Midas Touched (Warhammer 30k AI Quest)

Reader mode
[X] Centralized
[X] Negotiation
[X] Realmer Syncretism

The way I see it, any polities we can't convince to join us that do not deserve military attention we can just ignore and slowly convince using trade while we focus on those we can convince. Unless they are really resistant to joining, then they will be swayed by the economic benefits eventually, and if they were really resistant to joining, then trying to conquer them would not be worth it. I also just want to try Realmer Syncretism because it sounds interesting, the weakness to corruption would be just as present in other faith options and at least we know to look for it now.
 
Still mulling over my votes. While I do so, I think it's worth observing our new Capital total.

Stocks: -3 (Net Spending) + 14 (Asteroid Mining) = 11.
Generated: 31 (Previous) + 16 (Modernization Tax Boost) + 2 (Infra. Tax Boost) + 9 (Agri. Half Tax Boost) + 5 (STC II) + 3 (SIZ III) + 5 (Temp. Bonus) = 71
Total: 11 + 71 = 82. Yeah, we're starting to roll in the money here.

NotCaligula said:
To note, I'll be collecting these votes by task, though I am currently trying to figure how that works myself, so there might be some edits to the voting as I figure that out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It doesn't do any good if people aren't including the task categories in their votes.
 
-[X] [FLAG] "The Fire Rises"
[X] Centralized
[X] Liberation
[X] State Secularism

Get that GDI flavour going.
 
Last edited:
This seems neat so far, though I'm really not liking the idea of Centralisation winning. We have enough problems teching up as it is, I'd rather not have to lock down a load of actions in managing subordinate planets and systems. Plus I really don't like the vibes of making ourselves the top of the system. Even setting aside the morality of it the idea that we're going to be less infallible than everyone else strikes me as overly optimistic.

[X][CENTRALIZATION] Decentralized:
[X][EXPANSION] Negotiation:
[X][RELIGION] Realmer Syncretism:
[X][EXTRA] The Realmers will be, in addition with integrating cultural practices and beliefs as the New Confederation spreads, also be tasked with vetting those practices for malign Warp influence, with resources provided to them to aid in that task.
@NotCaligula it might be worth adding a temporary threadmark to mention the task voting as it looks like a lot of people just haven't seen it. Maybe just restart the vote, considering it looks like tallying's going to be a mess?
crusaderstar said:
That's not how I interpreted the option, it mentions freeing the repressed. Which is what we did on Cantara already, arrived with massive force and crushed the existing power structure since it was awful. I think we can still choose not to suddenly become imperium and conquer everybody? This is just saying yeah, if we see a shitty polity whose majority would rather it work differently, we go and upend it in their favor.

We still have plenty of flexibility as somebody mentioned, this isn't running on autopilot.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We didn't do Liberation though. That's explicitly dealing with our opponents with force, when what we did was a combination of economic dominance by raising up everyone to a higher standard of living and education (with benefits weighted towards those we liked aka the lower class) and negotiation by allowing the people of the planet to deal with each other via talking instead of fighting it out.

Even the reactionaries in the Old Guard was dealt with via investigation and trials instead of just marching in and smacking them down.
 
Last edited:
-[X] [NAME] The New Confederation
-[X] [INSIGNIA] "We are the watchers of the stars"
-[X] [FLAG] "The Fire Rises"
-[X][Centralized]
-[X][Liberation]
-[X][RELIGION] Realmer Syncretism
-[X][EXTRA] The Realmers will be, in addition with integrating cultural practices and beliefs as the New Confederation spreads, also be tasked with vetting those practices for malign Warp influence, with resources provided to them to aid in that task.

I'd probably go for negotiation if we didn't pick the hardest difficulty. And I'd go with the realmers since they can work things out with most spiritual beliefs and were a prominent movement back in the federation if I remember right, so they have ample experience with diversity.

Besides don't we have those warp gate thingies that make travel easier? Makes sense to go with centralization in that case.
 
Last edited:
Karnax626 said:
We didn't do Liberation though. That's explicitly dealing with our opponents with force, when what we did was a combination of economic dominance by raising up everyone to a higher standard of living and education (with benefits weighted towards those we liked aka the lower class) and negotiation by allowing the people of the planet to deal with each other via talking instead of fighting it out.

