Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Umi-san said:
the KH left us because they were worried further close contact would motivate us to intervene on the behalf of non-royals; manumission affirms this risk.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No? Manumission yes, means we are weird, but it also means we are willing to not go to war about it. And Khem probably understand that as long as weirdos are willing to talk it out, it's not that big of a deal.
Plus, well, people (not you, you wanted excuse to get straits) wanted means to realistically impose abolition. Given that forced abolition without conquering all the land is bullshit (it is extremely unlikely to work and even if it does, we are going to be coalition'd by literally everyone in Mediterranean, because everybody there knows Trelli the Trade Hub), I think that manumission thingie is the closest we can get to getting economic non-violent ways of imposing non-slavery. Which would not fuck up our alliances, which is good.

EDIT: I mean, 'coalition'd for forced abolition', not for conquest; nobody minds conquest by itself.
 
Last edited:
ctulhuslp said:
No? Manumission yes, means we are weird, but it also means we are willing to not go to war about it. And Khem probably understand that as long as weirdos are willing to talk it out, it's not that big of a deal.
Plus, well, people (not you, you wanted excuse to get straits) wanted means to realistically impose abolition. Given that forced abolition without conquering all the land is bullshit (it is extremely unlikely to work and even if it does, we are going to be coalition'd by literally everyone in Mediterranean, because everybody there knows Trelli the Trade Hub), I think that manumission thingie is the closest we can get to getting economic non-violent ways of imposing non-slavery. Which would not fuck up our alliances, which is good.

EDIT: I mean, 'coalition'd for forced abolition', not for conquest; nobody minds conquest by itself.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Perhaps, but the fact that we've already *gone* to war still emphasizes the possibility of our foreign intervention. The only reason we'd be backing out is that we suffered losses and were like "this doesn't seem worthwhile." Admittedly, having all of your slaves be bought out from under you is a rather pleasant method of resolving the issue of slavery, especially since these disadvantaged people will be exported to their buyer rather than left behind without an income and with grievances to redress.

actually I had manumission/local abolition as a goal. Universal abolition is, of course, impossible. But disabling a local center of the trade is quite possible and a step toward that goal in the wider region. The Trade Hub would allow us to spread our culture more.
 
Last edited:
ctulhuslp said:
Yeah, okay, fair enough, Stability 0 ends GA.

There is still another problem you are missing: you assume that we somehow will not take any more stability hits in an offensive war which so far gave us one of those each turn (or was it each half-turn?) of it. Which is not going to get better because our forces are getting farther from their home base into hostile lands with no possibility of sea resupply because Trelli control coastal waters there.
This is too optimistic and goes wildly against what was happening so far.

Bonus points for damaging our king - who gets physically ill from mentionings of violence - even further than he is already.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Even one more GA bonus is still of massive benefit, I consider it to be worth it. Plus, our king will take stability actions after this phase.
 
@ctulhuslp Hm. Just had a thought, I wonder how much the 7-8 Expansion cost we will be taking means we will be putting slaves up on our lands.

Don't know if this has already been brought up.
 
Umi-san said:
Perhaps, but the fact that we've already *gone* to war still emphasizes the possibility of our foreign intervention. The only reason we'd be backing out is that we suffered losses and were like "this doesn't seem worthwhile." Admittedly, having all of your slaves be bought out from under you is a rather pleasant method of resolving the issue of slavery, especially since these disadvantaged people will be exported to their buyer rather than left behind without an income and with grievances to redress.

actually I had manumission/local abolition as a goal. Universal abolition is, of course, impossible. But disabling a local center of the trade is quite possible and a step toward that goal in the wider region. The Trade Hub would allow us to spread our culture more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Uh...I mean, like, yes, we realized we are doing it wrong and switched to the more sensible way. Why would people have a problem with international actor owning up to their fuckups and changing their ways to less dangerous to everyone?

tenchifew said:
Are we truly not able to acknowledge a mistake IC we acknowledged OOC?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

> we acknowledged OOC

That is still a big question.

