Why do players powergame?

[morteduzionism]

Powergame may not be the right phrase but I hope you know what I mean. For a game that spans centuries, what is the pleasure of trying to beat the game in 20yrs? 50yrs? Etc.?

It's almost like: peanut butter without jelly; going to the beach but not getting your feet wet; only watching the opening credits of a movie...

It's hollow and incomplete.

Am I wrong?

[Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I think that is rather a personal issue I guess.
Like always, the truth obviously holds the middleground between the two opposites.

Q.

[phoebusapollon]

i guess some players like the feeling of wiping out the opposition - just killing them off -

probably its just the history buffs (like me - and probably you too mort) who like playin the game for the sake of playing it -

i try not to wipe out factions if i can help it - its fun having them around - sometimes i leave them with just one province so that they arent a danger, but still around - sometimes i even help them survive by protecting them against another faction...

[morteduzionism]

probably its just the history buffs (like me - and probably you too mort) who like playin the game for the sake of playing it -

Maybe. But...do they know they're not getting their money worth(well I guess for them they are)...don't you have to get the full experience? It's just too weird for me to even conceptualize...

i try not to wipe out factions if i can help it - its fun having them around - sometimes i leave them with just one province so that they arent a danger, but still around - sometimes i even help them survive by protecting them against another faction...

Me too, eventhough the AI is ungrateful. Have you ever gifted a city back to a dying faction...and they don't garrison it...or even try to do anything with it?

[phoebusapollon]

Maybe. But...do they know they're not getting their money worth(well I guess for them they are)...

Me too, eventhough the AI is ungrateful. Have you ever gifted a city back to a dying faction...and they don't garrison it...or even try to do anything with it?

well if you dont get any fun out of building up your cities and your characters, then i guess you are getting all you can out of the game by just wiping out -

but you're right - the fun thing about this game is that its like two or three games rolled into one - its just that some people arent interested in playing an ancient version of sim city...

and about ungrateful factions - once i helped the germans survive against another faction (i just didnt like the idea of a 'civilized' faction taking control of the pristine forests of Germania in the third century BC) by recapturing their provinces and giving it back to them - and what do they do? - a few turns later they attacked me!!

[roy34543]

I think noone is good enough to beat more then a few rebel cities in 10 turns.
Not many can wipe out a faction in 25.

[binTravkin]

I think noone is good enough to beat more then a few rebel cities in 10 turns.

With Romans on VH/VH you can have whole Italy (except Gallia Cisalpina), Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia in 10 turns (with 4tpy).

Am I wrong?

Sure you are.

You basically sound like 'Buddhists suck, since I can't understand all this "middle path thing", to me life is for living.' Got the point?

probably its just the history buffs (like me - and probably you too mort) who like playin the game for the sake of playing it -

No, I'm a decent 'history buff' and I do what OP calls powergaming.

well if you dont get any fun out of building up your cities and your characters, then i guess you are getting all you can out of the game by just wiping out -

Obviously there are different understandings of the word 'powergaming'. My powergame involves doing everything as good as possible, including putting the right persons in right place, building the best (usually most profitable) improvements first and so on, which is only logical to say the least.
One home rule I have when I play infantry nations like Romans is to always build roads first and up to max possible, before building anything else, since they just can't move decently without roads.

I also like battles, so I do them a lot - whenever I see an opportunity for battle in which odds are at least possible to win, I get into fight.

[morteduzionism]

Sure you are.

When I asked it I was being rhetorical...lol

You basically sound like 'Buddhists suck, since I can't understand all this "middle path thing", to me life is for living.' Got the point?

I don't agree with this. According to your analogy you're equating Buddhism with Powergaming. Buddhism, to use your analogy, is a comprehensive philosophy/religion. Powergaming, by your description and the realities, is anything but comprehensive. By the very nature of 'powergaming' you're ignoring numerous aspects of the game. You even suggested that you only see this game as a "battle" game, so you play to maximize this aspect.

To be precise I'm saying/asking: what pleasure is to be gained from an incomplete experience?

No, I'm a decent 'history buff' and I do what OP calls powergaming.

Why?

