by morningstar
kungfro wrote:
A strategy article for Puerto Rico has 8 thumbs up and has been up for 17 days, and the only counter-response so far has been the OP himself correcting an unimportant terminology error and exhibiting some self-effacement. I'd say that by unconventional definitions, this is the best strategy article ever written.
I always like to get replies to my articles, though I think you're right that silence implies consent. Or at least implies, "Whoah dude, you blew my mind. I'll have to think about that before I can add anything intelligent to the discussion."
It's years later but I have a comment to add, in support of Jim's point.
jimc wrote:
Each game is a big tree of dependent outcomes, which also helps obscure the reasons for winning and losing. For example, someone can earn far more money than everyone else (through skill, luck or some of each) during the first 7 rounds, which we know makes them the most likely winner. However, if they waste that money on the many ineffective buildings in the game they can relinquish their advantage quickly.
If they waste their money and win anyway, it will illustrate your point even more. It might incorrectly teach inexperienced players that the buildings they chose are a strong strategy. The winner had enough money they could have bought a couple three-point buildings, never manned them, and won.