No, I'm miffed because it was agreed by most people that we would go to war with the Highlands later if we went for white peace. Now people are changing their minds. It's rather aggravating.
I believe that five people does not make "most" in a thread of about a hundred.
That's what we had.
Five people strongly in favor of punishing them for their treachery.
Ten-odd people(including myself here) strongly in favor of SOME solution to the HK, but admitting that, at the time, war was probably the only way.
New information is that we may be able to suppress their warmaking with the games and given their location, cultural assimilation via pilgrimage or refugees is not impossible.
Wait what?
Really? We don't have calendars or any timekeeping? I thought that having bureaucracy would already assume that this is true.
Calendars arose with advanced astrology. We currently have the Agricultural calendar, where details smaller than a year, an agricultural season and a month were not very important, and likewise, people will peg times of day by solar orientation(dawn, noon, nightfall).
Remember that only happened with TWO heroic nomads who BOTH crit their attack rolls. It's absolutely unfair to describe that as "(which is the only one that counts, since lesser forces aren't really a problem)"
Lesser forces than double heroic double crit leaders? That's... every other fight we've ever had in 2000 years.
On top of that, you're not playing fair on the Merc vs. March here; a Merc would get run over equally well.
A Merc wouldn't, because the mercenary company is garrisoning the current single most fortified section of the country in the former Stallion Tribes land. They take advantage of existing infrastructure, particularly the extensive forestry, defenses and docks set up by the Stallion Tribes.
If you park a company in the open steppes of course they'd get run over like a new March.
That's speculation. We don't know how 'hard' each hit is, and we've never actually lost a significant amount of core land until Hatvalley a few turns ago (and then only for 4 years or so.) Unless you can provide some WoG on this, I don't accept it as true.
We do know, because the hit procs the moment you fail to protect land:
-Stallion Tribes NEARLY razed - No Stability(settlements not harmed, defeat in field only)
-Stonepen penetration - 1 Stability
-Txolla lost minor settlements - 1 Stability
-Hatvalley NEARLY taken - No Stability(settlements not harmed, defeat in field only)
We know that defeat in the field doesn't count, but losing settlements do.
We know that Core or Subordinate doesn't matter.
If you could cite these, that would be helpful. Our marches have done deep strikes into the steppe before, and I'm unaware of any difference in logisitic train. Do we have WoG that stallion missions can't support western WW? And our marches have not been involved in a major war to fairly compare their punch to Red Banner; this one I know is speculation.
1) Marches have done deep strikes, but we know from the Xohyr taking that Mercenary companies are significantly more mobile, they function similarly to Nomad tribes if they don't need to replenish manpower.
2) We do not have exact WoG, but the western extent of the Western Wall is currently further from the Stallion Tribes than the Heaven's Hawks are to Txolla. Given distance limitations, the Stallions cannot be expected to be able to support the Western Wall without leaving their defenses wide open(which has in fact happened before during the Father/Son combo, where the force supporting the Western Wall war mission left their land undergarrisoned so the Son went through), though as a counterpoint we know that our Marches can take Support Ally to transfer martial over in an emergency.
3) We know the Red Banner has superior punch to even our Royal core units. We also know that our Marches have not elicited similar commentary when deployed alongside core units, nor do March Heroic Martial kings comment unfavorably upon the quality of the core units. Thus, it is comparable by textual evidence.
Some people (veekie) believe that we can attack people participating in our games at any time without repercussions so long as we have a valid CB. I strenuously disagree with such a stance, and I believe that it would damage our diplomacy score, have negative narrative effects with the other participants, and probably cause a stability hit with our people. As neither side has any evidence of their claims, it goes down to personal beliefs.
Uh please no, that was not my stance.
My stance is "we need to resolve the Highland Kingdom problem one way or another"
Putting them into the Games can open up alternative resolution methods, through Protectorate vassalization if nothing else by dragging a power that cannot grow into the cultural sphere of a Great Power.
And if it doesn't...then I'd feel very justified to declare war on them knowing that there is no cure
Do you have proof (preferably via WoAN) that each probability is statistically equivalent?
Whenever An presented a range of numbers, they are equivalent unless mentioned otherwise. For instance, our Restore Order roll. Equal odds of each value.
It sounds more like he didn't have an opinion considering it was his cohorts musing about the Shadow King. It seems if we make it a FC then the network is legitimized but we can flush it out if you want but most problems seem like general crime and a administration too far and slow to deal with rapid change. The SK has helped us a total of two known times which were very crucial but any problems they may have caused are not confirmed and may be used as a scapegoat. In fact our own admin genuis may have restored to embezzlement if that was the only way he could manage a better life for himself which I think is what the SK network is. A group of talented and skilled people who are locked out of power no matter what they do so they resort to law breaking to utilize their talents and make wealth.
I figure if we discover the Shadow Network via Heroic Admin Restore Order, we'd get a decision point about how to resolve them with the obvious solutions:
-Purge them and get Stability
-Purge them and spent resources to set up a replacement network under us
-Try to bring them into the fold, which requires a roll and risks Stability dropping further
-Just keep tabs on them and leave it for a future king.
We also will likely have to start building more and more distant subordinates as time goes by.
@veekie in the mid to long run, placing a merc company on a province in place of a march is a bit of a waste. At a certain point, we might as well just build a march and then plop a merc company on it for a while until the march is built up enough to be safe and stable.
Yes, and I agree on that. I simply stated that this Certain Point is when we convert the area north of Stallion Tribes to something that can support large settled populations via dams or canals. Until then you'd be using crappy soil that Black Soil can't improve(because it doesn't add water, and the soil is perfectly good) to try to raise a settled force to match the nomad hordes. Heck, given the position of the Triangle Canal supporting TWO marches would not be impossible, particularly with a fortified city parked on the artificial delta..
@veekie how high of a priority is PttS for you?
Opportunistic only. If we roll another Heroic Mystic, go for it, otherwise get in line after the Dam.
Redshore is out; look at the current vote.
Not strictly out, but doing it AFTER we fixed the corruption problem is fine.
No we are not turning the center of commerce into a free city I do not mind free cities so long as they are not one of the big three.
Centers of commerce are historically one of the best uses for free cities however. It keeps them useful in a permanent manner, while at the same time their reliance on commerce makes them permanently dependent upon the core provinces. If they get messed the trade will dry up.