Should the world be a Low Fantasy setting?

  • Yes

    Votes: 63 70.0%
  • No

    Votes: 27 30.0%

  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .
Excellent, apparently we failed our reaction rolls and now everyone around us hates us for taking Caermyr, minus the Forluc splinter nation EDIT: and boars, who don't care.
I mean, the only reason to back down from war was to free the hostages, and then we robbed Queen Eira, our ally who we neglected to protect in the first place, of her kingdom. We ended up picking two non-matching options, strategy-wise.
 
Last edited:
Who wouldve fucking thunk.

Clay greed once again. Have we learned fucking nothing. Its common sense guys fuck me. You dont save her city. Free her but end up taking her city it doesnt matter if it was cuz of a roll. The ROLL WOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED IF YOU GAVE HER THE CITY BACK.

consequences. Fuck me.
 
I mean, the only reason to back down from war was to free the hostages, and then we robbed Queen Eira, our ally who we neglected to help, of her kingdom. We ended up picking two non-matching options, strategy-wise.
Apparently it was all RNG.

Colryd rolled a diplomatic incident the same turn their queen rolled a natural 1 for her reaction at the claiming of her city.

The forester queendoms went super-pissed at our action too.
 
Only the Caradysh succesor states care, and considering that they apparently think that they fulfilled their oath of defense in this conflict, I don't really care about their opinion of us. The fact that they openly reneged upon their obligations shows that their friendship is worthless anyway.

After all, not only did their leader deliberately engage in an action that rendered the civilization unable to aid us, the civ itself refused to help us even when they were able. Only when we actually pressed with a Diplo Hero did they decide to send a token force, and by then the war was already over.
This... Ignores a ton of other factors and presumes whatever we're doing is the only thing that's going on, though. They were busy with their own stuff.
 
This... Ignores a ton of other factors and presumes whatever we're doing is the only thing that's going on, though. They were busy with their own stuff.

The point is that they chose to be busy with their own stuff. Urth decided to do the ritual of ascension.

In addition, they clearly had the troops to help us, as they actually send them to help us when we asked. In a defensive alliance, you're not supposed to need a diplo hero begging for years for help.

Who wouldve fucking thunk.

Clay greed once again. Have we learned fucking nothing. Its common sense guys fuck me. You dont save her city. Free her but end up taking her city it doesnt matter if it was cuz of a roll. The ROLL WOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED IF YOU GAVE HER THE CITY BACK.

consequences. Fuck me.

1 Part was a standard Random Event Roll. This always would have happened.
The 1 would have popped up elsewhere, and it would have done similar damage.
 
Last edited:
Who wouldve fucking thunk.

Clay greed once again. Have we learned fucking nothing. Its common sense guys fuck me. You dont save her city. Free her but end up taking her city it doesnt matter if it was cuz of a roll. The ROLL WOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED IF YOU GAVE HER THE CITY BACK.

consequences. Fuck me.
If we had kept fighting and took the city, it would've been better. If we had sued for peace and given her the city, it would've been better. We gave the dice gods the chance to screw us over, and the dice gods are vindictive gods.
 
I mean, the only reason to back down from war was to free the hostages, and then we robbed Queen Eira, our ally who we neglected to protect in the first place, of her kingdom. We ended up picking two non-matching options, strategy-wise.

On the contrary, they're 2 matching options. Just bad rolls.

Every other possibility would also have screwed us over with the same rolls:

- Give city back + Aid Forluc : Diplo incident and crisis for aiding the enemy, Eire refuses to help her rapists
- Hold city + Attack Forluc : Diplo crisis for not even bothering to rescue an ally while taking their city
- Hold city + Air Forluc: Diplo crisis for taking city and aiding enemy

It's easy to imagine a crisis for every potential situation.

I mean, the dice in this game are powerfull. We picked an option that said "Loyalty guaranteed"and a Random Event Roll completely overrode that.

This random event roll was unrelated to the annexation btw. So, whichever alternate history you want to imagine, imagine one where the Colryd immediatly break of the alliance over a crisis of some sort.
 
Last edited:
The point is that they chose to be busy with their own stuff. Urth decided to do the ritual of ascension.

In addition, they clearly had the troops to help us, as they actually send them to help us when we asked. In a defensive alliance, you're not supposed to need a diplo hero begging for years for help.
Urth decided to do her ascencion before the war even became a thing. Sure, she could have waited for the war to be over before ascending, but why would she? And the rest of her civ is not morally responsible for her actions, and they were kinda lost because, you know, their whole government system literally vanished into thin air.
Besides, one of them did send help. We just decided not to use it by giving up the fight.
 
RNG over narrative yo I guess.

Of course I have to admit, the narrative also points out that we did take that city. but in Discord, we asked what the Colryd refugees thought about the possibility.
The answers were either uncaring or positive. So we weren't even going against the populace we had our hands on.

