Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PLUS (Planning, Learning, Understanding, and Stuff) :)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PLUS (Planning, Learning, Understanding, and Stuff) :)

    One of the bright stars on this forum made a comment to me this morning, regarding how smoothly my tutorials seem to go, and it got me thinking.

    Perhaps this too, needs to be a topic for strategic discussion.

    Maybe there are people out there who read about a strategy, and then struggle to make it work for them, and wonder why.

    After all, are they not following the play-by-play, blow-by-blow mentioned in the program and playbook? And given that, should things not be working out more smoothly than they are?

    Failures at this stage, with a step-by-step guidebook in front of you, can easily lead to mounting, pull-your-hair out frustration that in turn, can prompt you to simply give up.

    Before you give into that temptation, I implore you to consider the words in this thread.

    Understand that having the cookbook before you is not enough.

    Reading the directions on the back of the box and diligently following them will take you a little ways down the road, but it won't take you the full distance.

    Why?

    The reason for this is that even the most detailed tutorial ever written here is nothing more than a series of moments, frozen in time and put on display. It tells you nothing about the pulse of the game, the ebb and flow of the tides that make it up, nor the complete picture of the mindset of the author OF the tutorial.

    These things can be hinted at, but cannot be fully explained by way of a simple tutorial, and it is these things that can, and often do spell victory or defeat. Their influences are quiet, subtle things, but they are more powerful than any plan you could ever lay, and if you do not acknowledge and account for them....if you insist on cutting a straight path even when the river curves, it should come as no great surprise when the rocks beat and cut you for it. The game is like that. If you're outside the current, it'll fight you at every turn.

    So how do you find the current?

    What I'm about to say might not make a lot of sense, but I hope you'll stick with me and try to see what I am describing.

    Understand that the strategies and tutorials here are just the tip of the iceburg. They are the crude blueprints for a much more subtle piece of machinery at work. Beneath the crude blueprint you read about, there is a whole world of thought, and it is abuzz with life and activity.

    And in that world of thought, there are multi-fasceted layers of reason behind every line drawn on the crude blueprint.

    It's not enough to just read the directions. It's not enough to say "yes, I must build my Library now, so I can generate a Great Scientist, cos that's what the instructions say...."

    No.

    That's a fine way to begin, but if you want it to be EASY....if you want it to SING, then there's more to it than that. You've got to understand WHY it's important, and when you understand that, don't pat yourself on the back, cos there's more to learn.

    After you understand why it's important, then you've got to understand how the terrain impacts your ability to DO that which is important.

    And after you understand that, then you've got to understand the mechanical aspects of the game that will enable you to enhance or lessen (depending on if the terrain is well or poorly suited to your specific purpose) the impacts of the terrain, and evaluate whether or not it's "worth it" under the present conditions to pursue THIS particular strategy, or give consideration to some other.

    Then you've got to account for and fully appreciate the random element (expressed in AI movements, wildlife, hut contents, and barbarians), and KNOW all the possible outcomes that surround you, and further, KNOW that you have plans in place to deal with them, whatever they are, and further still, to KNOW that those plans are as a suit of armor for you....that they are so tightly meshed together, and so perfectly formed that nothing the game engine throws you will be able to do more than cause a faint ripple against your armor. That whatever happens, your plans are so strong, and so solid, that the game engine has absolutely no hope of throwing you into disarray.

    And when you achieve this level of understanding, you will have the confidence to approach the game under most any starting condition, do well, and make it look easy.

    I wish I could say I was already there, but I'm not. I'm a long ways from there, actually, and my tutorials have mistakes in them....sometimes glaring ones.

    All this is evidence that I am still learning too.

    I feel like I'm on the right road, though.

    I have reached the point where I can see the "writing on the wall" in-game, and can predict with good reliability what will happen, up to tens of turns before it actually does (this includes reading who will go to war, and why, understanding who my enemies will be, before they are actually my enemies, and formulating plans to deal with it, before they are ever even on the horizon, and other things such as these).

    I can cite examples in the tutorials I have done so far, but cannot TELL YOU exactly how you must go about doing it. That's for each person to find for themselves, but perhaps by talking about it here (and yes, I'm specifically talking about the Metagame, perhaps it will open the way for more folks who weren't quite understanding it before).

    Examples of understanding (taken from DW1a)

    * The Archer Attack, just prior to founding the city of Antium. After the archer demolished our fortified warrior, he was weakened, but he was also in the forest (50% bonus), and still had first strike. Conventional wisdom would have said not to attack said unit with a warrior, and conventional wisdom would have been wrong. I don't know how I knew, but I KNEW we could beat him, so we attacked, won, and founded the second city.