Obviously there are different understandings of the word 'powergaming'. My powergame involves doing everything as good as possible, including putting the right persons in right place, building the best (usually most profitable) improvements first and so on, which is only logical to say the least.

Maybe if your goal/objective is to only play for a few years. But this strategy may not be as wise if you planned to play over the long run.

It sounds almost like the difference between day-trading and long term investing. The tactics/strategies that are successful to achieve one may not work to achieve the other.

I also like battles, so I do them a lot - whenever I see an opportunity for battle in which odds are at least possible to win, I get into fight.

And you feel you get more battles playing 50yrs vs. 250yrs?

[binTravkin]

I don't agree with this.

No you don't understand it.
You're saying something's bad because you don't understand it.
Similarly devout buddhists could be 'shallow' and what not for someone who's like Kurt Kobein (at the same time, both talk about Nirvana ).

Powergaming, by your description and the realities, is anything but comprehensive. By the very nature of 'powergaming' you're ignoring numerous aspects of the game.

We must be talking about two different concepts.

You even suggested that you only see this game as a "battle" game, so you play to maximize this aspect.

Where did I suggest that?

It sounds almost like the difference between day-trading and long term investing. The tactics/strategies that are successful to achieve one may not work to achieve the other.

How is building cash-giving-improvements over everything else day-trading?
Now, building loads of troops right away just to see yourself going in the red, that's day-trading.

And you feel you get more battles playing 50yrs vs. 250yrs?

I get more intense game. I play to relax not to sit endless hours in front of computer, which I'm doing at work already.

Why?

Because I like to fantasize what would it have been if the faction I am playing was not day-trading historically.

[Selahedîn]

I have only one thing to say in this thread: "To each his own".

[Tony83]

I have only one thing to say in this thread: "To each his own".

Exactly! TW is a mansion of many rooms and many colours, and I move about in it to suit the particular mood I'm in.

With games like TIC, I've sometimes just sat in on a rainy Saturday and done the whole campaign in a single intense day! (It's what winters are for ).

On the other hand I've a Med II PDER ERE campaign on the go, which I started last September, and am still thoroughly enjoying its gradual progression. (If you like RTR give PDER a go: it's the best Med II mod that I've come across that has an RTR'esque approach and flavour - there's even a new version of it imminent.)

There's no rights or wrongs, just what suits you!

[phoebusapollon]

I have only one thing to say in this thread: "To each his own".

agreed - this is a dumb argument and the tone is getting mean -

mort - you obviously enjoy playing a game that feels 'real' - where if you actually are a leader you cant just go to war all the time but have to consider things like not having too many people in your empire killed etc. the 'powergamers' want a game thats fun and 'to relax' - so let them have their fun

one thing i dont agree with you, mort is about the cash-givng buildings. i always go for economic development in my conquered provinces, because in this game having lots of denarii gives you the flexibility to control events to a very significant extent -

not just in the sense of having huge armies and wiping out your enemies but other stuff as well -

like i said i like 'saving' weak factions from being destroyed - once i have loads of money i give them financial help to keep them in the game (and its useful too to have a small irritating thorn in the side of one of your major enemies) - couple of times i have even prevented them having their last settlement taken by just bribing a besieging army

[morteduzionism]

agreed - this is a dumb argument and the tone is getting mean -

If it seems like my tone is "mean" then I apologize to whoever was...bothered. Bin, I had no intentions of passing a judgement on your style of play. My interest was to gain understanding into what one gets out of that style of play. If I came across "mean", as I said, I sincerely apologize.

mort - you obviously enjoy playing a game that feels 'real' - where if you actually are a leader you cant just go to war all the time but have to consider things like not having too many people in your empire killed etc. the 'powergamers' want a game thats fun and 'to relax' - so let them have their fun

I'm fine with that. I said as much in a couple of different responses. I was only trying to gain insight on what type of experience 'powergamers' gain from playing that way.

one thing i dont agree with you, mort is about the cash-givng buildings. i always go for economic development in my conquered provinces, because in this game having lots of denarii gives you the flexibility to control events to a very significant extent -

That's cool. That's a difference of strategies. Don't get me wrong it's not like I don't build economic structures and I don't generally build military buildings first. I seek balance. My goal is to try and always have enough military strength to defend what I have(I hate losing cities).

