We shouldn't ignore it; the information it gives can be valuable. But if you count the cost of generating intrigue, even secondary Hunt requires about three secondary actions worth of stuff total (one for the action, one to Expand Networks, one to generate stats for said networks action). If we don't have the time to fully act on the information, it is hard to justify such a cost.
-
Going forward, links to content from Twitter (now X) will no longer be embedded. Pre-existing links should not be affected.
Paths of Civilization
- Thread starter Academia Nut
- Start date
- Original
BungieONI
Seven gremlins in a trench coat
- Location
- Lickwidget
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Guess I was going with the assumption that if we have control of contact, we will take actions to take advantage of that contact. (as an aside that is yet another thing we can distract ourselves with when dealing with these crises)
Mostly more control of important ports. I imagine that many pirates cycled between raiding us, West Ymar or Freehills and then sold in Trelli and vice versa. Now we control Trelli and there are less places to search, and more places we can search from and supply from while we search.
Mechanically speaking I don't expect too much.
Good point, but for me the early warning is enough to out weigh a whole hell of a lot since nothing else does it.
That's one way to pay for it. Another is Skullduggery though that one is still a little expensive.
Yeah; the existence of an action doesn't mean we take it. And even if we do take it, that means we don't take something else.
For example; maybe we would spend out time negotiating with the Khem instead of Hunting Troublemakers.
I think unless you control ALL the ports there is no helping that.
Trade missions also do early warning; merely for external problems and not internal ones. That is like half of their job, really. Note that we haven't had time for a lot of trade missions, either...
As for paying with a passive policy - I guess it is possible, but that just shifts the burden elsewhere. The net effect in terms of lost capability is about the same.
Random Member
Gardener of Human Happiness
- Location
- Behind You
Besides, every Main we spend ensuring the Trelli do not rebel is a Main we can't use to advance our reforms, to fix our problems or just to ensure that we don't implode. Or build that crowsdamned dam.
BungieONI
Seven gremlins in a trench coat
- Location
- Lickwidget
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Hmm. You know what would be awesome.Yeah; the existence of an action doesn't mean we take it. And even if we do take it, that means we don't take something else.
For example; maybe we would spend out time negotiating with the Khem instead of Hunting Troublemakers.
I think unless you control ALL the ports there is no helping that.
Trade missions also do early warning; merely for external problems and not internal ones. That is like half of their job, really. Note that we haven't had time for a lot of trade missions, either...
As for paying with a passive policy - I guess it is possible, but that just shifts the burden elsewhere. The net effect in terms of lost capability is about the same.
Megaproject Support Passive policy.
The information it gives can be so-so to very valuable. We just don't know until we commit actions.
All I am seeing is that we're putting zero effort into espionage, which is leaving me annoyed.
- Location
- Austria
Hence calling it "mission creep": too many options, all of which are crucial, to the point where you physically cannot do all you need to do. Let alone do what you want to do. Basically rendered obligated to only react to fires because of lacking resources, primarily actions, to invest into other stuff, like Dam.
Ethnic cleansing in Trells case doesn't have to mean genocide.
The Assyrians for example distributed populations across their Empire. PiA even gives us a lot of practice doing just that. Now it's involuntary resettlement and that probably means extra stability hits on top of the regular hits, but it beats sacking the city.
The other variant is to banish them. That one will probably cost less stability but more stats and create a kingdom that hates us or they end up being enslaved by their former mercenaries.
Yet another option is to take hostages from the leaderships families. That won't prevent popular uprisings, but if they lack coordination on top of bad training and poor equipment it should be fairly easy to keep control. This one should cost us the least stability but doesn't solve the problem.
On the other hand, I'm fairly sure that their urban poor can be bribed with panem. They aren't utterly selfless ultranationalists after all. If we aren't brutal overlords odds of rebellion are much lower.
I mean, every expanding empire ever managed to remain in control of even very foreign cultures without genocide being the first resort.
The Assyrians for example distributed populations across their Empire. PiA even gives us a lot of practice doing just that. Now it's involuntary resettlement and that probably means extra stability hits on top of the regular hits, but it beats sacking the city.
The other variant is to banish them. That one will probably cost less stability but more stats and create a kingdom that hates us or they end up being enslaved by their former mercenaries.
Yet another option is to take hostages from the leaderships families. That won't prevent popular uprisings, but if they lack coordination on top of bad training and poor equipment it should be fairly easy to keep control. This one should cost us the least stability but doesn't solve the problem.
On the other hand, I'm fairly sure that their urban poor can be bribed with panem. They aren't utterly selfless ultranationalists after all. If we aren't brutal overlords odds of rebellion are much lower.
I mean, every expanding empire ever managed to remain in control of even very foreign cultures without genocide being the first resort.
Well, as far as I know, Trelli doesn't have a goverment now either.
I don't think there'll be a rebellion, since the one;s we're killing are the pirates that are messing with them.
There's a good chance they;ll be grateful for our help, if we spin it right.
I am now of the opinion that intrigue, like our defense policy isn't all that useful until WE NEED IT YESTERDAY.
