Chronicles of Nations - Civ Quest
- Thread starter Oshha
- Start date
- Original
Bah, at this rate we'll have to pray for giant cats to get some cavalry.
- Location
- United States
I'm rather sure that it is perfectly possible to have us ride boars, if only because it was hinted so often as a possible tech for us to get.
Just because we know that doesn't mean the Arthryn know that though, and I imagine he easiest way to get it at this point is to learn it from somewhere else.
- Location
- Southampton, Great Britain
- Pronouns
- He/Him
They are supposed to kill the giant boars so that is what they do. They don't risk their lives doing stupid stuff like trying to ride a boar like some sort of barbarian. That would be a poor way to repaid the community for all that their neighbours have done for them.
The Maradysh have giant boar cavalry. You could try getting the tech from them, especially since they have experts in that profession.
- Location
- California
This negligence on this issue will cause growing pains to happen, if we don't crush them then they will gather strength to leave, gather strength for several generations then come back with allies to ransack us. I've seen this happen before, the idle hand leading to disaster. It's our duty to lead these barbarians into the light of the goddess and educate them on why we are an ancient civilization. And none of that "white man's burden" stuff, if you want to make this into an issue about race I ain't discussing that. Like an old Jon tron's saying goes "A racist mind is a racist kind". That's what I've been thinking about reading through this thread about not engaging the problem.
Need I remind you that this passive strategy led to us getting conquered by the boar hoards? I'm not saying that we should have attacked them, however we should have had warriors ready instead of those walls. Im sure that we've got some bonuses from either action but from what it counts we could have made the hoards bleed more. Point is that this is a historic civ quest and we shouldn't make the same mistake when previous results gave us insight on how to deal with a hostile force.
"Imperialism nonsense " It's the historically winning strat, I view this at a detached value since getting emotional doesnt help anyone.
Need I remind you that this passive strategy led to us getting conquered by the boar hoards? I'm not saying that we should have attacked them, however we should have had warriors ready instead of those walls. Im sure that we've got some bonuses from either action but from what it counts we could have made the hoards bleed more. Point is that this is a historic civ quest and we shouldn't make the same mistake when previous results gave us insight on how to deal with a hostile force.
"Imperialism nonsense " It's the historically winning strat, I view this at a detached value since getting emotional doesnt help anyone.
Last edited:
Random Member
Gardener of Human Happiness
- Location
- Behind You
Maybe if you guys didn't make it so easy by spouting imperialist nonsense.
We want to engage the problem, by recognizing that conquering them was a mistake, that didn't get us what we wanted. Doing that, will increase their opinion of us. Undoing much of the damage caused in the last few turns. Its the thing most likely to stop that war you describe above.
I'm also rather counting on peaceful relations leading to intermarriages between us and them, which will involve our people being born there, and spreading the worship of the Goddesses. Which will hopefully have a rather significant effect, what with us having won every war so far, including against the biggest bad our general area has yet seen.
KlinkerKing
Man bites dog?
- Location
- The Lion's Den
Omegahugger
Inattentive Idiot
You only think imperialism is a winning strat because you forget the ones who tried it and lost.
Things only got better for Denmark once we realised imperialism was a dumb plan we should stay away from and Britain is still dealing with leftover problems from their stint at it.
- Location
- Minnesota
[X] Recognise the new Cadlon of the Maradysh as their new leader, (-1 Legitimacy, -2 Prestige, Maradysh are no longer a vassal of the Arthwyd,)
Changing vote.
Changing vote.
In the Neolithic imperialism is probably the way to go, because by the modern age every single nation that currently exists is the product of it and just can't remember it.
It is a mistake to think nation-states operate on a strategic level of players in quest with all the hindsight and knowledge we have.
- Location
- California
It's all uncertain isn't it? How about a certainty of conquest following quelling resentment directly? I ask you this because being idealistic is nice and all but our adversaries don't care about "being better" they will conqure and subjugate us at a the first feasible oppertunity. We are our goddesses people so we have taken her values to heart, however these heathens stomp on all of that because they are not guided as our civilization was? It's somewhat speculation but are they better off becoming brigons then being brought into the light? Just saying they'll need a sponser or else they shall always be at a disadvantage (unless qm gives them an op buff for leaving but It's up into the air).
Laws only have power if they are enforced, if we don't approach this as we would any other crisis then what is preventing another vassel, worse, sister city to leave us on a disagreement in the most extream of cases? We need to set the correct precedent going forward of "our interests", and usually it's about helping those in need but if we are in need who would help us?
Last edited:
Omegahugger
Inattentive Idiot
So, on an entirely different note, I have a question for @Oshha:
Back when we had the option to make Cerwyn our Cadlon, we saw thaat she had a terrible Mystic stat. However, she was also a member of the Catclaws, our elite sacred troops.
