- Pronouns
- They/Them
The only thing I'm uncertain of is training so many soldiers. Can we not train more of the Authority's troops next turn? Or rather, can we train the minimum of 50, pick up our cool 1000C, and then ignore it the year after?
Well if you look at things politically, training this many troops now gives us leeway to go a few turns without training them and it shouldn't make the Authority too angry.The only thing I'm uncertain of is training so many soldiers. Can we not train more of the Authority's troops next turn? Or rather, can we train the minimum of 50, pick up our cool 1000C, and then ignore it the year after?
That...is outright stupid. It is an example of petty, self-destructive revenge at its worst. But hey, at least your plan is more honest about it.
Tannist: Top tier. The executive branch, largely in charge. Keeps a large personal holding, basically the max that they can.
-The Advisory Committee: Appointments by the Tannist. No actual holdings. Functions in much the same way as the Presidential Cabinet.
-The Senate: An elected group that handles laws and such that affect the whole realm. 4-6 year terms.
--Local Lords: Similar to us, executive power. Inheritable. Has an upper limit of 1/3 our current holdings.
---Councils: Those who run the cities. Elected.
Anyone convicted of a felony cannot inherit a title or be elected.
And as a final note, consider this. He is a more legitimate ruler than we are. He got the votes of the people. We seized power through firepower. He remained loyal to us. We executed our legal authority. He went out and spent his own fortune to raise people from the rubble that they were living in. We stole the food from the starving survivors of our neighbors. He has offered a peaceful solution, only wanting to keep what he has legitimately invested in. We have gotten into hostilities with every other power we have encountered.
Here's the question though: Is any of what I said wrong?Three things. One, the vote is already closed and you've won. Second, I generally agree with you. Third, I think you're overstating the "We're horrible people and he's better than us" narrative. It's annoying and really grating, and also full of shit. It's not necessary to win the argument, considering we already won it without you having to dump all over Dia Stone.
Here's the question though: Is any of what I said wrong?
And yes, I know it's grating. Why do you think I kept my mouth shut until the vote was done? I didn't want my salt to sour anybody to my position.
Wisdom is knowing when to shut up, and when you can get away with being a truthful dick.
Would have made it so that Anna (or someone like her) couldn't inherit. Because I'm pretty sure that lighting someone on fire is still a felony. Or if it isn't, we need to address that. As well as giving the Lords a reason to expand our personal holdings on their own. After all, they can't expand unless we do.
Interesting that you should mention Worm. Because, much like Taylor, every decision seemed necessary at the time. Critical even. And we always had good intentions. But when we look back over what has happened...Literally everything you said is "True" in the sense of "You're purposefully misrepresenting everything in a way to make Dia Stone look as bad as humanly possible while making him look as good as humanly possible." Like those "Bad descriptions of stories" things where Worm is "A mother and her daughter fight and save the world in this heartwarming tale" (where Doctor Mother and Contessa are the mother and daughter.)
Interesting that you should mention Worm. Because, much like Taylor, every decision seemed necessary at the time. Critical even. And we always had good intentions. But when we look back over what has happened...
Well, let's just say that the picture isn't pretty. Especially with the whole "lighting her sister's boyfriend on fire" thing that we apparently protected Anna from the consequences of. Maybe it's time for a little self-reflection?
Actually, I would rather think that being in a position to run a country should make the courts be harder on things like that, not softer. Because that REALLY is a bad move. And at that point? Not the leader of a power. And probably never would have been since we could argue that if we wouldn't accept her, we certainly aren't sending her to our neighbors.Did you know youth generally don't commit felonies? While the state can try someone as an adult, it generally doesn't for members of the in-group. (Anna is a member of the in-group.) I really don't think trying to treat our daughter and leader of a allied power the same way America treats poor black men is a good idea, nor do I think it's likely to get support from anyone at this time.
Also your structure seems to be missing a potentially important position, I'll give you a hint: Tannist is closest to the english position "Prince of Wales."
We only appoint the intrigue and learning positions.And I am assuming that our Tannist will be part of the Cabinet. Or at least I hope that they will have ONE talent that can be useful. If they don't, something has gone horribly wrong. And since appointments are made by us to the Cabinet, we can pretty much guarantee them a spot.
No, we were given power by the provost.And as a final note, consider this. He is a more legitimate ruler than we are. He got the votes of the people. We seized power through firepower.
After he instigated a coup and mass poisoning.
We took what we needed from the seed vault, took in many survivors, and left the rest there.He went out and spent his own fortune to raise people from the rubble that they were living in. We stole the food from the starving survivors of our neighbors.
We went to negotiate with the DFs, and never chose to initiate hostilities, our troops did that after we were shot. We did not punish the 504 for what they did. We halted the war that began with the bombing of the 504 president, and brought the machine heads into the fold. We negotiated with the free volunteers(remember when they were raiders?). Even some of the Imperators and recyclers were tried in court.He has offered a peaceful solution, only wanting to keep what he has legitimately invested in. We have gotten into hostilities with every other power we have encountered.
Actually, I would rather think that being in a position to run a country should make the courts be harder on things like that, not softer. Because that REALLY is a bad move. And at that point? Not the leader of a power. And probably never would have been since we could argue that if we wouldn't accept her, we certainly aren't sending her to our neighbors.
And I am assuming that our Tannist will be part of the Cabinet. Or at least I hope that they will have ONE talent that can be useful. If they don't, something has gone horribly wrong. And since appointments are made by us to the Cabinet, we can pretty much guarantee them a spot.
Please stop lying.Tannist: Top tier. The executive branch, largely in charge. Keeps a large personal holding, basically the max that they can.
