Chronicles of History - Civ Quest

Random Member · May 18, 2019

UlseDovThur said:
Except our problem with the petty republics is exactly that, them having their own military's and deciding to break away from the whole, siding with other polities in an effort to try and jockey for position.

You do realize the same thing can happen with High Cent Civs if Legitimacy and/or Stability are low enough?

Centralization is not really the key here. If Legitimacy and Stability are high enough, they won't break away, decentralized or not.

Oshha · May 18, 2019

Star said:
Well look at the bright side. Each petty republic would have potential to practice slavery.
We may become opposite of the Arthwyd after all.

You will already practice some slavery. It has too many material benefits for the tech level to avoid it without a non-material based reason like religion. Since you picked the traders as the most influential faction, slavery is going to be too profitable to avoid getting before the end of the civilisation creation.

You have still minimise it and limit it within the People, but your traders and warriors are going to find having slaves to be too attractive for the People to not do that.

Raichu1972 · May 18, 2019

UlseDovThur said:
Except our problem with the petty republics is exactly that, them having their own military's and deciding to break away from the whole, siding with other polities in an effort to try and jockey for position.

Yes?
That is an issue with any government type that isn't a hyper centralized mess, and even those can have break offs.

The reason a lot of confederations work and they naturally gravitate towards each other is that the petty republics will greatly enjoy their freedom and autonomy, and won't want to suborn themselves to a more meddling overlord.

Sure there will be internal jockeying, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

Random Member · May 18, 2019

Raichu1972 said:
Yes?
That is an issue with any government type that isn't a hyper centralized mess, and even those can have break offs.

The reason a lot of confederations work and they naturally gravitate towards each other is that the petty republics will greatly enjoy their freedom and autonomy, and won't want to suborn themselves to a more meddling overlord.

Sure there will be internal jockeying, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

Internal power struggles happen in every civ, the only thing that changes is the nature of said struggles. Even in Absolute Monarchies with High Centralization, nobles still shank eachother so they'll be the ones who have the King's ear.

Star · May 18, 2019

Well with negative centralisation those fights can actually get out of hand due to every republic having its own army.

BlueFlamingWings · May 18, 2019

Raichu1972 said:
Even so, why would it matter?
If your concern is safety and the prevention of our shores being raided, why does it matter how that safety is acquired?

Be it through a strong concerted navy, a bunch of smaller navies on patrol, or even bribing off would be raiders on the way to profit, the end results are still the same.

That's the key concern for me when it comes to Petty Republics. The lack of control is fine in most cases but in this one a single corrupt polity taking bribes from raiders so they can plunder another Petty State could well be a issue. Not counting fighting on the island itself between the People. Disunity promotes a "us vs. them" mentality which ushers in conflict.

Random Member · May 18, 2019

Star said:
Well with negative centralisation those fights can actually get out of hand due to every republic having its own army.

In our current period, "armies" consist of hunters, levies and maybe some professional warriors. Every single Settlement can afford such an army if they decide to split off or fight the rest for whatever reason, High Cent or Low Cent.

Raichu1972 · May 18, 2019

BlueFlamingWings said:
That's the key concern for me when it comes to Petty Republics. The lack of control is fine in most cases but in this one a single corrupt polity taking bribes from raiders so they can plunder another Petty State could well be a issue. Not counting fighting on the island itself between the People. Disunity promotes a "us vs. them" mentality which ushers in conflict.

I'm not seeing the issue?

Inner confederation conflict means more people needing weapons, which means more money to be made selling weapons and armor, which means more profit for the merchants.

Of course a confederation will have disunity; that's kinda the whole point. If I wanted to play another "unity over everything" civ there are plenty I can go back to.

Random Member · May 18, 2019

BlueFlamingWings said:
That's the key concern for me when it comes to Petty Republics. The lack of control is fine in most cases but in this one a single corrupt polity taking bribes from raiders so they can plunder another Petty State could well be a issue. Not counting fighting on the island itself between the People. Disunity promotes a "us vs. them" mentality which ushers in conflict.

A single city or lord or government official being corrupt, taking bribes or screwing over his comrades for personal benefit or whatever is not something exclusive to Low Cent Civs....

Star · May 18, 2019

Add to it that petty republics won't really be unified on outside front in diplomacy.
We will probably see republics disagreeing on different matters.

Random Member said:
A single city or lord or government official being corrupt, taking bribes or screwing over his comrades for personal benefit or whatever is not something exclusive to Low Cent Civs.

It is if that lord can actually influence decision making.

