Should the world be a Low Fantasy setting?

  • Yes

    Votes: 63 70.0%
  • No

    Votes: 27 30.0%

  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .
It acts as a buffer
and keep in mind they can be mobilized by their immortal heros.
The primary thing stopping them from being able to go after us right now is each other, so we should take advantage of that and establish the buffer while they aren't capable of pushing it.
 
We need to get the shrine built before expanding upriver. It doesn't do to leave a village feeling marginalised and ignored, lacking basic infrastructure; they might revolt, or our pantheon may feels insulted.
We don't have a strong military; a strong wall system is necessary to keep the lowlanders from destroying us. Expanding without building them first opens us up to attack through lightly-defended villages.
For a buffer to be useful the villages in it need to be capable of impeding attacks; as it is without walls our buffer won't really do much to hinder invaders. They'll be able to walk right through the buffer villages into our core territories.
Edit: Elaborated a bit, reorganized my points.
Edit: Clarified my points a bit.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, buffers are not particularly effective given our social values; they require immediate reprisal or loss of stab/leg.
 
Honestly, buffers are not particularly effective given our social values; they require immediate reprisal or loss of stab/leg.
Essentially, instead of the buffer buying us time, it'll force us to send our hunters into unfortified and indefensible territory as soon as the enemy invades it. This wastes our resources, since we are simply unable to provide an effective resistance to enemies in the field.
Much better to tilt the odds in our favour via walls and other defensive structures.
 
Not really as it makes a difference on weather we are attacked at Greenbay where our capital is , or in the buffer, valls can be build around buffer as well.And if we are to talk about values well, in case of a catastrophic raid where our people are captured we have to go and declare a war or face unrest at home.
If we declare war we are going to be overstretched due to us being far away from upriver plains and having to conquer more lands to get there, if we have a buffer there, well it was confirmed that we can launch expedition all the way to winged beasts fro there so supplying large army's won't be a problem.
 
Last edited:
it makes a difference on weather we are attacked at Greenbay where our capital is , or in the buffer
If we're attacked in the buffer, we're essentially forced to kill our troops in futile attempts to retake the buffer villages. The enemy can then sweep into our undefended capital with little resistance. Remember, without fortifications our troops cannot defeat the enemy military.
Meanwhile, if attacked in our capital, with walls around it, we can much more effectively leverage our hunters; we can hold out long enough that the enemy loses via simple attrition.
Edit: It's the difference between tossing a ball at a wall in front of a single bowling pin and tossing it at a bunch of bowling pins. Despite the latter having a buffer of bowling pins in front, the former is harder to knock down.
 
Last edited:
If we're attacked in the buffer, we're essentially forced to kill our troops in futile attempts to retake the buffer villages. The enemy can then sweep into our undefended capital with little resistance. Remember, without fortifications our troops cannot defeat the enemy military.
Meanwhile, if attacked in our capital, with walls around it, we can much more effectively leverage our hunters; we can hold out long enough that the enemy loses via simple attrition.
Edited it
Not really as it makes a difference on weather we are attacked at Greenbay where our capital is , or in the buffer, valls can be build around buffer as well.And if we are to talk about values well, in case of a catastrophic raid where our people are captured we have to go and declare a war or face unrest at home.
If we declare war we are going to be overstretched due to us being far away from upriver plains and having to conquer more lands to get there, if we have a buffer there, well it was confirmed that we can launch expedition all the way to winged beasts fro there so supplying large army's won't be a problem.

Basically we can pretty much fortify the settlement in upriver plains as well.
 
Basically we can pretty much fortify the settlement in upriver plains as well.
Which leaves us open to invasion while we're building and fortifying the upriver plains.
Better to first fortify the core, then settle and fortify upriver. I don't disagree with colonising upriver, just with doing it before building up and fortifying our core heavily.
We want to minimise the amount of time we spend with unfortified territories, because if unfortified territory gets invaded we're essentially forced to waste our troops in trying to get it back.
 
Last edited:
Which leaves us open to invasion while we're building and fortifying the upriver plains.
Better to first fortify the core, then settle and fortify upriver. I don't disagree with colonising upriver, just with doing it before building up and fortifying our core heavily.
We want to minimise the amount of time we spend with unfortified territories, because if unfortified territory gets invaded we're essentially forced to waste our troops in trying to get it back.
Oh i agree with that, we should finish all existing projects and conect our current territory's and then go and when we decide for next settlement we establish it Upriver .

Edit: It's the difference between tossing a ball at a wall in front of a single bowling pin and tossing it at a bunch of bowling pins. Despite the latter having a buffer of bowling pins in front, the former is harder to knock down.

Actually that is one of the things that is bugging me a little because our civ is so dependat on centralisation what if our enemies simply strike at Greenbay, basically just strike at our capital and take it down, what then, without elders in Greenbay to oversee everything will our civ simply fracture into a successor states?

