lol idcIn the middle of an economic crisis with no guaranteed solution, you would roll the dice on a civil war too?
I... guess I can rest satisfied that, if nothing else, my faction prevented THAT level of recklessness.
I argued that for quite a while, but people really, really dislike his policies. Like, holy shit, just getting people to agree that he wasn't going to go full tyrant was a thing. And Veekie at least seemed to have a pretty good grasp on the pros and cons, so I let it go. I wish you luck though, I'd still prefer for Cwriid to rule, so if you actually manage to sway people that'd be great.
I mean... our reform was a good one...
First of all, any system (however bad) is better than no system.
Well we can't delay it anymore, and reverting back after all this effort is just giving up, i'd rather suffer the consequences of our greed and hubris than surrender because we couldn't deal with them.
Authoritarian system doesn't matter, we have chiefs who are elected and yeah they're elected largely from a couple of powerful families but these families powers are fluid, and rooted solely in their ability to get the chief position.
No, exactly how GG works. We get two chances at rolling for Stability Gain for each chance of Stability loss
Because clearly the position of allowing Cwriid to roll back all the effort we put so far to fix this when we are already so close, is so much better.In the middle of an economic crisis with no guaranteed solution, you would roll the dice on a civil war too?
I... guess I can rest satisfied that, if nothing else, my faction prevented THAT level of recklessness.
I mean, we already have 2 turns remaining rn. Having 3 turns remaining would be rad but is kinda too extra for me.
*shrug*
This would be a much better point if we didn't have a guaranteed solution on the table already...
I suppose its a value difference. I think opting out of risk in a crisis is optimal, and I hold seeking optimality (and politicing with other players) as the primary fun. If you have more fun in higher risk/reward choices... that's cool. It's very hard to argue against 'we should do this for fun'.
I balance optimization against what I personally value. I enjoy politicking and seeking optimal choices in the game mechanics, but am also, and mostly, here for the story. Having unexpected things occur is a key value within that, and our tendency as a group to project and seek an optimal path is sort of ruining the surprises and narrative that are important aspects of stories.I suppose its a value difference. I think opting out of risk in a crisis is optimal, and I hold seeking optimality (and politicing with other players) as the primary fun. If you have more fun in higher risk/reward choices... that's cool. It's very hard to argue against 'we should do this for fun'.
Not really if it pushes too far in the opposite direction. Then we have to undo those mistakes and put in a better tax system
dissing the Cwriid is hardly the optimal solution, but I prefer that than making him king, which would be counterproductive.I suppose its a value difference. I think opting out of risk in a crisis is optimal, and I hold seeking optimality (and politicing with other players) as the primary fun. If you have more fun in higher risk/reward choices... that's cool. It's very hard to argue against 'we should do this for fun'.
Then I expect to oppose you in crisis and support you in stable times. Fair enough.
I mean an entire class of nobles and royalty doesn't create people who contribute nothing, their a class of politicians, artists, diplomats, capitalists. Generalizing an entire group of powerful, typically well-educated and pretty big in population people isn't very genuine