-The Advisory Committee: Appointments by the Tannist. No actual holdings. Functions in much the same way as the Presidential Cabinet.
-The Senate: An elected group that handles laws and such that affect the whole realm. 4-6 year terms.
--Local Lords: Similar to us, executive power. Inheritable. Has an upper limit of 1/3 our current holdings.
---Councils: Those who run the cities. Elected.
Anyone convicted of a felony cannot inherit a title or be elected.
If we choose an option that slaps their benefactor in the face, they will HATE us for it.
Yup. And when you look at Taylor, you see villains redeemed, corrupt heroes exposed, a city saved after a multitude of extinction events, an Endbringer ended, multiple worlds saved, and a devouring Eldritch abomination stopped. Yes, there are multiple ways to view any story, and often the hero of the narrative depends on which side you are on. But I feel that too many concentrate on the good and never try to learn from the bad. For instance, the fact that we have ended up in a shooting war TWICE thanks to not investigating enough.
Yeah, that's one of the things I want to change. Don't get me wrong, this would be in large part a centralization move.
Yup. I do in fact expect us to be harder on the future leaders of our nation than we would be on others. Hard labor? Eh, probably not. Some form of juvie, even if we had to make one up? Yes, please! And again, the fact that it was ill thought out just makes it worse. If I must have a criminal leader, I would at least prefer that they know how to hide the evidence.
"Not stealing everything" is not the same as "not stealing". Yes, even if everyone else was doing it. Heck, we had the option to move into Shattersaw and make a run of it there. We didn't. Was that the right choice? ...it was the one I would have made. Does that mean that we didn't do it? No. And yes, we recruited people. Because we figured they would be useful, not out of a sense of charity. Otherwise, we would have opened the invitation to all, or gone in and made a run of it ourselves.
Yes, most people object to having their choice taken away, even if what they get in return is objectively better.
That...is outright stupid. It is an example of petty, self-destructive revenge at its worst. But hey, at least your plan is more honest about it.
Okay, here's a point for all of you out there, so very strident in your self-righteous hypocrisy: This is the elected authority in that area now. They chose him. They LIKE him. They know about democracy, and they chose him anyway. Hell, they had patterned their entire society around democracy. And they chose him. Could you argue that he bought them out? Bought the votes? Sure!
Guess what? That's how every election is won.
If we choose an option that slaps their benefactor in the face, they will HATE us for it.
And as a final note, consider this. He is a more legitimate ruler than we are. He got the votes of the people. We seized power through firepower. He remained loyal to us. We executed our legal authority. He went out and spent his own fortune to raise people from the rubble that they were living in. We stole the food from the starving survivors of our neighbors. He has offered a peaceful solution, only wanting to keep what he has legitimately invested in. We have gotten into hostilities with every other power we have encountered.
And in the end, what is the endgame? Give him back his money? He then stays the richest and most influential man in town, and has an axe to grind with us. Just leave him there? Same problem. Take away his property? Every business owner in Greengraft would start securing their property anywhere but here. And hate us. Let's not forget that. Kill him? EVERYBODY would be looking to get rid of us, because of our obvious power grab.
Starve them? Conquer them? Enslave them?
Take it. Take the deal, make our aristocracy merit-based to start with.
Oh, and @Lailoken , my earlier plan?
Would have made it so that Anna (or someone like her) couldn't inherit. Because I'm pretty sure that lighting someone on fire is still a felony. Or if it isn't, we need to address that. As well as giving the Lords a reason to expand our personal holdings on their own. After all, they can't expand unless we do.
Yup. And when you look at Taylor, you see villains redeemed, corrupt heroes exposed, a city saved after a multitude of extinction events, an Endbringer ended, multiple worlds saved, and a devouring Eldritch abomination stopped. Yes, there are multiple ways to view any story, and often the hero of the narrative depends on which side you are on. But I feel that too many concentrate on the good and never try to learn from the bad. For instance, the fact that we have ended up in a shooting war TWICE thanks to not investigating enough.
And given that we are seen as tyrannical, though benevolent, which parts do you think would be emphasized if we pulled a petty move like that?
Yeah, that's one of the things I want to change. Don't get me wrong, this would be in large part a centralization move.
Yup. I do in fact expect us to be harder on the future leaders of our nation than we would be on others. Hard labor? Eh, probably not. Some form of juvie, even if we had to make one up? Yes, please! And again, the fact that it was ill thought out just makes it worse. If I must have a criminal leader, I would at least prefer that they know how to hide the evidence.
Oh, and lying? Never.
"Not stealing everything" is not the same as "not stealing". Yes, even if everyone else was doing it. Heck, we had the option to move into Shattersaw and make a run of it there. We didn't. Was that the right choice? ...it was the one I would have made. Does that mean that we didn't do it? No. And yes, we recruited people. Because we figured they would be useful, not out of a sense of charity. Otherwise, we would have opened the invitation to all, or gone in and made a run of it ourselves.
And the Grave Keepers weren't actually an independent polity. They didn't have an army. So yes, we have proven that we are unwilling to shoot civilians. Admittedly, that's better than most civilizations do.
Yes, most people object to having their choice taken away, even if what they get in return is objectively better.
Select 2 option
[X] build dandriss wildlife research center at amethyst gardens 1000c
[X] x2 build dandriss wildlife research center at amethyst gardens 1000c
[X] Manual Manufactory
Security
[X] Protect Anna - while the Dragonflies are doing their own internal examinations, you could probably also covertly assist, particularly from any threats that they might not categorize as such
[X] Investigate the new Lord Mayor
[X] willpower training 0/250
Dedicated local adaptation full research slots? yes plz