What are your favorite idea groups for blobbing now?

[Manic Eskimo]

This is a thread about comparing idea groups for their relative power. If the best defence of Expansion you can come up with is 'there exists a sub-optimal strategy that includes it', then maybe it's time to admit that it is a garbage idea group.

Again, because some of you have really bad reading comprehension. I did not say that you should pick expansion apart from in situational circumstances. It's not my best defence, because I'm not trying to defend anything. I was asked to come up with a plausible scenario where someone might consider it. So I did. Does that seem like my best defence? Really? No I responded to a question.

My point, for the final time, is that people are hyperbolic in their derision of expansion. That means we're arguing how bad it is not how good it is. Got it? Mkay lets move on.. Currently we, by that I mean you and me and mostly everyone. Judges ideas on the basis that the best ideas are more valuable than all of the rest combined. I'm not saying that's wrong. But overall Expansion doesn't have many weak parts like the others do. It's solid all the way. Nothing you look at and think "this is a waste of 400 mana" (apart from recruitment time). Like I do with so many idea groups. An alternative way to look at things could be the net value of points you put into an idea group like admin where really only one idea is the reason you pick it, the coring cost. If it weren't for the coring cost we wouldn't pick it. With the decreased importance of mercs and loans the idea groups net value, the value of all the ideas you invest in, has gone down. If you consider the net value of groups like expansion and espionage it's pretty high, almost all good and useful ideas. But we can't pick them because coring cost, AE reduction, diplo annex cost, warscore cost, etc are too important. That doesn't mean expansion or espionage are bad or badly designed. It just means there's other things we need more most of the time, usually only single ideas from whole groups.

Something like Maritime on the other hand is truly awful. I don't think I've ever picked it. Yet some people are saying that expansion is worse. And you don't think they're being hyperbolic?

I have a theory on the hyperbole displayed for expansion. It's because it got nerfed and people are angry it got nerfed. So they enjoy saying it's the worst now because "the evil devz ruined it!!!11". (A bit like I do with religious)

 

[Northernwwater]

You could do that with just the first two ideas in Exploration and spend your ADM on something more useful.

I find expansion useful for more than that, as I said. I don't mind exploration, I just like merchants more, etc ...

 

[Northernwwater]

In my latest Florence game I took Maritime partly because I get tired of picking the same ones all the time. Because of it, I dominate the entire Mediterranean and Black sea from a Naval standpoint. The Ottomans can not float a ship in war despite owning the entire black see and the entire eastern Mediterranean.

I think all the idea groups have merit to be honest. I don't think any of them are "garbage".

Hats of the developers for creating a very nice mix, IMO.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Your use of optimal makes it a strawman. Optimal is what you want it to be.

No, a strawman is when you frame a made-up argument as belonging to somebody else, then refute it. The fact that it is not optimal is my own argument, not something I'm representing as anybody else's. Even if it proves to be mistaken, it can't possibly be a strawman.

The statement "optimal is what you want it to be" is demonstrably false. You might first set a goal, then determine optimal choices to reach that goal. However, no matter what goal you set there is an optimal set of choices for it. It can vary between goals.

There are some non-practical goals that allow expansion ideas to be optimal. One of those is "intentionally pick bad idea groups and try to still do well" for example. If that is the goal, then yes picking expansion is optimal. For most goals that involve strengthening your position in the game, it isn't.

You misrepresented my argument to suit your own purpose that's how strawmen work

This is the extent I quoted the post at all:

Only one of the ideas is actually bad, recruitment time. It's just none of them are great, must have ideas like coring cost tech reduction. It's definitely a situational pick.

Saying "only one idea is bad, none are great" is not helpful.

The rest of what I wrote was making my own case (IE stating why it was not helpful). Claiming this is a misrepresentation is disingenuous.

My point was that people are hyperbolically critical of expansion. That's all.

And I refuted that by pointing out that it is, in fact, among the worst idea groups in the game. My reasoning is that nearly every alternative group consistently outperforms it, which still hasn't been addressed or refuted by the way.

