Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
McLuvin said:
Read back through the debates calmly mate, we are saying that if we can't vent the extra martial on kicking the shit out of the Hathatyn then we are planning on throwing out a March next turn.

Alongside our plans to create a trading post that means we could lose about 5 Martial or so on the war and failing that 7 Martial on the March and Trading Post in the next update, which is the start of the next full turn when we can do all those actions immediately in response to any issues
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While the thinking is true, the math is wrong young Padawan.

We are not likely to lose more than 1 or 2 Martial at war, and we are not likely to generate enough Prestige to roll out both the March and the Trade post on the same turn if that was what you meant. March is the better vent and if we are not at war with the Hath then a NE March works to release stuff.
 
Sivantic said:
You think portability is meaningless then.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No... that's not what I said. River travel and trade is quite useful(as shown by our canal), but our problem has never been with the river system. It has been dealing with the incredibly long ranges to our marches. Boats help our communication and logistics with them, which Speed and Size directly address.

I would prefer to get our sea ships upgraded first before we upgrade our river boats, because the issues that a ship deals with is more pertinent to our long term problems than the ones our boats deal with right now.

tl;dr river boats are working fine right now, sea ships need an upgrade badly.
 
Last edited:
Andres110 said:
Holy shit, you guys are seriously not thinking this through. Have you all collectively forgotten about Quality of Its Own? Or that stats overflow into Martial when everything is maxed out?

What you're doing is overflowing Economy so hard it overflows everything else, resulting in an increase base Martial. The Economy will also give us bonus Martial. We will be SERIOUSLY over the limit on Martial, we're going to lose a minimum of 2 Stability, possibly an extra 1 Stability from the refugees, and possibly more stability from fixing the new administration issue! You could not try to make a better plan to purposely do us as much harm as possible!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
that's only if we don't go to war.
 
BungieONI said:
While the thinking is true, the math is wrong young Padawan.

We are not likely to lose more than 1 or 2 Martial at war, and we are not likely to generate enough Prestige to roll out both the March and the Trade post on the same turn if that was what you meant. March is the better vent and if we are not at war with the Hath then a NE March works to release stuff.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Kay, I stand corrected
 
McLuvin said:
Read back through the debates calmly mate, we are saying that if we can't vent the extra martial on kicking the shit out of the Hathatyn then we are planning on throwing out a March next turn.

Alongside our plans to create a trading post that means we could lose about 5 Martial or so on the war and failing that 7 Martial on the March and Trading Post in the next update, which is the start of the next full turn when we can do all those actions immediately in response to any issues
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So your plan involves either creating a March - something that precludes us from making a Trading Post and creates another war-focused, nomad-adjacent province - or going to war. This is not a good plan. A good plan must preclude both these things.

Remember that we can only have 3 periphery states at once and we already have 2. We can't get both a Trading Post and a March, and getting a March has its own problems, as mentioned previously. And again, the alternative is war, during a time when we'd be at 1 or less Stability, are working on a megaproject, and making a major admin decision. I'd rather if our hero had one major thing to focus on instead of three (admin, village integration, war). Even if he might somehow succeed, the degree of success he has will be diminished due to his split attention.

Finally, there's always the possibility of some disaster happening, which has on several occasions seriously screwed us over.
 
Last edited:
notgreat said:
Second point: Actually Martial does help with Enforce Justice. It's a dual Admin/Martial roll unless everything is going well, in which case it's pure Admin.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I was thinking that more Martial increases the Centralization gain, as the King has an easier time using a bigger army to force the provinces to listen to him and they'll be more willing to continue to listen.
 
Carrnage said:
that's only if we don't go to war.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not even then really.

To trigger the Military Malus both stab hits have to hit and put us in negative.

On the war, well it could happen, but it could not as well. If it does we have a vent for Martial.


Citino said:
Also, it would require 2 crit fails due to our admin hero, I believe. One to screw up dealing with the new area, and another to deal with the problems caused by the admin issue.

I'm willing to be we don't crit fail both.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well technically Heroes can't crit fail in their Heroic stat so we'd have to roll what would be a crit fail and have it be a bad fail in your reasoning. However, I'm willing to put it at a chance that a bad failure will screw it if you rate failure as small fail > bad fail > crit fail.

*shrug*
 
Andres110 said:
So your plan involves either creating a March - something that precludes us from making a Trading Post and creates another war-focused, nomad-adjacent province - or going to war. This is not a good plan. A good plan must preclude both these things.

Remember that we can only have 3 periphery states at once and we already have 2. We can't get both a Trading Post and a March, and getting a March has its own problems, as mentioned previously. And again, the alternative is war, during a time when we'd be at 1 or less Stability, are working on a megaproject, and making a major admin decision. I'd rather if our hero had one major thing to focus on instead of three (admin, village integration, war). Even if he might somehow succeed, the degree of success he has will be diminished due to his split attention.

Finally, there's always the possibility of some disaster happening, which has on several occasions seriously screwed us over.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't believe building a third March will cause significant issues - we already have 2 dedicated to holding off nomad tribes, so a third having a large effect upon our psyche seems pretty unlikely.
 
Citino said:
When we have a heroic Diplo hero, positive stability, and a war looming, one which we'd actually prefer, high martial isn't a bad thing.

If the war doesn't happen, we dump the martial into a new march next turn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Building a new march is a bad idea. Yes it reduces martial, but not by enough to actually matter.

