Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Actually, I just realized something:
We're still on Restoration, so we might as well kick so that we get The Law's bonus.

[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal x2
[X][Secondary] War Mission-Northern Nomads
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
[X][Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)
[X][Kick] Sacred Forest Renewal

This spends 6 econ on Megaprojects, 2 on True Cities, leaving 3 for provinces+disaster. Given the heroic ordering we still have, this is still safe. They'll spend 1 action on Stability, probably Festival (doubled to a Main via The Law). This even gives us a chance of finishing it this turn! At least 2 actions will be Expand Econ, possibly they'll grab a secondary settlement as well.
 
The games might be fairly effective for cultural cohesion as it causes a lot of people to move around and for the elites to meet and make contacts.

I'd consider doing it even before the Census.
 
ThrawnCA said:
I'm not so sure about the lack of benefit. I'm actually hopeful that we could build better relationships with warlike nations, giving them a non-homicidal outlet for their combative urges.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Unless we get much better roads organizing it for all the nations will take to long. I would suggest creating roads first.
 
[X][Main]Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Secondary]Change Policy-Expansion
[X][Main]Sacred Forest Renewalx2
[X][Divine] Speak up for the idea (+1 Religious Authority, other effects)
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
[X] [Kick]Sacred Forest Renewal
 
Last edited:
So, there's probably not time to shift the vote, but... anyone's thoughts for/against adding a project Kick?
 
Derp, forgot about the Legitimacy-1 cap on Festivals.

The provinces would have to either Enforce Justice or Proclaim Glory, and that either goes red or drops our art down to the critical range respectively. Undoing that vote.

[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal x2
[X][Secondary] War Mission-Northern Nomads
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
[X][Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)
 
Academia Nut said:
Sacred Forest is now a True City, you can build a library anywhere you have a temple or a True City. You can thus expand/make another library in Sacred Forest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm, that's pretty valuable considering the Mysticism returns!

Academia Nut said:
  • You start hitting Overcrowding. At -1 or -2 you will just be more vulnerable to political chaos and disease, but much lower than that and bad things start happening, most simply being the loss of Econ to free up room (depending on how deep in the hole you are, it may be an unfavourable exchange). If you're low on Econ, this can have obvious bad results as your Economy crashes and you are simultaneously restricted in your capacity to increase it.
  • They'll try settling new territory if at all possible
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm, makes additional Aqueducts a complicated juggling, since you'd be going between risks.
-1 City, 2 Potential City - 20 Expansion slots before downgrade, refunds 1 Econ. Centralization yellow at 6
-2 City 1 Potential City - 15 Expansion slots before downgrade, refunds 2 Econ. Centralization yellow at 5
-3 City - 10 Expansion slots before downgrade, refunds 3 Econ, Centralization yellow at 4

versus
-1 City 1 Potential City - 15 Expansion slots before downgrade, refunds 1 Econ. Centralization yellow at 6
-2 City - 10 Expansion slots before downgrade, refunds 3 Econ, Centralization yellow at 5

Mechanically we WANT to maintain 2 Cities(because 2 Cities refunds most Econ costs), but also maintain around 14 slots open to allow for truly large refugee intakes, disregarding weather chaos. So, I think we might find it desirable to shuffle Centralization around 4 and build an additional Aqueduct, BUT stay at 2 Cities with the third popping in and out of existence without a care, then maintain that state until technology changes.

For counterbalancing our political divergence, I believe such a city would be best placed in Black River or Stonepen, but in the case of Black River, it must also be after we reunified our culture with a temple first.

Thoughts?
pbluekan said:
General similarities:

Controlled by an elite oligarchy. However, we are extremely honest about it. Communist Russia, despite being ostensibly the people's government, was pretty much controlled by a small, elite group of elites. These men were, by definition, not aristocrats, though. Of all the similarities between Ymaryn and Uncle Joe's Russia, this is probably the closest.

Communal land. Once again, we are extremely honest about this. Even with how we distribute development for mining. For us, it is an ingrained facet of our culture. It is the way things are. People don't generally think about owning the land. Im guessing it doesn't really cross into their consciousness that their land is anything different from the state's land. They are one in the same. In communist Russia, the land had essentially been seized by the government. The people lost their land to the government. The actual workings of the system were entirely different.

Do work, get food, get house, get clothes. We do this. Russia did this. Welcome to hard core socialism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah theres a SUBSTANTIAL qualitative difference to "This is how we've always done it" and "damn we got repossessed!"
Andres110 said:
Come again? AN said that Restoration gives us the same stuff as Balanced does if we're maxed out on Stability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Law bonus is the difference here. It APPEARS small, but our Econ margin is not nearly as wide as we might like to think, with so many actions and the random hits.

Just different forms of caution.
ThrawnCA said:
I like the idea of back-to-back projects. But switching policies two turns running, giving up two secondary actions? That's quite a cost. I think we'll get more benefit by taking the time-critical opportunity to build bridges with the Stallions.

Anyway, let's hope this forest is fixed soon, and we can do Palace + Census + overrun the empty lands :)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's to create a safety margin for the weather, in exchange for giving up a safety margin for the politics.
 
ThrawnCA said:
So, there's probably not time to shift the vote, but... anyone's thoughts for/against adding a project Kick?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Against. AN told us that Stability loss results in corruption, whereas Stability gain doesn't necessarily mean less corruption. Kicking should be saved for emergencies. Using it just because the numbers tell us we can is not a good idea.

veekie said:
The Law bonus is the difference here. It APPEARS small, but our Econ margin is not nearly as wide as we might like to think, with so many actions and the random hits.

Just different forms of caution.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wrote an analysis here. Even with variables, we should be pretty safe as far as Econ goes.
 
Last edited:
We should have integrated the Stallions long ago. A smaller march will do in it's place since we have the Heavenly Hawk dudes under our employment. In fact we should see if we can make the Heavenly Hawk our new march.


[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal x2
[X] [Secondary] Change Policy - Balanced
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
[X] [Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)
 
veekie said:
Mechanically we WANT to maintain 2 Cities(because 2 Cities refunds most Econ costs), but also maintain around 14 slots open to allow for truly large refugee intakes, disregarding weather chaos. So, I think we might find it desirable to shuffle Centralization around 4 and build an additional Aqueduct, BUT stay at 2 Cities with the third popping in and out of existence without a care, then maintain that state until technology changes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nice analysis :). Looks like we're most of the way there, just need to grow a third candidate.

It's to create a safety margin for the weather, in exchange for giving up a safety margin for the politics.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fair enough. I'd rather stabilize the politics, because I figure the worst case for the weather is, food shortages lower Stability, which is currently maxed, so it's survivable. Losing the Stallions, OTOH, would be a disaster.
 
Last edited:
Andres110 said:
Against. AN told us that Stability loss results in corruption, whereas Stability gain doesn't necessarily mean less corruption.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah. It's just, if this saves us a turn on the project, that might well dodge a round of Stability damage - along with Econ and slots. And kicking doesn't cost an action, so that eventually refunds a Main action.

ETA I guess the question is, how likely is it that the kick will save us from a turn of crisis damage and thus pay for itself?
 
Last edited:
[X][Main]Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Secondary]Change Policy-Expansion

I just want more provinces..
 
Last edited:
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal x2
[X][Secondary]War Mission-Northern Nomads
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
[X][Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top