[X] [HS] Increase Professionalism (Found Mercenary Company, Reforms advance)
[X] [SR] Food (Colonies and vassals transfer 1 Econ/turn each)
[X] [Policy] Special: Vassal Support (+1 Subordinate while active, increases Loyalty while active at less than full subordinates)
[X] [Policy] Skullduggery (+1 Intrigue/turn, -2 Diplo)
[X] [HS] Increase Professionalism (Found Mercenary Company, Reforms advance)
[X] [SR] Food (Colonies and vassals transfer 1 Econ/turn each)
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Freehills
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Western Ymaryn
[X] [Attack] No one
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Trelli
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Freehills
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Western Ymaryn
[X] [Attack] No one
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Trelli
[X] [HS] Increase Professionalism (Found Mercenary Company, Reforms advance)
[X] [SR] Food (Colonies and vassals transfer 1 Econ/turn each)
[X] [Policy] Special: Vassal Support (+1 Subordinate while active, increases Loyalty while active at less than full subordinates)
[X] [Policy] Skullduggery (+1 Intrigue/turn, -2 Diplo)
[X] [HS] Increase Professionalism (Found Mercenary Company, Reforms advance)
[X] [SR] Food (Colonies and vassals transfer 1 Econ/turn each)
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Freehills
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Western Ymaryn
[X] [Attack] No one
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Trelli
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Freehills
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Western Ymaryn
[X] [Attack] No one
[X] [Attack] Hire out mercenary company
-[X] [Attack] Both
--[X] [Attack] To Trelli
Well, what would you have us cut?
Do you want us to drop...
- The regular Roadbuilding action people have been clamoring for?
- Stability generation?
- Actions to restore Econ/Wealth/LTE when they get low?
- Trade missions and Games invitations?
- Actions to further reforms (like the ones we are doing now)?
- Progress on valuable Faction quests like the ones getting us a free Megaproject / Value Slot?
- Influence Subordinate actions for critical hotspots?
- Building the Dam?
- etc.
So when you say you are annoyed that we aren't doing espionage... well, which of our current activities would you prefer we avoid doing instead?
- Location
- Austria
Actions. It's a lot of utility.
Plus thanks to, you know, iron age, not-vassal radius of ours is likely not a that big. Logistics yo.
I am willing to have one intrigue policy active.
- Location
- The Deep Blue Sea
Stab hits between refugees, Trelli, SS, highlander kingdom bullshit that AN has said is in the works, reforms, and famine/plague. We just don't have the actions to take on another source of instability right now, especially one that isn't absolutely critical.
We survived for thousands of years not holding the strait, and now we have the option to put a friendlier power than Trelli in charge of it. That's an improvement, and one which shields us from needing to sacrifice actions one way or another.
*shrug* Best indicator of future results is past results - nothing to do with your character or motives. I'll be more than happy to apologize if attacking the strait works out well.
Yeah, well, it's still an ethnic cleansing. Only this time, it's the Not!Romans.
The Trelli are slavers, used to be chattel slavers. But they still don't deserve what is going to happen to them.
The alternative, which is far worse, genocide committed by their former slaves. I supposed I should be glad that lending Freehill mercenaries is not happening.
But on the other hand, it's another ball we have to keep in the air. I sincerely hope we reduce our administrative burden sooner rather than later, especially if it means eating Gullvalley.
Last edited:
I ask you what you are willing to give up... and you tell me you are what you are willing to gain.
Are we talking past each other for some reason?
I ask you what you are willing to give up... and you tell me you are what you are willing to gain.
Are we talking past each other for some reason?
An intrigue passive policy, which mostly likely means loss of an infrastructure policy.
Vassals give us 1 Econ / turn. They send war missions to support us if we are fighting near them. And they develop their own infrastructure and resources. That is a bunch of activity that we would normally have to do on our own without vassals.
Note that Vassal Support is (despite the name) actually subordinate support - we use it for both vassals and colonies/marches/trading-posts. While vassals are the most in need of this policy, it also keeps our own states from diverging too far, both in loyalty and culture. I think we are going to want to have such a policy active regardless of whether we integrate any vassals.
A final note. Integrating vassals is dangerous. Basically, they are implicitly a different culture, which leaves us with internal provinces that aren't really "People" the way we know them. We can do it, and hopefully the differences will fade over the generations, but in the meantime I expect that it exposes us to a good amount risk.
- Location
- The Deep Blue Sea
That wasn't the question though - which other policy would you turn off to make room?
People who've voted for no attack but not for loaning our banners to Freehills (@Marlin and @FortTell, I believe), would you be willing to consider approval voting for the loan to avoid directly attacking?
Hey @sidestory just a heads up, your vote is showing up funny in the counter - it seems to want each of the different subvotes separated into its own block.
Random Member
Gardener of Human Happiness
- Location
- Behind You
The attack working out well doesn't mean anything yet though. We'd still have to successfully keep it under our control without imploding.
Okay; thank you. That is the sort of answer I was looking for.
Now, an infrastructure policy provides 2 free progress every turn. It is a bit hard to value what that is worth, but let me give it a shot.
Right now, we know that infrastructure policy can build Salterns; if it did, it would take 6 progress for +1 point of income per turn. The fact that our policies AREN'T building Salterns means that they think the other stuff they are building is at least as valuable, so Salterns can be used as a minimal baseline for how much things are worth.
In other words, an Infrastructure Policy is worth at least 1 permanent point of additional income every 3 turns.
In contrast, an intrigue policy gets us 3 points of intrigue and -6 points of diplomacy every 3 turns.
So. You are saying that you are willing to (regularly) trade 6 diplomacy and 1 point of permanent income for 3 points of intrigue for, correct?
- Location
- Canada
Hmm I know we will take the straits no matter what happens whether its now or in the future. I just don't think right now we can juggle it especially with AN saying it won't help us administer the rest of our western vassals better. I just want to start on the Dam and the two canals and max out our road usage before long. Plus Gulvalley is just stuck there we should integrate them for a quick stat boost whenever we are cutting it too close on stats. We also have a bunch of internal settlements to max out before we can get started on populating the lowlands. As long as we sit on the notBlack Sea its only a matter of time before the straits fall to us so let's just take our time for now and increase the strength of our foundations and core for once.
Alright; thank you. I don't know if I agree, but at least it is a complete position that addresses both sides of the issue, unlike someone arguing to produce actions and policies out of thin air.