IMO, my opinon only, it doesn't make sense to invest heavily into economic infrastructure at the cost of the military strength to defend it. But that's just my opinon...

not just in the sense of having huge armies and wiping out your enemies but other stuff as well -

I agree. My economy always corrects itself and I begin to have growing surpluses. Always. I just don't agree with overextending my military(i.e. you have 4 borders and 2/3 armies) because I wanted another city to add more income to my treasury. That's being greedy to me. Unlike Gordon Gekko I don't think greed is good.

like i said i like 'saving' weak factions from being destroyed - once i have loads of money i give them financial help to keep them in the game (and its useful too to have a small irritating thorn in the side of one of your major enemies) - couple of times i have even prevented them having their last settlement taken by just bribing a besieging army

So do I. Regardless of whether they're grateful or not...lol That, what you're describing, is more in line with the type of conversation I was trying to start. A discussion about the various aspects of the game and what players get from them.

[Tiberius Nero]

Powergaming in a game as ridiculously easy as RTW (and its mods, not that the modders are at fault) seems a bit pathetic to me, tbh. It is like clubbing a baby seal in a wheelchair and feeling great and mighty about it.

On the other hand, powergaming, that is using every available resource and feature to achieve maximum effect, is for me what gaming is all about, provided the player is faced with an AI capable of utilizing the same things as the palyer at the very least on a decent level; the AI in RTW for example doesn't even use crucial features like demolishing buildings let alone the fact that the features it does use, it does so horribly.

For me the fact that in order to enjoy a game one has to create "house rules" and "role play" is a sure indication that the game is not performing as it should. In a truly good strategy game one shouldn't really think in terms of (e.g.) "oh well, let the Gauls alone, they are fluffy and besides I am bored to go conquer them lol", but rather as in "I will attack the Gauls at the best available oportunity, or else I risk being overrun soon" or something. Yup, it is all about the competition and the challenge, for me at least.

[phoebusapollon]

Don't get me wrong it's not like I don't build economic structures and I don't generally build military buildings first. I seek balance. My goal is to try and always have enough military strength to defend what I have (I hate losing cities).

IMO, my opinon only, it doesn't make sense to invest heavily into economic infrastructure at the cost of the military strength to defend it. But that's just my opinon...

i know - this is a fine balance isnt it?

unlike you i tend to go for the economic growth first - so once i have a phase II auxilia i start building roads and markets instead of trying to build up to a royal barracks -

this can be a problem - like right now i dont have any place in northern mesopotamia where i can recruit horse archers (im doing a parthian campaign) let alone cataphracts - so im using the reserve cohort concept - recruiting them further away and moving them up to the front to replenish my frontline armies

obviously this is extra cost in the sense that i need an extra couple of units around (i park them in my recently captured cities - so they also give the defense some extra teeth in case they get counter-attacked)

but then i figure the extra cost is balanced out by the gains of the extra population growth and trade that the markets and all give

[morteduzionism]

No you don't understand it.
You're saying something's bad because you don't understand it.

I'll admit to not understanding it, but I never meant to imply that I thougth it was "bad". I just don't understand what someone gets out of playing this way.

We must be talking about two different concepts.

Possibly. But I don't think so.

Where did I suggest that?

Manual. Well, isn't this game about battling then? I get to battle 80% of the time and that's fun! :original:

These are your words taken from post# 21 in the sub-forum for RTRPE, in response to the post started by Malazan titled, "Help!!! Tips for Rome Faction-How do i stop"

How is building cash-giving-improvements over everything else day-trading?
Now, building loads of troops right away just to see yourself going in the red, that's day-trading.

It was just an analogy. It possibly was a bad analogy but that's all it was...

Building cash-giving-improvements over everything else is day trading because while yes you may get faster returns on your investments but...that's providing you can defend the cities while construction is being built. If the city falls in the middle of construction not only do you lose the initial construction cost, you lose the income from the city and it means you'll have to reinvest in that building again if/when you take the city back(since you opted for economic infrastructure over military you may or may not have the strength to take the city back)...that sounds like day trading to me, 50/50 at best.