How exactly does that work? Are even terrible priests capable of casting divine magic at a combat level or was Cerwyn simply so great at murderising that she made catclaw status regardless?
Back when we had the option to make Cerwyn our Cadlon, we saw thaat she had a terrible Mystic stat. However, she was also a member of the Catclaws, our elite sacred troops.
How exactly does that work? Are even terrible priests capable of casting divine magic at a combat level or was Cerwyn simply so great at murderising that she made catclaw status regardless?
- Location
- Southampton, Great Britain
- Pronouns
- He/Him
A mixture of Cerwyn being more of a commander than a frontline fighter whilst also having some proficiency at doing magic even if she doesn't grasp the concepts behind it. But in general, Cerwyn relied on non-magical aspects of warfare over the magical ones.
Random Member
Gardener of Human Happiness
- Location
- Behind You
I see lots of speculation and fearmongering, but few citations of facts.
@Oshha When does this farce end?
Omegahugger
Inattentive Idiot
Oshha has generally closed votes only when he starts writing, so I don't think he can give a clear answer to that.
Unless it is now.
The Ymaryn managed to outlast other civilizations who would want to "subjugate" and "conquer" us and who for the most part opted for short term strategies such as slavery.
They also weren't shy about conquering the people who attacked them. Not after so many times those nations who had been mercifully spared tried to backstab them anyhow.
Last edited:
- Location
- Southampton, Great Britain
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Now.
Vote Tally : Chronicles of Nations - Civ Quest - Original | Page 217 | Sufficient Velocity [Posts: 5413-5884]
##### NetTally 1.9.7
[X] Recognise the new Cadlon of the Maradysh as their new leader, (-1 Legitimacy, -2 Prestige, Maradysh are no longer a vassal of the Arthwyd,)
No. of Votes: 34
Frankite316
00dread
AlysPower
Aramis
bluefur87
Brogatar
buli-buli
Cariyaga
Chiperninerm
ctulhuslp
demonthese2211
Donkey Hote
Hallesworth49
jjffjhjf
Kiba
KlinkerKing
Malevolo
nat_401
Nemonole
Omegahugger
PurposefulZephyr
Raichu1972
Random Member
Rockeye
Shador
silverwolf
Somebodynobody10
soulcake
sunrise
thefoolswriter
veekie
Vocalend
wingstrike96
Zaealix
00dread
AlysPower
Aramis
bluefur87
Brogatar
buli-buli
Cariyaga
Chiperninerm
ctulhuslp
demonthese2211
Donkey Hote
Hallesworth49
jjffjhjf
Kiba
KlinkerKing
Malevolo
nat_401
Nemonole
Omegahugger
PurposefulZephyr
Raichu1972
Random Member
Rockeye
Shador
silverwolf
Somebodynobody10
soulcake
sunrise
thefoolswriter
veekie
Vocalend
wingstrike96
Zaealix
No. of Votes: 23
No. of Votes: 22
Total No. of Voters: 67
And we weren't shy about not keeping clay if we don't think it's worth our time. For example, we never bother to conquer the Highlanders.
- Location
- California
And you don't hold grievance for that? Still aren't Jaded from this experience of catastrophic loss? You may disregard what I have to say since it's your prerogative however so am I to this issue affecting our civilization. I'm simply looking for the success of our civilization, and I've witnessed a cycle of triumph following failure. We've always managed to pull through however we should shake the formula for this turn and observe if our past approach of passivity within the context of adversaries has been the problem going forward. Even so it isn't certain since dice is still what dictates our success and failure every endeavor we take, however we should always seek to incease our chances of success.
I've got to admit that im not a physicist so I don't really know much about chaos theory, however from my layman understanding let's bring in a hypothetical; Options A is the direct approach and has less events following start to finish, Option B has multiple cascading results with it's own implications. Option A has the result of success or failure however Option B has more nuanced conclusions. There are less vectors of failure in A compared to B in it's nature as approaches to the same issue and failure or "Not meeting DC" for option B means that there are more varied results outside our control. The argument im trying to make is that one approach is objectivly less "harder" than the other when dealing with chance. This is where I'm coming from when making this decision.
I've got to admit that im not a physicist so I don't really know much about chaos theory, however from my layman understanding let's bring in a hypothetical; Options A is the direct approach and has less events following start to finish, Option B has multiple cascading results with it's own implications. Option A has the result of success or failure however Option B has more nuanced conclusions. There are less vectors of failure in A compared to B in it's nature as approaches to the same issue and failure or "Not meeting DC" for option B means that there are more varied results outside our control. The argument im trying to make is that one approach is objectivly less "harder" than the other when dealing with chance. This is where I'm coming from when making this decision.
Last edited:
I have no idea what you're trying to argue.