I don't really see what you mean here. Communal mandate and loyal neighbours can result in being locked in to wars if we're attacked by another civ. Sacred war means in the future we'd have to declare war on civs with different values, even if doing so is not practical at the time.
Chronicles of Nations - Civ Quest
- Thread starter Oshha
- Start date
- Original
- Location
- United States
[X] Sacred Warriors. The People shall not follow the barbaric practices of the lowlands, but shall train warriors that serve the goddesses in sacred duty. They shall be few in number and take more resources to train, but it will make the People happier and they shall be better than regular warriors. (-1 Temp Mystic, -1 Temp Culture, +1 Stability, Gain Value Sacred War)
- Location
- Southampton, Great Britain
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yes and the People killed them so they wouldn't be found by another Boarfolk Tribe and then used against the People again in the future.
- Location
- Germany
We are highly communal, dislike wars as they cost us the lives of our people and quite isolated from other civs.
The only way i can see sacred war triggering is if are attack by a different civ.
Can´t forget that the Values interact with eachother which means that two different civs might have the same value, but that doesn´t mean they will act the same situation thanks to their other values.
- Location
- Southampton, Great Britain
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Vote is still open.
Vote Tally : Chronicles of Nations - Civ Quest - Original | Page 143 | Sufficient Velocity [Posts: 3557-3651]
##### NetTally 1.9.7
[X] Sacred Warriors. The People shall not follow the barbaric practices of the lowlands, but shall train warriors that serve the goddesses in sacred duty. They shall be few in number and take more resources to train, but it will make the People happier and they shall be better than regular warriors. (-1 Temp Mystic, -1 Temp Culture, +1 Stability, Gain Value Sacred War)
No. of Votes: 27
[X] Regular Warriors. Following the barbaric ways of the lowlanders, the People will train large numbers of warriors to fight for the People. This will give more fighters for the People, but some will be unhappy at following the barbarian ways of the lowlands (+1 Temp Martial, -1 Legitimacy, Gain Value Quality Of Its Own)
No. of Votes: 8
Total No. of Voters: 35
Vote Tally : Chronicles of Nations - Civ Quest - Original | Page 143 | Sufficient Velocity [Posts: 3557-3651]
##### NetTally 1.9.7
[X] Sacred Warriors. The People shall not follow the barbaric practices of the lowlands, but shall train warriors that serve the goddesses in sacred duty. They shall be few in number and take more resources to train, but it will make the People happier and they shall be better than regular warriors. (-1 Temp Mystic, -1 Temp Culture, +1 Stability, Gain Value Sacred War)
No. of Votes: 27
looseanon
10ebbor10
AegisCollector
Bookreader
buli-buli
Chrestomanci
demonthese2211
Donkey Hote
Frankite316
JaceAoT
jamie96969
Knight Draco
KnownParadox
LonelyWolf999
Omegahugger
One Autumn Leaf
PurposefulZephyr
Redciv3
Rockeye
silverwolf
Skjadir
Star
taovkool
thefoolswriter
Vanguard_D
Wentley
Zaealix
10ebbor10
AegisCollector
Bookreader
buli-buli
Chrestomanci
demonthese2211
Donkey Hote
Frankite316
JaceAoT
jamie96969
Knight Draco
KnownParadox
LonelyWolf999
Omegahugger
One Autumn Leaf
PurposefulZephyr
Redciv3
Rockeye
silverwolf
Skjadir
Star
taovkool
thefoolswriter
Vanguard_D
Wentley
Zaealix
No. of Votes: 8
Total No. of Voters: 35
- Location
- Sydney
I have not suggested we should "Clinging to our ideals above our else", just that we should consider what suits our civilisation.
"refusal to adapt to changing situations will result in us becoming increasingly irrelevant" so we should adapt and chose the new value Sacred War. Yes, we won against the Merntir with numbers but that will be less useful against nomads. The new (and foreseeable future) situation is one were elite units are needed to support our regular forces
Obviously most of our warriors will be the (cheap) regular ones.