@Oshha
 
Actually that is one of the things that is bugging me a little because our civ is so dependat on centralisation what if our enemies simply strike at Greenbay, basically just strike at our capital and take it down, what then, without elders in Greenbay to oversee everything will our civ simply fracture into a successor states?

@Oshha

Either fracture into successor states or become a confederation of the remaining settlements or pick a new capital to govern from or maybe something else depending on the exact details of the situation.

That said, your civ is very dependant on centralisation in its current form.
 
I think that i want that buffer even more now. It's better to keep our enemies from striking distance near our capital.
 
I think that i want that buffer even more now. It's better to keep our enemies from striking distance near our capital.
You know what also keep enemies out of striking range of our vulnerable bits? Walls.

Walls are like armour for cities. And I would rather trust armour to keep me safe than countrymen in front of me. One of those is somewhat more stab-resistant than the other.
 
You know what also keep enemies out of striking range of our vulnerable bits? Walls.

Walls are like armour for cities. And I would rather trust armour to keep me safe than countrymen in front of me. One of those is somewhat more stab-resistant than the other.
I already had this discussion couple of times. Walls can be overcomed if you have logistics for large enough army, basically best strategy to strike at us if you are ambitious conqueror would be to strike at Greenbay as it is our capital, once that is gone you can simply pick up the pieces in chaos that follows. One battle for Greenbay and that's it.
If you wish to draw us out you go at Greenbay as we would then be forced to use our hunters to fight outside and broke the siege.

I would rather trust Armoured countrymen to protect me while wearing Armour at the same time.
 
Last edited:
I already had this discussion couple of times. Walls can be overcomed if you have logistics for large enough army.

I would rather trust Armoured countrymen to protect me while wearing Armour at the same time.
Armies can also become if you have a large enough army.

In fact, pretty much everything we're going to get this Quest is going to be destructable with a large enough army unless we manage to get our hands on an immortal champion, and even then that only doesn't count on a technicality.
 
Armies can also become if you have a large enough army.

In fact, pretty much everything we're going to get this Quest is going to be destructable with a large enough army unless we manage to get our hands on an immortal champion, and even then that only doesn't count on a technicality.
That still doesn't change the fact that our enemy only needs to win one siege to potentially bring us down, i would rather have him bleed before coming to our capital instead of having him be able to strike directly at our capital with fresh forces .
 
Last edited:
That still doesn't change the fact that our enemy only needs to win one siege to potentially bring us down, i would rather have him bleed before coming to our capital instead of having him be able to strike directly at our capital with fresh forces .
This cuts both ways, while turning land between the ravenous barbarian hordes and Greenbay into farmland can certainly make it easier and more profitable to loot and plunder their way over it also gives us some measure of strategic depth as it means that they actually have to siege at least one city other than Greenbay unless they're planning on leaving a garrison at their back.
Having walls is definitely an argument for settling up river all things considered, at the end of the day making people bleed is much easier if you make them fight rather than hoping that they can't muster the logistics to make the journey.

In other topics has there been much discussion of how this choice will effect the civilisation and culture? I might have just overlooked it.
 
Last edited:
That still doesn't change the fact that our enemy only needs to win one siege to potentially bring us down, i would rather have him bleed before coming to our capital instead of having him be able to strike directly at our capital with fresh forces .


You do realise that Greenbay already has a lot of smaller settlements around that any attackers will need to go by or get through first right? I mentioned them before:
The various smaller settlements in the Greenbay area

If you want a buffer zone, a fortified built up core can be just as or more effective and a series of far flung outposts to slow down and bleed the enemy.
 
I'll explain how your values effect your government and economy in more detail later.

In general, the values of the Arthwyd leave them unified and loyal to each other and the overall community. People treat other respectfully and well and there is plenty of personal freedoms (for the tech level). The People are happy with their goddesses and the priests. Furthermore, in times of crisis and war, the Arthwyd will rally around each other as they will stand by their community against outside threats. For the players, it means that you are obligated to look after your people even if it isn't cost-effective, it isn't the pragmatic choice or you would rather expend resources on something else. This can be either being forced to fight against an enemy until your people feel that they are no longer a threat to their community or it could being forced to infrastructure and benefits that the people feel that they are rightfully owed from their leaders.

It is a two-sided sword as while you are a lot more resistant to internal discontent and can put up a united front against outside threats, but your people also have obligations and expectations that you will need to met unless wish to suffer negative consequences going all the way up to the collapse of the civ as the people reject their abusive/neglectful leaders.

For now, you only have shrines and trails as infrastructure and since you have mostly keep up with them, but in future, people will be expecting things like walls to keep them safe, libraries for knowledge and learning, temples for spiritual needs, aqueducts and sewers for health and sanitation. You will need to provide them and make sure to stay on top of building enough, something that a Rush Builders Legacy would help a lot with (and vital for non-glacial expansion in the future).