You want a situational scenario? Portugal. Strategy could be to colonize as quickly as possible to start work on India and East Asia. Pick expo/expa get there much quicker. In that time admin will not have done much for you.

Amusingly, expansion loses in this scenario. The fastest path is by simply conquering territory off the horn of Africa after moving your capital.

Not that it matters, even if you couldn't do this "competing with Spain while also going east" is more easily and powerfully solved by conquering Spain in SP. If this is MP you probably want stuff that keeps you alive, and expansion is a detriment there too.

Again I never said it was optimal. Especially not first. That is in your head.

Expansion is a bad idea group *because* it's almost never optimal. That was my statement from the start. It is not reasonable to simultaneously admit this and then still claim that calling it a bad idea group is "hyperbolic". If it's optimal less often than naval ideas, it is not hyperbole to conclude it's an inferior group to naval ideas.

Expansion is even weaker in the framework of a thread that explicitly asks for favorite blobbing idea groups, made more apparent by suggested strategy for its use being to delay blobbing...

Probably not since it got nerfed right? It's not as terrible as you make out.

If you can give me a practical use case where it's optimal in SP or MP that happens in more than 1/10 games, I might upgrade my opinion of it to mediocre instead of bottom tier.

You are the one who made it personal with your needless aggression. I just wanted to have a discussion calmly and rationally you seemed to be looking for a fight.

That's is a strange position to take. I had focused on the idea group strength to that point. Which part of my conduct suggests "looking for a fight"? You said something inaccurate and I pointed that out as not helpful, that is neither aggression nor a personal attack.

You could do that with just the first two ideas in Exploration and spend your ADM on something more useful.

He could do that while taking neither exploration nor expansion, just steal maps, attack people, and either full annex or take their colonies directly once range is high enough (without exploration it will be a while anyway).

 

[Manic Eskimo]

In my latest Florence game I took Maritime partly because I get tired of picking the same ones all the time. Because of it, I dominate the entire Mediterranean and Black sea from a Naval standpoint. The Ottomans can not float a ship in war despite owning the entire black see and the entire eastern Mediterranean.

I think all the idea groups have merit to be honest. I don't think any of them are "garbage".

Hats of the developers for creating a very nice mix, IMO.

Haha fair enough I'll have to try it one day. I'll keep an open mind anyway.

 

[Zaddy]

Your use of optimal makes it a strawman. Optimal is what you want it to be.

Actually, we are in a thread about blobbing, so no, there is no strawman. Optimal in this thread is how optimal it is for blobbing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have a theory on the hyperbole displayed for expansion. It's because it got nerfed and people are angry it got nerfed. So they enjoy saying it's the worst now because "the evil devz ruined it!!!11". (A bit like I do with religious)

Actually, to this point the stated reasoning it is among the worst idea groups is that other groups are consistently better than expansion. This is true for expansion more than it is for most if not all idea groups, so it is reasonable to conclude that expansion is a terrible group.

The value of a group is what it offers in aggregate, because slots are constrained. If naval had +200% land morale as its 3rd idea and -1% recruitment time as the rest of the ideas, it would be the strongest military group. People would always take it in MP and SP, and it would be objectively the strongest military group for land combat because that one idea outperforms every alternative group in MIL in aggregate.

For the same (but less extreme) reason, administrative, humanist, religious, innovative, and economic are all better than expansion in the administrative group category. Whether the advantage is tethered to 1-2 individual ideas in these groups or to 6, they consistently outperform expansion, and they do so for blobbing, military, and most other practical goals.

This has less to do with the fact that expansion got nerfed and more to do with the sheer extent. You pointed this out by showing that administrative received a nerf to its value relative to other groups...yet that one is still regarded as top tier. Expansion isn't, because unlike admin it does not outperform alternatives.

 

[bbqftw]

Taking a brutal nerf basically removing the only impactful part of the idea group when the idea group was already niche does tend to make an idea group bad by most evaluations, yes.