BungieONI said:
@ctulhuslp Hm. Just had a thought, I wonder how much the 7-8 Expansion cost we will be taking means we will be putting slaves up on our lands.

Don't know if this has already been brought up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Probably yes, but it may just as well mean that some of freed ones run to us. As I said, I'd prefer to wait until AN's word.
 
[X] [King] Embrace Numbness
[X] [War] Keep fighting (2 Econ temp damage, +2 Econ next turn)
Adhoc vote count started by sidestory on Aug 20, 2017 at 4:22 AM, finished with 174 posts and 62 votes.
Click to expand...
 
[X] [War] Offer reparations for damages and universal manumission of Trelli slaves (-15 Wealth, -1 Stability, chance of further loss, -7-8 Econ Expansion, 7 temp Econ damage, +7-8 Econ next turn, current trader quest fails, ???)
[X] [War] Withdraw (-5 Wealth, -5 Prestige, -1 Religious Authority, 4 Econ temp damage, chance of stability loss, +4-5 Econ next turn, current trader quest fails, ???)

This war was a stupid idea. Stop it, take the hit and rebuild. Don't double down on something that doesn't work.
 
[X] [War] Keep fighting (2 Econ temp damage, +2 Econ next turn)

Can't choose re King, as all of them seem bad, but sorrow or Absurd might not suck too much, given we have some sort of mental health tradition with the savant care and the hospices.


[X] [King] Embrace Sorrow
[X] [King] Embrace the Absurd
[X] [King] Embrace Numbness
 
[X] [War] Keep fighting (2 Econ temp damage, +2 Econ next turn)
[X] [War] Offer reparations for damages and universal manumission of Trelli slaves (-15 Wealth, -1 Stability, chance of further loss, -7-8 Econ Expansion, 7 temp Econ damage, +7-8 Econ next turn, current trader quest fails, ???)

[X] [King] Embrace the Absurd


I am in the war for the slaves and both these options help them. Withdraw on the other hand says we where wrong about slavery being against the gods, and that is unacceptable.

I think that him seeing that a world in which men fight and die in order to own other men is Absurd is potentially a good thing.
 
tenchifew said:
Are we truly not able to acknowledge a mistake IC we acknowledged OOC?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The problem is the cost of acknowledging the mistake.

Let's analyze.

Academia Nut said:
[] [War] Offer reparations for damages and universal manumission of Trelli slaves (-15 Wealth, -1 Stability, chance of further loss, -7-8 Econ Expansion, 7 temp Econ damage, +7-8 Econ next turn, current trader quest fails, ???)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We start with 1 Stability.

We lose at least one from this option, So we're at 0 to -1.
We lose 15 Wealth, triggering the Guilds to panic, so we're at -1 to -2
We take in refugees, so we're at -1 to -3
We fail the trader quest, so we may lose trade dominance, so we're at -1 to -4
We take 7 temp econ damage + 4-6 econ damage from refugees, potentially triggering a starvation, so we're at -1 to -5

In addition, narratively it's just a plain bad choice. Read the story about India and the snake head bounty if you want to know why.

Academia Nut said:
[] [War] Withdraw (-5 Wealth, -5 Prestige, -1 Religious Authority, 4 Econ temp damage, chance of stability loss, +4-5 Econ next turn, current trader quest fails, ???)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is a more feasible alternative, but it still has decent odds of dropping us out of the Golden Age
 
Last edited:
[X] [King] Embrace the Absurd
To be king is to be more than human. To see the big picture is to understand human madness.

To lead the People, one must be willing to sacrifice all comforts, all senses of proportion, and yet not fall.

