Not necessarily.

And with the current plan we'd be sitting at positive 1 or at worst 0. That's not remotely bad. Just because we were at high stab doesn't mean it's a mistake to go low as needed.
A drop from high to low has historically evoked anger and discomfort.

It's the argument people used against doing the Dam; the cause of stability loss when the Baby Boom ended; the dissatisfaction with the Age of Heroes; etc.

We're already going to go low as needed in order to create your Trails. The issue now is having our Heroic King bring us up from that low.
 
A drop from high to low has historically evoked anger and discomfort.

It's the argument people used against doing the Dam; the cause of stability loss when the Baby Boom ended; the dissatisfaction with the Age of Heroes; etc.

We're already going to go low as needed in order to create your Trails. The issue now is having our Heroic King bring us up from that low.
And yet only some of that can be attributed to the queen. The plague happened before she even took office! And even then, it's only a single turn. I'm not saying we should coast along at one for awhile.
 
Stability too low for me. Stability = general happiness and satisfaction, which more strongly impacts how she is viewed by everyone and thus impacts the widespread view of misogyny.
Worst case scenario puts us at 0 Stability.

Consider this, she will also be viewed by what she actually achieves, not just stability. If you want to give people something to talk about, have her one turn a major project that benefits her biggest critics. This undermines both their support and arguments, next turn we can focus on stability.
2) The "holy shit everything has changed" group when AN stated that heroic admin rolls were applied to the ordering of actions, meaning that we actually can take the maximum stability loss option without risking civilization collapse due to temporary -4 stability. We want to do a vote reset since this is about as big of a change as the free stability attached to The Garden.
I don't think this group is as big as you believe. It's also something we've known about since before this. Also, I don't think taking in a huge number of sick people when we're in the middle of a disease outbreak, especially to create a true city, which will make the disease outbreak even more persistent, is a good idea.
 
Stick to one, please.
It's the same argument?
Sexism is far more significant in the March and the northern provinces, because we settled those with refugees and then never culturally converted them.
Sexism is not a major concern in core provinces like Valleyhome because they don't see a problem with supporting a woman, though it's somewhat unusual
This has nothing to do with Study Health, though. Study Metal solves the bad logic problem. Study Health would help us fight this rib-cracking cough, whether by developing a vaccine (unlikely) or simply developing: a habit of washing hands; face masks; cough syrup; idk enough about whooping cough to continue.
Study Metal will currently reinforce the bad logic. Everyone is diseased. You study metal. People studying metal invariably get infected at some point.

Clearly metal is cursed.

Whooping cough? Nothing there we could do about it. It's sneaking past the quarantine because it's a minor infection in adults. It's mostly deadly to children. It spreads by air, and wood/ceramic masks will not stop an airbourne pathogen.

The only way to prevent it currently is to not have people live so close to each other. Its spreading though apparently healthy carriers
The only way to cure it...incidentally, did you know decongestants don't work on whooping cough? You can't do symptomatic treatment.
As already stated, please consider as to what "immediate problems" might mean. Is a continuous, endemic disease really only an "immediate" problem?
Context sensitivity. The conversation AN was replying to suggested that:
-The superstition can be removed in that way.
-The disease can be removed in that way.

It's unknown whether they're actually of higher availability. Our boats and their boats just happened to meet, and it's quite possible that the pirates stole them in the strife, which would mean they have less boats at home.

Remember that each boat is likely owned by a family in their civilization, and "owned" by a family in ours.
Stealing them is possible, but for bandits to have access to boats also mean that the least well off and influential people in the culture have enough boat access to attack someone else for their stuff on a national scale.

Maybe. It certainly looks like New Trails will do something, but is it worth it to bring stability down to 0 over the course of our new Hero's election? What will that do to her "other effects"? I think it's quite clear that we can wait on Trails but can't wait on strengthening her position so that our civ doesn't go "wow, elect a woman and society crumbles."

Please make a convincing plan that raises stability w/o depending on a further fall to -1.
Lowering stability strengthens her position by making values held uncertain, allowing for an action which she is extremely good at to be performed.
Stability 0 and Stability 1 are not "Society crummbles". It's the normal state of events.

Worst case it doesn't enable Restore Order and leaves us at 0, still needing to burn Stability.
+, doing New Trails now means it will take significantly longer to do a Double Main New Trails, though I suppose that since our goal is connecting w/ the Stallion Tribes that doesn't matter.

