False
And were hoping that in next round our situation will be better.
Tales of History - A Civ-Builder Quest
- Thread starter Azel
- Start date
- Original
False
And were hoping that in next round our situation will be better.
Ghostdevil
The Devil of Ghosts
- Location
- United States
Its true, we have almost none left though now that i think about it, we might have JUST enough to survive if we don't keep the war going.
Better chance then doing further battle and hoping we don't lose.
At least if we peace out we have zero chance of losing more people since weather died down and war is over
- Location
- United Kingdom
[X] Accept the proposal. The council will go to the peace talks.
Look round two will favour us over the winter tribe if it does come for a simple reason. They have superior Winter gear, we have superior weapons. Once Spring rolls around, they'll lose their winter gear advantage while we keep our weapon advantage which we can press. While our Winter hero won't be as dominating in other seasons, he'll still be a force to reckoned with. Snowshoes and coats meanwhile aren't going to do a whole lot for the White clan once the wind and snows die down.
In essense a ceasefire now and a round two in the future would actually swing the advantag further into our field, so long as we don't fight in winter. So I'm all in for a temporary ceasefire where we later push our more advantage in seasons where they are more dominant and where the White clan's advantages fall away into being meaningless.
Also we do have almost no hunters left, most of those hunters we do have are either people on the verge of being elders, very young children, or fishermen who can kinda wield a spear.
Look round two will favour us over the winter tribe if it does come for a simple reason. They have superior Winter gear, we have superior weapons. Once Spring rolls around, they'll lose their winter gear advantage while we keep our weapon advantage which we can press. While our Winter hero won't be as dominating in other seasons, he'll still be a force to reckoned with. Snowshoes and coats meanwhile aren't going to do a whole lot for the White clan once the wind and snows die down.
In essense a ceasefire now and a round two in the future would actually swing the advantag further into our field, so long as we don't fight in winter. So I'm all in for a temporary ceasefire where we later push our more advantage in seasons where they are more dominant and where the White clan's advantages fall away into being meaningless.
Also we do have almost no hunters left, most of those hunters we do have are either people on the verge of being elders, very young children, or fishermen who can kinda wield a spear.
- Location
- Britain
Inserted tally
Small amount is not "literally No hunters left"
And i think its opposite.
But, you now, fine. Majority make its choice, and and I'm tired of arguing, aspecially with my shitty English. So, i just leave the right to laugh like a hyena for myself if it will bite us in ass in future.
Ghostdevil
The Devil of Ghosts
- Location
- United States
It effectively is, because right now they can't function as Hunters, they function like warriors without the support. If we don't instantly break them and have no losses which this early is very unlikely then we lose. Doesn't matter if they do to.
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
[X] veekie
Regardless of the fact that I really am not feeling the whole "try to genocide enemy tribe while our tribe is dying" but of self destructiveness some people are trying for here, I also genuinely think that continuing this war will lead to a slow death of our tribe.
We have lost the majority of our hunters twice over in around as many months, and a the Hero Unit is still just one man. He can't hunt with the same capacity as multiple groups of people consistently.
Continuing this conflict would be essentially throwing children at the enemy, and doing the ruthless action would sour our reputation with basically anyone the enemy tribe has even neutral relationships with.
Please, if you won't have a heart, at least have some sense.
Regardless of the fact that I really am not feeling the whole "try to genocide enemy tribe while our tribe is dying" but of self destructiveness some people are trying for here, I also genuinely think that continuing this war will lead to a slow death of our tribe.
We have lost the majority of our hunters twice over in around as many months, and a the Hero Unit is still just one man. He can't hunt with the same capacity as multiple groups of people consistently.
Continuing this conflict would be essentially throwing children at the enemy, and doing the ruthless action would sour our reputation with basically anyone the enemy tribe has even neutral relationships with.
Please, if you won't have a heart, at least have some sense.
- Location
- Australia
Assumption.
Hence my vote for the middle ground, observe the area first to ensure it isn't an ambush.
They likely know more and when a tribe splinters as we would force them to, their tale of destruction is spread to all the group's they join for survival.
The main aspect of said tale? Ambush at Peace Talks.
No. History is written by those who communicate, normally that is the winners because there's more of them alive to speak and it's usually an established power with established linea of communication that they can abuse to basically "shout over" the counter narrative that is lost in the chaos of having lost a war and therefore infrastructure and relationship you would normally spread your story through.
