IDK? Running away with their horses? By doing tactical evading fights, which their nomadic culture is great at? Who are being lead by tactical geniuses in the form of 2 heroes?

Since we're fighting in the steppes, all they need to do is come back later to pick up stuff that's strewn all over from the running fight.
For any small engagement we lose, they'll keep the loot.

It's not like it's gonna be a single large fight.
I expect we'll have a series of engagements while we chase them all across the steppe.

Say, they split off some part of their army (lead by 1 hero) to outflank us, and stumble upon a previous engagement site?

Or even, they split into 2 armies. While we fight 1, the other retreats, taking our loot?

IMO, offensive is a bad idea. If possible, I'd just give a token offensive policy to fight just to satisfy the masses.

You do realize they have a huge ballast - loot and prisoners?

And do you expect our victorious people to not pick up the weapons?
 
I really, really want iron horseshoes and iron rimmed wheels (if not iron-spoked)

Iron axes also make a good Econ/Martial double item
Iron hammers helps with smithing, while still being a decent weapon.
We don't have swords yet. Knifes are tools also.

Honestly, I think, the only weapons tech we have, that we can't be used as tools are maces/demon club, iron arrows.
Bronze-based metallurgy is actually superior to early Iron metallurgy, especially for bladed weapons - until the development of Wrought Iron/Crucible Steel, most-iron based objects were far more brittle than Bronze equivalents.

Of course, Iron is far more common than Copper or Tin...
 
The current weapons actually don't work considering we are getting killed on a 3:1/3:2 ratio in favour of the nomads. You know what I what I meant when I said iron weapons and the fact you pounced on it makes me not even want to reply to the likes of you. People will feel safe seeing their army go after the nomads who just burned down a significant part of our territory and are close to getting away with it. Why vote for offensive policy and not weapons? Why cripple our warriors if our regular tools are good enough for farming. Our People want to see our warriors equipped and will not like it if our King is seen wringing his hands about better farming tools. I seen you and I know nothing will convince you since you debate in bad Faith but hopefully another poster will see this and realize that picking offensive and tools is foolish to the extreme. If you want to rebuild then pick God damn defensive but dont send our last points of martial to die against two heroic martial generals without proper weapons.

IMO, that's a skill issue. They're using the same weapons. They just have vastly more experience fighting.

Likely, tactics are part of the issue. No amount of weapons will help you.

3rd is maneuverability. I think, they're hitting our flanks and disengaging losing fights, making us hard to fight effectively
 
Nope. See: Lowlands -> WC + DP, WC -> HK
If we die via stability loss our people are still around, just reborn into a new government system with some values shifted around.

'just'

Yeah, no.

Yes, but we can carve a great cultural scar across the northern steppes that will endure for millennia to come and remind them not to fuck with us, giving us more breathing room to focus on trees.

> millenia

Nomads do not do records or even common legends or memories; a century or two can be expected, anything more would be quite optimistic.
There will always be some group of them not knowing of us and seeing only our rich farms and shit. ~Nomads~.
 
And about that 'tiny'. With reroll, it has 1/16 chance of happening. 1/16 chance of dying here and now is one hell of a gamble; doing a GS next turn makes way more sense.
Also, that's wrong. The chance of death (-4) is from admin order rolls. The 1/16 (ignoring Humility AND Greater Good) chance is for us ending up at -3 stability at the end of the turn.

And that's assuming we keep the current king. Switching to a new king has a 77% chance of ending up at +1 stability and literally can't end up below -1.

This part, I don't get.
It's because The Law as currently written states that the King serves until he is obviously incompetent or dead. This would be going against The Law as we currently have it, for it goes against the system that we've had since time immemorial.

I strongly disagree with that assessment, particularly when you factor in that only the XS want to kill us and I doubt they'd hear about our "bad position" soon enough to pull together an attack.

