- Location
- Illinois
Yeah, I looked into it a bit. It seems likely that the roman soldiers weren't paid directly in salt, but were paid money to buy salt as a necessity.
It's still a possible early currency, but it also has its problems.
Paths of Civilization
- Thread starter Academia Nut
- Start date
- Original
It's still a possible early currency, but it also has its problems.
- Location
- Austria
I never considerer province to be ours or loyal or even stable long-term (nomadic plains = they are fucked once hero is dead and squabbling starts), so it can burn for all that I care.
- Location
- Hell
Well we could choose not to take in the refugees?
That's the best chance at losing 0 Stability and not have to worry about Sacrifice at all!
Which...is going to happen anyway? Except if we abort the reforms.
He's in his sixties now. One turn, then his much less powerful and charismatic sons take over(he found the solution to our picking chiefs from a number of families by making them ALL his family, which is a clever way to subvert the system since in his province the only legitimate candidates for chief of any level are his personal descendants, which is the Nomad Nepotism trait thing).
And actually, if his faction moves towards rebellion after his death that would also give us an easy way to deal them since they'd be the disharmonious ones and won't have their father's super stats.
If anything, letting him take power basically validates the Young Stallions, cementing their role in future politics. It's not like any political party has ever dissolved for accomplishing their goals, only if they failed to.
Funny thing about our Good Hero Kings:
-Warrior - Gwygotha never sought to rule. She was skilled and she defied authority, but she mainly wanted to go around doing her own thing. She crushed the Nomad threat in her time.
-Administrator - Hewthyun never sought to rule. He was the compromise candidate, the one nobody particularly hated. He reformed the system, putting into place the checks and balances against any one person gaining power to the detriment of the people, and ensuring that the King had good advisors.
-Mystic - Bynwyn never sought to rule. He simply had a good idea, and he ended the scourge of the Star Pox.
-Diplomat - Twythulmyn was in the mold of Gwygotha. He was a renegade, doing his own big things, when people picked him up and put him as King. he spread our trade ties far and wide, acquiring metal with his deeds.
Meanwhile, every single Big Man/High Chief who sought power came to disaster. From the original crow, to the chariot chiefs, they never did well, and were remembered for hubris and causing troubles lasting past their time.
Lesson of History: Those who do not desire power are the most fit for it.
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
I thought he was in his mid 40s to early 50s? AN said his hair was starting to grey.
You make some really good points on dealing with them. However, if we're going to deal with the rebellion then we should take an extra action towards expanding forests in Stone Pen as well as chariots. Currently the Stallions have lots of nomads so I think their mobility is superior to ours.
@Academia Nut Does our civ have the chariots from the conquered nomads, or did the hero take them with him to his providence?
- Location
- Las Islas Filipinas
He'll probably try to break away if we snub him, then we'd be given the choice of what to do. But i think if the "Small Chance o Stability -1" hits, then he's secession would not be peaceful and we'd have a different set of options.
Edit
The stability hit is probably from his supporters in our land causing trouble or something similar.
Edit
The stability hit is probably from his supporters in our land causing trouble or something similar.
Last edited:
I prefer to resolve the crisis as soon as possible.
We lost 2 military since it went to him. I am also weary about possible secession from our northern provinces.
- Location
- Australia
[X] Snub him (Small chance of -1 Stability)
[X] Stop trading with both (-4 Diplomacy)
[X] Stop trading with both (-4 Diplomacy)
Except we are taking the intermediary steps necessary to create it. You know the crisis resolution requirements like "restore legitimacy" and "literacy??" Those are the intermediary steps, and we have already made half of them green on top of halfway completing The Law.
- Location
- Austria
Well we could choose not to take in the refugees?
That's the best chance at losing 0 Stability and not have to worry about Sacrifice at all!
Sorry, a matter of principle. Come hell or high water, we never refuse those truly in need...and we lose at least 1 stability anyway, so staying at +1 is not happening anyway. We still need to do GS.
- Location
- United States
You know, the whole crisis thing is kinda self explanatory.
We messed up and forced change too hard, too fast. This is us taking actions to fix the issue...not us changing governments/tax laws to the "gateway" versions which allow for steadier transition to modern systems.
- Location
- Sweden
[X] Snub him (Small chance of -1 Stability)
[X] We will find land for you to settle (-1 Stability, +2 Econ)
[X] We will find land for you to settle (-1 Stability, +2 Econ)
He was in his 30s the first time. Now he's been snubbed 'several times' and we get a new King every 10-20 years, so at least 20 years have passed, if not 30. He should be in his sixties.
Forests won't stop them significantly in a generation, but read his own PoV. He has no interests in fighting the people unless we attack him. It defeats the purpose because his whole platform is "this way is better for the people", and starting by stabbing people because we won't let him use his way on everyone would be worse for the people. He is too old to win a civil war and still be able to do anything.
The whole civil war thing is predicated on false information and misinterpretation. There is only a risk of it if WE start the first shot, otherwise the worst thing that can happen is he starts ignoring our orders entirely and leave...which since we don't give him any orders, is status quo. Alternatively his sons imitate the Nomads and break up the province into chunks after he dies. Tragic loss, but no harm.
Ways of ending crisis:
-Complete the tax reforms. People shut up once it starts working properly. Crisis over
-Roll back the tax reforms and add the complete opposite. People shut up because the annoying thing is gone. Crisis over.
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
Forests will take away a significant part of cavalry's steam riding through the area if there's a civil war.
What false information?
My original post was concerning people not wanting anything hereditary because they don't like it. I was annoyed because everyone wanted to triple down on the tax reforms instead of taking a less painful way out. Taking the hero would've reverted the tax reform with communal inheritance, but would still allow us to keep The Law going.
We could gradually change the system, but nope.