Academia Nut said:
Found March - Sometimes you need an extra buffer between you and hostile powers, or a place to stash excess warriors. Current Target: North-East
*M: -5 Martial, -2 Econ, +2 Econ Expansion, founds march to take independent martial actions
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Academia Nut said:
Civilization Stats

General
Diplomacy 14 [+1]
Economy 11 [-1]
Econ Expansion 4
Martial 10 {14}

Stability
Stability 3 (emboldened)
Legitimacy 3 (max)

Organizational
Centralization 4
Hierarchy 6

Cultural
Art 14
Mysticism 12 [-1]
Prestige 14
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Academia Nut said:
[] [CA] Attempt to take control of adjacent villages (-2 Stability, chance of further loss, -2 Diplomacy, unknowable chance of war with the Hathatyn, +8-10 Econ, +4 Econ Expansion)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Okay if I'm reading this right. We can expect a gain of 8-10 Econ to our Current Econ of 10. Optimist in me says we gain a total of 18 econ with 14 as the cap, 4 econ overflows into mysticism and martial giving martial 12(14). Then we go to war and lose martial, supposedly. ( Can I see some evidence that war reduces our martial?) If war doesn't occur we just found a march taking a hit of -5 to martial. Leaving optimist view of 7 martial. That will get raised somehow instead of reduced further.

The problem I see comes with integrating. We can't integrate with our marches because martial is too high. Now we want to found a new march to lose martial, but don't have a good way of further losing martial to make the integration worth doing. If the march took -10 martial I would be all for this plan. When we gain a fourth periphery state are we going to found another march because it will be the largest reduction of martial available?
 
Last edited:
[X] [CA] Attempt to take control of adjacent villages (-2 Stability, chance of further loss, -2 Diplomacy, unknowable chance of war with the Hathatyn, +8-10 Econ, +4 Econ Expansion)
[X] [Law] Attempt to close off both practices
[X] [Boats] Speed
[X] [Infra] Main Saltern Construction

Edit: After thinking on it more (and accepting the fact that we're going to be occupying them anyways because everyone wants to), i've decided to change my vote to the popular one....even if it opens us up to problems in the future.
 
Last edited:
Deathbybunnies said:
I don't believe building a third March will cause significant issues - we already have 2 dedicated to holding off nomad tribes, so a third having a large effect upon our psyche seems pretty unlikely.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's illogical thinking, your idea of "we have 2, so what'll 3 do?" It's in the same vein as asking "We already have 10 Martial, what's an extra 5?" Two Marches might be safe, but adding an extra one could cause us serious issues and that's not something we want to find out, not when the option to bleed Martial away risk-free and profitably exists.
 
pbluekan said:
Was that volcano from one of the first updates in the Hathatyn's southern territories?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's possible it has something to do with the situation, yes.

Hangwind said:
...honestly, it's pretty damn impressive that the kid could give a great speech while tripping balls.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There may have been another reason for him to stand on a roof while the braziers were on the first floor and being fanned out into the streets.

Dieb said:
I don't think our Martial score helps with the Martial roll during a turn, although I'm willing to be corrected by AN. It's more like if we have a hero that's low in his/her martial score, which note our current heir might be. @Academia Nut ?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It can have some effect, but the leader's stats have a greater one right now.
 
BungieONI said:
Well technically Heroes can't crit fail in their Heroic stat so we'd have to roll what would be a crit fail and have it be a bad fail in your reasoning. However, I'm willing to put it at a chance that a bad failure will screw it if you rate failure as small fail > bad fail > crit fail.

*shrug*
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I meant that the original roll was a crit fail. From what I understand, even a horrific roll will be mitigated to a slight fail with a heroic stat. The example being our trader hero failing his diplo check with the MWs.
Andres110 said:
So your plan involves either creating a March - something that precludes us from making a Trading Post and creates another war-focused, nomad-adjacent province - or going to war. This is not a good plan. A good plan must preclude both these things.

Remember that we can only have 3 periphery states at once and we already have 2. We can't get both a Trading Post and a March, and getting a March has its own problems, as mentioned previously. And again, the alternative is war, during a time when we'd be at 1 or less Stability, are working on a megaproject, and making a major admin decision. I'd rather if our hero had one major thing to focus on instead of three (admin, village integration, war). Even if he might somehow succeed, the degree of success he has will be diminished due to his split attention.

Finally, there's always the possibility of some disaster happening, which has on several occasions seriously screwed us over.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
? What problems would creating another march cause? The closest to a march having a negative result was back when we had the option to buckle down and take the HK's land and turn it into a march.
Marlin said:
Building a new march is a bad idea. Yes it reduces martial, but not by enough to actually matter.







Okay if I'm reading this right. We can expect a gain of 8-10 Econ to our Current Econ of 10. Optimist in me says we gain a total of 18 econ with 14 as the cap, 4 econ overflows into mysticism and martial giving martial 12(14). Then we go to war and lose martial, supposedly. ( Can I see some evidence that war reduces our martial?) If war doesn't occur we just found a march taking a hit of -5 to martial.

The problem I see comes with integrating. We can't integrate with our marches because martial is too high. Now we want to found a new march to lose martial, but don't have a good way of further losing martial to make the integration worth doing. If the march took -10 martial I would be all for this plan. When we gain a fourth periphery state are we going to found another march because it will be the largest reduction of martial available?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You forgot the -4 from Salterns, which then reduces it to +0-2 martial. Which means we have 14 martial max, so -5 from the march would bring it down to 9, which is lower than we have now.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top