Even the reactionaries in the Old Guard was dealt with via investigation and trials instead of just marching in and smacking them down.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It could've just been a while ago that I read it, agree we didn't explicitly shoot things but I believe we did implicitly use the threat of force, all the time? The only reason we were allowed in to completely reshuffle their world economically, and put their mighty on trial, was because of our overwhelming military advantage?

Aka most feudal worlds and petty dictatorships we roll up to in the future, head boss man is gonna say fuck off don't uplift my people and upend my power. To me 'Liberation' is saying we ignore that and proceed, whereas Negotiation and Economic more require the consent of the head honchos. Could be reading things wrong though.
 
To put it another way, if Decentralisation ends up with the members of the New Confederation ruling themselves whilst Prometheus acts as a sugar daddy dispensing tech and knowledge I am perfectly happy with that.
Plus Decentralisation means people will be more willing to join, which helps make up for Negotiation's downside of a relatively slower pace of expansion.
crusaderstar said:
It could've just been a while ago that I read it, agree we didn't explicitly shoot things but I believe we did implicitly use the threat of force, all the time? The only reason we were allowed in to completely reshuffle their world economically, and put their mighty on trial, was because of our overwhelming military advantage?

Aka most feudal worlds and petty dictatorships we roll up to in the future, head boss man is gonna say fuck off don't uplift my people and upend my power. To me 'Liberation' is saying we ignore that and proceed, whereas Negotiation and Economic more require the consent of the head honchos. Could be reading things wrong though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Being forceful isn't the same as using force. It's already been stated that picking one of these doesn't exclude the use of the other two, it just decides our focus.

And with this planet we didn't just let the nobles do what they wanted. We didn't crush them, we just built up everyone else so that the nobles were rendered irrelevant. It did take longer than just crushing them by force would have, but on the other hand we now have a planet that is both willing and eager to join up, with rogue elements being strictly limited in both numbers and influence because they got sidelined so hard.
We helped them build up to the point that they chose to join because it was the obviously best choice to do so, with the added benefit of the slow route being that they ended up with ideals that complemented our own.

Just because we choose money or diplomacy as our primary tool, doesn't mean we have no tools for leaning on factions like feudal worlds or petty dictatorships, and it doesn't mean violence will never be an option.
 
Karnax626 said:
And with this planet we didn't just let the nobles do what they wanted. We didn't crush them, we just built up everyone else so that the nobles were rendered irrelevant. It did take longer than just crushing them by force would have, but on the other hand we now have a planet that is both willing and eager to join up, with rogue elements being strictly limited in both numbers and influence because they got sidelined so hard.
We helped them build up to the point that they chose to join because it was the obviously best choice to do so, with the added benefit of the slow route being that they ended up with ideals that complemented our own.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is a good point, and I certainly don't envision us doing the idiot imperium plan of constant slaughter, Khornishly.

But again, only reason we were allowed to operate was massive military edge. Totally foresee future worlds executing peasants who trade with us, etc. And as you say, we can react differently at that time.

I suppose I was less attracted to Liberation by the military aspect and more the ideological - our goal is uplift and freedom for everybody. But that could be me getting confused about what this vote really does, seeing as we'll still have control and its not an autopilot. I guess my actual vote is 'economic and diplomatic remaking of societies to be just and prosperous, with giant fleets hanging over to force greedy elites to let us do that'.

Karnax626 said:
Just because we choose money or diplomacy as our primary tool, doesn't mean we have no tools for leaning on factions like feudal worlds or petty dictatorships, and it doesn't mean violence will never be an option.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Another reason I focused on force, is I recall pretty much all worlds were feudal or petty dictatorships in 40k, might be different in 30k / this quest.
 
crusaderstar said:
But again, only reason we were allowed to operate was massive military edge. Totally foresee future worlds executing peasants who trade with us, etc. And as you say, we can react differently at that time.

