Culture Victory

[Aeson]

My point about Cultural 100k victories wasn't that it's easier or harder, but that to get the absolutely best Cultural 100k date for a given map, the formula is less apparent than any other victory condition. 'Borging' will get you a rather fast Cultural 100k victory on larger maps, but except for maps with tons of room for expansion (huge/8AI types, even then it won't be optimal), it will be quite a bit slower than what is possible.

A well played Cultural 100k victory requires a fast tech rate (especially with the Internet in PtW), efficient and fast conquest early with steady conquest later, two stage city placement plan, all while determining the optimum ratio of expansion to building improvements. It's quite a balancing act, and really well played Cultural games are the rarest.

All the other victory conditions are much more straightforward in how to approach them in regards to fastest finish type games. They also are limited in how many facets of the game are involved. Conquests tend to either be basic economic buildup and then go, Domination being much the same. Tech rate can be (and often is required to be) retarded after the desired unit tech is reached. Spaceship is all about tech rate, so is Diplomatic. Minimal expansion/conquest is required (and often further conquest hurts rather than helps) for both, and city developement is inconsequential after a Palace/FP core has been set up in any case.

[Theseus]

I'm not quite done with it, but at one point I looked at AU210 (by nature a very 'balanced' game) and said: cultural victory?

Not possible, at least for me.

For the naysayers out there, win AU210 on culture, and then come back and talk some smack.

[MysteryMan]

Sounds like a challenge... What is AU210?

[MysteryMan]

Originally posted by Catt


I'm not a huge fan of diplo wins, but I always seem to fall into line to defend them. I would say that your first statement re: culture wins is as applicable, if not more so, to diplo wins as culture wins.

Winning a diplomacy victory without resorting to any of the numerous "formulas" for success can be challenging -- even if you trade techs and resources like mad, the ties that bind (and lead to UN votes in your favor) tend to be military alliances and MPPs, and entering such deals is risky and nuanced when you're trying to keep up a positive reputation and worldwide attitudes throughout a long game.

Catt

You make some good points. I have yet to set out to get a diplomatic win, I sometimes get it but only if it becomes apparent that other means will not be successful. If I realize I am not going to win by culture or conquest, I will either build the UN and call the vote or just build the spaceship. Now that I think of it, the space race must be the easiest form of victory (for me anyways, I almost always have a half dozen core cities that can build the spaceship in less time than it takes to research it.

[Rhothaerill]

Click the link in my signature and you'll see. AU is Apolyton University. It's a series of scenarios designed for teaching and learning. Basically you play the game and post DARs (During Action Reports) of your progress. You can ask for help with the game or just play it to see how your strategy compares with other people's strategies, etc. Have fun.

[alexman]

Originally posted by MysteryMan
...as long as you're playing the game and not following some lame-ass formula like some 'players' do. If you don't beat the game on it's own terms, you didn't beat the game!

If the game lets me place my cities every two tiles and rush-build cultural improvements, why do I fail to beat it on its own terms?

Some players like to push the envelope and play optimally, and some like to play in a more conventional, realistic manner. The game lets you do both. Who are we to judge how the game is supposed to be played?

Originally posted by Aeson

A well played Cultural 100k victory requires a fast tech rate (especially with the Internet in PtW), efficient and fast conquest early with steady conquest later, two stage city placement plan, all while determining the optimum ratio of expansion to building improvements. It's quite a balancing act, and really well played Cultural games are the rarest.

Very good point.
Now I want to try a fastest 100K in an AU game!

[Catt]

Originally posted by MysteryMan

You make some good points. I have yet to set out to get a diplomatic win, I sometimes get it but only if it becomes apparent that other means will not be successful. If I realize I am not going to win by culture or conquest, I will either build the UN and call the vote or just build the spaceship. Now that I think of it, the space race must be the easiest form of victory (for me anyways, I almost always have a half dozen core cities that can build the spaceship in less time than it takes to research it.

Yup! Other than a few experiments, I don't ever start a game with a view towards winning a diplomacy victory -- if I win by diplomacy it is usually just to win a game that is winnable by several other methods. (I have a bias against quitting a game even though I know it's won, for some reason.)

I've grown accustomed to playing a "house rule" which states that if offered, a UN vote must be called. This means that I must either win before the UN is built or run the risk of calling a UN vote -- added to a house rule against MPPs, gifts, or MAs clearly directed at UN votes, it gives the UN a role in the game that I don't think it otherwise has in the basic design. This surely affects my gameplay and strategic advice even though I'm not circumspect about calling it out in every post.

I haven't won a spaceship victory in a long time, if only because it seems easier and quicker to win a domination victory over a spacerace victory regardless of the size of your civ if you get to the modern age with rough tech parity. Usually I just want to win a "won" game and start again in the ancient age - whichever victory offers the quickest win seems most appealing in those circumstances.

Originally posted by alexman

If the game lets me place my cities every two tiles and rush-build cultural improvements, why do I fail to beat it on its own terms?

Some players like to push the envelope and play optimally, and some like to play in a more conventional, realistic manner. The game lets you do both. Who are we to judge how the game is supposed to be played?

