So not only was my advice sound, but you knew all along that my advice was sound, because it's what you do already.
Wonderful. Glad we've cleared that up.
That's why I said "little or no". Meaning "little" as ell as "no".
(I'm not even going to touch the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" effects. Not worth it!)
No, I'm not strawmanning at all. I'm actually being very generous by giving you several different arguments, covering as many different permutations of the word "constantly" as possible. Constant can indeed mean "always" - it can also mean "virtually always", "almost always", "mostly", "usually", "regularly", "often", "frequently", "predictably", "way too friggin much" etc. What it doesn't mean is "rarely", which is indeed something which can be demonstrated by looking at the rate of occurrence of the thing-in-question (constancy being a function of the rate of occurrence, or the rate of reoccurrenece, of the thing-in-question). So, for example, the statement:
Chlodio is constantly complaining about CK3
would be a sound statement, as the rate of occurrence of your complaints is actually quite high. You don't "always" complain, at least not in a strictly literal sense, but you do spend most of your time on the forums complaining, and the rate of occurrences may be higher than one new complaint per day, hence why the statement would be valid. Meanwhile, the statement
Chlodio is constantly getting things correct
would be an unsound statement. You do get things correct on occasion, but, like, one correct statement or argument out of every hundred you propose, hardly qualifies as "constant" by anyone's definition. You see my point?
This isn't strawmanning, it's not splitting hairs or equivocation or anything else you'd like to throw at it. If you believe that subjugation wars happen constantly, then you need to show that they are happening constantly.
They are not happening constantly. They are happening occasionally - possibly even rarely - and anything beyond that is simply hyperbole.
No, that's not the equivalent at all, especially not when
- you're playing a game, and
- the majority of things there are to do in the game involve you trying to get rich
Consider: you've complained at length about the lack of things to do when you're not waging war, right? You also complain, right here in this very thread even, about the idea of world conquest blobbing. So here's a happy medium: blob a little, lose your territory, get it back. Blob a little, lose your territory, get it back. You don't have to play as a World Conqueror, you don't have to be bored; win-win, thanks to losing half your kingdom!
But maybe you don't want things to happen? If you want the game to simply involve you sitting there, on max speed, watching dates tick up as your normal-sized Kingdom just sits around in a never-changing-state of perfectly stable equilibrium, then... well, I'm sorry, but you're never going to find that, and this game will never accommodate you.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