In this scenario destruction actually provides a greater opportunity to spread your narrative. See above.
Yes, please let's do that.
I think it's equally unwise to expose ourselves to the risk of ambush as it is to commit the act.
Right now it's MAD, but we had one action of trapping and we brought them to this scenario.
What will the terrain look like after another 3 or 4 actions of that?
Trapping the mountain paths they used to enter our valley etc.
We can harden our defences massively compared to what they are now and right now they worked wonders.
Let the children of our tribe learn from Snowfox how to make the Land itself a terror against our enemies.
I want a ceasefire because I know we can win this, but it doesn't end now, this is only the beginning.
Please vote for this, I can somewhat undestand those going for ruthless not doing so (even though it will bring Ruthless to tier 2 without adapting so we beat our children half to death if they break a tool) but if you want peace there's no need to risk the entirety of our own leadership.
[X] Send a few hunters to monitor the site. If the White Clans leaders show themselves, the council will come. (Might result in peace talks not starting, even if the other side is willing to negotiate.)
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
[X] Send a few hunters to monitor the site. If the White Clans leaders show themselves, the council will come. (Might result in peace talks not starting, even if the other side is willing to negotiate.)
Well it doesn't look like we're going to vote to try to win the war so let's at least make sure they don't backstab us.
Well it doesn't look like we're going to vote to try to win the war so let's at least make sure they don't backstab us.
Satar
Xetares, Third Redeemer; World Drinker
- Location
- Sesh
You make a lot of sense. As you mentioned-- we do have access to asymmetric warfare options. I'm not willing to just go with the accept option, though, as it leaves open the risk of being ambushed by them.
[X] Send a few hunters to monitor the site. If the White Clans leaders show themselves, the council will come. (Might result in peace talks not starting, even if the other side is willing to negotiate.)
@Duesal Do you mind switching to this so we don't get ambushed at the peace site? Because that would be ironic in the worst way possible.
Edit:
@SMuha @Mask Mind switching. I know it's not optimal, but it this at least has a shot at winning.
Last edited:
This is outright false. Actually think please.
These are not orks. They don't magically dissolve into mutual kill the moment you decapitate.
What happens if we ambush their leaders:
-We kill one to a half dozen people depending on their government form. We probably lose the ambushers.
-The remaining population, who still outnumbers us are now informed that this is a war to the knife because we don't accept parley.
-They pick a new leadership, generally the most outraged guy at this point
-They fight to the death, we die when we run out of food. They break up
What happens if they ambush our leaders:
-We lose three people. Maybe two, because a Hero has decent odds of winning an ambush against limited numbers. They probably lose the ambushers
-The remaining population who are in heavily trapped forests and in a village with actually solid walls pick up obsidian weapons and turn the entire valley into a trap hazard zone.
-We pick a new leadership, generally the most outraged guy at this point
-We turtle in our corner, lose a lot of guys. They splinter into multiple tribes from the losses.
This is the Neolithic. Tribes are a couple of hundred to thousand people, including minors and elderly. Tribal leaders are not important yet, they merely give voice to the popular mood.
The king-killer method would work in an Early Kingdom, where the King is actually continuously performing administrative work vital to the continued function of society. It does nothing to a Big Man or Tribal Council format who'd just grab the next guy who looks like they know what they're doing, and it'd work mostly the same because the leadership do not require special skills yet.
- Location
- Russia
- Pronouns
- He
I want to go to the peace talks because "every war is a total war" mindset if we continue fighting is bad and encourages MAD. And killing one enemy tribe for one our tribe is bloody inefficient, because there will always be other tribes, but where will you find another one of yours?
[X] Accept the proposal. The council will go to the peace talks.
[X] Accept the proposal. The council will go to the peace talks.
Satar
Xetares, Third Redeemer; World Drinker
- Location
- Sesh
This is bs, and you know it. They have the same problem we do-- a lack of manpower and an eroded leadership capacity. Our factions are on the edge of splintering the tribe completely. While you are right that normally, given time, a tribe can just promote from within to replace losses, this isn't normal times and in an ambush, they won't have time.
Odds are that the 5-6 people who lead them are not only a significant chunk of their hunters, but also the last straw keeping this tribe together. The GM hinted that they've fought with us this hard-- at a pace of warfare notably untypical for the neolithic-- because of some trait that they have that mimics the function of our own. In a successful ambush, our men would have complete surprise, kill or wound (wounds are no joke in the neolithic!) these critical people and disengage. Period.