Then RNG.
 
Urth decided to do her ascencion before the war even became a thing. Sure, she could have waited for the war to be over before ascending, but why would she? And the rest of her civ is not morally responsible for her actions, and they were kinda lost because, you know, their whole government system literally vanished into thin air.
Urth is responsible for the consequences of her actions. That includes perfectly predictable consequences such as her dissappearance collapsing civilization, or said collapse triggering the war, and said collapse preventing help.

That said, I would reluctantly accept that excuse, if they didn't try to pretend that they actually helped. If they said, "sorry we couldn't fulfill our obligation, we'll try better next time".

But they're pretending that their crisis means that they actually helped and fulfilled their oaths, which they totally didn't.

Besides, one of them did send help. We just decided not to use it by giving up the fight.

They send help only after a diplo Hero toured their country for years.

This despite the fact that they knew there was a war going on. That is willfully violating your obligations, because it shows that they were capable of sending help, and were perfectly willing to ignore that obligation untill they were explicitedly called out on it.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary, they're 2 matching options. Just bad rolls.

Every other possibility would also have screwed us over with the same rolls:

- Give city back + Aid Forluc : Diplo incident and crisis for aiding the enemy, Eire refuses to help her rapists
- Hold city + Attack Forluc : Diplo crisis for not even bothering to rescue an ally while taking their city
- Hold city + Air Forluc: Diplo crisis for taking city and aiding enemy

It's easy to imagine a crisis for every potential situation.

I mean, the dice in this game are powerfull. We picked an option that said "Loyalty guaranteed"and a Random Event Roll completely overrode that.

This random event roll was unrelated to the annexation btw. So, whichever alternate history you want to imagine, imagine one where the Colryd immediatly break of the alliance over a crisis of some sort.
Except if we'd given the city back, we'd have earned a lot of goodwill to cushion the blow and temp Diplo to help solve it. If we'd gone all-out war we'd have taken a diplomatic blow as the cost of elliminating the Forluc and whatever bonus to prestige would've come of that. The events would still have happened, but our ability to react would be improved.
 
Except if we'd given the city back, we'd have earned a lot of goodwill to cushion the blow and temp Diplo to help solve it. If we'd gone all-out war we'd have taken a diplomatic blow as the cost of elliminating the Forluc and whatever bonus to prestige would've come of that. The events would still have happened, but our ability to react would be improved.

I disagree.

Going for war would have eliminated the loyalty boost. Giving back the city would still have resulted in the same diplo crisis, only with a stronger opposition.

But anyway, from the discord we know that this is almost purely caused by the rolls. If we'd rolled a 100 rather than 1, Eira would have joined us. Been a bit pissed of, but still willingly joined us.

As such, since the actual effect of the action depends on a random roll, there's no point in blaming the people who voted for said action.

If the rolls had been opposite, it would have been a strategic masterpiece
If the actions had been different, it would have been a different disaster, but still a disaster.
 
Last edited:
That said, I would reluctantly accept that excuse, if they didn't try to pretend that they actually helped. If they said, "sorry we couldn't fulfill our obligation, we'll try better next time".

But they're pretending that their crisis means that they actually helped and fulfilled their oaths, which they totally didn't.
One of them did send us help, we just decided not to use it for anything and go back home instead. The other two didn't fulfill the troops.

They send help only after a diplo Hero toured their country for years.

This despite the fact that they knew there was a war going on. That is willfully violating your obligations, because it shows that they were capable of sending help, and were perfectly willing to ignore that obligation untill they were explicitedly called out on it.
Have you considered that it took one of them (the other two were completely useless) years to get their house in order enough to send troops?
 
One of them did send us help, we just decided not to use it for anything and go back home instead. The other two didn't fulfill the troops.

They only send us help after we begged for it for years. If you have to beg for years to get a token commitment on what should be an automatic treaty, then they're not following your alliance.

Have you considered that it took one of them (the other two were completely useless) years to get their house in order enough to send troops?

If that were the case, they would have send those troops when they could, not after we had to beg.

Edit : In any case, the fact that they weren't able to fulfill their obligation is not an excuse to consider your obligations fulfilled. It can be used as an excuse to have your obligations postponed or transferred, but the obligation still exists.
 
Last edited:
I disagree.

Going for war would have eliminated the loyalty boost. Giving back the city would still have resulted in the same diplo crisis, only with a stronger opposition.

But anyway, from the discord we know that this is almost purely caused by the rolls. If we'd rolled a 100 rather than 1, Eira would have joined us. Been a bit pissed of, but still willingly joined us.

As such, since the actual effect of the action depends on a random roll, there's no point in blaming the people who voted for said action.

