That
That is exactly the sort of comment that sparks things off.
Agreed. While morality might play a role in certain decisions (spreading the cure to plagues, choosing not to make a new march after we started a political incident, etc..), most of our choices have a lot more nuance than that.
Throw in the fact that people have long term goals that they want to accomplish (Mine would be keeping the marches safe and supplied, expanding further into the hills, and working on our seagoing trade, in that order), so often they place different values on different options. Size is cool to me because it fulfills my first and third goal, so I find it more appealing, while someone who has a stronger interest in the lowlands or wants to conquer as much as Hathatyn as we can might find portability better.
AN did a really good job in creating various factions, as well as making a form of politics evident even in the thread.
@veekie I dont have the posts because i was doing the reading on mobile and dont really want to dredge through the boat argument again to find them, but at one point you were talking like when we take in refugees the civ we take them from gains stability back? Where did AN say that? Cause the bits i remember from AN didn't say anything like that... (Also, you keep talking about how we made their econ woes worse, but most of the refugee waves we've had have been 2 econ deals from multiple civs, which AN outright said didn't cause actual econ loss, just 'narrative grumbling')
He never said that, but it's what we assumed since losing the refugees would reduce the chaos. But it's quite possible that it
only costs them econ, especially considering what AN said about the other groups needing alternate forms of stability increases.
I mean, look at GG. It's effect wasn't that if they lose stability, they could gain 2 back, it was that if they would lose stability, they could instead not lose it and gain one back. That implies that they wanted to avoid losing stability due to our econ vampire abilities.
