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
Admittedly nobles in historic times did useful things, but in equitable societies with equal-ish access to the necessary resources, they serve no purpose that commoners and bureaucrats don't. Their use as politicians, artists, diplomats, and capitalists was due solely to their access to resources which they limited to and among themselves.

Then I expect to oppose you in crisis and support you in stable times. Fair enough.
Probably, but it depends on the crisis.
 
Law has never been a guaranteed solution to this.
The guaranteed solution is making the Old Stallion king. It's the most conservative move: the only certain way to weather the crisis, and has a well defined impact.

I think we need to err on the side of conservatism and deal with the minor issues from his suboptimality, since its the only path that guarantees us time to fix and improve things down the road.
 
[X] Snub him (Small chance of -1 Stability)
Best option, AN said we will have to work for advances/value upgrades, so let's not take the easy way out
[X] Stop trading with both (-4 Diplomacy)
We have 9 Diplo we can go to 5 to guarantee not having a war, especially not while the crisis is active
[X] We will find land for you to settle (-1 Stability, +2 Econ)
We can fix this with grand sacrifice, the other option pretty much has us eating a stability it for no econ

Next turn
[Main] Law
[Secondary] Grand Sacrifice
[Secondary] Grand Sacrifice x2
[]Kick the law

My plan using stat math. Note: Does not take into account province actions or baby boom.
Law, kicked, finish project (maybe get bonus mysticism and art, less chance of stability and econ gain), -2 Mysticism, -2 Art, -1 Stability, whatever bonus law gives.
Grand Sacrifice, secondary to main upgrade, -3 econ, +2 Stability, +1 crisis fix turn
End of next turn:
Diplo: 5
Econ: 3, chance of 2 depending on crisis roll
Stability: 0, small chance of -1 depending on snub roll
Art: 1, more if Stone Age Canal bonus triggers
Mysticism: 0, more if Stone Age Canal bonus triggers, can be fixed with Study Stars or similar.

Turn after
[Main] More boats?
[Secondary] Study Stars?
[Secondary] Art/Econ/Mysticism thing?
 
Minor breaches of Rule 3 and Rule 4.
[X] Elect Cwriid heir (+1 Stability, Crisis Ends on his terms)


Heh. This thread remains as deluded as ever. I am pleased.
 
We have 9 Diplo we can go to 5 to guarantee not having a war, especially not while the crisis is active
If we only go down to diplo 6 our provinces can take trade actions that will passively raise our diplo. Also, I just don't want to cut off all trade.
Grand Sacrifice, secondary to main upgrade, -3 econ, +2 Stability, +1 crisis fix turn
Bro, no, why?? Do Festival + Secondary GS, it costs the same thing and provides the same stability but also makes a festival *dedicated to the law.* We already have 2 dedicated to growth and pleasure, so let's have 1 dedicated to taxes and 1 dedicated to the law. Plz complete the set.

Turn after
[Main] More boats?
[Secondary] Study Stars?
[Secondary] Art/Econ/Mysticism thing?

More Boats + Expand Holy Sites is the best combo. Provinces highly likely to independently study stars, so picking it is pointless. EHS = +1 art, +2 mysticism, +chance of additional, which might contribute toward literacy to match the Boats contributing toward communication.
 
The guaranteed solution is making the Old Stallion king. It's the most conservative move: the only certain way to weather the crisis, and has a well defined impact.

I think we need to err on the side of conservatism and deal with the minor issues from his suboptimality, since its the only path that guarantees us time to fix and improve things down the road.
Except it solves nothing and pushes us too far in the opposite direction. Giving up hardly counts as a solution

Cwriid and the Young Stallions are the minor issue here. We have a crisis that has higher priority to fix.
 
Except it solves nothing and pushes us too far in the opposite direction. Giving up hardly counts as a solution

Cwriid and the Young Stallions are the minor issue here. We have a crisis that has higher priority to fix.
why do you always bring up points that are easy hooks for a rebuttal

are you trolling
like
y
 
Except it solves nothing and pushes us too far in the opposite direction. Giving up hardly counts as a solution

Cwriid and the Young Stallions are the minor issue here. We have a crisis that has higher priority to fix.
Installing him as heir ends the crisis. That's my point; I agree the crisis is top priority, so I want to vote the option that immediately fixes it.
 
Admittedly nobles in historic times did useful things, but in equitable societies with equal-ish access to the necessary resources, they serve no purpose that commoners and bureaucrats don't. Their use as politicians, artists, diplomats, and capitalists was due solely to their access to resources which they limited to and among themselves.
Except that's the thing, the access to resources is the only reason...
Resources are ultimately limited so not everyone is going to be able to do these things. Especially during these eras, Even in our society that we created that requires a little SOD to accept does this happen.
 
Except that's the thing, the access to resources is the only reason...
Resources are ultimately limited so not everyone is going to be able to do these things. Especially during these eras, Even in our society that we created that requires a little SOD to accept does this happen.
Minimizing the limitations is thus key. Allowing for monopolization (of land, of wealth, of education, of political positions) is the antithesis of this.

Resources are ultimately limited so not everyone is going to be able to do these things. But access to these limited resources is ultimately not limited. Allowing access to resources so that they have a chance to do more is 100% doable, and ultimately far more likely to end up w/ a better and more varied pool of people doing the same stuff that a small, homogenous pool of nobles would do.

