skychaser wrote:Specially in real life. Last century we have seen Nazism, Fascism, Socialism. And a lot of another irrational plans in real life. Just to mention the biggest ones.
I think that one of the biggest ones is false Democracy. The constitution is suppose to be about protecting the rights and liberties of the individual States as well as the People. Yet when a few southern States wanted to leave the Union we had a bit of a Civil War to determine that no State of the United States of America, has that right or liberty.
More accurately, I'd say that it's supposed to protect the rights of the People, but affords representative capacity to more than one body. One of those bodies is the National Government another is the State Government. Since the Federal Government is also
a rightful representative of the people, it too, can claim to protect the interests of the citizens. However, your point is well taken even thinking it out like this.
That said, one possible justification for the Civil War under this framework would be that the National Government was protecting the interests of its citizens against the State Government, which was not providing adequate protection. I am by no means a proponent of a strong central government in the United States; however, I also feel that it is a legitimate representative of the citizenry. Therefore, this argument must be addressed if you are going to use your line of reasoning.
Now what did this have to do with strategy?
Well, I guess if the strategy conversation took this turn based on analogy between irrational plans in RL and irrational plans in CC, I suppose my argument would be properly brought back to the CC conversation by way of an analogy to seemingly irrational acts that may actually have justification. I.e. there might be more than one "right" way to look at a given situation on CC.
One example of a seemingly irrational plan that is actually rational would be the following:
I have a 3 card set, sets are worth 25, I have a single troop near an opponent's last territ which has about 35 troops on it. It's an 8 player game, I'm slightly behind in troops, and that opponent has 5 cards. At first glance it makes no sense for me to cash drop 25+3 on my single and roll 29 against the 35. That's only a 38% chance at success. Who would do this? Well, let's say that I'm in a position that if I can get that guy out of there, the next set worth 30 will virtually ensure that I will be able to take out another player who has more cards.
It may make sense for me to take the 38% chance at succeeding in the attack (and thus winning the game). This is because I think the chances of me winning the game later are less than that. Possibly less than even the 1/8 chance that I theoretically have of winning the game based only on the number of players involved.
Well, my main point was in the first couple paragraphs, but I thought that I'd at least try to bring this back to some semblance of a strategy discussion