Completely collapse and fracturing of our society = ~80 actions to get to the same power level from whatever province we end up still controlling. Divided by the 1/16 chance that we will get 1 & 1 roll, we end up with 5. # of actions required to restore stability if we wait is 5 if we use GS.
The TS hate us and really want to kill us, but the HK and the TH will gladly kick us while we're down and make us into vassals if they can.
Your estimation of recovery is hurt by the lack of consideration that the people will still be there and will share a large number of our values, we just have to diplomance them into joining back up again.

No duh it's bad, but it's not game over. (edit: which is what you were both claiming and specifically emphasized via italics)
 
Last edited:
IMO, that's a skill issue. They're using the same weapons. They just have vastly more experience fighting.

Likely, tactics are part of the issue. No amount of weapons will help you.

3rd is maneuverability. I think, they're hitting our flanks and disengaging losing fights, making us hard to fight effectively

No, they were using bronze weapons they extra picked up for this.
We are roughly as maneuverable with our chariots.

They had better weapons and better leadership.
 
...
If they are defeated, and with a 13 martial it is pretty much a certainty, if they are found, than how, exactly, could they pick up the weapons?
You simply refuse to understand that the nomads only lose by standing and fighting. They can pick off a few weapons at a time while running away even. Best I can tell you just don't get the idea that big number don't mean instantly getting big wins.
The current weapons actually don't work considering we are getting killed on a 3:1/3:2 ratio in favour of the nomads. You know what I what I meant when I said iron weapons and the fact you pounced on it makes me not even want to reply to the likes of you. People will feel safe seeing their army go after the nomads who just burned down a significant part of our territory and are close to getting away with it. Why vote for offensive policy and not weapons? Why cripple our warriors if our regular tools are good enough for farming. Our People want to see our warriors equipped and will not like it if our King is seen wringing his hands about better farming tools. I seen you and I know nothing will convince you since you debate in bad Faith but hopefully another poster will see this and realize that picking offensive and tools is foolish to the extreme. If you want to rebuild then pick God damn defensive but dont send our last points of martial to die against two heroic martial generals without proper weapons.
A lot of this was a strategy imbalance. The 2/3s dead nomads where a fire and forget weapon. The Heros will make them best even with half the numbers. A lot is they are martial focused so just do better at military due to bonuses. While iron weapons chisel away at such bonuses, we don't even have proof they won't just scatter and flee. These nomads literally live to pull this kind of thing.
1. The divide is..in progress; investments are dealing with it, as did that Support Subordinate and Lord's Loyalty; although where are my damn festivals?
2. Anti-metal superstition is in progress, current events will probably deal with it to a decent degree.
Exactly... we can solve a problem now.... or its a work in progress.
This part, I don't get. How does the (elective) king willing stepping down for meritocratic reasons damage the legitimacy of the institution of the king?
It means the process screw up picking him in the first place.
 
The TS hate us and really want to kill us, but the HK and the TH will gladly kick us while we're down and make us into vassals if they can.
Your estimation of recovery is hurt by the lack of consideration that the people will still be there and will share a large number of our values, we just have to diplomance them into joining back up again.
Doubtful. Paranoid.

Anyways, I've change to defensive and dc. ciaaao
 
Also, that's wrong. The chance of death (-4) is from admin order rolls. The 1/16 (ignoring Humility AND Greater Good) chance is for us ending up at -3 stability at the end of the turn.

And that's assuming we keep the current king. Switching new kings has a 77% chance of ending up at +1 stability.

Yeah, well, if we first get hit with -1 from refusal to change the king, we are going to sit on -3, for example. So, well, it's just too risky to bet on RO working out and not failing admin rolls.

Exactly... we can solve a problem now.... or its a work in progress.
What are you even talking about? Do you see the 'end the north/south divide' button anywhere? I don't...well, besides integrating March, but those sweet actions...still, we have to.
And wrt metal...what do you think we are doing with opening the mine and whatnot?
(yeah, we've had specifically 'remove superstition' button and for some reason refused to push it and it only worked out due to ridiculous crit, that's true enough, but not relevant to the current situation)
 
Inserted tally
Adhoc vote count started by Timewinders on May 20, 2017 at 4:34 PM, finished with 37813 posts and 74 votes.
 