Oshha · May 18, 2019

Vote is closed.
Vote Tally : Chronicles of History - Civ Quest - Original | Page 10 | Sufficient Velocity [Posts: 232-292]
##### NetTally 1.9.7
Task: Gov
[X][Gov] Tribal Democratic Petty Republics. (Negative Centralisation, Less Player Actions, Significantly More Province Actions)
No. of Votes: 17

Gino
10ebbor10
Bookreader
Cariyaga
Citino
Hallesworth49
Killer_Whale
KlinkerKing
Lab_Accident
LordEdric
nat_401
PurposefulZephyr
Raichu1972
Random Member
SyntheticTrevor
Vocalend
VoidZero

[X][Gov] Tribal Democratic Federation. (Positive Centralisation, More Province Actions)
No. of Votes: 16

HanEmpire
065tdsa
BlueFlamingWings
Chiperninerm
Chopak
Chrestomanci
demonthese2211
Donkey Hote
EWilanO
Inferno23
Kiba
nkd1325
Rockeye
Star
UlseDovThur
veekie

[X][Gov] Tribal Democratic Republic. (Positive Centralisation, More Player Actions, Less Province Actions)
No. of Votes: 2

Raichu1972
Random Member

[X][Gov] Tribal Oligarchic Kingdom. (Positive Centralisation, More Player Actions, Less Province Actions)
No. of Votes: 1

Chrestomanci

[X][Gov] Tribal Democratic Kingdom. (Positive Centralisation, More Player Actions, Less Province Actions)
No. of Votes: 1

Chrestomanci

[X][Gov] Tribal Oligarchic Petty Republics. (Negative Centralisation, Less Player Actions, Significantly More Province Actions)
No. of Votes: 1

Random Member

[X][Gov] Tribal Oligarchic Republic. (Positive Centralisation, More Player Actions, Less Province Actions)
No. of Votes: 1

Random Member

[X][Gov] Tribal Oligarchic Confederation. (Negative Centralisation, Less Player Actions, More Province Actions)
No. of Votes: 1

Random Member

Total No. of Voters: 33

Random Member · May 18, 2019

Star said:
Add to it that petty republics won't really be unified on outside front in diplomacy.
We will probably see republics disagreeing on different matters.

Oh no, people disagreeing on things, how horrible!

Confederations do have a united foreign policy though. Off course there will be struggles between factions over what that policy should be, but again, this happens in all civs.

Also:

Oshha said:
Vote is closed.

Victory!

UlseDovThur · May 18, 2019

Raichu1972 said:
Yes?
That is an issue with any government type that isn't a hyper centralized mess, and even those can have break offs.

The reason a lot of confederations work and they naturally gravitate towards each other is that the petty republics will greatly enjoy their freedom and autonomy, and won't want to suborn themselves to a more meddling overlord.

Sure there will be internal jockeying, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

Random Member said:
Internal power struggles happen in every civ, the only thing that changes is the nature of said struggles. Even in Absolute Monarchies with High Centralization, nobles still shank eachother so they'll be the ones who have the King's ear.

It's not about the fact that internal dispute can happen but the scale of the disputes. If internal disputes happen in one of the more centralized gov types, unless it's a total breakdown of the government, the civ itself will remain intact and whole. With the petty republics it's entirly possible, and far more likely, for one or more republics to build up its own military and navy and break off of the civ wholesale.

This then opens us up to outside elements to invade the island at which point we lose our biggest advantage, our naval superiority, as they have already landed.

Edit: Whatever, can't wait to see how this blows up in our face.

Star · May 18, 2019

To late. It seems that we decided to shoot ourselves in the head. Yay.

nkd1325 · May 18, 2019

Well Petty Republics won. Hopefully we can build up our central city to astronomical degrees and then reign in the various other republics Venice style.

Citino · May 18, 2019

Star said:
To late. It seems that we decided to shoot ourselves in the head. Yay.

Oh no, we picked a different style of play than usual. We are doooooooomed.

Seriously though, even if you are dismayed at the result, decentralized civs are a potent and interesting play style that can have some pretty cool evolutions throughout the game. That's far from 'shooting ourselves in the head'. It just means we'll have to be more adaptable to what comes, and be more picky about what opportunities we personally want to pursue.

To me, this seems quite fun.

BlueFlamingWings · May 18, 2019

Random Member said:
A single city or lord or government official being corrupt, taking bribes or screwing over his comrades for personal benefit or whatever is not something exclusive to Low Cent Civs....

Oh. That's definitely the case. It's a matter of control, the fact that we, as players, could have agency over who is ultimately elected.

Not that it matters now.

Citino said:
Oh no, we picked a different style of play than usual. We are doooooooomed.