Yup - playing optimally has its attractions, as does playing "less-than-optimally." About 10% of the time I start a game with the goal of just crushing the game; the other 90% of the time I start a game with a view to having some fun. In either case, I feel pretty good about how I'm beating up the poor AI, and I suspect that most of us should take comfort and pleasure in beating the game on its "own terms," regardless of our interpretation of the game's terms.

Catt

[MysteryMan]

Originally posted by alexman
If the game lets me place my cities every two tiles and rush-build cultural improvements, why do I fail to beat it on its own terms?

Some players like to push the envelope and play optimally, and some like to play in a more conventional, realistic manner. The game lets you do both. Who are we to judge how the game is supposed to be played?

I guess beating the game is beating the game, but I personally think that anyone can read and apply a 'cookbook style' recipe that will enable one to win almost every time just through knowing and exploiting the rules of the game.
Victory (IMHO) is when you create and follow an original plan, and, through clever reactions to circumstances as they come, outmove, outwit, and ultimately destroy/render impotent your competitors.
I guess this is just an aesthetic thing, what really matters is that you just enjoy the game.

[:) Smiley]

Yes, a true cultural victory in the spirit of the idea should definitely be one done with style.

[Aeson]

I don't think there are any 'cookbook style' victories. Every game is sufficiently different just because of the map, civs involved, and obviously the RNG. The AI should be sufficient proof of what happens when a broad algorithm is applied to many different situations...

[MysteryMan]

The AI is incapable of creative thought. I expect better from my fellow man...

[Aeson]

We are just I/O and logic routines ourselves. Much more complex than any AI of course, but still no room for true creative thought. That's OT though.

-------------

I agree with alexman that there is no 'proper' way to victory. A player adapts their knowlege of game mechanics to the situation, and then has the choice of what self imposed limits to place on their gameplay. If a player were just applying a recipe for victory, it wouldn't work.

Knowing and 'exploiting' the rules of the game (by that I just mean taking advantage of your knowlege of how things work) is the only means to victory. Just how far a player goes in 'exploiting' the rules is up to them. All players do it, and saying one way is playing the game, and another way isn't, is disingenuous at best.

[MysteryMan]

No room for creative thought??? There are a whole lot of differences between a computer and a brain, not least of which is that a computer is much better designed because it's evolution was overseen by a rational, *creative* mind whereas ours was purely Darwinian. How could we ever have INVENTED (a creative process, by definition) anything at all without creative thought, let alone something as mind-bogglingly complex as the computer...? What use would our opposable thumbs be without creative thought?

I have heard it said that there is no ORIGINAL thought, and one can make an excellent case for that ("Original thought is like original sin. Both happened a long time ago to someone you will never meet.") However, originality and creativity are not the same thing.

As an example of a 'cookbook' victory, how about in Civ where one could build cities adjacent to one another, thereby becomming absolutely unstoppable by any other strategy? How about the various formulas people came up with to beat CivII? ICS? OCC? REX? There is a lot of (admittedly very high-quality) material in AU that shows very clearly and simply how to beat the Civ games (especially the first two Civs) without ever having to make a decision for yourself.
On the other hand, I am reluctantly forced to agree that there is no practical difference between winning by following someone else's directions and actualy finding an innovative solution, except that one is good for nothing but entertainment, whereas the other will encourage you to adapt, evolve, learn, and, yes, think creatively.
What does OT stand for?

[Aeson]

OT - Off topic. Your Civ I and II examples would be another example.

The human mind is a computer. The matter in a human brain reacts according to laws of physics just like the matter in any other processor, regardless of the medium that comprises it. We gather data from senses. Process, store, retrieve, and extrapolate from that data. The processes involved evolve through use (which is pretty much constant), the evolution dictated by the same laws.

Or perhaps you think thought is somehow conjured from nothing?

There is a lot of (admittedly very high-quality) material in AU that shows very clearly and simply how to beat the Civ games (especially the first two Civs) without ever having to make a decision for yourself.

Please write down a recipe for victory in Civ III that requires no decision making on the part of the player... Keep track of all the moves, interactions with the AI, ect. It will work on one map (f preserve random seed is on), but on every other it will fail miserably.

Even more abstract recipes are going to fail in many circumstances. For instance, should you build a Granary in your capitol? Which tech should you research first? How many units and which type should you build before attacking?

The answers to broader questions like that will vary from map to map. Knowing the fundamental rules of the game will allow a player to assess the situation, make predictions about various courses of action, and then apply a course of action that they feel would be advantageous. Every player does this.

You seem to want to pretend that some players don't actually play the game. I'm just saying that there is no room for that high horse, every player is doing the exact same thing when playing. Applying their understanding of the rules of the game in a manner which will allow them to achieve their desired goal.

[Dominae]

Aeson: define 'creative'.

If it's not something people are capable of, what is? If the answer is "nothing in our experience", how did we come by the concept of creativity in the first place?

Until the human brain is understood at the level necessary to explain away creativity (making it seem like no more than an AI), I think we're justified in using the word 'creative' to describe the way humans play games (assuming creativity is relative).

Yup, this is very OT.


Dominae