Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
notgreat said:
Martial 13 is a lot. Even with two crits we still ate away at a massive portion of the nomads. With Iron Weapons we're in a better position than we were at the start of this turn and our people are out for blood.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, The People repulsed them and they picked up a giant pile of other nomad's people to use as fodder. That 2/3s of the force killed was the fodder from other tribes. The Hero units were not even in the army that got squished.

So its a matter of versing 2 hero units in their favored field (military) in their home terrain (step) with a nonhero unit. Unless the rolls go utterly crushingly in the favor of The People they aren't going to obliterate them. What is at risk on a fail is not just the military... it losing psuedo-star metal weapons to a pair of hero legends as icing to their victory cake.

A loss here means nomads will keep coming for the magic weapons they can loot with luck. They'll never want t leave The People alone.
 
[X] Weapons (+2 Econ, +8 Martial, ???)
[X] Leave things be
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] Yes (+1 Stability, -1 Legitimacy, Martial focused characterbecomes king)
 
[X] Tools (+8 Econ, +2 Martial, ???)
[X] Leave things be
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)
 
Academia Nut said:
snip
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Question: does the initial loss of RO have a chance of triggering GG?
Adhoc vote count started by Hangwind on May 20, 2017 at 2:44 PM, finished with 37631 posts and 52 votes.
Click to expand...
 
[X] Tools (+8 Econ, +2 Martial, ???)
[X] Restore order (Main usage)
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] Yes (+1 Stability, -1 Legitimacy, Martial focused character becomes king)

Just because nobody seems to like my vote, so going with the OTHER option that keeps us from imploding(even though I hate taking a legit stab for this, since that's so annoying to raise)
 
No7sHere said:
At this point I think the nomads have annoyed all of the players to the point where we wouldn't have any problem exterminating the lot of them (if we could) and doing the world a favor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pity that is virtually impossible without ortillery. They are steppe herpes in the exact same ways as dandelions are lawn herpes.
 
Last edited:
maximillian said:
Bloody hell, you folks are acting like the Nomads are Hitler. You do realise that Raiding and pillaging was the norm until the napoleonic wars.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Normal =/= Good.

Just because something is 'normal' or 'natural' does not mean Mankind should tolerate it in themselves. Practically everyone alive today has had a rapist ancestor in their gene-line somewhere. Same for murderers and thieves.

Almost everyone alive today comes from a tribe that's extinguished others. The Han Chinese (my own ancestors) are an amalgamation of a tribes that successfully overran and assimilated the rest.

Should we say 'raiding is okay'? Would you volunteer to be victimized by nomadic incursions? Are these behaviours we want to preserve?
 
No7sHere said:
At this point I think the nomads have annoyed all of the players to the point where we wouldn't have any problem exterminating the lot of them (if we could) and doing the world a favor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not, I'm amazed by their ruthlessness to throw 2/3 of warriors for 1/3 to sneak past the defense line. This is good for the people to understand the risks war.

Also nomads will be there even if we are not. I wonder if we can call up Thunder Speakers against nomadic threats. They properly understand the danger.
 
tryrar said:
And I say you're talking lunacy if you think that would remotely happen. Jeez, we don't manage that in THIS era, much less early iron age!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Technically, republics are meant to be this way. With a new party, with new ideologies, rotating into power - not one party or one family perpetually in power.

Of course, that's very different from a meritocracy.

But that's really neither here or there. I don't want to get too into politics.

As for the game, as I've been saying, I feel that it sets a good precedent. I want our government to be more similar to a meritocracy - to hopefully consistently get Heroic units as kings. The mechanics of how that would work can be determined later.
 
[X] Tools (+8 Econ, +2 Martial, ???)
[X] Leave things be
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)
 
Andres110 said:
People are just blindly picking after Tools without considering the fluff or that we'll need the weapons to beat the two heroes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I have posted a very compelling argument for Tools.

Frankly speaking, we need tools, we're better with tools, we don't need better weapons atm, we just need to engage them.

We've slaughtered Nomads at 100% kill, the 2/3 that we fought, all just using Stone weapons.
Now, 1/3 is left. Do we really need metal to kill 1/2 the balance army.
 