Still means that we connect with these infamously patriarchal people during a time when our new King has brought our people down from their previously great height. Doing GS then Dam + New Trails or Province then Double New Trails just seems less risky, socially.
Grand Sacrifice also closes off the option to use Annual Festivals to normalize culture. Which is the other option that people are not taking because it's more expensive and pays less stats.
[] Someone else (Standard) /// Just... why?
Harmony option. Pick the mediocre guy as a political compromise, rather than reward either of the controversial candidates
Now, Grand Sacrifice vs New Trails. While the vote for Sacrifice tries to shore up Stability (where were you people when we were spending Stability like water during the Tax Crisis and earlier?), narratively I believe, in conjunction with our new taboo against metal, this option would result in people destroying their metal tools. Since the Copper Mine gave us 3 Econ, and Grand Sacrifice costs 3 Econ, it makes a sort of mechanical sense.
...I can't believe I didn't see that possibility coming.
 
[X] Random Admin tech upgrade
[X] Magwyna (-1 Stability, other effects, [Poor Martial, Heroic Admin and Diplo])
[X] Grand Sacrifice (-3 Econ, +2 Stability)
[X] Take in some (Chance of stability loss, +2 Econ)

I have been convinced.
Adhoc vote count started by BungieONI on May 10, 2017 at 8:04 PM, finished with 31310 posts and 104 votes.

Adhoc vote count started by BungieONI on May 10, 2017 at 8:10 PM, finished with 31313 posts and 104 votes.
 
And yet only some of that can be attributed to the queen. The plague happened before she even took office! And even then, it's only a single turn. I'm not saying we should coast along at one for awhile.
The plague happened and we elected her and she didn't solve the problem!! People are unhappy and she does nothing!! Clearly queens are bad!! People aren't reasonable.

Waiting to do Trails next turn is only a single turn; waiting to do the aqueduct next turn is only a single turn.

Worst case scenario puts us at 0 Stability.
3 -> 0 = fall of 3 all around the time she got elected, which will blur in history and paint her more negatively, especially if she actually achieves something.
 
3 -> 0 = fall of 3 all around the time she got elected, which will blur in history and paint her more negatively, especially if she actually achieves something.
We're at 2.

People are going to find holes in her abilities, but people are going to find significantly less holes when we start solving actual problems and giving them physical benefits.

The people who are angry are still going to be angry at high stability, this only deals with the overall population, not the people who are opposing her.
 
Oh and just to provide the math for those doubting the value of the maximum stability option, let us assume worst possible luck. That means stability goes to -2 and econ goes to 15. Restoration of Order is almost certain to give +1 and very likely to give +2 and additional effects thanks to our heroic leader. As such it'll take ~4-8 actions to get back to stability 2. In comparison, it'd take us ~8 actions to get that much econ.

That's assuming the worst case scenario in every manner: maximum stability drop, minimum econ gain, no Greater Good triggers, no benefits from getting a true city with an admin hero to help manage it, no tech gain from higher-class immigrants, no automatic settlements due to an obvious need, etc. And it's an equal amount of time to get the same stat values.

This is the best possible time to take in a large refugee wave like this. An admin hero doing Restore Order is our best chance for dealing with corruption, doing a Festival with heroic admin and diplomacy (it rolls against both) is our best chance to bring our society together, admin hero managing a massive refugee wave and making a true city would massively decrease the likelihood of problems popping up, we're at a safe stability, we're only average on econ and have some very econ-hungry options we want to take, etc.

It's also something we've known about since before this.
No, no it isn't. We've never before gotten a hero election on the same turn as a possible massive stability drop, so it never came up before. With Bynwyn we were told that the attack was going to mostly happen before he took over so his poor Martial was not going to significantly matter, which indicated that her admin rolls would not be applied to the refugee wave.

...I can't believe I didn't see that possibility coming.
Doesn't seem likely. It's the mining and smelting that our people see as dangerous, we're perfectly happy to use the tools that other people have taken the curses to make.
 
Last edited:
We're at 2.

People are going to find holes in her abilities, but people are going to find significantly less holes when we start solving actual problems and giving them physical benefits.

The people who are angry are still going to be angry at high stability, this only deals with the overall population, not the people who are opposing her.
And this is but the midturn. Next turn we can do a Main New Trails and create aquaducts in their land.
 
They sacrifice things of value. Why would they try to sacrifice something that is cursed
Because they're tools of the gods, clearly mortals trying to wield them was an offence and in sacrificing the tools back to the gods they can gain some forgiveness. Oh look, the disease is gone (passed naturally), it worked! Belief further entrenched.

