better results being a twin replica of your "more optimal paths of play" used to express a similar logic.
That makes absolutely no sense in context. A ruleset that leads to having several optimal paths of play means that it is an intrinsic property of the rules that there are multiple choices that can lead to the same result (ie: victory).
"Deduction" is what a player does, not a ruleset. Thus "better results by deduction" refers to what the player does, not what the rules do.
Oh yes, it should. Once that's made clear i will 99.99999% certainly WIN - why should i bother torturing myself through twice as much repetitive tasks as i just did to reach THAT far ahead?
Modifying my quote doesn't actually mean you've made a valid point.
That's one of the reasons it would be good if progressing towards victory inhibited you from progressing up the tech tree. For example, if you had to dedicate yourself to producing ships to the extent that you had to reduce your research in order to be reasonably successful in a full-scale war, then warfare would be a speed-bump for you. Those who aren't involved in war would be able to advance faster, thus allowing them to catch up.
Progressing towards a tech victory could require you to build the equivalent of several world wonders as well as absorbing 80% of your research. Thus, you would have to stop advancing, which allows someone else to catch up and slow you down.
Things like that. What would be best is if advancement up the tech tree and exploiting the fruits of that tree in some way were semi-mutually exclusive.
Furthermore, how do you propose that the game estimate that you're "99.99999%" sure to win? Will you accept losing if the game decides that an AI opponent is equally assured of victory? Are you willing to trust the game to end itself at the "proper" time? I mean, GC2 can't even accurately estimate the military strength of an enemy.
I've also been reading your posts and you seem to approach everyones' ideas from a practical point of view; one based squarely in the world of GalCiv2.
That's because most of these ideas are simply small modifications to what GC2 does. Add more tiles, add different types of tiles, etc. It's not useful to discuss these ideas outside the context in which they were proposed.
And if they were proposed as part of a larger context, then that context needs to be defined. Not simply glossed over with a "make whatever other changes are necessary to make this work."
My ideas are usually much more radical: remove population and morale, combine espionage and influence into a single, unified system, etc.