Building loads of troops just to see yourself going into red is not day trading because while yes you may go into the red for a period(the market has ups/downs and it's been proven that the long term investor always comes out ahead) you have the strength to pull yourself out(i.e. take a city, raids, etc) furthermore if you manage your empire correctly you won't go into the red and you will have the forces to protect the cities building the economic infrastructure mentioned earlier. So, IMO, over the long period investing in soldiers ensures the longevity of your faction...sounds like long term investing to me.

I get more intense game. I play to relax not to sit endless hours in front of computer, which I'm doing at work already.

...don't we all

I have only one thing to say in this thread: "To each his own".

Basically. I didn't mean to pass judgement on that style. I was just wondering what exactly does one get out of it.

[binTravkin]

I was just wondering what exactly does one get out of it.

No, you were giving it a certain labeling.

Building cash-giving-improvements over everything else is day trading because while yes you may get faster returns on your investments but...that's providing you can defend the cities while construction is being built. If the city falls in the middle of construction not only do you lose the initial construction cost, you lose the income from the city and it means you'll have to reinvest in that building again if/when you take the city back(since you opted for economic infrastructure over military you may or may not have the strength to take the city back)...that sounds like day trading to me, 50/50 at best.

Again, try it, then speak.

Building loads of troops just to see yourself going into red is not day trading because while yes you may go into the red for a period(the market has ups/downs and it's been proven that the long term investor always comes out ahead) you have the strength to pull yourself out(i.e. take a city, raids, etc) furthermore if you manage your empire correctly you won't go into the red and you will have the forces to protect the cities building the economic infrastructure mentioned earlier. So, IMO, over the long period investing in soldiers ensures the longevity of your faction...sounds like long term investing to me.

Well, you don't argue with history, and since historically emphasizing military over economy long term has always been a disaster (Soviet Union anyone?), this argument is moot.

These are your words taken from post# 21 in the sub-forum for RTRPE, in response to the post started by Malazan titled, "Help!!! Tips for Rome Faction-How do i stop"

I can't see how I one can read that I emphasize battles over everything else in that citation. Unless one reads what he wants to read.

I just don't understand what someone gets out of playing this way.

I just love to play out history like if someone reasonable was in charge, you know.
The sight of 10 scroll governor sitting in Rome, the sight of highways going all around my empire, the sight or trade routes being full of carts/ships, the sight of my enemies attacking me with huge armies just to be attacked by even bigger/better or both armies, just because my long term economy-first, micromanage every bit and use every soldier to kill someone doctrine has resulted in me both eradicating any early threat quickly and forever while rising my income into the skies..

[Jamey]

I tend to "powergame" in most computer games because I enjoy the process of optimization. I enjoy building a large, smooth running empire with effective armies.

Once I've built up to a stable point, I really enjoy trying different army compositions just to see if they will work (most of what I plan does work, but I have made the mistake of trying to hold the main infantry line with troops that are too light and get pushed around...).

I also like to fight against tough odds, but I want the battles to be meaningful. If you take too long, the AI superpowers just spam troops as fast as you can kill them. In my German campaign, I had 5 heroic victories over the Maks in on turn. And that still didn't convince them to quit attacking.

[roy34543]

Well a soloution is to spawn stacks when the game starts on hard difficulties.
But its extensive work, just making a script to spawn 10 units at hard difficulty can take 30 tedious minutes! and youd have to do this for every faction.And if you make a mistake you have to go over it and find it!
I dont think anyone could be bothered.

[binTravkin]

I don't see how investment-first strategy could be an exploit and pathetic and agree that game should be challenging enough in such situations where you overlook troops in order to become rich.

I also agree, that if one takes every aspect of the game (as a powergamer as me and, seems Jamey too, would thus hardly being the person who 'loses many aspects of game') and optimizes it to near-perfection, the game becomes ridiculously easy, since there's a point your economy is so powerful that you have to build stacks of the most expensive units just to avoid that 50k margin.

I play VH/VH and am starting choose VH factions (Greeks, Parthians, Numidians, Armenians), since everyone else is largely a pushover, while these at least can give some challenge.