Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
[X] [Boat] New design: Seaworthiness
[X] [Mill] Lesser permission (-2 Wealth, -1 Art, -1 Centralization, +2 Econ, potential for innovation)
[X] [WC] Lesser assistance (-2 Art, -1 Centralization, Stallions pleased, ???)
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal Completion (-2 Econ, -2 Mysticism, -1 Art)
[X] [Refugee] They accepted all who came (Chance of stability loss, +2 Econ)

Conflicted on the war vote. I would rather let the hero martial King and his fast horse couriers handle it however its also about resource denial. We can not let the other Kingdoms who have better infantry tactics then us gain technolgoy that will give them parity. However our lowlanda vassal seem to be large enough combined with the expanded Red Banner. Yet I do not want us to let up on the Xoh once we have them on the ropes.
 
PyrrosWarrior said:
I know we have advisors. @Sivantic said they didn't have any actual power; which empowering them is, in simplified terms, what I was proposing doing to simplify our administrative burden without having to give up much central power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
veekie said:
...but they do? Most of the stuff in their domain is covered by the advisors+governors
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Found it.
Academia Nut said:
Hewthyun also implemented another system that he figured was a long time coming, a way to prevent other fools like his predecessor from coming to power in the first place. Through somewhat brute force political maneuvering, he had made his advisors full chiefs in their own right, second only to him within their area of expertise, but subordinate elsewhere. He now had a War Chief, a Farming Chief, a Construction Chief, and a Spirit Chief, who were full electors for the High Chief but were in turn elected by the advisors of the Local Chiefs. While when it came to their areas of expertise only he could override them, he had made sure that their duties were narrow enough that the Local Chiefs retained authority enough that they could still get around bad decisions long enough for the High Chief to review by falling back on something else. Like if a Construction Chief ordered a new retaining wall built and the Chief of Valleyhome objected, he could point out potential farming impacts to force a review. Hewthyun found it elegant, especially since it let him more effectively focus his attention towards a given project and not have to worry about being needed to clear up anything but the worst conflicts of interest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So they have power, but not direct power. They can give him ideas and plans and he usually agrees with them as they are the experts, but the King has the final say what actually happens.
 
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[X] [Boat] New design: Seaworthiness
[X] [Mill] Greater permission (-3 Wealth, -1 Art, -2 Centralization, +3 Econ, increased potential for innovation)
[X] [WC] Lesser assistance (-2 Art, -1 Centralization, Stallions pleased, ???)
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal Completion (-2 Econ, -2 Mysticism, -1 Art)
[X] [Refugee] They accepted all who came (Chance of stability loss, +2 Econ)
 
PyrrosWarrior said:
I know we have advisors. @Sivantic said they didn't have any actual power; which empowering them is, in simplified terms, what I was proposing doing to simplify our administrative burden without having to give up much central power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They do.
The reason for our high hierarchy and that we can run a comparably huge state with high centralization is that they can make most decisions themselves.
 
maximillian said:
For war the best action is to leave the war to the warriors, politics overruling in the middle of a war never ends well. Politicians for all their intellect are armchair generals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"But war is no pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work of a free enthusiasm; it is a serious means for a serious object. All that appearance which it wears from the varying hues of fortune, all that it assimilates into itself of the oscillations of passion, of courage, of imagination, of enthusiasm, are only particular properties of this means. The war of a community — of whole nations and particularly of civilised nations — always starts from a political condition, and is called forth by a political motive.

[...]

Now if we reflect that war has its root in a political object, then naturally this original motive which called it into existence should also continue the first and highest consideration in the conduct of it. Still the political object is no despotic lawgiver on that account; it must accommodate itself to the nature of the means, and through that is often completely changed, but it always remains that which has a prior right to consideration. Policy therefore is interwoven with the whole action of war, and must exercise a continuous influence upon it as far as the nature of the forces exploding in it will permit.

We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the art of war in general and the commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception."

---Carl von Clausewitz, On War
(the true meaning of "War is the continuation of politics/policy by other means" - war is just a tool of politics and hence needs to be subordinate to it, always regarding the object for which it was started)
 
*phone turns back on*

MUDA MUDA MUDA.

Time to read the thread and figure out why we are kicking(?) and Mills are close to a tie(which is weird).
 
Oh gosh we're right in the middle of one hell of a pickle. Puppetmaster Rulwyna's dope, here's hoping she can save our asses.

[X] [War] Hope the king wins quickly
No solid logic here. I've just got faith in these dice right now, so here's to lady luck, because I'm assuming she's what we'd need to make this option work.

