Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
I was thinking that in regards to needing caucus belli that we would just focus on conquering the nomads and expanding to the north. We saw from that new map that there are a couple of rivers that run north of the lake so it would be a good place to colonize - furthermore it's currently empty so we can grab the land now and then easily defend it should the nomads come back.

So yeah, I was thinking of becoming more militarized but not becoming dicks. The Highland Kingdom wouldn't be a target and not even the TH/TS if they didn't attack us again.
 
Umi-san said:
I'd prefer not to speculate on something we know nothing about. If you'd like to speculate, however, I'd note that econ slots are awarded upon finishing the aqueducts and are thus unlikely to be rewarded yet again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I can appreciate not wanting to speculate when we don't have much info. I'll just say that the aqueduct econ slots aren't related to becoming a true city, since an aqueduct doesn't make a settlement a true city.
 
BlueFlamingWings said:
I was thinking that in regards to needing caucus belli that we would just focus on conquering the nomads and expanding to the north. We saw from that new map that there are a couple of rivers that run north of the lake so it would be a good place to colonize - furthermore it's currently empty so we can grab the land now and then easily defend it should the nomads come back.

So yeah, I was thinking of becoming more militarized but not becoming dicks. The Highland Kingdom wouldn't be a target and not even the TH/TS if they didn't attack us again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The more we expand away from the hills the more exposed we will be and no forests are not a cure-all because forests are far easier to burn than grow.
 
DragonParadox said:
We do not have numbers against a concerted nomad push, no settled civilization does.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What are the better options then? They are just going to keep attacking in another couple of generations. This is a good time to expand north and at the very least push the front lines forward. Historically the steppes couldn't be colonized because they were difficult to farm, but why couldn't an organized society with good irrigation techniques and fertilizer make any progress? Especially if we complete megaprojects like the Dam or aqueducts.
 
Timewinders said:
What are the better options then? They are just going to keep attacking in another couple of generations. This is a good time to expand north and at the very least push the front lines forward. Historically the steppes couldn't be colonized because they were difficult to farm, but why couldn't an organized society with good irrigation techniques and fertilizer make any progress? Especially if we complete megaprojects like the Dam or aqueducts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Were we to do that, we would be pretty much murderized, soonish.

We will need to Wall up, grow forests and turtle first.
Mainly because we are already pretty much on the limit of how much we can control.
Do remember that the first march appeared because we literally could not control it as a normal province.

We can expand east and southwest, but expanding north is currently pretty much suicide.
 
Last edited:
Timewinders said:
What are the better options then? They are just going to keep attacking in another couple of generations. This is a good time to expand north and at the very least push the front lines forward. Historically the steppes couldn't be colonized because they were difficult to farm, but why couldn't an organized society with good irrigation techniques and fertilizer make any progress? Especially if we complete megaprojects like the Dam or aqueducts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There were plenty of organized civilizations with administrative technology far in advance of our own at this point which could not advance into the steppes. Further it took gunpowder to shift the military paradigm enough to make meaningful gains against the nomads.
 
Timewinders said:
What are the better options then? They are just going to keep attacking in another couple of generations. This is a good time to expand north and at the very least push the front lines forward. Historically the steppes couldn't be colonized because they were difficult to farm, but why couldn't an organized society with good irrigation techniques and fertilizer make any progress? Especially if we complete megaprojects like the Dam or aqueducts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nope.
You can't deal with nomads. That's the problem. That's why I was so damn pissed the moment Stallions settled where they did: it is outstandingly vulnerable position that will cost much more than it saves us in a long-term.
The best way, prior to gunpowder and paper, was Great Wall. Seriously, China had the most experience of dealing with nomads, and the best they could do was a combination of paying tribute to some tribes, punitive expeditions on others and making a fuckhueg wall.

Just to put in perspective: making a long wall in the fuck-end of nowhere, which had cost thousands of worker lives to build and millions of work-hours that could be spent on roads or farms or whatnot, was the cheapest and most efficient option. If the Chinese could not conquer the steppes, with their manpower and general levels of being the biggest guy in the neighbourhood for a long, long time, than we sure as hell can't.
We are not going to deal with nomads. This shit with their heroic raiders is going to eventually repeat, and we cannot do anything, barring building our version of Great Wall, about it.
There is a reason 'Fuck nomads' is a sentiment everyone who bordered nomads could share.
 
