In another forum, ddyer pointed the idea of a subtle balance between a long term strategy and interactive adjustment:
I find that when the same group plays repeatedly, there are waves of
adjustment in strategy, but no stable state. Everyone is always
tweaking his moves to try to nip the previous winner.
My small experience support the combination of (1) game length strategy that control or direct the (2) continuous tactical use of the means to achieve it (which seems to also be what appreciated Zubbus).
In fact, I even think (and may be wrong) that strategy must be constructed within an actual game, as the game is inherently structured by relative decisions and valuations. Some actions must have been taken by the beginning players before a strategy can emerge which sets basic goals (real or perceived scarcity being an important signal). I must admit that I only played with open money, which gives much more informations to the players and might channel toward a tactical approach.
It gives me the feeling that there is some "phases" within a game that demands to build and rearrange strategies. These phases, still very abstract to me (if they even truly exist), seems related to the amount of money within players and the imminence of the end game (this one is less abstract!) Is anyone aware of regular phases within the game or are those apparent phases the result of something else (a cycle?)