[X] [War] Keep fighting (2 Econ temp damage, +2 Econ next turn)
Going to war was a mistake, but ending it will also end our GA.
OliWhail said:
Keep going until Trell collapses. We can't afford to have a hostile power strangling our one real sea trade route.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This too.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Please cite your sources; as far as I can see, 'universal manumission' means what I think it means, and update explicitly mentions Trelli freeing their own slaves, although not in context of us paying for them.
I mean, Temp Econ damage may mean that you are right, but I would prefer to wait for AN's word on it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The part of the update you quoted explicitly refers to our Terrify Action. We told them to free them on their own accord, or else. Which AN said worked reasonably well, but made them fight harder. Which I interpret as a Stability Drop for them.

Manumission here means that we tell them we give them Wealth in exchange for their slaves. Them freeing them is just a polite fiction. They sell us the slaves, we free them and call Mission Accomplished.

Their entire economic model is based on slavery. They will have to acquire new slaves to keep their country running.

So we just free the current slaves while the raiders that go out and enslave people make mad bank from this as demand is going to skyrocket.

The manumission option here is just a bandaid. Overall, we create more slaves. This is the same issue as to why we don't buy slaves to free them. People will just enslave harder to meet demand.

Economics, basically.


This will also fuck up our international relations even harder. From their PoV, this is a bone-headed retarded move that makes us look unstable.

If we keep going with the landgrab, they will rationalize the whole thing as 'priests demanded this for religion, politicians took the excuse and ran with it so any hardships can be blamed on the priesthood'. Thats still not great, but they know court politics and that odd shit can happen. But all that happens here is basically that we dress the landgrab up for nice internal PR.
 
Last edited:
Academia Nut said:
Their threshold for attacking has been raised significantly. They probably won't take a swing at you unless you're at below 5 Martial and have lost a Merc Company.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Educational, history has become
VoidZero said:
Why would KH want better relationship with us if in their view non-rational polity ate a trade nation and moved closer?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Word of AN. If we grab the straits, the Khemetri would be like "Oh, they aren't insane, just sneaky and want clay". If we backed out with just the slaves they consider it "yep, they're nuts, keep clear of the yandere"

The Khemetri can deal with realpolitik like clay grabs. They have no idea nor desire to deal with someone willing to go to war over SLAVES.

ctulhuslp said:
2. -1 Stability from Wealth 0 is a guarantee instead of merely a chance now? Did AN say it somewhere? Could you please cite the 'guaranteed -1 Stability at Wealth 0' thing?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Someone asked AN about it between updates. We are forced to recover Wealth at Wealth <3. We take Stability hit if wealth goes below that. We regain Stability if we slingshot from below 3 to 10+
tenchifew said:
Are we truly not able to acknowledge a mistake IC we acknowledged OOC?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because backing off now is the worst of both worlds, speaking as someone who was against declaring war to begin with. It leaves enemies strong, us weak and generally wrecks political relations for no gain.

Furthermore, look to the narration, the Terrify WORKED. The Trelli lost Stability and are now desperately throwing everything into the grinder because they can't last very long if they take more stab hits from lost Ymaryn dominances. We only lost Stability because the casualties were nasty.

Backing off now then, simply ensures we pay the Trelli everything they need to rebuild their military and furthermore, we just bought all their slaves, so we just made slaving MORE profitable due to the drop in supply and the glut of all other goods.
 
DakkaMania said:
The part of the update you quoted explicitly refers to our Terrify Action. We told them to free them on their own accord, or else. Which AN said worked reasonably well, but made them fight harder. Which I interpret as a Stability Drop for them.

Manumission here means that we tell them we give them Wealth in exchange for their slaves. Them freeing them is just a polite fiction. They sell us the slaves, we free them and call Mission Accomplished.

Their entire economic model is based on slavery. They will have to acquire new slaves to keep their country running.

So we just free the current slaves while the raiders that go out and enslave people make mad bank from this as demand is going to skyrocket.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As I said, I am waiting for AN's word here.

OliWhail said:
Keep going until Trell collapses. We can't afford to have a hostile power strangling our one real sea trade route.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nobody fucking forced us to make them hostile and it is still repareable.
And this still assumes we will emerge victorious. Sunk costs fallacy much?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top