DragonParadox said:
The more we expand away from the hills the more exposed we will be and no forests are not a cure-all because forests are far easier to burn than grow.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Umm actually destroying a forest is a lot harder than planting one. Even if you manage to start a forest fire(something that's hard in a regular forest not to mention a properly managed forest.) there'd still be all the burnt trunks in the way of your "Nomad Waargh!". Another thing to keep in mind is forests bounce back fast and hard from fires.

Really the biggest threat we have to our trees is someone accidentally or on purpose transplant some pest that kills trees. So in hindsight yes Trees are a good cure-all for all our woes just one that's best added onto via walls and defenders.
 
Timewinders said:
What are the better options then? They are just going to keep attacking in another couple of generations. This is a good time to expand north and at the very least push the front lines forward. Historically the steppes couldn't be colonized because they were difficult to farm, but why couldn't an organized society with good irrigation techniques and fertilizer make any progress? Especially if we complete megaprojects like the Dam or aqueducts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm generally OK with adding a march to the north, because it's a relatively effective strategy for mitigating the impact of the nomads on our 'industrial base'. It took double crits from double hero units to bypass our march when fully backed up by our civ. A second march is probably a good bet.

After that though... Unless someone can suggest a feasible, safe method of absorbing the stallions+adding a march beyond them, I think the steppe is a bad expansion direction. I'd sooner expand slowly into the lowlands.

Again though, we're picking all the turtle+build options. If we expand it should be slowly and because it's directly helpful to building up. Not just for the sake of it.
 
Guys there is no way to permanently deal with nomads all we can do is try to reduce the amount of impact they can have on us, increasing our borders with them is the very opposite of that.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Nope.
You can't deal with nomads. That's the problem. That's why I was so damn pissed the moment Stallions settled where they did: it is outstandingly vulnerable position that will cost much more than it saves us in a long-term.
The best way, prior to gunpowder and paper, was Great Wall. Seriously, China had the most experience of dealing with nomads, and the best they could do was a combination of paying tribute to some tribes, punitive expeditions on others and making a fuckhueg wall.

Just to put in perspective: making a long wall in the fuck-end of nowhere, which had cost thousands of worker lives to build and millions of work-hours that could be spent on roads or farms or whatnot, was the cheapest and most efficient option. If the Chinese could not conquer the steppes, with their manpower and general levels of being the biggest guy in the neighbourhood for a long, long time, than we sure as hell can't.
We are not going to deal with nomads. This shit with their heroic raiders is going to eventually repeat, and we cannot do anything, barring building our version of Great Wall, about it.
There is a reason 'Fuck nomads' is a sentiment everyone who bordered nomads could share.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The issue with nomads is that they're fundamentally an economic problem, not a cultural one. Nomadding it up is a local optimum for people on the steppe. So it literally doesn't matter how thoroughly you wipe a nomad culture out; another will grow simply because it's the best way of surviving on the steppe.
 
aceraptor said:
We are not going to deal with nomads. This shit with their heroic raiders is going to eventually repeat, and we cannot do anything, barring building our version of Great Wall, about it.
There is a reason 'Fuck nomads' is a sentiment everyone who bordered nomads could share.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The scary thing is that the Great Wall did not save the Chinese, nor did the mountains save Baghdad, nor did the forests save eastern Europe.

I think that our best bet is defense in depth. Achieve a sufficient density of economy/fixed defenses, and then expand.
 
Last edited:
DragonParadox said:
On the other hand.... look at Russia. They were broken into tributary status, but they had the last laugh.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Literally everyone has the last laugh on nomads; that's not particularly remarkable. They're obsoleted by the industrial revolution, which gives you the ability to use crap land for productive things you can exchange for the food you can't grow.
 
Rakuhn said:
The scary thing is that the Great Wall did not save the Chinese, nor did the mountains save Baghdad, nor did the forests save eastern Europe.

