Originally posted by spoon:
Agreed! But here we are in the Forum -- not playing the game, but discussing the game. When discussing the game, having statisitcs is better than having gameplay results, I'd argue.
There's logic in this. However I would contend that there are simply too many variables in this game to do a strict apples to apples comparison between techs. To do this what standard do you use? Damage to tonnage ratio? Or damage to cost? Or maybe damage to research cost? PPB doesn't come out on top with all three I know that. And there are other factors to consider. How far apart are your empires at game start? What is the political situation with the other empires? All of this has great impact and cannot be adequatly planned for in every instance, and does not fit easily into raw spreadsheet analysis.
I have to like the game for the same reasons you do? That's a peculiar stance...
Not what I am saying at all. One of the greatest things about this game is that it has so many different things to offer. My point was only that a person that approaches the game from a strict cost/benefit/efficency analysis perspective is not likely to enjoy it for as long. Not that they wouldn't enjoy it just as much while they do.
You were asserting that these sort of things didn't matter because they could be countered. I was claiming that they gave you an edge that could be difficult to overcome.
On the contrary. If I ever asserted these things didn't matter, I didn't intend to. Of course they matter very much. But they aren't the only thing that matters. I am simply saying that there is no formula for success in SEIV that you do A then B then C and you will win. If there was then the AI could kick all our butts all the time.
You appear to agree with me on that point. Not everybody does. Not everything I have said in these Posts is intended directly for you.
True. However, having a strong race design is still significant, and a poor race design can all but guarantee failure.
Can't argue with that. Good planning is crucial to victory. It's hard to overcome poor planning. But my contention is there are other plans that could be equally as effective as yours. A lot depends on a persons style of play. You need a plan that meshes well with your personality.
I'd rather these sort of tactics be downplayed, and that a newish player can learn from his mistakes in time to make a difference in his current game(s).
Nah, let 'em learn the hard way. The way we all did.
EDIT: By the way, why not put these theories to the test Spoon and join the King of the Hill league.
Geoschmo
[ December 22, 2002, 02:32: Message edited by: geoschmo ]
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Threaded Mode