The Arthwyd are a build tall civ and if that is to change, than Arthwyd civilisation must broken first so it may be forged into something new.

As for war, you really ought to avoid it unless you are going to fully commit to the long haul. This is because Loyal Neighbours and Communal Mandate force you to look after your people and aid them in times of need. As some people pointed out in the thread, the Arthwyd aren't going to cut their losses when the going gets tough as long as they got people to protect, save or avenge, they are going to keep fighting. This is particularly bad if the enemy enslaves some of your people, the Arthwyd are going to keep fighting until they get them back or avenge their loss and that could lead to some unending wars.

Furthermore, this means that you have to defend every settlement and is one of the reasons I classify the Arthwyd as a 'build tall' civ. You can't have border settlements that you can afford to sacrifice. You have to fight and keep fighting. You pretty much have to commit fully to a war and keep fighting until the bitter end unless you want Stability and Legitimacy loss from Communal Mandate and Loyal Neighbours respectively. So when it comes to war, you better hope it is one that doesn't hurt you or is a swift victory for you as otherwise you are going to be forced into endless war unless you can force the other side to make (unreasonable from an outside perspective) amends.

All in all, you will need to explain slowly as you will both have to build up your settlements with local infrastructure and make sure they are properly protected. So while this will end up limited your rate of expansion, it will also leave you with a well-off and highly developed core territory.
 
Vote closed.
Vote Tally : Chronicles of Nations - Civ Quest - Original | Page 125 | Sufficient Velocity [Posts: 3121-3219]
##### NetTally 1.9.7
[X] Protecting the villages. The problem is that the lowlanders will be too numerous and too varied for the People to stop them all. The solution is to protect the villages by constructing a physical barrier to keep out the raiders.
No. of Votes: 39
[x] Training warriors of her own. If the hunters of the People aren't enough for to hold their own against the lowlander warriors, then the answer is for the People to train their own warriors.
No. of Votes: 13
Total No. of Voters: 52
 
Welp, the entirety of lowlands just suffered multiple local cataclysms, including the parts you don't know about.

Seriously, the lowlanders just got major climate change, two separate outbreaks of one of the world's most dangerous diseases, multiple Martial Heroes in play, including one leading a nomad horde.

Yeah, I am going to inform you know that the Arthwyd (mainly Malbyn and the Cateyes) took one look at this flaming inferno of a mess and decided that perhaps a return to isolation is the way to go.

On the bright side, the Merntir got a Tech Hero.
 
Welp, the entirety of lowlands just suffered multiple local cataclysms, including the parts you don't know about.

Seriously, the lowlanders just got major climate change, two separate outbreaks of one of the world's most dangerous diseases, multiple Martial Heroes in play, including one leading a nomad horde.

Yeah, I am going to inform you know that the Arthwyd (mainly Malbyn and the Cateyes) took one look at this flaming inferno of a mess and decided that perhaps a return to isolation is the way to go.

On the bright side, the Merntir got a Tech Hero.
I love the narratives that develop as a result of stuff like that happening. It's great.
 
Welp, the entirety of lowlands just suffered multiple local cataclysms, including the parts you don't know about.

Seriously, the lowlanders just got major climate change, two separate outbreaks of one of the world's most dangerous diseases, multiple Martial Heroes in play, including one leading a nomad horde.

Yeah, I am going to inform you know that the Arthwyd (mainly Malbyn and the Cateyes) took one look at this flaming inferno of a mess and decided that perhaps a return to isolation is the way to go.

On the bright side, the Merntir got a Tech Hero.
oof
I'd say "press f to pay respects" but they don't really deserve any.
On another note, The united socialist theocracy of arthryrn shall spread our glorious light to the friendly and amicable freak folk.
No longer will they be freak folk, but comrade folk!
Praise Arthryn!

Now to take some time to process how all of these changes in the dynamic of what I planned to advocate for.
 
Welp, the entirety of lowlands just suffered multiple local cataclysms, including the parts you don't know about.

Seriously, the lowlanders just got major climate change, two separate outbreaks of one of the world's most dangerous diseases, multiple Martial Heroes in play, including one leading a nomad horde.

Yeah, I am going to inform you know that the Arthwyd (mainly Malbyn and the Cateyes) took one look at this flaming inferno of a mess and decided that perhaps a return to isolation is the way to go.

On the bright side, the Merntir got a Tech Hero.

More reason to stay put and build up infrastructure, I guess :V

Getting walls and shrines in all our settlements would be awesome.

Actually, is it possible to improve the settlement actions so that basic infrastructure improvements like shrines or walls built automatically as part of a new settlements, rather than with their own action? As in, if we establish that walls and shrines are part of the vital infrastructure of a settlement?
 
Back
Top