Quote:
Originally Posted by Valerius
Optimal: Here you are trying to minimize luck as a factor. You're looking for a build that will build on your nation's strengths and cover for their weaknesses.
Viable: This approach can emphasize a certain aspect of the nation, trying to build on that strength at the cost of leaving yourself vulnerable in other areas (especially over the long term). While this approach isn't optimal it can certainly still be a competitive approach. It can also be very fun, allowing you to try something different.
Uncompetitive: This would be going against the grain of the nation, trying to them into something they're not. As an example, at one point I decided I wanted Eriu to become a blood nation - not dabble in blood mind you, but have it as an endgame strategy (note that SDRs were available - even I wouldn't have tried it without them ). Uncompetitive approaches can be fun as well but you're going to need a lot of luck in order to have a chance.
I view playing Man with a level 9 bless as falling into the viable category. It may not be optimal but I certainly don't think it falls into the they can NEVER win category.
|
But does minimizing luck really = optimal? Just because you're minimizing luck doesn't mean you're maximizing the number of times you win.
Seems like this would be accurate with a relatively strong nation. Sure if you minimize the luck involved you'll end up in a good position every time. However, with a weaker nation you may actually want to play to the high risk strategies. Your downside is always limited: the worst that can happen is that you loose, and I'd rather loose fast than loose slow.