Paths of Civilization

notgreat · May 20, 2017

Going with our current King and not grabbing Weapons is just asking for us to be knocked down to extremely low martial if we choose Offensive (which almost everyone is choosing)

We really should choose at least one boost if we're going on the Offensive.

And Restore Order remains a very powerful tool that no one want to use because it has a tiny chance of hurting.

A significant chance of helping, a tiny chance of hurting, and we irrational humans just have to avoid it.

maximillian · May 20, 2017

Necratoid said:
People aren't going to farm with iron weapons... that you would suggest so it silly. They are going to farm with iron tools. The current weapons also work just fine for killing nomads. So that is a nonstarter as a rational argument.

How the hell would anyone feel safe if the military wanders off, particularly if they are just going to get killed? The stability for offensive is all about the populous seeing that the government doing something about a crisis. The populous obviously feels that defensive is ignoring the loses and then pouting. Too little, too late. They are suffering from a bad case of Protective Justice here.

Actually, some metal weapons also served as farming tools in peace time.

Billhooks are a prime example.

Necratoid · May 20, 2017

tenchifew said:
They also need some army to actually protect the borders.
Will they fully strip the border risking that a small force of nomads double back and can ravage the People completely at will?

Unless the Thunder Speakers are hiding in the hills this turn or HK suddenly goes betrayal monkey that is meaningless The nomads are running off or stupid. Its a short term chase that can't last longer than a few months.

ctulhuslp said:
I mean....this, on the other hand, will much better assuage worries of the populace, and we can fix the cultural problems of militarism later.

Like the divide between North and South? Like the metal curse myth? This thread puts off more issues than it solves.

Umi-san · May 20, 2017

notgreat said:
Going with our current King and not grabbing Weapons is just asking for us to be knocked down to extremely low martial if we choose Offensive (which almost everyone is choosing)

We really should choose at least one boost if we're going on the Offensive.

And Restore Order remains a very powerful tool that no one want to use because it has a tiny chance of hurting. A significant chance of helping, a tiny chance of hurting, and we irrational humans just have to avoid it.

the expected cost of the tiny chance outweighs the expected value of the significant chance.

@maximillian Ah yes, I forgot how our people have billhooks, rather than clubs, arrows, and spears.

Edit: You appear to be mixing "billhooks" the tool with "billhooks" the halberd.

In the medieval period a weapon similar to the halberd was called a bill or billhook. It consisted of a pole with a bill-like blade mounted below a spearhead, with spikes added to the back of the blade to increase the versatility of the weapon against cavalry and armour. The English in particular were known for using massed billmen rather than pikes or halberds in the Renaissance period, notably at the Battle of Flodden in 1513, when the Scottish king James IV was felled by an arrow and bill.[2]
The billhook is an issued tool in some armed forces (see fascine knife). It is used for cutting brushwood for making fascines (brushwood bundles) and gabions—originally for the construction of cannon emplacements, and later for machine gun emplacements. It is also issued to the pioneer corps of most regiments. In the Indian Army, it is given the name 'knife gabion'.

2xMachina · May 20, 2017

Umi-san said:
*shrug* The only way we'll make a difference is if we kill both of their heroes.

Being that they are heroes, I find it likely that one will fight and one will successfully flee, rebuild an army, and come back to get his revenge upon our nation for killing their family.

Edit:
Any vote for weapons should be a vote for a militaristic leader.

Returning along with the iron weapons they picked off the battlefield, I'm sure.

Necratoid · May 20, 2017

maximillian said:
Actually, many metal weapons also served as farming tools in peace time.

Billhooks are a prime example.

Things that aren't existent yet don't count.

ctulhuslp · May 20, 2017

notgreat said:
Going with our current King and not grabbing Weapons is just asking for us to be knocked down to extremely low martial if we choose Offensive (which almost everyone is choosing)

We really should choose at least one boost if we're going on the Offensive.

And Restore Order remains a very powerful tool that no one want to use because it has a tiny chance of hurting. A significant chance of helping, a tiny chance of hurting, and we irrational humans just have to avoid it.

Oh do fuck off with implied insults to the intelligence of everyone who dares to disagree with you.
RO, in this case, has a small chance to bad end the all game no takebacks no second chances. This is a Russian Roulette, not 'tiny chance of hurting'.

And about that 'tiny'. With reroll, it has 1/16 chance of happening. 1/16 chance of dying here and now is one hell of a gamble; doing a GS next turn makes way more sense.

Timewinders · May 20, 2017

Umi-san said:
It doesn't do the thing I left out.

It also is likely to shift our people toward a militaristic stance, though I suppose that within this context such an action is justified.

Ultimately, the question is this: Do we want to revenge or to rebuild?

I choose the latter.

A militaristic stance is a good thing. No successful, long-surviving civilization was not militaristic. The Roman Empire is the best comparison to the People, I think, and they survived through barbarian attacks partly by maintaining a strong military. Right now we're focusing on growing our economy, but our economy keeps taking hits because we're not defending the kingdom adequately. At the very least we need better fortifications. Something akin to the Great Wall of China would at least keep horses and chariots out.

maximillian · May 20, 2017

Umi-san said:
the expected cost of the tiny chance outweighs the expected value of the significant chance.

@maximillian Ah yes, I forgot how our people have billhooks, rather than clubs, arrows, and spears.

They must have a metal sharp instrument for harvesting grains no?

I mean copper have been around for over two centuries.

Wait, do the people actually have grains?

tenchifew · May 20, 2017

2xMachina said:
Returning along with the iron weapons they picked off the battlefield, I'm sure.

...
If they are defeated, and with a 13 martial it is pretty much a certainty, if they are found, than how, exactly, could they pick up the weapons?

ETA50M · May 20, 2017

Necratoid said:
People aren't going to farm with iron weapons... that you would suggest so it silly. They are going to farm with iron tools. The current weapons also work just fine for killing nomads. So that is a nonstarter as a rational argument.

How the hell would anyone feel safe if the military wanders off, particularly if they are just going to get killed? The stability for offensive is all about the populous seeing that the government doing something about a crisis. The populous obviously feels that defensive is ignoring the loses and then pouting. Too little, too late. They are suffering from a bad case of Protective Justice here.

The current weapons actually don't work considering we are getting killed on a 3:1/3:2 ratio in favour of the nomads. You know what I what I meant when I said iron weapons and the fact you pounced on it makes me not even want to reply to the likes of you. People will feel safe seeing their army go after the nomads who just burned down a significant part of our territory and are close to getting away with it. Why vote for offensive policy and not weapons? Why cripple our warriors if our regular tools are good enough for farming. Our People want to see our warriors equipped and will not like it if our King is seen wringing his hands about better farming tools. I seen you and I know nothing will convince you since you debate in bad Faith but hopefully another poster will see this and realize that picking offensive and tools is foolish to the extreme. If you want to rebuild then pick God damn defensive but dont send our last points of martial to die against two heroic martial generals without proper weapons.

Glassware · May 20, 2017

[X] Weapons (+2 Econ, +8 Martial, ???)
[X] Leave things be
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] Yes (+1 Stability, -1 Legitimacy, Martial focused character becomes king)

Voting for this on the grounds that it probably kills the most nomads, which I view as essential to our long-term survival. Legitimacy can be restored through Proclaim Glory actions, and I want to boost Stability for the sake of preparing to hit The Button on the steppes sometime soon.

Sivantic · May 20, 2017

[X] Weapons (+2 Econ, +8 Martial, ???)
[X] Restore order (Main usage)
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)

Round and round I go.

Skjadir · May 20, 2017

Umi-san said:
I'm listening to the other people who say that we likely have more martial than them and changing to a martial leader.

I guess that I could vote for defensive, however... The -1 would be buffered by the +1 of yes, do a PG afterward along with a Main Expand Forest targeted at the ST.... yeah, that would work.

We did fight the nomads with our defense boni (the overall amount of martial we threw at them was 16 i think our 10 + 6 from the march) and we still lost 5 martial from that.

