Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
ctulhuslp said:
So. Everybody seems so kin on fucking up loads of people , having a way of helping as much of them as possible while also getting an advantage in upcoming war...and instead we fear taking the pretty small risk and go "if you can leave everything behind with no guarantee of anything waiting for you then whatever we take you, otherwise you are on your own".

Because, well, people who are fucked over but do not even know running to us is an option certainly do exist, and not helping them, especially those whom we have created, is going to be a source of cultral dissonance arguably worse than one from taking in everyone, because for the first time it is in a large part our fault.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Here's another thing. As far as I know (might have missed it), AN has never said that the Sacred Forest Renewal Megaproject would make us immune to climate instability. That's a player prediction and expectation. It seems to be a reasonable prediction though. Econ/Econ Expansion damage mitigation seem like something that's happening but we might take some stability damage from plague.

Any other unexpected stability damage kills us and we might not have a secondary available if we plan on Double Main Trails + some form of vassal support. CA is not in danger as we helped a large number of people a few turns ago.

Umi-san said:
To clarify, it doesn't make subordinates prone to breaking away in the sense of creating a risk, it merely increases the risk they will.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I realized it could be misinterpreted. Refresh. I already edited the wording.

Andres110 said:
AN has also said our neighbours may start wars against us out of principle. Not sure how relevant that factoid is in our current situation, but that is a thing that is true.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ehh, they already want a war. There's entering the lowlands and threatening to dig in, "Take the Crown" casus belli, iron mine, prestige from beating us, and residual anger from Econ vampirism.

I mean, maybe Trelli/Khemetri will also hate us if we go negative.
 
ctulhuslp said:
I see literally no reason which would make minimal refugees better than any other option, and all answres to my questions on this topic were either silence or basically fearmongering and blowing refugees danger out of proportions while utterlt ignoring possible benefits.
Compounded by us being the cause of a current refugee crisus (mind yoy, not *the* cause), it makes me quite annoyed. If we are not ready to take responsibiluty for all war refugees, why the fuck have wr voted in warmongering chief?


Admittedly, believing ourselves to be morally superior, while starting offensive wars and refusing to take responsibility for consequences makes Ymaryn much more American. :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
umm, the main reason for minimal refugees is to keep stab hits to a minmum. You disagree that we need to be that conservative, which is fine, but making it a moral argument that we need to take in more refugees is arguing in bad faith. Please don't do that.
 
Just a reminder: -1 Centralization means a province action is spent to give us +1 Stability.

Stability is very useful. Centralization 2 for a single half-turn (it will be back up to 5 immediately afterwards) can't really hurt us at all.
 
Andres110 said:
While we can handle things at any Centralisation level (except maybe the really low levels), we can handle things better the more Centralisation we have. Thus it's better to have Centralisation 3 rather than Centralisation 2 for this mid-turn. We can also handle the problems of this mid-turn better by keeping Stability up. It's not necessary but it is helpful.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can also handle the problem better if we have some more Economy at hand as well as greater possibility to do more than 2 New Trails. We are not scot free yet, we should try and prepare.
 
Therealtahu said:
Any other unexpected stability damage kills us and we might not have a secondary available if we plan on Double Main Trails + some form of vassal support. CA is not in danger as we helped a large number of people a few turns ago.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That is a good reason against -2.5, thanks. However, -1.5 +1 = -0.5 - not problematic even with possibility of stability hit from climate.

And I see taking anything less than option which *explicitly* talks about takimg responsibility for war refugees as not taking said responsibility, which seems like much more harmful thing than extra -1 Stability from average option.

tryrar said:
umm, the main reason for minimal refugees is to keep stab hits to a minmum. You disagree that we need to be that conservative, which is fine, but making it a moral argument that we need to take in more refugees is arguing in bad faith. Please don't do that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Given that moderate option explicitly mentions taking responsibility for war refugees, I feel safe to assume that anything less implicitly does not do so. So I do not really see it as bad faith debating, given that this is, you know, a part of the vote and one of the core Ymaryn values.
 
notgreat said:
Just a reminder: -1 Centralization means a province action is spent to give us +1 Stability.

Stability is very useful. Centralization 2 for a single half-turn (it will be back up to 5 immediately afterwards) can't really hurt us at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Provences have already done their actions this turn. And we need to swap to balanced next turn while we build roads.
 
I think the last few turns - starting from Rulwyna's son's death - have been really good at giving us a magnifying glass to see the Ymaryn with. It feels a lot more dense, interconnected, and fleshed out than it did before. We really need to try and make them better people, though. Lately it seems like they've been becoming more and more like assholes and that's decreasing my appreciation for them.
 
Last edited:
Killer_Whale said:
Provences have already done their actions this turn. And we need to swap to balanced next turn while we build roads.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This turn, yes. We are currently at the mid-turn. Next update is next turn, when they will have more actions. Hence why it will last a half-turn instead of an admin roll to see if it happens at all.

Why swap to balanced? We'll be continuously taking stability hit for several more turns most likely (we'll want to ramp up our econ vampirism as much as possible to help win the wars) and as long as we have at least 2 stability lacking, The Law will still apply. (If we only lack 1, they might not go for Proclaim Glory.)
 
Andres110 said:
I think the last few turns - starting from Rulwyna's son's death - have been really good at giving us a magnifying glass to see the Ymaryn with. It feels a lot more dense, interconnected, and fleshed out than it did before. We really need to try and make them better people, though. Lately it seems like they've been becoming more and more like assholes and that's decreasing my appreciation for them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fighting wars tends to turn a people into belligerent assholes. See our loss of Pride in Humility for an example of that.
Adhoc vote count started by Godwinson on Jul 3, 2017 at 2:50 AM, finished with 66935 posts and 72 votes.
Click to expand...
 