With how low their morale has gotten, that would be the last straw and they would have no men with whom to counterstrike us. In the harsh winter, without the core that's kept them united, they would fall apart. The same promotion mechanism you talk about would become their own undoing, as every jack with his own view of the right way forward would squabble and argue and break apart their tribes.
I don't mind the view that Duesal articulated. An ambush is a calculated risk, and it seems that we collectively don't have the appetite for that risk. But pretending that a successful ambush, in these circumstances, wouldn't absolutely be a deathstroke is being deliberately dishonest.
Last edited:
- Location
- Germany
[X] Accept the proposal. The council will go to the peace talks.
We propably should have started on cannibalism.
All those corpses wasted...
We propably should have started on cannibalism.
All those corpses wasted...
Worse case scenario for the peace option might be that the other tribe's leadership tries to pull an ambush.
Worse case scenario for scouting ahead might just be cease-fire, but risk re-starting war later because of lack of communication?
Changing my vote.
[X] Send a few hunters to monitor the site. If the White Clans leaders show themselves, the council will come. (Might result in peace talks not starting, even if the other side is willing to negotiate.)
Worse case scenario for scouting ahead might just be cease-fire, but risk re-starting war later because of lack of communication?
Changing my vote.
[X] Send a few hunters to monitor the site. If the White Clans leaders show themselves, the council will come. (Might result in peace talks not starting, even if the other side is willing to negotiate.)
Satar
Xetares, Third Redeemer; World Drinker
- Location
- Sesh
Losing the game because the snow people had the gumption to pull off a successful ambush would be the biggest told-you-so moment I've ever seen, but, you know, we'd be dead.
I really think that there's a good chance that they're going for a decapitation strike at the peace meeting; they're no less ruthless and adept at spreading fear and terror than we are and because they are a bigger tribe than we are, they might perceive it as less of a risk.
Last edited:
- Location
- Germany
You can't take further trapping options. You've developed them as far as you could, but now it's just another part of warfare. The reason for it's success was Snow-Fox using them well and that you surprised them they will both know what to expect and use similar tactics next time.
- Location
- Germany
I still don't get why they escalated this into warfare at all, as seen from my last plan that still focussed on the bear because I didn't think the white tribes would be an issue at all.
What are they trying to gain by these attacks?
Do our hunting territories overlap more than I thought, do they think we have a lot of lootable value or what?
Did they think we'd attack them further while we mostly focussed on hunting for food and defending our immediate surroundings?
That would be quite valuable to know before the peace talks, because they did, for some reason, decide to nearly bleed themselves to death on a relativly defensive foe.
What are they trying to gain by these attacks?
Do our hunting territories overlap more than I thought, do they think we have a lot of lootable value or what?
Did they think we'd attack them further while we mostly focussed on hunting for food and defending our immediate surroundings?
That would be quite valuable to know before the peace talks, because they did, for some reason, decide to nearly bleed themselves to death on a relativly defensive foe.
I'm thinking that the burning of their food reserves probably sent them over the edge into desperation mode and into that weaks clan's (us) territory. Plus it looks like burning their dead was the worst button to push in order to trigger them.
We might be just as bad or equal to that Goat clan that was mentioned earlier.
- Location
- Germany
@Artemis1992, try to imagine what everything would have looked like for you, had you played the White Clans instead of the villagers. They had their reasons to make some moves against you and with both sides deploying hunters all over the valley, things went downhill really fast and it got to the point were both tribes tried to out-atrocity each other.
- Location
- Germany
War brings less food than concentrated hunting.
And the burning issue is propably no worse than cannibalism issue for us, but we didn't consider going for an all-out attack, at least not until we'd be sure to win.
- Location
- Germany
So the parts of the valley we hunted in are their hunting grounds too?
That makes more sense, otherwise the conflict would seem like really fucked-up priorities, if we could have sustained ourselves from different areas.
- Location
- United States
I imagine that tensions were already high with a new group coming in to take some of the already limited winter hunts for themselves.
At that point, escalation could easily lead to combat, and a people who have no issues with eating humans wouldn't turn down free food.
Then, after purposefully attempting to starve them out, it's not at all surprising that they would attempt to raid us either as a preemptive measure for future attacks or (more likely) an attempt to get more food and not starve to death.