BlueFlamingWings said:
Technically, republics are meant to be this way. With a new party, with new ideologies, rotating into power - not one party or one family perpetually in power.

Of course, that's very different from a meritocracy.

But that's really neither here or there. I don't want to get too into politics.

As for the game, as I've been saying, I feel that it sets a good precedent. I want our government to be more similar to a meritocracy - to hopefully consistently get Heroic units as kings. The mechanics of how that would work can be determined later.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And I'm saying the idea this vote gets us closer to it is crazy talk. More likely it simply allows kings to be usurped easier when things don't go our way.
 
[X] Tools (+8 Econ, +2 Martial, ???)
[X] Leave things be
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)
So decided to change my vote but quick question but why are some people voting for restoration of order with taking all the stability gaining actions since that way we end with 0 stability and RoO will at best get us 1 stab and at worst back to -1?
 
VoidZero said:
I'm not, I'm amazed by their ruthlessness to throw 2/3 of warriors for 1/3 to sneak past the defense line. This is good for the people to understand the risks war.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It makes more sense if you remember that those were nomads from other nomad's tribes. They got suckered in and foddered... which means that their women and stuff can be assimilated as a conquer's dessert.
 
Hangwind said:
Question: does the initial loss of RO have a chance of triggering GG?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes.

Malevolo said:
the changing of chiefs in extreme conditions is on the law correct? So why the legitimacy hit?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Actually, no, the king is supposed to serve for life or until obviously physically incapacitated, at which point they go into honourable retirement. Forcibly retiring the current chief, who also didn't exactly do anything wrong, there's just a major crisis ongoing, is not something that is normally done.
 
[X] Weapons (+2 Econ, +8 Martial, ???)
[X] Restore order (Main usage)
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)
 
Academia Nut said:
It depends on what else is done.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...I don't suppose more details would be available? Or should I just treat that as confirmation of the "your whims"?


Anyway, same as last time we were near death, a program for those wanting numbers:
Place your actions in actionOrderBase, order all the +stability options first.
I am assuming that we have a 50% chance of getting the specified order and a 50% chance of getting a randomized order. Change adminFail to 1 if you want to see what purely random order looks like.
Greater Good is not yet factored into this. I'll add it in the next version.
Here's a link to an online python interpreter with the program already loaded in, just change the actions listed under actionOrderBase.
edit:Updated here.
Code: 
import random
def roll(c): return random.random()<c

smallChance = 0.25
chance = 0.5
significantChance = 0.75
adminFail = 0.5

actionOrderBase = ['Offensive', 'OrderYes', 'KingNo']
#note that this is the order it will be done if admin roll passes
#if admin roll fails, will be performed randomly


Actions = {
'OrderNo' : lambda x: x,
'OrderYes' : lambda x: -4 if(x==-3) else x+max(random.randint(-1,2),random.randint(-1,2)),

'Defensive' : lambda x: x-1,
'Offensive' : lambda x: x+1,

'KingYes' : lambda x: x+1,
'KingNo' : lambda x: x-1,
}

startingStability = -2
if 'KingNo' in actionOrderBase: legitimacy = 3
if 'KingYes' in actionOrderBase: legitimacy = 1

n = 200000
print actionOrderBase
deaths = 0
stabilitySum = 0
for i in range(n):
  stability = startingStability
  actionOrder = list(actionOrderBase)
  dead = False
  if (roll(adminFail)): random.shuffle(actionOrder)
  for fn in actionOrder:
    stability = Actions[fn](stability)
    stability = min(stability,legitimacy)
    if (stability < -3):
      dead = True
      break
  if (dead):
    deaths += 1
    continue
  stabilitySum += stability
print str(deaths*100./n)+"% chance of death"
print str(stabilitySum/float(n-deaths))+" average stability at end (excluding deaths)"
 
Last edited:
tryrar said:
And I'm saying the idea this vote gets us closer to it is crazy talk. More likely it simply allows kings to be usurped easier when things don't go our way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You don't see the connection of having a Martial focused king and doing well when we go on the Offensive against the nomads?

The precedent for overthrowing rulers is only a bad precedent if done violently. I doubt our current king is going to be assassinated.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top