No, no it isn't. We've never before gotten a hero election on the same turn as a possible massive stability drop, so it never came up before. With Bynwyn we were told that the attack was going to mostly happen before he took over so his poor Martial was not going to significantly matter, which indicated that her admin rolls would not be applied to the refugee wave.
We've known that heroic levels can't crit fail for awhile now. The logical train of thought isn't the hardest to follow.
 
It's the same argument?
Sexism is far more significant in the March and the northern provinces, because we settled those with refugees and then never culturally converted them.
Sexism is not a major concern in core provinces like Valleyhome because they don't see a problem with supporting a woman, though it's somewhat unusual
It's not based on sexism!!

It IS based on sexism!!

Different points.

Study Metal will currently reinforce the bad logic. Everyone is diseased. You study metal. People studying metal invariably get infected at some point.
Missed the point: the vote/issue is: "do we do Study Health or not." Health, not Metal.

It spreads by air, and wood/ceramic masks will not stop an airbourne pathogen.
cloth

The only way to cure it...incidentally, did you know decongestants don't work on whooping cough? You can't do symptomatic treatment.
cough syrup isn't a decongestant

Stealing them is possible, but for bandits to have access to boats also mean that the least well off and influential people in the culture have enough boat access to attack someone else for their stuff on a national scale.
or that they can go to someone's house and take it
or that they weren't poor before becoming bandits, ie they were influential and politics change
or that they were fishers and fishers have boats cus they fish

Lowering stability strengthens her position by making values held uncertain, allowing for an action which she is extremely good at to be performed.
sounds like BS to me

...I can't believe I didn't see that possibility coming.
it's specifically noted in the trait that they're fine w/ current metal and buying metal, but oppose further research and creation.

We're at 2.

People are going to find holes in her abilities, but people are going to find significantly less holes when we start solving actual problems and giving them physical benefits.

The people who are angry are still going to be angry at high stability, this only deals with the overall population, not the people who are opposing her.
We were at 3, we can hit 0. Math.

Doesn't respond to my point.

Less people will be angry at high stability. More angry people means more people wanting a target for anger.
 
Because they're tools of the gods, clearly mortals trying to wield them was an offence and in sacrificing the tools back to the gods they can gain some forgiveness. Oh look, the disease is gone (passed naturally), it worked! Belief further entrenched.
They are cursed items. You never sacrifice anything that is cursed. It doesn't matter who cursed it, that is something you do not do.
 
We were at 3, we can hit 0. Math.

Doesn't respond to my point.

Less people will be angry at high stability. More angry people means more people wanting a target for anger.
I did respond to your point, stop arbitrarily claiming that I'm not to try and be the person who is right.

That somehow her stats would be applied before she even officially took office? Despite Bynwyn's poor stat not really applying to an action that happened on the same turn that he was elected (and thus was still heir)?
Except that the real question here is Grand Sacrifice vs How we take in Immigrants, not the stability drop her being the next king would cause. You're also blatantly glossing over the health problems.

They are cursed items. You never sacrifice anything that is cursed. It doesn't matter who cursed it, that is something you do not do.

Return things that are cursed to their proper place is one of the most pervasive means of dealing with a curse ever. Considering our Symphony trait, it is quite likely to occur. So...
 
Last edited:
Return things that are cursed to their proper place is one of the most pervasive means of dealing with a curse ever. Considering our Symphony trait, it is quite likely to occur. So...
Except metal doesn't burn. It becomes the same as trying to perform a ritual with a cursed item. If the items aren't pure, then they are just as likely to release toxic fumes as well.

That isn't going to encourage anyone to sacrifice it.
 
Except that the real question here is Grand Sacrifice vs How we take in Immigrants, not the stability drop her being the next king would cause.
This is a complete non sequitur. I said literally nothing about that. This is about the ordering of all actions in a turn.

As far as we are aware, all of a turn's actions have their order determined at once during the turn's admin roll. We had significant reason to believe they were using the current leader's stats to do that since we had been told that launching a massive attack would not be significantly affected by Bynwyn's poor Martial stat.

Now it seems like the rolls use the better of the heir's and the current leader's stats. Which is a nice benefit, but not one we had any real indication of prior to this.
 
