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.
I don't think he'll be a jerk. But the part I quoted states outright that they think we just committed suicide by picking this.

Like, that's significantly more insulting than people saying they find one option more interesting than the other. It basically is declaring that the option is so disadvantageous that we are doomed just by picking it.

Seriously, I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. My entire point was that I didn't believe that Oshha would be a jerk GM and punish us for a choice made in what was essentially the tutorial section, which you somehow turned into me calling Oshha a jerk GM. Nor did I ever even imply that both sides didn't have their advantages.
 
Last edited:
I don't think he'll be a jerk. But the part I quoted states outright that they think we just committed suicide by picking this.

Like, that's significantly more insulting than people saying they find one option more interesting than the other. It basically is declaring that the option is so disadvantageous that we are doomed just by picking it.

Seriously, I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. My entire point was that I didn't believe that Oshha would be a jerk GM and punish us for a choice made in what was essentially the tutorial section, which you somehow turned into me calling Oshha a jerk GM.
Star's post doesn't say we committed suicide by this choice, it doesn't say we are completely doomed. It says we shot ourselves in the head, and depending on how a negative cent civ works it may be true. We might end up controlling one republic among many due to the lack of central government(the central government being negated {aka being shot in the head} by this choice).
It is put in negative/exaggerated terms, but so is:
In all honesty, I think I'd prefer not winning all the time, something that the centralized build pretty much has to do.

Like, the good part about a decentralized civ is that we don't have to win all the time. Even if an enemy lands on our shores, a decentralized civ will adapt and take pieces of the invader into themselves. Its far more flexible than a centralized civ is, and can bounce back from pretty much everything.

It just sounds more interesting to play with as compared to yet another 'get moar centralization, build a palace, get admin up, etc...' that centralized builds inevitably fall into.
That is saying half of the options will only lead to one outcome; having to 'win' all the time and ever increasing centralization .
There is an equivalence between the claims that six options 'has to do this' and 'will inevitably fall into that', and the claim we are doomed by this choice. Both are entirely focused on the (possible) negatives of the opposing choice.



Well, you did mention that: "Unless you think Oshha is going to be a jerk GM and make a play style utterly unviable"
Since I don't think that, and none of my posts suggest that, then it's your opinion. If it isn't your view, then I fail to see what the point of that final paragraph was.
You don't need to make the "entire point was that I didn't believe that Oshha would be a jerk GM", you only need to make arguments when you disagree with the other person. You quoted me, so I concluded you were disagreeing with me.


I don't think he will 'punish' us for our choices made in civ-generation, but I do think we will suffer the disadvantages of the decisions. In "Chronicles of Nations", the Lowlands (the only settled NPC with negative centralisation) was easily conquered by pretty much everyone and they had reduced resistance to disasters. We will of course get all the advantages of the selected options. This will (probably) be an interesting and enjoyable quest, but I would have preferred the other playstyle.
 
So this wouldn't have worked?

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

No.

You wouldn't unless you began to decentralise your federation into a confederation or something as the authority of the federation broke down. The only time that member states of a federation go from being part of the federation civ to being subordinate states is when the federation is in a slow collapse and breaking apart.

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

Background stuff such as a supernatural aspects of the setting being too inconsistent and powerful and the geography being unviable made it easier to do a reboot of it. Since some players want to keep the old setting about, I switched it from being civ-focused around the Caermyr Union to being character-focused around Empress Loryn.
 
How else do you call voluntary transformation of our civ from United entity to HRE , or even Greek city states.
Our civ will probably exist as united entity only on paper ,it's gone.

Well, for starters maybe they are not interested in playing United Entity but would much rather play city states? Not everyone plays quests to "win".( i do tho :))
 
Star's post doesn't say we committed suicide by this choice, it doesn't say we are completely doomed. It says we shot ourselves in the head, and depending on how a negative cent civ works it may be true.
This... I don't even know what to say to this, honestly. That's some amazingly twisty logic you have going there.

Especially since the guy outright states that he thinks we committed suicide a few posts down from yours, to little surprise.
Well, you did mention that: "Unless you think Oshha is going to be a jerk GM and make a play style utterly unviable"
As is this, considering you decide to focus full on the underline and instead ignore the first part of 'unless', which strongly implies that I did not think either of us believed Oshha would act in such a way.

That is saying half of the options will only lead to one outcome; having to 'win' all the time and ever increasing centralization .
There is an equivalence between the claims that six options 'has to do this' and 'will inevitably fall into that', and the claim we are doomed by this choice. Both are entirely focused on the (possible) negatives of the opposing choice.
And this completely misrepresented what I was saying, considering my point was that centralized civs often have us trying to maintain continuity of a single nation rather than the culture as compared to a decentralized civ, which means we have a tendency to avoid 'losing' that we'd be far more ok with when playing as a decentralized civ.

All in all though, I'll just stop here. Arguing with someone who is interpreting things in the way they find most beneficial rather than what the posters actually means is only an exercise in frustration for everyone involved.
 
Last edited:
Splintering of the People
[X][Gov] Tribal Democratic Petty Republics. (Negative Centralisation, Less Player Actions, Significantly More Province Actions)

As the seasons went on, the People lived out their lives and moved forward with civilisation. The People were the People, but closely held ties began to fray as the People called more of Newshore as their owns and internal divisions began to spring up.

Newland was oldest and largest of the People's settlements and historically where the overall leadership of the People was located, but it soon had competition. Other settlements grew to similarly large sizes in other parts of Newshore and the local leadership began to question why they needed to obey those in Newland when they could run things just fine on their own.