IMO, that's a skill issue. They're using the same weapons. They just have vastly more experience fighting.

Likely, tactics are part of the issue. No amount of weapons will help you.

3rd is maneuverability. I think, they're hitting our flanks and disengaging losing fights, making us hard to fight effectively
Weapons would help you considering it's giving us a massive boost in martial. A guy skilled with a stone club is getting killed by a guy with a iron mace 10/10 unless the dude is retarded. We are focusing on our military with our Carrion Eaters reducing our losses giving us a plus 1 martial as well so go all in on weapons and capture the fleeing nomads fat with our loot and people.
 
You do realize they have a huge ballast - loot and prisoners?

And do you expect our victorious people to not pick up the weapons?

If I were them:
Split into 2 armies. 1 to take care of loot & do a fighting retreat
2nd as harassing force/disappears.

I'll let you try to recover your loot/prisoners.
I'd even retreat and drop some loot. Let you take some of the prisoners and loot.
Now you're loaded with ballast too.

My mobile 2nd army, who's not taking any loot/prisoners hit you from the back. Esp when you're fighting my 1st army.
Round up any previous battlesite while they're at it.

If you split off for some to take care of the prisoners, my 2nd force hammers that, while the 1st retreats from your main army.
If you continue chasing my 1st army, you won't have much time to pick up stuff if you don't want me to get away.

If you chase my 2nd army, my 1st army picks up the loot and gets away, along with any other stuff.
2nd army runs till they're so deep in the steppe your supply chain is broken.
Then, regroup.

If 1st army looks like losing, drop most loot and retreat, leading you to chase.
2nd army goes for 2nd round raiding your province
 
[X] Tools (+8 Econ, +2 Martial, ???)
[X] Leave things be
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)
Patience our vegeance will come.
While eagles fight crows feast. When when hit them they will be exterminated.
 
Yeah, well, if we first get hit with -1 from refusal to change the king, we are going to sit on -3, for example. So, well, it's just too risky to bet on RO working out and not failing admin rolls.
['Offensive', 'OrderYes', 'KingNo']
-0.43219791229 average stability at end (excluding deaths)
stability probabilities
-4:7.171%
-3:4.1835%
-2:13.7935%
-1:24.299%
0:35.9635%
1:5.6245%
2:8.2035%
3:0.7615%

This is ignoring Humility, assumes GG has a 10% chance of triggering, and that admin rolls are 50% order specified and 50% randomized.
What level of risk is acceptable to you? How much average loss are you willing to take to minimize risks?
 
[X] Tools (+8 Econ, +2 Martial, ???)
[X] Leave things be
[X] Offensive (+1 Stability)
[X] No (-1 Stability, +1 Legitimacy)
Patience our vegeance will come.
While eagles fight crows feast. When when hit them they will be exterminated.
I don't understand? If you wish to be patient and rebuild pick defensive so our remaining army is at home building walls and not chasing two hero units.
 
This part, I don't get. How does the (elective) king willing stepping down for meritocratic reasons damage the legitimacy of the institution of the king? If anything I would expect that to strengthen our institution and move us towards some Honor Code trait evolution based primarily on Nobility in Humility (though touching on all 3) while perhaps emphasizing the "particularly martial skill" bit of Honor of Elites.

Or is this vote actually representing a violent coup? Or the product of unreliable narration?

The King is seen as infalible by the people, so stepping down is he admiting he's falible winch is a thing that damages the face of the institution called king.
 
The King is seen as infalible by the people, so stepping down is he admiting he's falible winch is a thing that damages the face of the institution called king.

Not really? King is not assumed to be infallible, actually; it's just setting a precedent for removing the king the second you do not like him, which will end up in some general pulling a Julius Caesar.
 
Back
Top