Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
[X] Weapons (+2 Econ, +8 Martial, ???)
[x] Leave things be
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)

While I don't really like coloring the image of our first uses of iron, I think it's important if we're pursing them.

They'll be slowed down by 2 econ worth of people, so while they might be easy-ish to catch up to, the heroes might also decide to focus on ambushes and stuff. While I wouldn't normally care since we're fine on martial, they still have their 2 military geniuses with them...their tactics will likely be very effective at weakening our forces.

So, yeah...the weapons will make a diminished force much stronger and able to take out the remaining group of nomads (assuming of course that their tactics are effective).
 
[X] Tools (+8 Econ, +2 Martial, ???)
[X] Restore order (Main usage)
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)
 
[X] Weapons (+2 Econ, +8 Martial, ???)
[X] Restore order (Main usage)
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] Yes (+1 Stability, -1 Legitimacy, Martial focused character becomes king)
 
[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)
 
veekie said:
Damn, we killed so many dudes they went and imported more and we killed those too.

The Steppes will have an era of peace for a time I see.

...bloody genius move.

I remember we still have ritual tests of competence right? Failing them is grounds for retirement at least.

Yeah, this sort of thing is a major vulnerability


So they lost 1 martial from the clash. That's good for us at least, since they'd compare favorably with the Nomads with our backing.


Naw, these are nomads. "Eh, that guy's ancestors must be huge pussies, we can take em."

Hmm, sounds like they went around with the brass, trying to get a weapon made of it, but never managed anything more than a few pieces of regalia for their Heroes?

Oh right, do we have brass samples now?

Actually that's mostly if they are equally skilled.
A superior weapon lets you leverage more skill, but won't let a line infantryman with an iron weapon beat a warrior elite with a stone one on his own.

ARMOR now, probably could.


Uh...didn't notice before, but:
-Isn't Martial the only stat which is dangerous to overflow?
-Isn't our maximum safe level 12?

Assuming we can take things off War Missions, yes. But if the heir lives, then we're probably in for one more turn of Offense policy instead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Right I seem to keep forgetting silly things like we are on Offense. I must really not like the vulnerability of Expansion so I keep thinking we are still doing it when we are actually in Offense mode. :V

I do believe it is 12 and 13 for a yellow warning level, and 14 for red max and Bad Things. I'm getting this from looking at what our Diplo is doing. I agree that I believe Martial is the only dangerous stat to overflow. You can actually see that if you look at the way AN has the overflow priority set up.

Really though it sounds like a good idea to switch to Defensive or Balanced. I'm kinda preferring Defensive and ploping a NE March down in the Project turn after this coming one, so that Nomads can't do this shit easily again. Let's shut this open door, eh thread?
 
Necratoid said:
For a march that is depleted. The whole point is to be a buffer state.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
False, that is general stat they've been at this entire time

Martial 1 was depleted, not Martial 6
Necratoid said:
Nope. Dead property makes it hard to track you as it can't inform on you. You dispose of what is weighing you down to go faster. The stuff with the worse weigh to value ratio goes first. In terms of slaves that mans the most belligerent are removed as an example first.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hmm, you know who else decided to kill off their prisoners because they were deadweight and not people?

Nazis

You know how much that helped?

Absolutely none. It actually hurt them because they were wasting time and resources to fuel their genocide. Same here. Killing hundreds of people is senseless, tiring and time consuming.

They are not going to get away. They don't have the resources to cart away all their would be slaves. Iron weapons ensures that we will not lose.
 
Tally? Tally ho!
Adhoc vote count started by Motoko on May 20, 2017 at 8:57 PM, finished with 38008 posts and 101 votes.
Click to expand...
 
notgreat said:
Just to clarify: we have a 0% chance of death and a 0% chance of ending up below -1 stability by taking the Martial king and Offensive, no matter what RoO we do. In that case the bonus RoO stability is easily worth it, a 5.5% chance of -1 for a 77.5% chance of +1 (only +1 due to the legitimacy capping it)

AFAIK, People don't want the Martial king because of the legitimacy drop and the associated narrative effects from switching kings in a crisis. I don't want them either, but I don't want Stability -2 even more. This would be a peaceful transition, the king stepping down due to the current state of emergency.

To repeat myself: (accurate to ~0.1%, assumes 10% for GG trigger)
['Offensive', 'OrderNo', 'KingNo']
-1.80006 average stability at end (excluding deaths)
stability probabilities
-2:90.003%
0:9.997%

['Offensive', 'OrderYes', 'KingYes']
0.71969 average stability at end (excluding deaths)
stability probabilities
-1:5.576%
0:16.879%
1:77.545%

People prefer the -2 stability option to the 1 stability option due to the legitimacy reduction associated with it, at least that's the only argument I've seen. (The narrative effects of the Martial hero taking over is shown in the stats via the Legitimacy reduction, and our people are still peaceful when not being attacked thanks to Symphony so he'll almost certainly step down once the crisis is over)

I don't get it, but that's the arguments that I've seen repeatedly, so oh well. KingYes+OrderNo gives Stability 0 with 100% certainty, if you really don't like gambling.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't like the narrative impact primarily. I'm willing to pay 4 actions to avoid the narrative impact, which I don't believe is fully represented by the legitimacy drop. Precedents like this are, IMO, bad things.
 
[X] Tools (+8 Econ, +2 Martial, ???)
[X] Leave things be
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)
 
notgreat said:
Just to clarify: we have a 0% chance of death and a 0% chance of ending up below -1 stability by taking the Martial king and Offensive, no matter what RoO we do. In that case the bonus RoO stability is easily worth it, a 5.5% chance of -1 for a 77.5% chance of +1 (only +1 due to the legitimacy capping it)

AFAIK, People don't want the Martial king because of the legitimacy drop and the associated narrative effects from switching kings in a crisis. I don't want them either, but I don't want Stability -2 even more. This would be a peaceful transition, the king stepping down due to the current state of emergency.

To repeat myself: (accurate to ~0.1%, assumes 10% for GG trigger)
['Offensive', 'OrderNo', 'KingNo']
-1.80006 average stability at end (excluding deaths)
stability probabilities
-2:90.003%
0:9.997%

['Offensive', 'OrderYes', 'KingYes']
0.71969 average stability at end (excluding deaths)
stability probabilities
-1:5.576%
0:16.879%
1:77.545%

People prefer the -2 stability option to the 1 stability option due to the legitimacy reduction associated with it, at least that's the only argument I've seen. (The narrative effects of the Martial hero taking over is shown in the stats via the Legitimacy reduction, and our people are still peaceful when not being attacked thanks to Symphony so he'll almost certainly step down once the crisis is over)

I don't get it, but that's the arguments that I've seen repeatedly, so oh well. KingYes+OrderNo gives Stability 0 with 100% certainty, if you really don't like gambling.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Stop thinking about the hard numbers for a sec and think about the EFFECTS of those choices, narratively. Think about what happens in the NEXT crisis when something bad happens, and we've set the precedent for booting the king for someone more "competent" to handle the situation.

THAT'S the situation that people here are very, very leery of, along with blowing up from RoO. Sometimes it's not just about the numbers.
 
tryrar said:
Stop thinking about the hard numbers for a sec and think about the EFFECTS of those choices, narratively. Think about what happens in the NEXT crisis when something bad happens, and we've set the precedent for booting the king for someone more "competent" to handle the situation.

THAT'S the situation that people here are very, very leery of, along with blowing up from RoO. Sometimes it's not just about the numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't really see a problem with that? If we're in the middle of a war going badly, grab a stronger martial leader. If we're in a mysticism crisis, grab a Mystic leader. Take a leader which fits the current needs.
We definitely don't want said leader to take permanent power, but that's where Symphony comes in. Martial leaders don't really have a foot to stand on when we're not at war with anyone, and we can't declare war on others without them attacking us first.

And it's not "booting" the king, it's explicitly a peaceful stepping down. This is the start of one way of leading to leaders that don't serve for life like they do now. This is unprecedented under the current system, and it has potential to lead to a bad precedent- that's shown via the legitimacy lost.
 
notgreat said:
I don't really see a problem with that? If we're in the middle of a war going badly, grab a stronger martial leader. If we're in a mysticism crisis, grab a Mystic leader. Take a leader which fits the current needs.
We definitely don't want said leader to take permanent power, but that's where Symphony comes in. Martial leaders don't really have a foot to stand on when we're not at war with anyone, and we can't declare war on others without them attacking us first.

And it's not "booting" the king, it's explicitly a peaceful stepping down. This is the start of one way of leading to leaders that don't serve for life like they do now. This is unprecedented under the current system, and it has potential to lead to a bad precedent- that's shown via the legitimacy lost.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
....yeah, then we have nothing to talk about if you see zero narrative issue with booting the king during a crisis.
 
[X] Tools (+8 Econ, +2 Martial, ???)

[X] Restore order (Main usage)
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)

[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)
 
notgreat said:
I don't really see a problem with that? If we're in the middle of a war going badly, grab a stronger martial leader. If we're in a mysticism crisis, grab a Mystic leader. Take a leader which fits the current needs.
We definitely don't want said leader to take permanent power, but that's where Symphony comes in. Martial leaders don't really have a foot to stand on when we're not at war with anyone, and we can't declare war on others without them attacking us first.

And it's not "booting" the king, it's explicitly a peaceful stepping down. This is the start of one way of leading to leaders that don't serve for life like they do now. This is unprecedented under the current system, and it has potential to lead to a bad precedent- that's shown via the legitimacy lost.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My issue is I don't see a 'pick a better king' precedent. I see a 'king can be deposed by popular demand' precedent.

If there was some way to be sure posterity would judge this as the former, I'd be all for it. But I think the second is what's really going to take hold.
 
tryrar said:
....yeah, then we have nothing to talk about if you see zero narrative issue with booting the king during a crisis.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And if you can't see the difference between booting the king during a crisis and a peaceful transition of power, I don't think we have anything to talk about either.
Academia Nut said:
And this king would be stepping down
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It does have a possibility of creating a precedent. That is bad, but something we can push back against. The alternative is to leave our people rioting in the streets and to let send our warriors out to die.

Which is fine, we'll definitely survive next turn, it just puts us about a turn behind again. If you think that it'll take ~8 actions to push back against the chance of this creating a bad precedent of politicking during a crisis instead of it creating a precedent of "Let the one most suited to the situation lead", then that's fine. If you think that riots in the streets is better than dropping our legitimacy back down to damaged, then sure.

It's bad on either side. One is just far, far worse in my view. And I really, really hate sending our soldiers to die when either of the two boosts would significantly boost the chance of success.
 
notgreat said:
And if you can't see the difference between booting the king during a crisis and a peaceful transition of power, I don't think we have anything to talk about either.

It does have a possibility of creating a precedent. That is bad, but something we can push back against. The alternative is to leave our people rioting in the streets and to let send our warriors out to die.

Which is fine, we'll definitely survive next turn, it just puts us about a turn behind again. If you think that it'll take ~8 actions to push back against the chance of this creating a bad precedent of politicking during a crisis instead of it creating a precedent of "Let the one most suited to the situation lead", then that's fine. If you think that riots in the streets is better than dropping our legitimacy back down to damaged, then sure.

It's bad on either side. One is just far, far worse in my view. And I really, really hate sending our soldiers to die when either of the two boosts would significantly boost the chance of success.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The precedent we set will give more power to factions that emerge during a crisis though. It would be a lot easier to just cater to the popular demand in order to get them to vote for you (which will be more frequent/cause less doubt, as everyone won't really view it as such a big deal anymore) and then do whatever you want once you're in office.

I don't think we have anything to push against it besides keeping the king in office next time the people want to swap him out. That's a problem, as this would occur during a crisis when we can't really afford the stability hit from saying no to the populace.
 
notgreat said:
And if you can't see the difference between booting the king during a crisis and a peaceful transition of power, I don't think we have anything to talk about either.

It does have a possibility of creating a precedent. That is bad, but something we can push back against. The alternative is to leave our people rioting in the streets and to let send our warriors out to die.

Which is fine, we'll definitely survive next turn, it just puts us about a turn behind again. If you think that it'll take ~8 actions to push back against the chance of this creating a bad precedent of politicking during a crisis instead of it creating a precedent of "Let the one most suited to the situation lead", then that's fine. If you think that riots in the streets is better than dropping our legitimacy back down to damaged, then sure.

It's bad on either side. One is just far, far worse in my view. And I really, really hate sending our soldiers to die when either of the two boosts would significantly boost the chance of success.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I agree with the last bit at least. But I want it to be iron weapons... partially because my prognosticating says the next 200 years of the people won't be peaceful ones.
 
63 to 41 on the question of iron tools versus iron weapons.

The gap had only widen. I hope for our sake that the majority are right.
 
hylas240 said:
I don't think we have anything to push against it besides keeping the king in office next time the people want to swap him out. That's a problem, as this would occur during a crisis when we can't really afford the stability hit from saying no to the populace.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I agree. On average, the precedent set is more likely to be bad than good, and our next crisis we would have to push back against swapping kings.

However, I suspect that this is almost certainly going to be the worst crisis we face in a long while. Now that we have Iron, we have seen how good it is: +8 net stats for a single [Main] action (-4 econ, +2/+8 = +10, then +2 from Canal). And we know that we have more of it coming. As long as we don't do anything too stupid, we're in a very good position from here on out. As such, making sure we can exploit that future iron by having a Stability 1 populace and a strong military is by far the best route to take.

Our next crisis is most likely to be due to another mass disease causing everyone around us to have stability drops. That's a perfect time to keep the current king in, unless we have reason to believe that going for an admin king is likely to improve our meritocratic selection process and allow for better peaceful transition of power.

But oh well. The current vote wastes a ton but it doesn't outright kill us, so I can live with it. Just pushes back everything even further... Martial should still be positive if near-death, we'll be near-death on Stability (unless 10% GG triggers, then we'll actually be in a better position, but, well, 10%). Econ will be ok but it'll all be eaten repairing stability and martial, so it won't last.

Actually, that reminds me
@Academia Nut
Shouldn't we get the Canal bonus of +1 Mysticism and +1 Art?
 
Last edited:
[X] Tools (+8 Econ, +2 Martial, ???)
[X] Restore order (Main usage)
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)
 
[X] Weapons (+2 Econ, +8 Martial, ???)
[X] Leave things be
[X] Defensive (-1 Stability)
[X] Yes (+1 Stability, -1 Legitimacy, Martial focused character becomes king)
 
@Academia Nut

I suppose at this time our transportation tech is still unable to support moving large amount of food from Highland Kingdom or elsewhere to our place?

How would one go about turning diplomatic point into other points semi-automatically? Trade post?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top