Cateyes are also more costly than regular hunters, should we get rid of them?
Heroes are very costly and extremely rare, do you think we should have no more Heroes?
The religious value Born Equal means we won't be giving "up all power to a bunch of shitty elites". We dump that value, or pick up an elite one, then we will have problems.
Sacred War is not a stratification value (born equal therefore we recruit from all), and the goddess will intervene if any of our people attempt it.
We are not an AI civ, that is a false comparison. Sacred War is not what caused the collapse of the Spirit Talkers, depending on tribute for food is. (sacred war caused them major problems, but is not what caused their end)
In PoC we had Sacred War and still ended the war against the Dead Priests, at the cost of stability but we made that choice.
Knight Draco
Tea Sipping Advocate of the Devil
- Location
- North America
That's animal abuse!
Rip boards, they did nothing wrong.
Also rip my dreams of having a mounted regiment called boar riders that would have been useful to sue on the other side of the mountains.
Random Member
Gardener of Human Happiness
- Location
- Behind You
And your solution is to double down on these problems and make it even harder for us to peace out?
But okay, let's ignore the mechanical consequences for a moment and think about the narrative, since that's more important. The idea of a "Sacred War", the idea that a war is just, right or even needed simply because your enemies are different, is problematic and will likely lead to problems later on. The idea of "Quality Of Its Own", i.e. call up everyone for war, has its own set of problems, but they're simply not as bad as "we must fight these guys because they're different!"
We dislike wars right now, but that's not because of any of our Values. Throw "Sacred War" into the mix and....
Thats exactly what we did with the merntir. They were under the impression that slavery and forced marriage is a good idea, we said 'no'
and everyone dislikes war, but even our civ understands that it's necessary. if we didn't fight the merntir our situations would have been reversed.
taovkool
Forever Gone
- Location
- The Library, Department of General Works
Technically the boar smashed Melbyn's face to death. So with all due respect, fuck the boars.
That's animal abuse!
Rip boards, they did nothing wrong.
Also rip my dreams of having a mounted regiment called boar riders that would have been useful to sue on the other side of the mountains.
Still, it's probably best if we can harness the boar or any other animals as potential mounts. Mounted troops are considered the ancient tanks for a reason.
- Location
- United States
Sacred Wars can mean "we will make up reasons for a war so long as we can justify if religiously", but it doesn't have to be because they are different.
Considering the Arthwyd and how their culture is, it could mean "we don't like war, but are willing to do so in service of the Goddess". Just because we saw it in PoC does not mean it will have the same 1:1 effect on our civ as it did on the Spirit Talkers.
Also, currently we are being massively outbodied, and our best chance of winning is murdering their Genius so that they scatter. Having more bodies to throw at them doesn't matter when they decide the engagements and they still have more bodies than we do.
[X] Sacred Warriors.
Knight Draco
Tea Sipping Advocate of the Devil
- Location
- North America
I don't get why everyone thinks why our sacred war is going to be the same as the whatever the spirit talkers or something is.
Do we have different religions? Probably.
Do we have different Ideals? Most likely.
Is our society and infrastructure different then theirs?
I'd say most definitely given the talk of food problems.
Then it should stand to reason that our version of a sacred war would be different then whatever there's was.
Will there be some similarities? Perhaps.
But will the trait not be suited to tailor and fit with the rest of society and its ideals?
You don't have a completely pacifist and isolationist society, and then out of nowhere, they get a trait that makes them the compete opposite.
The trait might make them slightly more aggressive and such, but in general it should fit and be compatible with the rest of the society's ideals.
For example, IRL, some religion can only call for a sacred war when its their sacred homeland being attacked or threatened. Others were used as a form of conquest. Some were used whenever their people were prosecuted. The Casus belli for a holy war differs for different religions in terms of ruling for declaring one. Should it not stand to reason that the same should also apply here? Especially when we are comparing two completely different nations, religions, societies, and worlds.
Do we have different religions? Probably.
Do we have different Ideals? Most likely.