Seriously though, even if you are dismayed at the result, decentralized civs are a potent and interesting play style that can have some pretty cool evolutions throughout the game. That's far from 'shooting ourselves in the head'. It just means we'll have to be more adaptable to what comes, and be more picky about what opportunities we personally want to pursue.

To me, this seems quite fun.

I also agree with this sentiment.

Random Member · May 18, 2019

This is good, though we really should've been Oligarchical.

I propose we do repeated Trade Missions over the next few turns, so as to increase the Merchant Faction's power even more! With the increased Wealth, they can buy more political power.

BlueFlamingWings · May 18, 2019

Random Member said:
This is good, though we really should've been Oligarchical.

I propose we do repeated Trade Missions over the next few turns, so as to increase the Merchant Faction's power even more! With the increased Wealth, they can buy more political power.

I agree, but I think we should find new civs/new markets by sea specifically. Build boats/navies and explore.

Random Member · May 18, 2019

BlueFlamingWings said:
I agree, but I think we should find new civs/new markets by sea specifically. Build boats/navies and explore.

Now you're talking!

nat_401 · May 18, 2019

We are literally in the tutorial of the quest just creating our civ before we have any real control and people are already blatantly scaremongering about trap options that have already killed us.

Wow

Chrestomanci · May 18, 2019

Oshha said:
Note that is for the federal government of a federation that is large enough that the member states count as civs in their own right.

So this wouldn't have worked?

Chrestomanci said:
We can retain our island's 6 provinces as our core, and have all of our territory outside that be Member States.

How many provinces would be the minimum before we could have started getting Member States?

Random Member said:
It is for the kind of Centralized Builds SV plays. Take a look at the combination of Arthwyd Values. Losing any war where we would have failed to protect our own people would've resulted in our Stability and Legitimacy tanking, likely leading to atleast a regime change, if not an outright collapse.

I find this idea extremely silly, SV is not somehow limited to only having one kind of Centralized Build.
We have already unanimously voted to give power to the Traders faction, not the Shaman or Chiefs.
Those Arthwyd Values are independent of centralization, we could get Sacred Defence with a completely decentralized (religious) civ.

Random Member said:
Confederations do have a united foreign policy though. Off course there will be struggles between factions over what that policy should be, but again, this happens in all civs.

Raichu1972 said:
The reason a lot of confederations work and they naturally gravitate towards each other is that the petty republics will greatly enjoy their freedom and autonomy, and won't want to suborn themselves to a more meddling overlord.

You are aware that we are not a Confederation (that was a different option), right?
Petty Republics don't have a unified foreign policy, or military, or anything else. That is why they have Negative Centralisation, not 0, negative.

nat_401 said:
We are literally in the tutorial of the quest just creating our civ before we have any real control and people are already blatantly scaremongering about trap options that have already killed us.

Wow

We have already had many posts saying that if we don't chose their favoured option, we will inevitably become a carbon-copy of the Arthwyd .
People blatantly scaremongering about trap options has been occurring since the beginning of this quest, mostly about the trap option leading to a boring quest with nothing new.

Citino · May 18, 2019

Chrestomanci said:
We have already had many posts saying that if we don't chose their favoured option, we will inevitably become a carbon-copy of the Arthwyd .
People blatantly scaremongering about trap options has been occurring since the beginning of this quest, mostly about the trap option leading to a boring quest with nothing new.

There's quite a big difference between posts saying they find going an unusual route more interesting than the other, somewhat more mainstream route, and other posts literally declaring this choice to be the equivalent of suicide.

Like, this sort of stuff

Star said:
To late. It seems that we decided to shoot ourselves in the head. Yay.

Is very much just pure salt, and is objectively wrong.

Unless you think Oshha is going to be a jerk GM and make a play style utterly unviable, despite it being an extremely popular NPC playstyle that has time and again proven incredibly effective even with The npc civs lacking our meta advantages.

Chrestomanci · May 18, 2019

Citino said:
Unless you think Oshha is going to be a jerk GM and make a play style utterly unviable, despite it being an extremely popular NPC playstyle that has time and again proven incredibly effective even with The npc civs lacking our meta advantages.

Why do you think Oshha will be a jerk GM?

Personally, I think Oshha is a good GM, and each playstyle has advantages and disadvantages.

Umi-san · May 18, 2019

@Oshha Another civ quest? What happened to the old one?

Sadly too late to vote for a Federation and bring it to a tie :sob:

Chronicles of History - Civ Quest

Gardener of Human Happiness

Gardener of Human Happiness

Gardener of Human Happiness

Gardener of Human Happiness

Gardener of Human Happiness

KNIGHT OF ORANGE

Gardener of Human Happiness

Gardener of Human Happiness

Procrastinating.