Continued equality is both a more optimal option and a morally correct one.

Edit: By "resources are limited" BUT "access is not" I mean something like...
this: people can be given access to smaller pools of less risky resources w/o needing to consume all possible resources and resulting in a diminished level of efficiency than a smaller group of higher trained specialists would. i.e. observer-level exposure to diplomatic/governmental positions -> internship inside bureaucracy dealing with minor cases -> assistant on major cases -> lead on minor cases -> lead on medium cases -> lead on major cases; access to decent-level dirt so they can practice making sculptures/letting people mix pigments/giving people a stick and a knife to whittle with/etc. -> apprentice level in that art -> journeyman -> master -> etc.

The main issue is that in a nobility system people are not given free time, training, etc., even if it requires a minimal expenditure of capital to do so, because nobles are protective of their own resources and disinclined to allow competition from people they consider inherently inferior due to a difference in blood and breeding. The former, of course, does not matter, and the latter only matters because the training involved is limited by the people who claim it as a mark of superiority.
 
Last edited:
[X] Snub him (Small chance of -1 Stability)

[X] Declare war on the Highlanders (-2 Diplomacy)

[X] We will find land for you to settle (-1 Stability, +2 Econ)
 
[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)


Next Turn:
Main The Law + Kicker
Festival
Grand Sacrifice?
Turn After:
Main Holy Sites
Main More Boats? Chariots?

considering that we lose one Stab this mid turn, we should either put of the kicker and/or do a main GS the next turn and probably even the turn after that one as we need to bank up Stab for the LoO triggers that will come now that the war has begun
 
Apparently saying "you ain't gonna be king since most people in power don't like what you are selling" to a double hero in a meritocracy is a justified cause. Not because his ideas wouldn't work (it would revert the tax reform), but due to out of character bias against land ownership.

I'm sure he wouldn't hold it against the stubborn, detached, corrupt, and head-in-cloud group of chiefs. The people will of course trust the government that messed up tax reform over one of the greatest heroes the people have known.

It will totally work out, because we have reasons to trust he will wreck the system; not the one before, but the one we are trying to fix. Makes perfect sense in Bizarro land.
 
Id prefer if we could adopt a hybid of his ideas with our. But im not sure if we will be given the opportunity for it
 
[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)
 
considering that we lose one Stab this mid turn, we should either put off the kicker and/or do a main GS the next turn and probably even the turn after that one as we need to bank up Stab for the LoO triggers that will come now that the war has begun
main gs == festival + GS in both cost and stab gain.

We maybe could do it the turn after, depends on status of stab, comm, and literacy req's. Finishing The Law is extremely important due to how it lets us know what req's it actually satisfies and to what extent.
 
Not because his ideas wouldn't work (it would revert the tax reform), but due to out of character bias against land ownership.
While those who already had the best land and the most resources stood to lose out, as they heard the voices of those with less they knew that they could not continue on without the situation eventually growing violent. More than that, there is a definite appeal to the idea of farming as a unified group, of carefully managing the land without having to worry about whose grain is whose because it all goes into the group pot. The clever among the haves also soon realizes that just because its a group effort doesn't mean that individual plots need be managed by a group, and that the best way to convince the person in charge who should manage individual territories would be past success.
 
main gs == festival + GS in both cost and stab gain.

We maybe could do it the turn after, depends on status of stab, comm, and literacy req's. Finishing The Law is extremely important due to how it lets us know what req's it actually satisfies and to what extent.

I know I just don't want to fall into a negative stab again during the crisis and hd the hope by doing another GS we would get another turn to manage to crisis
 
Apparently saying "you ain't gonna be king since most people in power don't like what you are selling" to a double hero in a meritocracy is a justified cause. Not because his ideas wouldn't work (it would revert the tax reform), but due to out of character bias against land ownership.
Of course it's justified considering we have the social value harmony. Our style of government relies upon ties with other people, and while his diplomatic skills can to some extent compensate, electing him means undoing nearly three generations of work. If you're lifetime has been dedicated to making this project work, and someone comes in wishing to just do away with it of course they're not going to be happy.

It also ignores the fact that similar issues that caused the crisis in the first place are going to emerge once again. It's the dichotomy of simple government vs efficient government. If you want the latter, you can't have the former because society is innately complex and as time progresses gets even more complex.

It's one of the ways you can tell stupidity in modern day politics, "well why don't we just simplify it?!", as it completely misunderstands the reasons laws are what they are as they need to account for so many eventualities, human nature, and how that law will itself interact with the other body of laws.
 
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.
I'll hold you to that. Though, at least you're realistic about the potential for the system to not work anyway even if we solve the crisis. More than can be said for anyone else...

Should probably drop that 'never give up' hyper-shonen attitude though. Getting into a rigid mindset where backing off of a problem for a while, especially one that you aren't guaranteed to surpass by trying real hard, is the kind of thing that leads to nihilistic 'fuck the quest, fuck the QM, we're going to have everything or we're going to kill this quest' shit I've seen more than once when things get hard in an AN quest.
 
Apparently saying "you ain't gonna be king since most people in power don't like what you are selling" to a double hero in a meritocracy is a justified cause. Not because his ideas wouldn't work (it would revert the tax reform), but due to out of character bias against land ownership.

His ideas would be toxic long term because he is fundamentally the wrong kind of hero to rule at this time.
 
Back
Top