Last edited:
Holy fuck, why are so many people voting in favour of possible war while in the middle of a crisis?! Why would we want to get involved in that mess?
[X] Snub him (Small chance of -1 Stability)
[X] Stop trading with both (-4 Diplomacy)
[X] We will find land for you to settle (-1 Stability, +2 Econ)
I was tempted to go for electing him King, since I'm pretty sure he'd make a really good one, and would likely make integrating the March far easier. It might even happen while he's King, although I see that as a small chance. But we already started codifying the laws and are taking steps to hopefully fix the tax mess on our terms and not his. This does mean the March is likely harder to integrate in the future especially since he's set up a practically hereditary system for the leadership. I just know the place is going to be an action sink at some point
The boat people seem interesting, and they come from a hilly and mountainous area so we have something in common! I wonder what they think about farming and trees...
[X] Snub him (Small chance of -1 Stability)
[X] Stop trading with both (-4 Diplomacy)
[X] We will find land for you to settle (-1 Stability, +2 Econ)
I was tempted to go for electing him King, since I'm pretty sure he'd make a really good one, and would likely make integrating the March far easier. It might even happen while he's King, although I see that as a small chance. But we already started codifying the laws and are taking steps to hopefully fix the tax mess on our terms and not his. This does mean the March is likely harder to integrate in the future especially since he's set up a practically hereditary system for the leadership. I just know the place is going to be an action sink at some point
The boat people seem interesting, and they come from a hilly and mountainous area so we have something in common! I wonder what they think about farming and trees...
- Location
- Hell
No?
We snub and refuse. That gives a chance of zero loss and small (not tiny, since we get two rolls at it) chance of gain thanks to Greater Good.
- Location
- Hell
And that's why I wanted to shut down the Young Stallions group so we could have three turns to deal with the crisis and let the megaproject play out normally >.>
- Location
- Austria
Not really how GG works, it will just give two separate rolls. Besides, it can trigger on any negative, not only on chances, so TGG does not tip the scales either way.
And a 'chance' not to lose stability is unreliable as hell.
Umi-san
Procrastinating.
- Location
- ꙮ
"from Latin salarium 'salary, stipend, pension,' originally 'salt-money, soldier's allowance for the purchase of salt,'"
"luxury on par with dye, but more useful to the point it becomes a necessity"
I see no conflict here
Last edited:
pblur
Reminiscing over the halcyon days of Ymaryn
- Location
- Lawrence's Wagon
It's probably too late to turn this around, but I'd like to bring up risk management for the crisis.
Remember that last turn we basically had two bad options:
If we don't select him as heir now, we are betting that we can guess how to get literacy and communication across a 6 month wide realm. Realistically, this is an even more advanced problem than complex tax codes and hammurabis law. That's a bad gamble. I only took it last turn because the alternative was accepting 'hard choices' which I deemed more dangerous.
As it is, we have an option for a sure thing resolution with small downsides. It's not the best land distribution system, but it will work. It's not the best tax system, but it will work. And it guarantees us a chance to survive, protect our citizens, and improve.
This thread tends to pit a progressive perfect against a pragmatic good. Almost any system which holds the polity together is better than almost any system which breaks it apart. Our system's greatest accomplishment isn't a canal, a communal system, or a managed forest. It's protecting thousands of people from starvation and mayhem for a millenium. That's an absurd feat for this age. Let's not throw it away on a gamble for better land distribution for the next 200 years.
Edit: My general rule: conservatism in crisis, progressivism in stability.
Remember that last turn we basically had two bad options:
- Gamble on a double or nothing play with Law. We didn't know (and still don't) that Law would resolve the crisis. It's a best guess.
- Give up fixing the crisis, and go full on hedging our bet. (Rack up as many resources as possible to deal with fallout.)
If we don't select him as heir now, we are betting that we can guess how to get literacy and communication across a 6 month wide realm. Realistically, this is an even more advanced problem than complex tax codes and hammurabis law. That's a bad gamble. I only took it last turn because the alternative was accepting 'hard choices' which I deemed more dangerous.
As it is, we have an option for a sure thing resolution with small downsides. It's not the best land distribution system, but it will work. It's not the best tax system, but it will work. And it guarantees us a chance to survive, protect our citizens, and improve.
This thread tends to pit a progressive perfect against a pragmatic good. Almost any system which holds the polity together is better than almost any system which breaks it apart. Our system's greatest accomplishment isn't a canal, a communal system, or a managed forest. It's protecting thousands of people from starvation and mayhem for a millenium. That's an absurd feat for this age. Let's not throw it away on a gamble for better land distribution for the next 200 years.
Edit: My general rule: conservatism in crisis, progressivism in stability.
Last edited:
Umi-san
Procrastinating.
- Location
- ꙮ
Unless he invents/continues a tradition of giving most of the land to his oldest son, this will happen naturally, and make reconsuming them easier in the long run.
Tbqh, I totally want to go back to our original way of doing full communal take ins and outputs. I would have voted for that but kinda didn't get what the voting options for the tax thing meant until the bandwagon had already finished itself.
I'm iffy on the labor cost, but honestly would rather like it if we had scaled taxes on the side of our full consumption of primary labor production, rather than not having it at all.
I agree w/ shutting down the YS, but it's too late. If we turn around now the "Make Him King Cus We Want His Stats For A Single Turn Despite How We're Also Voting To Stay Out of the War" group would win.
VoidZero
Passing Flan 布丁魔王
- Location
- Anywhere but RL
@Academia Nut
In the event when trade to TH/HK are halted, what will happen to our stockpile of trade goods? Have we been getting any goods that we do not produce internally from the trade?
In the event when trade to TH/HK are halted, what will happen to our stockpile of trade goods? Have we been getting any goods that we do not produce internally from the trade?