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[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)
 
Andres110 said:
I think the last few turns - starting from Rulwyna's son's death - have been really good at giving us a magnifying glass to see the Ymaryn with. It feels a lot more dense, interconnected, and fleshed out than it did before. We really need to try and make them better people, though. Lately it seems like they've been becoming more and more like assholes and that's decreasing my appreciation for them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is likely because our perspective over the last few turns have been from entrenched oligarchs, which are usually selected towards ruthless, "assholish" behavior.
I'm sure that random Ymaryn yeoman guy is a pretty chill dude.
 
notgreat said:
Why swap to balanced? We'll be continuously taking stability hit for several more turns most likely (we'll want to ramp up our econ vampirism as much as possible to help win the wars) and as long as we have at least 2 stability lacking, The Law will still apply. (If we only lack 1, they might not go for Proclaim Glory.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's no good winning the war, if we collapse from instability. We seriously need to mitigate any stability loss until the ST issue has been resolved. But we're also on a time limit, and provences are inufficient on stability actions.
 
Last edited:
notgreat said:
Just a reminder: -1 Centralization means a province action is spent to give us +1 Stability.

Stability is very useful. Centralization 2 for a single half-turn (it will be back up to 5 immediately afterwards) can't really hurt us at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It risks going to Centralization 6 so I doubt it. They would not raise it even to 5.
 
Godwinson said:
Fighting wars tends to turn a people into belligerent assholes. See our loss of Pride in Humility for an example of that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


*Looks at minimal refugees vote*
We do have a vote option "let us not be assholes" to counterbalance it right there. Max one is somewhat risky *if* we get a stability hit after midturn and before next turn start, moderate is just lacking in even such a risk.
 
ctulhuslp said:
*Looks at minimal refugees vote*
We do have a vote option "let us not be assholes" to counterbalance it right there. Max one is somewhat risky *if* we get a stability hit after midturn and before next turn start, moderate is just lacking in even such a risk.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Academia Nut said:
If there was a large influx of newcomers Rulwyna knew that she couldn't take over the kingship. No, they would come in and trouble would follow - disease, strained food supplies, and the newcomers not knowing how to operate in the systems the People had made. With an usurper on the throne...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Adhoc vote count started by Killer_Whale on Jul 3, 2017 at 2:47 AM, finished with 66932 posts and 71 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Killer_Whale said:
It's no good winning the war, if we collapse from instability. We seriously need to mitigate any stability loss until the ST issue has been resolved. But we're also on a time limit, and provences are inufficient on stability actions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So you want to lose our automatic stability gain from provinces? I'm very confused.

Sivantic said:
It risks going to Centralization 6 so I doubt it. They would not raise it even to 5.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We've seen repeatedly across many types of rulers that we get the absolute minimum centralization from Enforce Justice, likely due to our walls. Until we expand further, that is almost certainly going to continue.
 
[X] [Mill] Greater permission (-3 Wealth, -1 Art, -2 Centralization, +3 Econ, increased potential for innovation)
 
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[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)

It seems that if the climate change does settle after the fall of the Xohri we can convince the Highlanders and Thunder Speakers to lay off from surprise attacking us.

Speaking of which, I'm kinda surprised that our sorta allies would go this route instead of joining us as a Vassal. Their king, as a Vassal Lord, could even be elected as the king (assuming I'm reading the election right).

@Academia Nut, could you tell us a bit of the rationale behind this backstab?
 
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[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 were helping to create refugees, they should help more (-1 Stability, chance of further loss, +4-5 Econ)
 

As I've answeted already (and was ignored because of course), it would be because her taking the throne would lower legitimacy and potentially run into Stability + Legitimacy <= 0 territory.

Without -Legitimacy from usurpation we run no such risk even *if* we get full -3 Stability hit driving us to -2.
 
BlueFlamingWings said:
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[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)

It seems that if the climate change does settle after the fall of the Xohri we can convince the Highlanders and Thunder Speakers to lay off from surprise attacking us.

Speaking of which, I'm kinda surprised that our sorta allies would go this route instead of joining us as a Vassal. Their king, as a Vassal Lord, could even be elected as the king (assuming I'm reading the election right).

@Academia Nut, could you tell us a bit of the rationale behind this backstab?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're surprised that a nation would not willing submit to strange hill people who have been economically vampiring them for literal centuries?
 
notgreat said:
So you want to lose our automatic stability gain from provinces? I'm very confused.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We don't have any spare actions to let the provinces stay on stability. For action efficiency, we need to take any stability actions ourselves. We desperately need roads and the palace. And we can't do that while we're eating massive refugee waves and letting the provences handle stability.
 
*still reading the thread*

Well one thing to note is that if we take a -2 hit to Cent and then do x2 main trails next turn we will probably be at 5 Cent(unless it gets weird and x2 trails gives +1 Cent only) and I am of the firm belief that having high yellow Cent is exacerbating our admin problems.

*goes back to reading*
 
ctulhuslp said:
As I've answeted already (and was ignored because of course), it would be because her taking the throne would lower legitimacy and potentially run into Stability + Legitimacy <= 0 territory.

Without -Legitimacy from usurpation we run no such risk even *if* we get full -3 Stability hit driving us to -2.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Regardless of it we get the full hit or not, the buffer of one extra stability seems rather important.
There's no need to skate on a razor thin edge if we don't have to, which needlessly taking in excess refugees will do.
 
Killer_Whale said:
We don't have any spare actions to let the provinces stay on stability. For action efficiency, we need to take any stability actions ourselves. We desperately need roads and the palace. And we can't do that while we're eating massive refugee waves and letting the provences handle stability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
....umm, explain how the provinces are insufficient at restoring stability?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top