 

[Manic Eskimo]

Actually, to this point the stated reasoning it is among the worst idea groups is that other groups are consistently better than expansion. This is true for expansion more than it is for most if not all idea groups, so it is reasonable to conclude that expansion is a terrible group.

The value of a group is what it offers in aggregate, because slots are constrained. If naval had +200% land morale as its 3rd idea and -1% recruitment time as the rest of the ideas, it would be the strongest military group. People would always take it in MP and SP, and it would be objectively the strongest military group for land combat because that one idea outperforms every alternative group in MIL in aggregate.

For the same (but less extreme) reason, administrative, humanist, religious, innovative, and economic are all better than expansion in the administrative group category. Whether the advantage is tethered to 1-2 individual ideas in these groups or to 6, they consistently outperform expansion, and they do so for blobbing, military, and most other practical goals.

This has less to do with the fact that expansion got nerfed and more to do with the sheer extent. You pointed this out by showing that administrative received a nerf to its value relative to other groups...yet that one is still regarded as top tier. Expansion isn't, because unlike admin it does not outperform alternatives.

Yeah this is pretty much what I'm saying. Except I would use a very different adjective than terrible. To me terrible is something of no value, perhaps something that's broken. It's out valued for sure. To me that doesn't make something bad. I really rate it about the same as espionage and aristocratic. They're nice and you might find a niche use. Often I'd like to pick them but they usually get out valued. To me that just isn't terrible or garbage and to use those words sounds like hyperbole to me.

edit: I'm not entirely sure economic is better now that everyone's economy is so much better. With innovative everything after the third idea is garbage. Luckily it's the third idea not the last.

 

[Northernwwater]

No, a strawman is when you frame a made-up argument as belonging to somebody else, then refute it. The fact that it is not optimal is my own argument, not something I'm representing as anybody else's. Even if it proves to be mistaken, it can't possibly be a strawman.

No a strawman is an argument *you* craft just so you can argue against it, hence the term "strawman".

The statement "optimal is what you want it to be" is demonstrably false. You might first set a goal, then determine optimal choices to reach that goal. However, no matter what goal you set there is an optimal set of choices for it. It can vary between goals.

Ya, that's the point, hence optimal is what you want it to be since goals are what you want them to be.

 

[Badesumofu]

But overall Expansion doesn't have many weak parts like the others do. It's solid all the way. Nothing you look at and think "this is a waste of 400 mana" (apart from recruitment time). Like I do with so many idea groups. An alternative way to look at things could be the net value of points you put into an idea group like admin where really only one idea is the reason you pick it, the coring cost. If it weren't for the coring cost we wouldn't pick it. With the decreased importance of mercs and loans the idea groups net value, the value of all the ideas you invest in, has gone down. If you consider the net value of groups like expansion and espionage it's pretty high, almost all good and useful ideas.

If that's your point then it's a waste of words. Assessing idea groups based on how many okay ideas they contain, or how few poor ideas they contain is useless. You need to compare either the overall value of what the group brings, or in some cases like Defensive the bang for your buck you can get from taking just the first two ideas. That can be valuable when you are starved for mana.

So let's actually look at the net value of Expansion. Spoiler: it's negative.

1 Colonist - this is a solid idea on its own. Though you already get 2 colonists from the superior Exploration group and the value of a third is marginal.
1 Merchant - poor. Merchants are easy to get. Probably not worth the 400 ADM.
10 settler growth - meh. Not worth 400 ADM.
-10% recruitment time - not worth 400 ADM.
+1 relations slot - this is actually good and worth the points. Though at this point you've invested 2000 ADM and the overall return is not worth it.
-10% shipbuilding time - not even close to worth the 400 ADM. Useless.
+20% global trade power - not as useful as it sounds. Not remotely needed to make money from trade. Probably not worth the points.
-25% state maintenance - meh.

I actually had to load up the game and double-check that those are accurate. It's worse even than I recall. Most of those ideas would not be worth it if they were national decisions that cost 400 ADM let alone that you have to spend an Idea group on them. Let alone the opportunity cost of taking a different admin group. This is like if someone took a dumpster fire, put it into another bigger dumpster, and then set that on fire.