Things got worst when the smaller settlements decided that they were better off listening to the nearest large settlements or to just do their own thing. The most pronounced example of this was in the former lands of the Sunset Tribes where the People had mingled with the conquered natives.

With a cultural blend of the People and the Sunset Tribes, it was those living in the forest that decided to officially stop listening to the leaders in Newland. That was the catalyst needed for the other large settlements to stop listening to Newland and within the span of a generation, the People had fractured into multiple independent settlements like the Stormfolk, the Sunset Tribes or the Oldlanders.

But unlike those outsiders, the People did not raid each other or try to kill other members of the People. Instead they took after the Sunset Clans and not just after how they did not turn on each other with spear and arrow. Just as the Sunset Clans choose their leadership via popular vote with most if not all of the clan voting, the People began to choose their leaders via popular vote.

Depends on the settlement or collection of settlements, the form of this leadership would vary. Sometimes a single leader was chosen, either for life or a fixed amount of time. Other times a group of leaders were chosen instead of just one. Some settlements didn't bother picking leaders, but just voted directly on issues with decisions of the settlement being determined via democratic vote.

Despite these new divides, the People remained united for now for they all remained People. The supply lines and production required for trade were maintained while the protection of Newshore against the raiders from the Stormfolk and Oldlanders were kept up.

Yet this collapse of central authority as the People grew too large and too wide was the start of a new era and it was just one of many major changes that the People had experienced over the generations.

What sort of economy do the People use?
[] [Econ] Palace Economy
[] [Econ] Market Economy
[] [Econ] Guild Economy
[] [Econ] Barter Economy
[] [Econ] Gift Economy

What do the People do over the generations? Top two options will be selected.
[] [Civ] Building canoes and rafts.
[] [Civ] Trading with each other and the mainlanders
[] [Civ] Raiding the Stormfolk and Oldlanders.
[] [Civ] Reclaiming Oldshore from the Stormfolk and Oldlanders.
[] [Civ] Creating trails and paths.
[] [Civ] Understanding the spirits and their power.
[] [Civ] Understanding the rocks and stones.
[] [Civ] Exploring the world beyond.
[] [Civ] Settling new lands.
[] [Civ] Hunting and fishing.
[] [Civ] Farming and taming.

***​

Okay, this is the last update of the prologue where you create your civ. The next update will be the start of regular turns and you will be picking your main turn actions. This time, you will pick your economy type and what sort of stuff your civ will have been focusing on over the last couple centuries before the start of the regular turns.

Please point out any spelling or grammar mistakes that you spot. Please quote them in the thread and explain what you think is wrong so I know what you are referring to. Feel to ask questions for more details and information.
 
[X] [Econ] Palace Economy
[X] [Civ] Creating trails and paths.
[X] [Civ] Farming and taming.
[X] [Civ] Trading with each other and the mainlanders

Palace Economy + Merchant Republic setup for Planned Economy route.
 
Last edited:
[] [Econ] Barter Economy
[] [Econ] Gift Economy
How, exactly, do these systems work within the mechanical confines?

[X] [Civ] Creating trails and paths.
[X] [Civ] Exploring the world beyond.
Let's be the explorer of the lands. If we are Ireland, then let us go and find us America. Beyond that, the PTSD from literally every civ quest and the associated infra backlog is motivation enough to commit to trails. They help with the culture drift and communications for a Negative Cent. civilization.
 
[X] [Econ] Market Economy
[] [Econ] Guild Economy
[] [Econ] Barter Economy

Palace Economy makes no sense witn this civ. Full Merchant! (Isn't Barter just Market without money though?)

[X] [Civ] Building canoes and rafts.
[X] [Civ] Trading with each other and the mainlanders
[X] [Civ] Exploring the world beyond.

Trade, Explore and BOATS!
 
[X] [Econ] Market Economy
[X] [Civ] Building canoes and rafts.
[X] [Civ] Trading with each other and the mainlanders
 
Last edited:
[X] [Econ] Market Economy
[X] [Civ] Building canoes and rafts.
[X] [Civ] Trading with each other and the mainlanders
[X] [Civ] Exploring the world beyond.
 
How, exactly, do these systems work within the mechanical confines?

[X] [Civ] Creating trails and paths.
[X] [Civ] Exploring the world beyond.
Let's be the explorer of the lands. If we are Ireland, then let us go and find us America. Beyond that, the PTSD from literally every civ quest and the associated infra backlog is motivation enough to commit to trails. They help with the culture drift and communications for a Negative Cent. civilization.
Yes, but you know what also helps with communictaions? BOATS!
 
How, exactly, do these systems work within the mechanical confines?

Gift economy is where you exchange goods or services in exchange for an unofficial promise of repayment while a barter economy is the same, but the promise is official and a formal agreement. Mechanically speaking, they work like every other economy type, but with their own economy type stats.

Palace Economy makes no sense witn this civ.

It would be each petty republic or most of them at least having its own palace economy.
 
Us being an island civ with strong traders should mean that our most important cities should be coastal so a strong naval infrastructure should more or less offset a lack of focus on trails/paths.
 
[X] [Civ] Building canoes and rafts.
[X] [Civ] Trading with each other and the mainlanders
[X] [Civ] Creating trails and paths.
[X] [Econ] Market Economy
[X] [Econ] Guild Economy
 
Last edited:
Back
Top