Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grijalva
Squirrelloid, how can I be "absolutely wrong" when I haven't posted any absolutes?
|
Hmm... lets take a look.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grijalva
Everything you do should be in respect to yourself eventually winning, no matter how slim those odds might be.
|
Now, where's Waldo?
------------
And Nope. I have no problem with so-called 'vassalage'. Minor power want to throw in with the leading side? That's a triumph of diplomacy.
Yes, diplomacy is part of the game. If you do it well, people are more likely to stay allied with you even when you're winning, especially when they have no chance themselves. Neglect diplomacy at your peril.
And heck, any alliance against a leading player that will have few tangible benefits for you (and to be honest, most alliances against a leading player primarily benefit the second ranked player(s)) isn't really playing to win, its kingmaking for #2. If you believe anything else you're just deluding yourself. I'd certainly consider my diplomatic history with the likely beneficiaries of both sides and make my decision based on who played the diplomatic game better.
A realistic assessment of most games would likely show that 50% of players (or more!) are not in contention to win by turn 40-50. Many of those players likely control decently-sized territories.
-Luck is only a factor in any real sense between evenly matched opponents, and even then, its usually a rather small factor. Most opponents are not evenly matched.
-Player skill is a huge factor in nation performance, and its only rational to use conditioned expectations of victory chances based on demonstrated player skill.
-Overwhelming material advantages really are overwhelming. Only a gross imbalance in player skill can save a nation or set of nations with a large deficiency of material.