I suppose I was less attracted to Liberation by the military aspect and more the ideological - our goal is uplift and freedom for everybody. But that could be me getting confused about what this vote really does, seeing as we'll still have control and its not an autopilot. I guess my actual vote is 'economic and diplomatic remaking of societies to be just and prosperous, with giant fleets hanging over to force greedy elites to let us do that'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, it being called Liberation doesn't mean we'd be any more dedicated to freeing slaves than the other options, it just takes a different route towards that goal. This vote isn't about what tools we have necessarily (though it does give a small bonus to the relevant tools), but which ones we'd prefer to use first. If you want us to start with econ or diplo by default, with the military being a backup and only starting with it in exceptional circumstances, then by my reading Negotiation or Econ Dominance better describes that.

And for your first point we saw how Ceriox handled it. He gave the minor powers enough weapons that they could better stand up to the bigger ones, with the caveat that they back out of their current blocs so the war would cool down instead of heating up even more.
NotCaligula said:
Noting the potential for peace by simply disempowering the leading states, he went from minor-city state to minor city state providing primitive laser weapons, medical aid and technological assistance to their leaders and a fair amount of gold that was otherwise not really being used. The only requirement at this stage that he asked of them was to leave their erstwhile blocs now that they had the capabilities to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
crusaderstar said:
Another reason I focused on force, is I recall pretty much all worlds were feudal or petty dictatorships in 40k, might be different in 30k / this quest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
40k has the issue of the Imperium turning it's worlds into those kinds of dictatorships. That hasn't happened yet here, with the Great Crusade not even starting yet, which is actually another reason we might want to go for a lighter touch if it convinces people we're a better option than the Imperium.
 
I basically see the main thrust of the "Expansion" vote being a question of what we want to focus on as our primary means of expansion.

So if we pick Liberation, to me that means that we'll look for unethical dictatorships/oligarchies preferentially as potential new members, with a focus on going in with military force and toppling the unjust regimes and giving the citizens all the rights and benefits that follow our flag. We'll still have a diplomatic corp, of course, it'll just be a secondary consideration to go in and talk to more reasonable potential worlds, with less resources put towards it and a smaller cultural emphasis on peaceful integration.

Now, that is a perfectly reasonable playstyle - it's not like "Liberation" instantly turns us into fascists grinding people under our bootheels - but I'd personally prefer an approach where the threat of military force remains a threat and a tool of last resort, not our go-to and immediate impulse. In short, I think "Negotiation" describes how we acted in this system more than "Liberation" does, and I'd like to continue the trend.

I'd like to do something different from the Imperium, and while our philosophies and justifications are already going to be very different no matter what we pick here, I'd prefer if that difference also expressed itself in how we go about expanding outwards. I think that if we want to make a kinder and better galaxy, that rejecting some of the fundamental pillars of might-makes-right and baking that into our polity at a very core level is a good way to aim for that goal.
 
Last edited:
Should we come up with another name. I don't think the current choices are going to fit. Seeing how the votes are going.

Is there a point to having a bunch of religions of were going to conquer them the military way? It's not going to buy much goodwill unless we're planning to take advantage of religions to destabilize polities?

Redshirt Army said:
In short, I think "Negotiation" describes how we acted in this system more than "Liberation" does, and I'd like to continue the trend.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That sounds like you wanna play something similar to the Tau. Even if they're nice about it they aren't that much better then the imperium. Centralized, cast system, central leadership. Would we allow that to grow if we took them in? We'd also have to deal with long lived races trying to dominate from within using cults (the greater good), money, intrigue and culture.

What is our goal? Emps was trying to unite humanity before Slannesh emerges. Then he was going to get humans less dependent on the warp. Starving deamons by subverting the webway.

What's our vision for the end? Completely defeating chaos is impossible.
 
Last edited:
Darkcore41 said:
What's our vision for the end? Completely defeating chaos is impossible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For me, it would be something like "End the Age of Strife, the long dark age of superstition and exploitation, and bring egalitarianism, freedom, and rationality to a shattered galaxy."

Emp's brilliant plan of trying to starve warp entities that feed off of suffering by creating an authoritarian hellstate by force was just one of the many genius ideas that make me think the guy shouldn't have been trusted with running a food cart, much less a galactic empire.

All of the issues you describe are likely to be implicit in any kind of centralized leadership in the long term, hence my preference for decentralization.

Adhoc vote count started by Woltaire on Feb 10, 2024 at 3:36 PM, finished with 83 posts and 40 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top