Is our society and infrastructure different then theirs?
I'd say most definitely given the talk of food problems.
Then it should stand to reason that our version of a sacred war would be different then whatever there's was.
Will there be some similarities? Perhaps.
But will the trait not be suited to tailor and fit with the rest of society and its ideals?
You don't have a completely pacifist and isolationist society, and then out of nowhere, they get a trait that makes them the compete opposite.
The trait might make them slightly more aggressive and such, but in general it should fit and be compatible with the rest of the society's ideals.
For example, IRL, some religion can only call for a sacred war when its their sacred homeland being attacked or threatened. Others were used as a form of conquest. Some were used whenever their people were prosecuted. The Casus belli for a holy war differs for different religions in terms of ruling for declaring one. Should it not stand to reason that the same should also apply here? Especially when we are comparing two completely different nations, religions, societies, and worlds.
mounted warriors would be the best tool for force projection, but im far more interested in developing a phalanx. It makes our large number of mooks extremely viable against similar or higher quality forces. And it meshes perfectly with our values.
- Location
- Leeds
Thanks, while I'm bothering you with questions, should the Memtir's dependency have increased given that our reinforcements are keeping them alive?
[X] Sacred Warriors.
Seems like the main bottle neck right now is actually transferring troops to the memtir, since we're a bunch of Mega project away from that becoming easier the best solution is to just send better troops.
Random Member
Gardener of Human Happiness
- Location
- Behind You
*sigh*
No, we fought them because they attacked us, not simply because they were different. Also, that's wrong, not everyone dislikes war. "Sacred War" will lead to us disliking war less, to us seeing even more wars as "necessary" and to us trying to constantly justify it to ourselves, no matter the cost. It's foolishness and will lead us down a path that'll lead to our ruin.
I think we are thinking of two different things. Im thinking of warrior monks and paladins, you're probably thinking of crusaders and aztecs. Yes we have a higher probability of doing stupid things with sacred warriors, but we are a theocracy with an aversion to offensive conflict. Also ultimately we are in control of the civ, so its not like just because we make this one decision everything is going to go tits up in 500 years.
- Location
- Southampton, Great Britain
- Pronouns
- He/Him
No because that is a short term thing and not a long term thing. However, if the Merntir were to get wrecked by the nomads and get crippled or just weaken economically, they would become a lot more dependent on the Arthwyd.
Random Member
Gardener of Human Happiness
- Location
- Behind You
The fact that we are a theocracy is already a problem, it's literally one of the worst forms of government. *grumbles*
But seriously, nothing good ever comes out of the idea of a "Sacred War". Even if we can prevent our civ from doing stupid things, the Value will change our civ. Likely in ways we're not going to like....
- Location
- Southampton, Great Britain
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Somewhat. Not as good at making all the way to the Merntir, but it would make things easier to get things in bulk to the mountain village.
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
makes sense as we've used the mountain village as a staging ground to Merntir territory in the past.
Magic precognition has been the All-Seeress stick since the start. Like in the update she predicted the Boarfolks attack. Check under Magical knowledge in the Civ sheet for it.
Random Member
Gardener of Human Happiness
- Location
- Behind You
It occurs to me that Quantity Of Its Own + Born Equal + Communal Mandate + Loyal Neighbours is actually a very interesting combo. It's probably the closest we'd get to a levee en masse until the Classical Age.
taovkool
Forever Gone
- Location
- The Library, Department of General Works
Two problems.
First, we don't have a large number of mooks. Yet. Hell, we actually don't have that many settlements so until the Arthwyd can expand, mass conscriptions are only for emergencies, not regular troops template.
Second, even if we do have Phalanxes, they're not the best considering our home field situation. In case you haven't noticed, we're in a forest environment, not an open plains like in the lowlands. Forests are for skirmishers and fast movers while Phalanxes are static units more fit for holding down choke points and defensive formations in open plains.
So yeah. Unless we're invading the Lowland or something, Phalanxes are terrible idea.
Last edited: