tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19884352.post1937188891031501050..comments2023-12-03T23:16:56.786-07:00Comments on Cumbersome: strāt'ə-jēSeth Jaffeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12449603052617321357noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19884352.post-24455311665694634952008-09-24T12:06:00.000-07:002008-09-24T12:06:00.000-07:00Tim brings up a very good point. I guess I should ...Tim brings up a very good point. I guess I should clarify that when i think about Multiple Paths to Victory, I'm really not thinking about distinct objectives - rather distinct approaches to a single objective.<BR/><BR/>Multiple distinct objectives would also be cool, a game like that might be a bitch to balance properly :) Maybe one of these days I'll give it a shot.Seth Jaffeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12449603052617321357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19884352.post-61593691692863632652008-09-24T11:59:00.000-07:002008-09-24T11:59:00.000-07:00I think you guys are conflating objective with str...I think you guys are conflating objective with strategy. A strategy is a plan to achieve a specific objective. You can develop different strategies to achieve a single objective.<BR/><BR/>Games with multiple winning objectives are rather rare: Dune and Napoleon's Triumph are the only two I can think of off the top of my head.<BR/><BR/>A game with a single objective (most points, last man standing, etc.) can still (and usually does) have multiple strategies to achieve victory.<BR/><BR/>However, this whole semantic discussion reveals what I consider a typical Geek flaw: a desire to "play" the game rather than play the opponent(s). I hear a lot about people giving up a game after several plays when they have "figured it out." To me, that sounds more like a puzzle than a game. The game part is overcoming an equally skilled opponent.<BR/><BR/>This is why a chess master can play thousands of games of chess. Or why I can enjoy tons of games of Through the Ages.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02024607535592425199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19884352.post-3284578357437431122008-09-10T10:07:00.000-07:002008-09-10T10:07:00.000-07:00King of Siam, Mordred and Liberte get quite close ...King of Siam, Mordred and Liberte get quite close to having discrete win conditions. All three however have external systems define which win condition applies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19884352.post-41417304071310247232008-09-06T17:31:00.000-07:002008-09-06T17:31:00.000-07:00I think it's that perhaps we're missing a third te...I think it's that perhaps we're missing a third term to straddle the divide between "strategy" - what you need to do to win the game, and "tactics" - what you need to do on an individual turn in order to progress towards your strategic goal of winning the game.<BR/><BR/>I tend to agree with the argument that economic engine games don't have multiple paths to victory - you win by having the highest score, and that is achieved by optimising your engine. But there are clearly several different actual engines (one of the strengths of Puerto Rico, as opposed to Agricola, is that those engines can be spotted and intercepted - sometimes even to your own benefit! - which is why I think it is still the better game.)<BR/>Choosing which one to use and why (and sometimes when to switch to another one) is that middle-level choice that I think you mean by "Strategy" but others do not.<BR/><BR/>Games that have more than one utterly different winning mechanism are inherently much more challenging to design - but may be more satisfying for that reason. But I don't think it's possible to design a mid-level or above Euro-game like that. (Someone please prove me wrong! I don't know about the game Isamoor cites, but it sounds more on the "filler" end to me.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19884352.post-84415704069300963122008-09-05T16:02:00.000-07:002008-09-05T16:02:00.000-07:00For what it's worth, I firmly believe in multiple ...For what it's worth, I firmly believe in multiple paths to victory. Enemy Chocolatier is a small cheapass game that I think best exemplifies this. In that game, you can win on points, or win by completing your recipe. By about the 5th turn, you pretty much *have* to commit to one goal or the other. If you try to straddle the fence, then you lose. I've seen both strategies work multiple times.Isamoorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17246918125961752266noreply@blogger.com