- Location
- Canada
Then fleeing before even seeing the foe seems like the worst choice?
Better than surrender I believe. Plus our allied clans might get ideas if we just surrender our men because we got scared.
Then fleeing before even seeing the foe seems like the worst choice?
Meh, I though since the plainsmen are clearly traitors and oathbreakers we can agree with the other warrior-society to fuck those guys first.Well, I wasn't joking when I told you that the Mandate would make diplomatic relations awkward and difficult.
If they go for the joint attack on the Sowing People, then yes, that's fine under the Mandata. Capitulating and consenting to having a fifth of your army enslaved isn't.Meh, I though since the plainsmen are clearly traitors and oathbreakers we can agree with the other warrior-society to fuck those guys first.
Though from their appearance so far I guess they have comparable penalties to diplo.
If that vote wins there could be some arguments for it.If they go for the joint attack on the Sowing People, then yes, that's fine under the Mandata. Capitulating and consenting to having a fifth of your army enslaved isn't.
Instability. Resentment. Negative civ ideals forming. Etc.If that vote wins there could be some arguments for it.
First that our warriors here are also our best foodsource and it's their duty to return in sufficient numbers to do so.
If that requires surrender so be it, the tribe comes first.
Another point is that we get 4 Pops for one, so clearly even the enemy recognises their value.
What's the worst that can happen? Army disobeys and we have to fight anyway, but without Sparrow's leadership?
@Satar, @Walker Of Chaos, @Kirron 999, @DragonParadox, @Duesal, @One Autumn Leaf, @sunrise, @Lunamoto, @MasterDrakus, @Bookreader, @Ritos, @Star, @RandomDwarf, @Orisha91, @Mortenkam, @nat_401, @Brogatar, @Tomcost, @thefoolswriter, @Korporati, @Donkey Hote
I usually don't like mass tagging, but we have GM-info on the consequences of this vote on the page above this post, please read it before the final decision.
If its something we know IC withholding it is more of a problem than anything else.Given how this vote flip-flops, I'm not sure if I should provide more or less hints / context for the discussion.
I don't withhold IC information, at least not intentionally. Sometimes I merely assume something to be obvious and thus don't spell it out, such as accepting the Chosens demands clashing with the Mandate.If its something we know IC withholding it is more of a problem than anything else.
Otherwise *shrug*
I don't withhold IC information, at least not intentionally. Sometimes I merely assume something to be obvious and thus don't spell it out, such as accepting the Chosens demands clashing with the Mandate.
That would be peachy. The Mandate doesn't force you to be arrogant idiots. It does give you an inclination and mechanical incentive to be arrogant dicks, but not to be blind to the realities of the world.Actually how would retreating gel with the Mandate's assumed superiority?