    * Spain. Spain founded her own religion. So did we. I KNEW that sooner or later, we would come to blows with Spain, and in fact, that she would be my principal adversary on the continent. This knowledge prompted me to seek out and secure the northern iron, it delayed my embracing of our religion, until after I could trade tech with her, and it was critical to formulating the battle plan for the defense of Rome. Had it taken me "by surprise" when Spain made her declaration of war, the outcome OF that war could have been disasterous, especially in light of the state of the military at that time.

    * Stopping the expansion kick after destroying America. There was no way of knowing for sure what the state of India's army was, but I KNEW that my own boys weren't ready for more warring. They had already seen me through two wars, and had a stunning level of success, but there was not a doubt in my mind that attacking India would have gotten me mired in a slugfest that would have been difficult to win, regardless of my production advantage at that point. By waiting, we rolled over them like they weren't even there.

    In an earlier essay, I wrote that the decisions you make early on in the game, how you opt to spend the very earliest of those hammers you generate will resonate through to the rest of your game....THIS is the "rest of the game" I was referring to.

    Those early hammers, if well-spent, will bring us to the point where we have an Empire with a gigantic economic potential, and if we but sieze upon that, then we can create a game situation where we have a 500% economic lead over our nearest rival (or, to put another way, we're as big, or bigger than the rest of the world combined).

    Those are the kinds of long range goals you want to have in your mind before you even start the game, and those kinds of goals are typically not met accidentally (tho they can be, as mentioned above).

    I guess the biggest, bestest thing you could do would simply be to practice. Don't be shy about replaying the same map ten, or even a hundred times, until you have memorized every curve of ever river, and the placement of every tree.

    What do you think General Lee would have given if he'd had the opportunity to "replay" the battle of Gettysburg a few hundred times before fighting it for real? Is there anything he wouldn't have given? And this is a thing we can do with rediculous ease in Civ. It's so easy that it doesn't make sense NOT to.

    Replay and learn. Experiment. Try crazy stuff that shouldn't work in a million years, just to see what happens.

    One of the things that happens is that if you play the game over enough times, you'll begin to hear it. You'll begin to feel it.

    The pulse of the game.

    When you get to that point, start another one, and listen for the now-familiar sound.

    And keep doing that.

    Before you know it, it'll be second nature, and then the words above will suddenly come back to you, and make more sense (and I'll paraphrase them here)


    Before you can plan effectively, you've got to understand all the ins and outs of how the stuff being talked about WORKS....that's why I used the word "reliably" above. Sure, you can follow the directions and make it work now and then, but how much easier a time will you have when you fully understand and appreciate the nuiances of what you're doing?


    Such understanding will increase by at least a thousandfold, your chances of success. Things you once struggled with will simply fall away from you, and they'll be so easy that you will wonder how and why you ever struggled to begin with.

    And when that happens....when you FEEL it all start to click together....that's when you know you're making progress.

    That's also when you come to realize just how much more there is yet to learn.

    That's why we're all here...reading, writing, and participating in these ongoing discussions every day. It's why we keep coming back, and it's why we can't help but talk about it.

    We're all striving to reach the same place, whether we know it yet or not.



    -=Vel=-
    The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.

  • #2
    Vel:I am not a bright(or pale)star on the forum,or anywhere,but following your game,or reading your posts,was esay,for me, understand that you always try (and not without sucess)understand the philosophie of the move;go on with your lessons,please.
    BTW,glad you speak about that archer;you looked concerned and actually lorst that first battle;but the odds were strongly at your side...

    Comment


    • #3
      [Inigo]Let me explain. No, is too much, let me sum up...[/Inigo]

      Hey, now that I think of it, that actually leads me to a quasi-relevant thought:

      The player who plays the game a lot and replays a given game with different strategies is the player who, like the Man in Black, knows that his brains, Fezzik's braun and Inigo's steel are no match for 60 men at the castle gate... but if they had a wheelbarrow they could pull it off.



      -Arrian
      Last edited by Arrian; February 6, 2006, 16:14.
      grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

      The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

      Comment


      • #4
        Vel's point about experimentation with the same game is well founded. I frequently will do this.

        It's the scientific method at work - form a hypothesis about what the best play in a given situation is, and then test that hypothesis. Unlike in the real world, or a 'real' game, you can generate the counterfactual example yourself and determine what the best move really was in any given situation.

        Example from a recent Monarch, standard size, Continents map game: I'm Rome. I share borders with two adversaries. I'm in the SE corner of the continent, and I have a small NW frontier with Cyrus (who is strong) and Frederick, who is along the remainder of my western and southern borders (and is weak). Washington lies to the west of Cyrus, Gandhi is west of Washington, and god only knows what lies north of Cyrus (I know that Mao is up that way somewhere, but it's all unexplored territory). In addition one civ is unaccounted for.

        I am strong due to a very solid commerce site for the second city. Cyrus, Gandhi and I have a slight lead on the field at this point in the game, both in tech and infrastructure. I've got basically the same power level of military as anyone else, though I'm strong in quality rather than quantity as my force is mostly Praetorians.

        The question before me at the turning point in the game is assault order. I'm going to attack somebody, but I'm not sure whether to go after Frederick or Cyrus. Attacking Frederick makes sense from two standpoints:

        a) it keeps my relative number of adversaries within reach of me at 2 (Cyrus and Washington) after eliminating Frederick
        b) I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Frederick is the weakest player in the game, militarily and economically, so it will be a cakewalk.

        Attacking Cyrus also makes sense for a variety of reasons:

        a) I capture the Pyramids rather than the Parthenon as a Wonder. Since I'm not Philo, the Pyramids is likely to pay much higher dividends over time.
        b) Cyrus HAS to have better land than Frederick, so if I take him out I'm going to control better turf.
        c) I remove my only competition for regional hegemon...Gandhi is a loooong way away, and is unlikely to launch an unprovoked attack besides.

        Against attacking Cyrus:
        a) I have little intelligence regarding Cyrus's territory. Most of my early exploration was westward, as my Scouts crossed most of the continent before encountering rivals, then found the nearer rivals on the way back. I know where Cyrus's nearest city is, but that's it.
        b) It's likely to be a much nastier fight than attempting to fight Frederick. Cyrus clearly has better industrial capabilities, so we would expect his cities to be better garrisoned.

        Having summed all of this information up, I can form a hypothesis. My theory was this: in the long run, contiguous borders would be stronger for me than lashing out at the strong neighbor. Testing this hypothesis is easy - save a game and play both scenarios out until a definitive conclusion becomes clear.


        So I start by attacking Frederick. I roll him very quickly, but Cyrus beelines up to Feudalism during this time and replaces his Archers with Longbowmen. My subsequent attack on Cyrus stalls quickly, and I wreak some economic havoc but make peace. I end up with an enduring rival on my northwest border (whom I plan to attack just as soon as I get better armaments). He is able to keep pace in tech with me, and I've got a problem with no solution within immediate sight.

        Now, for the counterfactual example - I invade Cyrus first. I locate his capital almost immediately upon entering his territory, and it is poorly defended at this point! I am actually able to split the attack force two ways and steal his two most important cities at a single blow. The rest of his empire quickly follows. Attacking Frederick subsequently is somewhat more fruitful, but the attack stalls after taking about 40% of his territory as Frederick gets Longbowmen before I can dig out his remaining city on my SW border. My economy is horrid, but I am able to research fairly capably due to the Pyramids and Representation. I end up with a good-sized tech lead, which is established by burning through the gold from conquering, keeping research at 70% while I spam Courthouses up throughout occupied territory to balance the budget.

        In the final analysis it was pretty clear - attacking Cyrus was the right move. This suggests a pattern to me:

        When weak, attack a weak neighbor. When strong, attack a strong neighbor.

        Subsequent tests of the hypothesis in future games can tell me whether this analysis is accurate or not. I've only got one case to go by right now, but I suspect that the analysis will hold in the end.

        You can use this methodology for tons of different things - where to place a city, what to research, when to launch an attack, etc. If you experiment with these decisions, eventually you will figure out the general rules underlying correct play. Moving on from there, you will figure out when to break the rules that you uncover. Once you reach the point of knowing the rules AND when to break them, you have a solid grasp on strategy.
        Last edited by Aginor; February 7, 2006, 16:17.

        Comment


        • #5
          I usually describe that idea as 'Fluency'. It is the difference between talking in a language and thinking in it, an internalization of the rules.

          You can tell the fluent ones because they start getting more fluid in changing their plans. In language that generally means having more ways to say the same thing.

          On that note, if I want to get fluent in Civ, I must practice more. (and maybe actually complete a game)

          Comment


          • #6
            Zen Civilization.
            Age and treachery will defeat youth and skill every time.

            Comment


            • #7
              It is why I choose to play THIS game. At 54 years old, I need challenges in life. Civ4 is a challenge! It makes me go to school and learn. Nothing better than that. And when I think I know enough, well... I step up a level only to realize I have a loooong way still to go. But the enjoyment of the challenge and the learning are why I am here. And the fact that there are others here like me only makes it better.

              Comment


              • #8
                Very nice thread again Vel.

                I tried to make this point briefly in another thread. I call this concept critical thinking. You have to know what you want to achieve and why you are trying to achieve it, not just how to achieve it.

                Just following a plan step by step does not guarentee sucess. Even the best player can't follow a hardcoded plan and expect to always win.

                Its probably the hardest thing to learn in this game... and possibly impossible to master. That is what gives it its longevity though. So what if it hasn't lasted as long as chess... at least not yet!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Arbarbonif
                  I usually describe that idea as 'Fluency'. It is the difference between talking in a language and thinking in it, an internalization of the rules.
                  What you want to happen is to dream in that language.
                  (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                  (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                  (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm not sure about replaying maps as I feel I know too much from my first attempt, but I have launched a good few attempts at the CS Sling, riffing on the theme:

                    Can I make it going via Polytheism and not Meditation, from a sub-optimal start, with one city, two cities, etc.

                    The answers are generally 'no', but the early game is quite fast and fun to play before the serious action starts.

                    From my experiments, I can get a feel for the conditions under which I can try for it and whether I need to go for top-speed completion, or can add bells and whistles to it.

                    There's too many variables to have hard and fast rules, which is why, as Vel writes, getting a feel for the game is key.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Arbarbonif

                      On that note, if I want to get fluent in Civ, I must practice more. (and maybe actually complete a game)
                      Another one yet to complete a game . That early move fluency that I am starting to develop starts to falter gradually as I move through ages. Post slingshot through to cats/mace I can speak the language but need to search for words. Mid-late renaissance and I know the words but not the order and industrial/modern era I am illiterate.

                      Vel has written yet another masterpiece of clarity, guiding both novice and more experienced player round the way people should think about the game. Experience is really the key to improvement here and this will work as long as you actively compare different strategies and choices made.

                      I think it’s a combination of scientific analysis and gut-feel. Sometimes one choice will feel optimal but a little anaylsis should either confirm this or question it. Changing civics is a good example and I wonder how much work people put into thinking about this before making a switch or if it is done because it works. Given the costs of changing it would seem reasonable that some analysis would be done to confirm that the switch will not only be beneficial but also cover the costs of the lost turn. Also, can we wait a little. If we also want to move a different civic (eg Org Rel), might it make a little sense to wait a little or does that other civic more than pay for the anarchy before the opportunity for the second civic has arrived.

                      I think one important tip is to stop and check things occasionally. Do you need to know how other civs are getting on with each other, what techs do they have/not have/ what resources or techs are available. Does my military need building or should I first look to expand, improve econmy/production. Those various spot checks can help make sure that your strategy has not diverged from the game current.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Crossfire:yes,you said the word,chalenges.
                        And no,you are not the only one.
                        The important,for me,it is not win,in itself,but the chalenge,more precisely,my reaction to the chalenge and also understand why I won or didn't.
                        As I did.Before.In other games.
                        Enough!To the game!
                        Best regards,

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hmm...I have completed a couple of games, but at 40 hours plus there's only a limited amount of experience gained. [Micromanagement? Don't know anything about it. ]

                          Crossfire: you have me by four years; I'm 51.
                          "...your Caravel has killed a Spanish Man-o-War."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Vel has it right..
                            Although i still have lots to learn

                            i also reckon most people have not got the idea aout the difference between strategy and tactics.

                            Strategy is an objective such as securing a resource or denying someonee said resource. it can be as simple as take a city or complex as destroy a rival. Also included here han be denying the opponent their objectives.

                            tactics is how you go about it the units you move and the buildings you build in short it is everything you do to move foward or enhance your stratgey.

                            you can have a great command tatically but if your strategy is poor and hence the descisions on what is important bad then it will be much harder if not impossible to win.Similarly for strategy being good and tactics bad.
                            however it is easier to improve tactics than it is to improve stratgey

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think both are easy enough to 'discover'. What one needs is a desire to get better and a willingness to do the work necessary to get there. Assuming you aren't an idiot (why would you be playing Civ then?) it will all come. It does take some time though and maybe your learning will lean one way for a while, but eventually you can get there on both fronts. Practice makes perfect. How many hours are you willing to spend on a game?!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X