe' =)

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

I wasn't even considering SP. I think it's usually assumed that if someone's writing a guide, it can be used in MP. SP-only strat guides usually have some sort of disclaimer attached.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

:D

I am sitting here staring at this window, thinking of a million amusing things I could say right now. But for once I will resist making 12 people cringe in the pursuit of getting 3 people to laugh. ;)

And anyway, I am pretty comfortable with my sexuality. I am Unisexual, in that, I only have sex with the Universe. :shock::o:p:happy: So you can say what you want, love you too man. :)

Oh, and hey Chris. What are you wearing right now? :o

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

This thread certainly got a lot weirder ...

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

It is those damned Void Spectres I tell you.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

OK. I am completely disturbed by this thread.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

I must say I don't really like the National Strategy guides.

Imho a guide should be aimed mostly at newbies because they are needing them. An experienced player should be able to asses the strengths of their nations on their own as well as build solid strategies and the fun is imho in doing that and not following a guide only to win.

When I was a complete newbie (well, I am beyond that hopefully, I can't say my strategies are bulletproof and fully efficient they're not a complete waste though) I've read some of them and really understood nothing.
One instance was when it was mentioned how great this nation is at fatigue spells. Well, I couldn't really see the point of why you'd prefer a fatigue spell over a damage spell, until I build my first thug.

I'd rather see the effort that's put into these national guides into more general guides like how do I build/counter thugs/SCs with Nature Magic or Air Magic, how do I counter skellyspam, etc.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

ehm let's stay on topic

/me gets down on his knee's

PLEASE

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

No Gandalf prefers a Schizophrenic kind of guide, where the poster has a dialogue with himself.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

I agree. Illuminated One, there's no need to bring this subject of Strategy Guides up again, when everyone is busy talking about what certain forum members are wearing.

On a completely different topic, I'd be very interested in reading the Definitive Schizophrenic Guide to R'lyeh.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Well, I've been playing as long as anyone, since PPP. I learn things all the time from guides. Plus I can't even usually remember how to play a race I've ignored for a few months. So guides help me recall.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Plus the type of thinking used in specific strategy guides can give you ideas on other strategies for other nations.

You get some of that from seeing what others throw at you in MP, but since you often can't tell how they got to that point it doesn't help as much.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Not to mention, that guides help you see what other nations are capable of throwing at you.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Hey Baalz

Instead of writing more national guides... for a bit.. how about writing a series of guides on how to attack particular nations.

Niefle, Caelum, Ashdod and Hinnom come to mind, perhaps giving the best common avenues for all races, and then if any individual race has an advantage mention that. (Sauromatia v hinnom for example)

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Mmmh, how to do that chris? I think there's an enormous difference between the E9N9 Jarls Niefel and the Niefel of Baalz's guide. As there's a huge difference between a stealthy pangaea and a blessed white centaurs pangaea and a cbm carrion woods pangaea... not to mention the distinctions among all the ways to play sauro (sacreds, cavalry, thugs, blood...)... I think fighting a nation is too situational. The important things are your weapons, when you know these you should know how to react to the enemies' ones (which may vary), not the other way round. Just my opinion :)

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

If any non-nation guide would be intersting, I had think it would be an anti-sc guide.
Perhaps it would be divided along what magical paths you have got access to, perhaps how to build a thug who tackles SCs well.

What I have often have seen here is that the end-game gets homogenized, no matter what nation you are, and SCs are a part of the game but especially the endgame.

If anyones going to write a guide to counters, I think that's the one to start with.
Would probably help many people. Me especially (I think...:))

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

You might be thinking of AAR.
I do often suggest an AAR which can be book-published in a form where the left pages are the game in story form, and the right pages are the actual game actions.

Im not sure how a schizo guide would be done. Something like
"How to play Abyssia vs Jotunheim and How to play Jotunheim vs Abyssia" in the same Guide? That might be interesting. A comparison of how to use the heat aura and cold aura effectively, the different summons that work best with each, formations, support spells, etc.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Sombre, I'm ashamed of you.

Multiple Personality Disorder is a serious illness, as demonstrated in the classic "Seven Faces of Ga^H^H^HEVE", and certified in the DMS-IV. A complete list of DSM-IV codes can be found here, courtesy of the renowned Dr. Jim Morrison...wait, whut... uh oh... walls of reality breaking down... What lies beyond the veil?!!... such a shape, unimagined by man... like endless strings who's roots and strands give birth to themselves, a vast cthonic sport... the horror, the horror...

*grrrrk* *erwwww* YOGSO/****bzzzzzt IO IO [static] [pan pipes?]

/end transmission

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

And/or some sort of theoretical chess-crafting. Essentially going step by step with strategy > counter, in a fictional confrontation between 2 nations/builds. Would be a good way to highlight some niche tactics that people are less aware of, and to show things that people wouldn't necessarily post as a focal point of a strategy, but that become apparent as the best course of action during the play of the game.

Re: My Philosophy on Strategy Guides
 

Best spot eva archaeo :shock: