No, it was much better back when we were a tribe of largely united elf dwarves, happily arguing over whether we should develop step farms or expand forest first.I've got to say, this quest is more fun now when we have pro-nobility, pro-oligarchy, pro-democratic and pro-socialist voices bouncing around.
Even if the thread can get a little... well-preserved at times from the salt. Thanks all for a good time, and here's to many more to come!
The thing about improve education is false and betrays your ignorance on the subject. Under our current system, the children of the nobility are already being heavily educated. Formally changing to hereditary nobility will not increase education because the children of our nobility is already being educated as much as possible. The ONLY thing hereditary nobility will do is formally disallow geniuses from themselves becoming nobility, which while uncommon in our current system does occasionally happen. See Magwyna if you want an example.
Actually, it won't do that. The hereditary nobility choice will just strengthen the power of the clan lords. People reach that status through seniority, and since (atm; AN hasn't said much on how joining will change) clans can be joined by people who are not of the clan it is possible, and even quite highly likely, that a demonstrated genius will be allowed into the clan and eventually given a seat at its head, if their skills are suited to such a role. It thus does not formally disallow geniuses from becoming nobility. It does, however, make it likely that any initially non-clan genius who managed to reach the King position would likely be quite old.
The same was said even before oligarchies. People got their jobs because of their parents and their education. Going hereditary just cements it more. It makes clans hereditary, but the route for advisers should still be open if I'm not mistaken? That's where the geniuses would have to climb the ladder in our current system anyways.
I wonder if that will change their opinions of us.
I do find it amusing that the most Negaverse-salt filled thing yet (the HK, after achieving some level of parity against surprise bronze age enemy, having their odd and peaceful neighbors accidentally show off ubiquitous iron weapons) comes not from the same turn as a crit success, but from a partial failure/bare success after a major accident on our part XD
I suspect the only really impactful thing will be the star weapons. The casualty numbers on that scale could be due to tactics or chance.
The disparity in casualties is probably due to our utter domination at range, with Volley fire, everybody being armed with and using more advanced bows than our neighbors and Iron arrowheads they probably can't compete in that area.
Oh why do you tease me so?
Studying the trees?
I'm still thinking the recent "we can't ever be in the yellow on centralization/hierarchy is one of them, given how we stopped getting mid-turn admin upgrade choices around the same time we stopped having either in yellow...
That's for Actions. It's possible that he's discussing something stat related. Say, overflow centralization. Or hierarchy.
I'm also thinking midturn options.
Given our new Enforce Justice, I'm entirely in favor of overflowing Centralization the next time we've a stability surplus to see if that'll finally get us an action that can expend it.
