What the hell dude? Most people accepted the commitment, with the exception being "if the Trelli don't fight us"(which would be quite obviously redundant)
Where are you even getting that?
Hmmm....
Seriously, folks who vote for passive-agressive trade post: we will pretty much have to Main Support Subordinate them to give them seed economy for turn 1 walls and warriors, which they will be pretty much locked in.
It gives us 3 econ slots and room to handle Stallion Martial on integration, so it is a great action during baby boom, but we need thread discipline to not chase something else only to get fycked by Trelli rolling Heroic Martial.
They'd have to be psychic then, because they dont have surveillance.
They'd get word of the new trade post when it gets built
They can afford Turn 1 Walls already incidentally(they only cost 1 Econ for basic walls(which are mortared), 2 for major, trade posts start with 2 Econ and build a settlement giving them a third), but I see no problems with sending support, though more boats to trigger further innovations may be more useful.
Actually we do have resupply. Land/Coast route from Greenshore, which has a coastal route from Western Wall. Also this is assuming we auto-lose the sea battles...which isn't a given because we're still in the era of boarding actions and we have quality advantage there. So overall, it requires that the Trelli:
-Immediately declare war while they are stuck in on the other side of the sea against their biggest trade partner.
-Achieve total naval superiority.
-Achieve significant land superiority
--Develop siegecraft
This above looks...well, not as bad as my memory suggested, my apologies for that.
It is still quite flippant attitude which assumes that:
1. We can resupply our new trade post from our old trade post via hostile-ish land (hahaha nnope convoy raiding says hi).
2. That Trelli do not have naval superiority (their ships can literally squish ours, so they do not even
need ram to sink us).
3. That they need significant land superiority to deny us farming instead of, you know, raiding outlying farms, makin a siegeing line and starving us.
4. That we have a luxury of
not kickstarting subordinate and going for more boats...scratch that, we definitely need both.
We
have to at least Single Main Boats + Single Main Subordinate and pray to Crow it means we can send dudes in despite Trelli Rule The Waves. Alternatively, with respect to potential blockade and in doubt Support can even reach them (a sensible fear), Double Main Boats + Secondary Support Subordinate and pray to Crow we can innovate enough to squeeze out a naval parity out with the party who've had centuries of experience in designing battle-oriented ships.
Either way, it ties all of our actions
at the very least at the next turn and that is presuming Trelli will not bother us afterwards - because if they
do (spoiler: it's their main source of dudes and bling, they will) Lord's Loyalty will mean even more of our actions are tied down.
Again, we
can pull it off, but not without at least...4 Secondary action equivalents in the main turns, I think. 4 is the equivalent of us dedicating every single action next turn to it (despite, you know, everything else going on closer to home). And that assumes that Trelli will fuck off after single turn, that our neighbours will not capitalize on Red Banner departing and us diverting attention elsewhere, that provinces will not will annoyed by us investing there and we do not have to placate them, that we do not have to send War Missions to the north against horse-riding nomads...
If nomads, for example, attack next turn, we are going to be forced to choose between not sending War Missions to the north or not sending support to the new Trade Post.
Granted, all of the above indeed rests on premise we are going to fight. Still, it is a massive investment which will tie up a lot more than 1 action in the future even in the good turn of events.
How do "probably doable" and "good chance" differ in your mind? If anything, AN's wording seems stronger than veekie's.
"Hard, but probably doable" looks like
at best 50% chance, most likely lower (else there would be not "Hard, but..." part).
"Good chance" is something in the ballpark of 70+%.