[X] [Boat] New design: Seaworthiness
Shiny! And the development of new tech by the looks.

[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal Completion (-2 Econ, -2 Mysticism, -1 Art)
TREES! Shit man, we desperately need to complete the TREES! to stop taking the random environmental damage.

[X] [Mill] Lesser permission (-2 Wealth, -1 Art, -1 Centralization, +2 Econ, potential for innovation)
[X] [WC] Lesser assistance (-2 Art, -1 Centralization, Stallions pleased, ???)
[X] [Refugee] They were helping to create refugees, they should help more (-1 Stability, chance of further loss, +4-5 Econ)
Basically gotta combine these reasonings because of the delicate Math-fu situation we're in right now. This'll leave us at -1 or 0 Stab, 3 Legitimacy, 3 Cent, and a 6-7 Econ buffer for the environmental damage if I calculated right. That leaves a 2 Stab buffer for shenanigans before collapse, unless 3 Cent tightens the "keep the Ymaryn together" threshold. Even lowering ourselves down to 3 Cent makes me a bit nervous in this situation, but it should be noted that if we don't help the ST with their mine, we don't get the ??? that's the new material, so they'd definitely break off from us if we refuse to help. And without a Mill upgrade we could potentially scrape by on Econ as long as we take a big enough refugee wave, but I don't really want to risk that either.

Honestly at this point I wouldn't mind if a bit or two of the Ymaryn to broke off from the whole, as long as it was done peacefully. Our country has grown a bit too large for us to properly manage at this point, with our current setup. But as it stands, any breakage right now would probably shatter the country, so let's avoid that if possible.
 
Susano said:
"But war is no pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work of a free enthusiasm; it is a serious means for a serious object. All that appearance which it wears from the varying hues of fortune, all that it assimilates into itself of the oscillations of passion, of courage, of imagination, of enthusiasm, are only particular properties of this means. The war of a community — of whole nations and particularly of civilised nations — always starts from a political condition, and is called forth by a political motive.

[...]

Now if we reflect that war has its root in a political object, then naturally this original motive which called it into existence should also continue the first and highest consideration in the conduct of it. Still the political object is no despotic lawgiver on that account; it must accommodate itself to the nature of the means, and through that is often completely changed, but it always remains that which has a prior right to consideration. Policy therefore is interwoven with the whole action of war, and must exercise a continuous influence upon it as far as the nature of the forces exploding in it will permit.

We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the art of war in general and the commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception."

---Carl von Clausewitz, On War
(the true meaning of "War is the continuation of politics/policy by other means" - war is just a tool of politics and hence needs to be subordinate to it, always regarding the object for which it was started)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Very fitting and in time quote.

Here we have seen what happens when war is started for no other reason than to be at war.
 
tenchifew said:
They do.
The reason for our high hierarchy and that we can run a comparably huge state with high centralization is that they can make most decisions themselves.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually that means we have more middle management, which is not the same thing Pyrros was asking. He was wondering if we had a cabinet that could could take care of different fields for us.
Ghostdevil said:
That was like... 500 years ago, they probably DO have a lot more power now, Direct power
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
More than that. Closer to 800 years now. Our Canal is ancient.

Like as not, look at the reference I pulled up. They only have power if everyone agrees with them from the very bottom Local Chief to the High Province Chief.

Usually, they agree with them, but they can still kick up a fuss to slow the project and try and get the King to deny the Advisors.
 
I do find it ironic that the girl who would have been a puppet ended up being the puppet-master, even if she's not too fond of it.
 
veekie said:
Bullshit. He said that we've never ever BEEN at Low Centralization. Centralization 3 was high enough to negate all environmental damage so far unless they CAN'T be countered with Cent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was referring to this:
Academia Nut said:
Full time warriors are also at about 1% of the population, but the People can also mobilize a huge number of farmers not just in the off seasons but also for extended campaigns if really needed because of their strategic food reserves, although an extended period of lower centralization and the continued growth of both large groups such as Valleyhome and hereditary power has weakened this system from its height. It has simply become too inefficient to run the way it once was.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That "lower centralization" he was talking about was Centralisation 3.

In searching for that quote, I have found this:
Academia Nut said:
Yes, centralization is one of the things that controls that. High centralization has problems elsewhere, but coordinating the distribution of food is one of its bigger effects, hence why it provides cushioning against natural disasters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We're on Economy 2 and we'll be spending more by the time the turn is over. We do NOT want to damage our food distribution system too badly, especially with refugees coming in and straining it.
 
