And still the anti-blobers complain that the devs aren't listening to them. Quite the opposite!
I still can't understand this. Shouldn't the changes speak for themselves?
- 7
- 3
1-Stop using customers as QA, 2-dev clashes as balancing reference and 3-missions as power-creeping
- Thread starter Negoveio
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
And still the anti-blobers complain that the devs aren't listening to them. Quite the opposite!
I still can't understand this. Shouldn't the changes speak for themselves?
The current AI is the result of them giving up on it. Rough anti-blobbing measures are a separate issue, and it all comes down to implementation.
The issue is that they're applying light, short-sighted measures to curb blobbing attempts. They should be developing the other parts of the game to balance things out. Blobbing grants too many pure benefits, and a blob nation can't be harmed by things like Trade Wars, internal economic issues, devastation, rebellions, etc. This is the one patch where you can destroy a country by taking their cash.
- 8
- 2
Honest to god, Do you actully use the Trade Wars CB?
Yeah. You don't?
No but why do you use it? I think i used it a few times when it was added to the game.
- 1
if the devs listened to antiblobbers, truces would not make you ineligible to join coalitions.
- 6
- 4
If truces doesn't make it ineligible then wouldn't it be the anti-blobbers that would suffer? The blobbers would just blob and have more troops than all of coalition and not worry about it.
- 1
- 1
- 1
The truce rotation dance is a significant aspect of coalition avoidance for blobbers.
Non-blobbers don't need it because they don't expand fast enough to trigger coalitions.
- 9
- 5
You know what? Sure, make it so that even nations in truces can still get in coalition. But I'm pretty sure the blobbers would solve that problem and achieve WC anyway. Meanwhile the average players that are just trying to play normally will then raise pitchforks in anger but the anti-blobbers would then point them to the blobbers and make scapegoats out of them. It's been what's happening since forever that we get used to it.
- 3
- 3
Dunno man, truce rotation is a critical strategy. WC might still be possible but it would be drastically harder.
- 4
- 2
Which definitely wouldn't make sense. Why in the world would you declare "Oh yeah, I'll attack them if they attack ANYONE ELSE" after you just got your rear handed to you on a silver platter?
- 1
Easy way to force high-dev nations to give me cash. Just take one of the islands in the Baltic Sea, justify a Trade Conflict with Russia, set boats to blockade, and wait. Russia's high total dev causes their "5 loans" to be worth a lot of ducats. You can do this every 5 or so years. Use the money to invest in your sailor count and force limit, then repeat all over the world. I especially like doing this in places like Kandy, Taiwan, Great Britain, Cuba, etc.
- 3
- 2
Not my cup of Tea,I always go for a Land grab CB or Humiliate/Show strength. But i can imagine Trade war CB being fun as a roleplay England/Dutch
I'd hate to hold Russian land. Anyways, you don't have to blockade their entire coast. Just blockade more provinces than they do for warscore, and eventually peace out. You can do this with multiple nations at a time, and it prevents them (and their allies) from declaring any sort of war against you, in case they were going to sign on to embolden members of a coalition.
I would use Humiliation or Show Strength if they provided more for what they cost.
I usually use Trade Wars when playing an island nation anywhere on the map, or when playing as an African country, since it can be difficult to reach my home territory.
- 1
I really should consider adding Trade Conflict to my incredibly boring and dull "wooden wall" passive speed 5 strategy.
The idea of actually declaring war while not having an army and then winning it easily amuses me.
The idea of actually declaring war while not having an army and then winning it easily amuses me.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Definitely helps when trying to play as a Colonial Nation/Colonizer. Bully thousands of ducats out of your neighbors to invest the money into your own colonies early on, removing the need to subsidize them, and allowing you to get some decent trade income right from the beginning.
- 2
To me the question isn't blob versus anti-blob. I would like to be able to replicate the conquests of Tamerlane. I would also like to see the game replicate something like the collapse of Tamerlane's empire. In the current starting setup we have Tamerlane's once united empire divided and on the verge of collapse. Nothing like this is possible through current game mechanics. Rebels either take the whole country, or split off into entirely free states. There is no way to get a vassal or march except by hitting the make vassal or march button. Pretenders never form independent states with a claim throne on their former country. The game is setup up such that if you survive the first two waves of rebellions, the territory is forever yours, and always produces at maximum potential plus or minus ideas or temporary event modifiers.
- 8
- 2
Timur was good at securing personal loyalty to himself, and at causing mass democide, but he wasn't very good at instilling loyalty to the notion of an ongoing Timurid state in his prospective successors, especially in the areas where the governors he installed were not his relatives.
- 1
This just doesn't make sense to me: surely a smarter AI would make (player-)blobbing harder, no?
- 6
- 3