What we are doing here is throw our martial against the nomads in an all out attack (at least that is how i read it), if we want to have an real chance an winning that fight we need to get the weapons.

The people that say that we should go for tools while at the same time go after the nomads underrestimate really hard how dangerous the nomads are and what will happen if we lose said fight.

Umi-san · May 20, 2017

maximillian said:
They must have a metal sharp instrument for harvesting grains no?

Edited in a reply, but basically you're reversing the correlation. A billhook is two things: a tool for cutting things or a halberd-like weapon. You're presumably referring to the tool, which means that we'd be making tools and using them as weapons. Otherwise, if we're making weapons, why would we make something short ranged and with a need for an out-to-in swing that leaves us vulnerable?

Timewinders said:
A militaristic stance is a good thing. No successful, long-surviving civilization was not militaristic. The Roman Empire is the best comparison to the People, I think, and they survived through barbarian attacks partly by maintaining a strong military. Right now we're focusing on growing our economy, but our economy keeps taking hits because we're not defending the kingdom adequately. At the very least we need better fortifications. Something akin to the Great Wall of China would at least keep horses and chariots out.

I definitely support fortifications.

I support a militaristic stance in the sense of having a strong defense; I don't support a militaristic stance in the sense of having enough warriors and valuing them so highly that our entire culture shifts away from a growth-and-labor value system.

I.e., I support military but not a militaristic culture. I feel that doing too many expand warriors with not enough balance in terms of arts, trade, and science will lead to this.

@Skjadir Yeah and now 2/3's of them are dead. We'll be going from 5 + 1 to 5 + 1 + 2 = 8, i.e. 2 away from when we killed 2/3's of them.

Our lack of bonuses and their lack of detriments (other than their immensely decreased numbers and the weight of the Econ they're carrying) might be an issue.

Anyways, changed to defensive.

2xMachina · May 20, 2017

I don't think we're gonna die at -4 Stab.

Sure, we'd probably split into 2.

Probably the North (warriors) with Metal weapons vs South (victims) who wanted food.

North probably wanted the Martial King (and installs him), while South keeps our current King.

ctulhuslp · May 20, 2017

Necratoid said:
Like the divide between North and South? Like the metal curse myth? This thread puts off more issues than it solves.

1. The divide is..in progress; investments are dealing with it, as did that Support Subordinate and Lord's Loyalty; although where are my damn festivals?
2. Anti-metal superstition is in progress, current events will probably deal with it to a decent degree.

Glassware said:
Voting for this on the grounds that it probably kills the most nomads, which I view as essential to our long-term survival. Legitimacy can be restored through Proclaim Glory actions, and I want to boost Stability for the sake of preparing to hit The Button on the steppes sometime soon.

You cannot kill enough nomads, it's futile. You just kill those that attack you and pull back because they never end.

There is a reason why I would not mind Stallions dead to the nomads: until all our steppe settlements are dead or we have Enlightenment-era tech, this kind of shit will be repeating time to time.

notgreat · May 20, 2017

Umi-san said:
the expected cost of the tiny chance outweighs the expected value of the significant chance.

I disagree strongly with that assessment, particularly when you factor in the next couple turns where being at such a bad position means that other factions will try to get in and kill us.

ctulhuslp said:
bad end the all game no takebacks no second chances.

Nope. See: Lowlands -> WC + DP, WC -> HK
If we die via stability loss our people are still around, just reborn into a new government system with some values shifted around.

Glassware said:
Voting for this on the grounds that it probably kills the most nomads,

If you're taking both stability increase options there's literally no reason to not take Restore Order.

ETA50M · May 20, 2017

I'm not even salty about the update far from it I saw it coming that they'll pierce through our lack of walls/fortifications what has me so salty is the way people are voting for half assed measures, either go all in on offensive and weapons or pick tools and defensive but don't mix them up.

mastigos · May 20, 2017

Academia Nut said:
And then, then there were the calls that the king should be replaced with someone more militarily competent right now. While someone like that might actually be able to run down the nomads and recover the people, it would likely set a terrible precedent for the future and damage the institution of the king. Unfortunately, unless they did something drastic the People would likely lose faith in the system and then... and then there would likely be insurrection and war.

New king?
[] Yes (+1 Stability, -1 Legitimacy, Martial focused character becomes king)
[] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)

This part, I don't get. How does the (elective) king willing stepping down for meritocratic reasons damage the legitimacy of the institution of the king? If anything I would expect that to strengthen our institution and move us towards some Honor Code trait evolution based primarily on Nobility in Humility (though touching on all 3) while perhaps emphasizing the "particularly martial skill" bit of Honor of Elites.

Or is this vote actually representing a violent coup? Or the product of unreliable narration?

tenchifew · May 20, 2017

Skjadir said:
We did fight the nomads with our defense boni (the overall amount of martial we threw at them was 16 i think our 10 + 6 from the march) and we still lost 5 martial from that.

What we are doing here is throw our martial against the nomads in an all out attack (at least that is how i read it), if we want to have an real chance an winning that fight we need to get the weapons.

The people that say that we should go for tools while at the same time go after the nomads underrestimate really hard how dangerous the nomads are and what will happen if we lose said fight.

More.
The March is at 6 martial now, after the losses of this campaign.
I expect them to have had at least 9 martial before that.

Glassware · May 20, 2017

ctulhuslp said:
You cannot kill enough nomads, it's futile. You just kill those that attack you and pull back because they never end.

There is a reason why I would not mind Stallions dead to the nomads: until all our steppe settlements are dead or we have Enlightenment-era tech, this kind of shit will be repeating time to time.

Yes, but we can carve a great cultural scar across the northern steppes that will endure for millennia to come and remind them not to fuck with us, giving us more breathing room to focus on trees.

notgreat said:
If you're taking both stability increase options there's literally no reason to not take Restore Order.

I'll switch to Restore Order if it looks like abdication is pulling ahead, otherwise I'm not interested in playing Russian Roulette. We can ultimately survive losing military conflicts against some nomads who should be dying of old age soon anyway, splitting our polity less so.

Burny McPyro · May 20, 2017

[X] Tools (+8 Econ, +2 Martial, ???)
[X] Leave Things Be
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)

2xMachina · May 20, 2017

tenchifew said:
...
If they are defeated, and with a 13 martial it is pretty much a certainty, if they are found, than how, exactly, could they pick up the weapons?

IDK? Running away with their horses? By doing tactical evading fights, which their nomadic culture is great at? Who are being lead by tactical geniuses in the form of 2 heroes?

Since we're fighting in the steppes, all they need to do is come back later to pick up stuff that's strewn all over from the running fight.
For any small engagement we lose, they'll keep the loot.

It's not like it's gonna be a single large fight.
I expect we'll have a series of engagements while we chase them all across the steppe.

Say, they split off some part of their army (lead by 1 hero) to outflank us, and stumble upon a previous engagement site?

Or even, they split into 2 armies. While we fight 1, the other retreats, taking our loot?

IMO, offensive is a bad idea. If possible, I'd just give a token offensive policy to fight just to satisfy the masses.

Umi-san · May 20, 2017

notgreat said:
I disagree strongly with that assessment, particularly when you factor in the next couple turns where being at such a bad position means that other factions will try to get in and kill us.

I strongly disagree with that assessment, particularly when you factor in that only the XS want to kill us and I doubt they'd hear about our "bad position" soon enough to pull together an attack.

Completely collapse and fracturing of our society = ~80 actions to get to the same power level from whatever province we end up still controlling. Divided by the 1/16 chance that we will get 1 & 1 roll, we end up with 5. # of actions required to restore stability if we wait is 5 if we use GS.

mastigos said:
This part, I don't get. How does the (elective) king willing stepping down for meritocratic reasons damage the legitimacy of the institution of the king?

It's something new to our system so every1 hates it. Also, it looks more symmetrical.

Paths of Civilization

Civilised Sheep

Procrastinating.

Civilised Sheep

Procrastinating.

Procrastinating.