Last edited:
Raichu1972 said:
Leaving us at 0 stab and 1 cent will definitely change our government, but most likely to one with lower cent tolerance.
The overcrowding from the refugees will also likely exasperate the plague problem in the cities, possibly causing us to lose one.
Also, if the Xoh resurge, the Highland Kingdom and TS will be able to freely raid our iron, possibly take our land without anyone to repel them, and cause a Divine Stewards Spiral.
These all seem like really bad things to me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


A xoh resuregance will take centuries if at all, assuming we let the general do his job anyways. As for the change in gov making us weak in comparison to our nieghbours, how so? Lower cent systems are actually more defense oriented than offense, a consequence of multiple levels and sources of power all fortifying their holdings and having multiple military forces. It will make attacking harder that's true(it takes consensus and appeal to the various powers to get an army togather) but it will by no means weakin us defensively, especially since foreign invasions work wonders on unifying decentralized polities. All this ofcourse assumes that our nieghbours are not having their own disasters to take care of. Something max refugees will certainly excerberate

Now as for losing a city(sacred forest provably) we don't know that for sure, the lack of central perogative will lessen coordination true. But it's not as if we don't have generations of experience dealing with these problems, further decentralization may even allow greater efforts to be put forth on the local levels.
 
Last edited:
Sivantic said:
Like as not, look at the reference I pulled up. They only have power if everyone agrees with them from the very bottom Local Chief to the High Province Chief.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But your reference is literally when the canal was built, Things change in a mere year let alone in HUNDREDS of years, I mean were an Oligarchy now, so the Advisors would be chosen from the Pool so they would have ALOT more power than they did then
 
Ok, I've checked about three times now. What gave us the boat innovation?! Was it a hold over from last turn and take us a turn to fully gain the roll or something? Am I blind?
 
Andres110 said:
I was referring to this:

That "lower centralization" he was talking about was Centralisation 3. (@maximillian, your comment on the GM explicitly outing low Centralisation and hereditary power as bad things?)

In searching for that quote, I have found this:

We're on Economy 2 and we'll be spending more by the time the turn is over. We do NOT want to damage our food distribution system too badly, especially with refugees coming in and straining it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
umm, I lost track, which amount of cent drop are you advocating? Because unless it's for at least 2 so we can double main trails next turn I'm just going to ignore you.
 
bluefur87 said:
Ok, I've checked about three times now. What gave us the boat innovation?! Was it a hold over from last turn and take us a turn to fully gain the roll or something? Am I blind?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
From the most recent update:

The neglect that Phygrif had done to the rest of the kingdom had left many other opportunities, and while Rulwyna couldn't pluck all of the strings, she could certainly keep tabs and encourage or discourage a few things. Things like the development of new boat designs or the progress of milling technology.

Rulwyna procced an innovation using her Intrigue Hero contacts.
 
tryrar said:
umm, I lost track, which amount of cent drop are you advocating? Because unless it's for at least 2 so we can double main trails next turn I'm just going to ignore you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Drop Centralisation by -2 so we hit Centralisation 3. Do NOT drop it down by -3 to 2. This means not doing Greater Permission for the mills. I want double Main Trails too.
 
Last edited:
Ghostdevil said:
But your reference is literally when the canal was built, Things change in a mere year let alone in HUNDREDS of years, I mean were an Oligarchy now, so the Advisors would be chosen from the Pool so they would have ALOT more power than they did then
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not direct power, which is what we are talking about.

Yes they would be more influential, but they still do not have the power to dictate policy. We have built checks and balances into place so they cannot have direct power.
 
maximillian said:
A xoh resuregance will take centuries if at all, assuming we let the general do his job anyways. As for the change in gov making us weak in comparison to our nieghbours, how so? Lower cent systems are actually more defense oriented than offense, a consequence of multiple levels and sources of power all fortifying their holdings and having multiple military forces. It will make attacking harder that's true(it takes consensus and appeal to the various powers to get an army togather) but it will by no means weakin us defensively, especially since foreign invasions work wonders on unifying decentralized polities. All this ofcourse assumes that our nieghbours are not having their own disasters to take care of. Something max refugees will certainly excerberate

Now as for losing a city(sacred forest provably) we don't know that for sure, the lack of central perogative will lessen coordination true. But it's not as if we don't have generations of experience dealing with these problems, further decentralization may even allow greater efforts to be put forth on the local levels.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Having a lower cent tolerance government means that we can't make as many trails or use enforce justice as much.
It will weaken us because the King is less able to coordinate kingdom wide efforts, meaning that our actions are less effective.
This would be true if they were war efforts or relief efforts, and considering we are currently experiencing a plague in our cities this seems like a rather important thing to keep.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top