That anyone could think that taking this group is even remotely a good idea says nothing more than that that player has no idea what they are doing.

 

[Northernwwater]

Actually, we are in a thread about blobbing, so no, there is no strawman. Optimal in this thread is how optimal it is for blobbing.

Despite any threads OP, or title there are always sub threads within a thread. As I said earlier, WC, do have scripts to follow, and I agree a WC run needs influence and admin. Now, what is "blobbing", but other than some nebulous term. As Florence right now I have about 60 provinces but my monthly income is number one in the world. Even Ming is smaller. My income is much large than all the "blobs" in the world, but others say I'm playing sub optimal ... meh. I picked maritime, LOL.

 

[bbqftw]

I would take merchant, +1 relations, and colonist for 400 adm. Rest nope.

 

[Northernwwater]

1 Colonist - this is a solid idea on its own. Though you already get 2 colonists from the superior Exploration group and the value of a third is marginal.
1 Merchant - poor. Merchants are easy to get. Probably not worth the 400 ADM.
10 settler growth - meh. Not worth 400 ADM.
-10% recruitment time - not worth 400 ADM.
+1 relations slot - this is actually good and worth the points. Though at this point you've invested 2000 ADM and the overall return is not worth it.
-10% shipbuilding time - not even close to worth the 400 ADM. Useless.
+20% global trade power - not as useful as it sounds. Not remotely needed to make money from trade. Probably not worth the points.
-25% state maintenance - meh.

What is or isn't worth 400 adm to you is just wandering opinion. BTW - I rarley pay 400 for ideas, except the first 1 or 2 groups. At one point in my Florence game I was paying 280 MP for each idea. I ripped through that idea group blindingly fast.

In my wandering opinion I don't value the -10 times much.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No a strawman is an argument *you* craft just so you can argue against it, hence the term "strawman".


Ya, that's the point, hence optimal is what you want it to be since goals are what you want them to be.

I'm not crafting an argument to argue against. I've crafted one to use myself. Did I assert that someone else claimed expansion is optimal? No, I claimed they were wrong because it is not. It's therefore not a strawman.

I could claim it's wrong because dog cheese and it also while that would be nonsense, it still wouldn't be straw.

Ya, that's the point, hence optimal is what you want it to be since goals are what you want them to be.

Once you have a goal there's still an optimal choice set and picking differently from it is a misplay.

For nearly every practical goal in the game (blobbing, all but a couple of achievements, being strong militarily, WC, income gouging) expansion confers inferior benefits to alternatives. That is why it is among the game's worst groups.

Variant play/playing poorly on purpose are not valid examples to demonstrate that a choice is good or useful.

 

[Badesumofu]

Are we obliged to explicitly state that our opinions on idea groups are opinions now? "Well that's just like, your opinion, man!"

Edit: I actually think that an objective and factual argument could be made that, for example, -10% shipbuilding time for 400 ADM is not worth it.

 

[Northernwwater]

The devs have also done a nice job of adding policies in group combinations that you need to take into consideration - for example, trade and humanist gives you Exchange of Ideas. I love that Policy. I always look at policies when picking as well.

 

[Northernwwater]

Are we obliged to explicitly state that our opinions on idea groups are opinions now? "Well that's just like, your opinion, man!"

Your post looked like an analysis of the idea group. My mistake.

 

[Badesumofu]

Your post looked like an analysis of the idea group. My mistake.

Which was implicitly opinion-based. I thought that was pretty clear. My mistake.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Are we obliged to explicitly state that our opinions on idea groups are opinions now? "Well that's just like, your opinion, man!"

Edit: I actually think that an objective and factual argument could be made that, for example, -10% shipbuilding time for 400 ADM is not worth it.

That always bothered me too. If something is intended to be represented as objective or fact the expectation should be that a poster states that. It's a strong claim to make, so it's kind of rough to assume a post is making it without it being stated explicitly.