SuperSonicSound
Shadowmancer of the Shadow Cabal
Never mind, just saw latest GM post.
Last edited:
Warhammer Fantasy: A Dynasty of Dynamic Alcoholism
- Thread starter torroar
- Start date
- Mature
-
- Tags
- warhammer warhammer fantasy fantasy intrigue happens male protagonist ck2 quest belief stronk count of cannons drunken wisdom foes in the shadows graf of guns if you have a question check the front page first it begins... mountain vietnam ogres paranoia rising unseen enemies everywhere use the search function before asking waifu wars wake the bull
Never mind, just saw latest GM post.
Well, maybe not. I'm busy for the next few hours, but in case I recalled INcorrectly, I'll go scouring through the thread when I'm at the computer instead of my phone. No worries. If you can, I'd prefer to be sure. Apologies folks, my memory ain't what it...well I'd say used to be but it's never been the best. Dang ol' noggin knocks as a kid biting me in the butt again.
Last edited:
- Location
- Germany
The money in that equation probably could represents the loss that incurrs from Frederick shifting more time and attention to that Action and thus leaving the Rest of the actions with less
Whether I agree with Goats or not is irrelevant. What matters is that the budget for turn 31 got tighter. As it gave us less gold to work with and one more slot to fill.I feel like you are going to hold that over our heads for awhile simply because you disagree with the decision.
Doubling Down on Seeking Amber tightens the budget for turn 31 even further just to have a better chance of making the forests a bit more secure.
What I am pointing out is that Logging would have worked to secure the forest just as well if that was an actual concern. Because it wasn't a concern when you stuck with Goats.
What I am further pointing out is that having a tighter budget gives us even less reason to Double Down if we want to have much in the way of action flexibility on turn 31 at all. Which I do and have been arguing for for a while now.
Or am I not allowed to argue for my position that we should try to save some money for turn 31 anymore?
Why wouldn't we be able to try again?
And a coin flip means the odds of failure are no greater or smaller than the odds of success. Which means the odds of success are neither particularly good nor particularly bad. Ergo, the odds are decent.
- Location
- Singapore
That's not how opportunity cost works.
It's probably administrative overhead.
- Location
- Somewhere
But you weren't pushing one amber wizard action over cutting forest, or vice versa. You were pointing out more protection for the forest, push goats to the side it isn't wood chopping. Goats doesn't benefit us immediately.... Take amber wizard with forest cutting. Your recommendation was to give us 3 stewardship actions in turn 32, removing the reason to take wood chopping for coin at all if it adds an extra action to the turn costs. Turn 30 wood + amber wizard, turn 31 goats?, turn 32 = 3 actions,Whether I agree with Goats or not is irrelevant. What matters is that the budget for turn 31 got tighter. As it gave us less gold to work with and one more slot to fill.
Doubling Down on Seeking Amber tightens the budget for turn 31 even further just to have a better chance of making the forests a bit more secure.
What I am pointing out is that Logging would have worked to secure the forest just as well if that was an actual concern. Because it wasn't a concern when you stuck with Goats.
What I am further pointing out is that having a tighter budget gives us even less reason to Double Down if we want to have much in the way of action flexibility on turn 31 at all. Which I do and have been arguing for for a while now.
Or am I not allowed to argue for my position that we should try to save some money for turn 31 anymore?
Why wouldn't we be able to try again?
And a coin flip means the odds of failure are no greater or smaller than the odds of success. Which means the odds of success are neither particularly good nor particularly bad. Ergo, the odds are decent.
Where is the guarantee Amber wizards will let us try again? They could be very busy for an indeterminable time for the future.
Massgamer
Advance toward the Future
- Location
- The Future
I think it might be best that we drop this now before it gets heated, I apologize for any earlier words that might have come across as disrespectful. Vote was called so lets move on and people will vote how they vote.Or am I not allowed to argue for my position that we should try to save some money for turn 31 anymore?
Next turn won't be as super tight as you think since we aren't spending over 7,000 gold for a single project.
For any number of reasons the GM could come up with.
Not to my mind at least, I consider 70% decent but that is likely influenced due to American grading system.
- Location
- Somewhere
-wiggle hand- it might be mildly tight.
Potential Turn 31 available actions
3 military actions
1 Naval action
2 Diplomacy actions
2 Stewardship actions
2 Research actions
2 Piety actions
2 Intrigue actions
2 Personal actions
8 Locked actions
16/ 22 actions
Assuming 1000 average price per 16 actions = 16 000, maybe 10,000 to 13 000, as a lowest plausible estimate? 13 actions may have been able to drag the limit solidly to 10 000 to 12 000. We may want 10 actions on multi turn chosen turn actions for turn 31 action plan.
12 684 is plausibly a good estimate for available coin to spend in turn 31.
edit: Goofed, fixed now. Forgot personal actions.
Last edited:
I also pointed out that Logging would save us money for next turn. And it doesn't matter for turn 32 because 31 is the turn where we have the final Soup Tank payment, after which we stop having money issues due to our net income rocketing up by a net 3,500 gold per turn. which was another argument I made against Goats.
As for where the guarantee is? The Seeking Amber option:
Is us sending some messengers saying "come to Ostland, we more wilderness than we can handle."
Doubling Down would mean sending more messengers down South. Taking the option again would represent sending new messengers down south.
Not the sort of thing that isn't repeatable.
Military, Research and Piety actions can get expensive though. And I really want to get started on the Hornfist, which is rather expensive as far as Personal options go.
Massgamer
Advance toward the Future
- Location
- The Future
That's fair, we can get mercenary office next turn and get rid of some mercs to save money since we have armies back to full now.
Do want to keep a few though like the Cock's and the Wood Elves.
- Location
- Somewhere
Can we not remove any? There is an orc Whaagh sometime in our future, the forest interior is being regrown with orcs and beastmen. Our mercs are doing work long term we don't see. With the army at full and more mercs than before KU the long term effects should be nice.
- Location
- Mobile, Alabama
[X] Do not DD
- Location
- madison
[X] DD on Attracting Amber
eh, it's a cheap action. spending a bit more to be more likely to get it is worth it.
eh, it's a cheap action. spending a bit more to be more likely to get it is worth it.
Okay so I've gone looking, and I've found a few cases where Special Decisions, i.e. additional categories added for certain occasions, got DD applied, but I can't seem to find a DD for Personal Actions. I've been searching Personal Actions, Double Down posts by me, can't seem to find an example of a PA getting DD. So...looks like that's not a thing? If someone else finds different let me know because I'm pretty tired and maybe just missed it. Wouldn't be the first time.
Night_stalker
Slava Ukraini!
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Do not DD
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] DD on Attracting Amber
- Location
- Terra
[X] DD on Attracting Amber