If a Secondary with an econ cost of 5 is too much - and it is - then a Main with an econ cost of 10 is way too much. This is common sense, man.
Dedicating a Secondary every two turns to this plan is already non-viable. Sacrificing a passive policy on top of that just makes it worse!
Qeqre, please just give up this plan. It doesn't fix the minor crisis, it doesn't reliably get us the sacred forests and large stone walls, it forces us to ignore the new kingdom this turn, and in the long term it's a massive stat and action drain that we will not be able to follow through with for lack of resources and attention. (Or will force us to hurt ourselves to keep to the schedule.) It is not a viable plan. It is a bad plan. The thing to do isn't to dig for work-arounds and monofocus on making it work somehow, it's to take a step back and move on.
Except MAIN Settle Land
is viable if we keep the Agriculture policy, as the single Expansion policy is set to finish a settlement and each settlement adds +1 to our Econ pool.
MAIN Settle Land pushes our Econ pool to 25(26 from the single Expansion passive for a Temp Econ regen of up to 13). Paired with the Population Explosion giving us +2 Temp Econ every Main or Mid turn and the Agriculture policy giving us +4 Econ, we have enough Econ to endure the -10 Temp Econ from Settle Land even with an additional -6 from our Provincial Policy building the Temple.
It's a large stat drain, but it is one we can follow through on. And yes, it does encourage us to build settlements so we won't have to hamstring ourselves with a double expansion policy, but building those settlements gives us more Econ so t he stat drain stops being as much of a problem.
if we want a stronger buffer for building other projects like Sacred Forests or Large Stone Walls? Our Farmers have been asking us to do more farming. Which boosts the Farming action to a whopping +5 Temp Econ if we spend a SEC action on it. And if we want a lower Temp Econ drain? We can swap out the Megaproject Province Policy for an Expansion Province Policy(which, by the way, would fix the population crisis, as it would have a faster expansion speed than a double Passive Expansion policy)
True, simply spamming settlements this turn doesn't give a permanent structural solution to our current rate of popgrowth
this turn. As deliberately more settlements only resets the progress on the overcrowding issue and would 'merely' keep the crisis a non-issue until we get our 4th province filled in and can have another Passive or Province policy work on building more settlements.
As for the new Kingdom, not changing the Passive policies means we still have a Passive Trade expedition. It's entirely possible that it'll head to the new kingdom(or that the Caermyr decide to open up trade relations). But it's not a disaster if it doesn't, as the crafters are a weak faction who are currently happy. But if you absolutely must spend on a SEC Trade Expedition? I'd recommend pairing it with a SEC More Farming and a SEC Settle Land.
Calling it non-viable to even SEC Settle Land every two turns just displays an ignorance of the actual numbers though. Take a step back from your mono-focus on having a double Passive Expansion policy and move on
@Andres110 . It's a bad idea to hunt faction quest rewards for the sake of hunting faction quest rewards.