I think that our best bet is defense in depth. Achieve a sufficient density of economy/fixed defenses, and then expand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
'defense in depth' vs. nomads means 'large areas of land for them to pillage with limited resistance'. Again, the most effective defenses are ones that drastically decrease mobility at a certain line (great wall, mountain ranges, forests). Not depth.
 
pblur said:
Literally everyone has the last laugh on nomads; that's not particularly remarkable. They're obsoleted by the industrial revolution, which gives you the ability to use crap land for productive things you can exchange for the food you can't grow.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The point I was making is that losing militarily to nomads, even nomad "conquest" is hardly the end of the world.
 
pblur said:
The issue with nomads is that they're fundamentally an economic problem, not a cultural one. Nomadding it up is a local optimum for people on the steppe. So it literally doesn't matter how thoroughly you wipe a nomad culture out; another will grow simply because it's the best way of surviving on the steppe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yep. Scarce resources force people to adopt nomadic lifestyle of hunter-gathering, and it all goes downhill from there. Until we have tech (political one too) to control the entire steppe (via proxies of course, centralised control of this shit is all but impossible until, like, modern age) nomads gonna nomad.


Rakuhn said:
The scary thing is that the Great Wall did not save the Chinese, nor did the mountains save Baghdad, nor did the forests save eastern Europe.

I think that our best bet is defense in depth. Achieve a sufficient density of economy/fixed defenses, and then expand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Best defence is being unprofitable to raid, and, in case of truly overwhelming odds, being able to swallow our pride, bend the knee and rise up in two-three turns tops because that's nomads for ya. Pulling Russia, basically.
Also, all of the above still help. As does having a strong military. Just....we have to face that against nomads of all people, even all of the above combined may not be enough with a sufficiently outstanding leader who has...siegecraft and disciplined army instead of the horde are enough to consider just sending tribute, honestly.
 
DragonParadox said:
We do not have numbers against a concerted nomad push, no settled civilization does.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A concerted nomad push like the last 2 we've endured, you mean?

pblur said:
I can appreciate not wanting to speculate when we don't have much info. I'll just say that the aqueduct econ slots aren't related to becoming a true city, since an aqueduct doesn't make a settlement a true city.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
*shrug* They're what opens the door. The thing that turns it into a true city is just having more people living there.

DragonParadox said:
The more we expand away from the hills the more exposed we will be and no forests are not a cure-all because forests are far easier to burn than grow.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not if properly managed and filled with people who shoot arrows. Also, forests grow themselves after you've started them up.

Marlin said:
I mean Change Policy: Balance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I voted for that so....
 
DragonParadox said:
The more we expand away from the hills the more exposed we will be and no forests are not a cure-all because forests are far easier to burn than grow.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But we can't stay so small forever. This is still early on and things will continue to change and grow. Civilizations naturally settle out and consolidate. We're goimg to reach a point where we can't expand our economy or take in new immigrants due to not having enough land. Even if you don't want an empire at the very least we can expand northwards along those two rivers.
 
BlueFlamingWings said:
But we can't stay so small forever. This is still early on and things will continue to change and grow. Civilizations naturally settle out and consolidate. We're goimg to reach a point where we can't expand our economy or take in new immigrants due to not having enough land. Even if you don't want an empire at the very least we can expand northwards along those two rivers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Which I why I suggest we assimilate the lowlanders, preferably culturally over militarily. Why be Rome when you can be Greece?
 
Umi-san said:
A concerted nomad push like the last 2 we've endured, you mean?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The day nomads acquire siegecraft is the day paying tribute becomes most likely cheaper and more efficient option. Unless you want all our cities to become smoldering ruing with pyramids of skulls around. *looks and Chenghiz and Tamerlan*

Like, when I said that weathering those nomadic pushes was an impressive feat, I've meant it. Nomads are really dangerous, and they've not hit peak of their danger yet - this will come with cavalry+siegecraft+them having actual army and tributary structure instead of a mere rampaging horde. Then we are all either paying tribute or, barring hilarious crits on our side and critfails on their, we are all but dead.
 
So what I'm getting from this is. Build dam, mauntain and aquaducts, until we reach enough terraforming experience. To transform the steppe, into abunch of hills and a forest. Taking away soil on the shores, to make places for salterns and putting the soil into artificial hills, slowly increasing the size of the sea and turning the land into something else.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top