They are cursed items. You never sacrifice anything that is cursed. It doesn't matter who cursed it, that is something you do not do.
They are cursed because they belong to the gods, not mortals. So yes, they are items that are quite nice as a sacrifice. It probably wouldn't be to the extent of 'burn all the tools' but we could see it in some form.
 
Except metal doesn't burn. It becomes the same as trying to perform a ritual with a cursed item. If the items aren't pure, then they are just as likely to release toxic fumes as well.

That isn't going to encourage anyone to sacrifice it.
...*looks at greater good and honorable death.*

*Imagines scenario in which someone heroically sacrifices a metal.*

*Imagines different scenario where someone buries the metal as a means of sacrifice.*

I think we've officially crossed over into "I'm looking to prove I'm right," territory from a great number of people here when their arguments are turning away from how their stances are good to how they aren't as bad as everyone is making them out to be.

I'm supporting a stance that addresses the vast majority of our issues.

How about this

@Academia Nut

Would Grand Sacrifice destroy our Copper Tools?
You're missing the point. I don't expect all of our copper tools to be destroyed, I expect the belief to become further entrenched.
 
I did respond to your point, stop arbitrarily claiming that I'm not to try and be the person who is right.
No, you didn't. All you said was "people might paint her in a bad light but hey she might achieve physical benefits which will make people happier." If people were appeased by physical benefits physical benefits would raise stability.

My entire point is that, as time passes, she will be known as the person who ended a golden age, however temporary. Her actually achieving something, like an aqueduct, will not change this over the long run because she's still associated with the whooping cough and an end to national stability. All it would do is cement her position in a history that erases other Kings, and thus make it even harder to detach her from the cough and fall.

We want her to be unexceptional and making sure she's not elected right around a massive drop which she does nothing to fix is a good choice in regards to that.

You're missing the point. I don't expect all of our copper tools to be destroyed, I expect the belief to become further entrenched.
by burning all our copper tools

tbh idr what your stance is other than "I want trails and aqueducts but don't care about stability"

I support trails and the aqueducts but care about stability just as much.

I don't support a blaze-ahead approach to the aqueduct because that just means the ST will be less perturbed by people from other places helping them, and thus have less of an impact in changing people. Older people are set in their opinions, so the best way to change them as a culture is to expose the young ones to foreigners as long as possible.

My vote will probably be like this:
Main GS
Change Policy -> Expansion
Aqueduct

This mixes people as well as possible, uses her admin score to manage the project and diplo score to interface with the ST and people sacrificing possessions, and gets us another provincial action. We can do a Salt Gift + whatever else is necessary/desired the turn after.
 
Last edited:
No, you didn't. All you said was "people might paint her in a bad light but hey she might achieve physical benefits which will make people happier." If people were appeased by physical benefits physical benefits would raise stability.

My entire point is that, as time passes, she will be known as the person who ended a golden age, however temporary. Her actually achieving something, like an aqueduct, will not change this over the long run because she's still associated with the whooping cough and an end to national stability. All it would do is cement her position in a history that erases other Kings, and thus make it even harder to detach her from the cough and fall.

We want her to be unexceptional and making sure she's not elected right around a massive drop is a good choice in regards to that.
No, people achieving long lasting monuments has often cemented their legacy more so than how happy the population was around their time. Actions are what history remembers more than vague fondness. As to you insisting I didn't address your point.
We're at 2.

People are going to find holes in her abilities, but people are going to find significantly less holes when we start solving actual problems and giving them physical benefits.

The people who are angry are still going to be angry at high stability, this only deals with the overall population, not the people who are opposing her.
The first line was to point out we are currently at 2 stability, so you were factually wrong. The second line was to point out that no matter what we do, people will find fault with her, so trying to be the bestest is a foolish idea. The third line is to point out that a high stability just makes the population happy, it does not stop her critics, who will be the people who tell everyone how she didn't actually listen to them and help a great deal. The third line addresses your point. Me not agreeing with you doesn't mean I haven't addressed your point.

by burning all our copper tools
By sacrificing enough tools in one way or another to gain a perceived outcome. Not by getting rid of all of our tools.

This is blatant interpretation to force me to be at fault, because if we were that bad we'd just shut down our metal mine. Just like if we so bad as to not be willing to sacrifice anything in the first place because it is so cursed, we wouldn't be willing to use the tools at all. So yes, I do believe that metal will be sacrificed in some way, yes I do believe that if we get a turn where random events to screw us over following everyone will believe it was the right thing to do! Thus, further digging us into this hole.
 
Back
Top