If the rolls had been opposite, it would have been a strategic masterpiece
If the actions had been different, it would have been a different disaster, but still a disaster.
Point. I'm talking more about long-term recovery, but you do have a point that rolling high would have made this a non-issue.
 
Taking the City was a stupid thing to do and anyone who is surprised it caused us diplomatic issues is an idiot.

As has been explained several times.

All the bad effects are the result of bad rolls. With good rolls, the bad effects would not exist.
If the same bad rolls had happened with a different set of actions, someone else (possibly me) could be telling you how you were stupid for choosing your actions.

I give you full permission to tell "alternate-me" that it's stupid to blame the result of the die on actions of the people.
 
All the bad effects are the result of bad rolls. With good rolls, the bad effects would not exist.
If the same bad rolls had happened with a different set of actions, someone else (possibly me) could be telling you how you were stupid.

Just to be clear, you were always going to have a ding to your diplomatic relationship with your allies over taking the capital of your closest ally. How bad or good things would be was determined by dice rolls, but the fact that you took a hit to your rep over this was determined by conquering Caermyr for yourselves instead of liberating for your allies.
 
RNG over narrative yo I guess.

Of course I have to admit, the narrative also points out that we did take that city. but in Discord, we asked what the Colryd refugees thought about the possibility.
The answers were either uncaring or positive. So we weren't even going against the populace we had our hands on.

Then RNG.
The RNG IS the narrative. The mechanics inform the narrative.
 
What do you mean RNG is the narrative, we literally just stole our allies capital out form under them.

Everybody has a right to be pissed at us, it'd be stranger if they weren't.

We're in the moral wrong here.
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear, you were always going to have a ding to your diplomatic relationship with your allies over taking the capital of your closest ally. How bad or good things would be was determined by dice rolls, but the fact that you took a hit to your rep over this was determined by conquering Caermyr for yourselves instead of liberating for your allies.

That's new info, I think. I assumed that that the relationship effects of that specific decision were indicated by relationship boost we got from the Caermyr release condition.
 
Last edited:
Excellent, apparently we failed our reaction rolls and now everyone around us hates us for taking Caermyr, minus the Forluc splinter nation EDIT: and boars, who don't care.
You do remember how Oshha specifically asked us not to share any details about the update until it dropped, right?
Please, for everyone's benefit, show some courtesy in the future towards the wishes of the QM.
 
As a general rule to the whole thread, stuff is always happening in the background. Unexpected consequences may happen at any point as stuff beyond your perspective will be happening all the time and sometimes that can result in stuff happening which goes against what you know.

That's new info, I think. I assumed that that the relationship effects of that specific decision where indicated by relationship boost we got from the Caermyr release condition.

No, that was the gratitude by the Colryd for freeing Queen Eira. The roll where I rolled her reaction to losing Caermyr to the Arthwyd was caused by you choosing to not return Caermyr and Queen Eira being freed. The roll only took place because both of those two things happened and its results ending up cancelling the effects of your previous decision.

So you got the loyalty of the Colryd from your first decision, but other events that were partially caused by your decisions caused you to lose the loyalty of the Colryd. The net result was the loss of your alliance and Queen Eira seeking closer ties with the Foresters over the Arthwyd.
 
Last edited:
No, that was the gratitude by the Colryd for freeing Queen Eira. The roll where I rolled her reaction to losing Caermyr to the Arthwyd was caused by you choosing to not return Caermyr and Queen Eira being freed. The roll only took place because both of those two things happened.

I''m referring to a different set of the rolls. Specifically the loss of international relations.

The decision there said :

[] [Caermyr] Return Caermyr to the Colryd and begin to settle the lowlands. (+2 Temp Diplo, Increased Relationship with everyone, Founds a Colony in the northern lowlands)
Since the relationship effects were mentioned for 1 option, I went with the assumption that the relationship effects were consistently mentioned. This results in the conclusion that since no relationship effects are mentioned for any of the other options, that it's actually a fairly minor thing.

To illustrate with an example :

You see a menu
- Buy something
--[] Hamburger 10$ + 2$ cutlery
--[] Salad 5$
--[] Beef 7$

You do not expect a cutlery charge for the salad or the beef, because if it did exist, surely they would have mentioned it like they did for the beef.
It's a minor thing (still would have voted for taking the capital even if it would cause a minor relation drop), but with a vote this close it could have changed the result.
 
Last edited:
Why do you mean RNG is the narrative, we literally just stole our allies capital out form under them.

Everybody has a right to be pissed at us, it be stranger if they weren't.

We're in the moral wrong here.
The twists and turns in the story is based on the RNG, how well battles go? RNG, discoveries, improvements, heroes? RNG. The vast majority of things that change the world are RNG, meaning and impact decided by QM, but the RNG informs nearly everything.
 
Back
Top