Paths of Civilization
- Thread starter Academia Nut
- Start date
- Original
- Location
- Canada
[X] Formalize breaking and exposure
[X] Any who are interested may join the fight
[X] [Secondary] Step-Farms
[X] Any who are interested may join the fight
[X] [Secondary] Step-Farms
Last edited:
- Location
- Australia
The War Mission will be focused on defending the tribes with some counter-raiding, which is what we're doing now. This ensures our trade doesn't go down and it satisfies Eye for an Eye.
The War Mission will not decrease Economy. The warriors we send out fighting would be consuming resources regardless of whether we send them on a war mission or not. We will not lose Economy to raids because War Mission is meant to defend against raids.
This is false. Step-Farms will not have a higher chance of ailed war mission, it has a higher chance of succeeding. The biggest things that can make us fail is a decrease in Centralisation combined with no food stockpiles and a drought. Step-Farms will ensure we do not hit 0 Economy and ensures we have food stockpiles for when the next drought hits, allowing us to continue fighting at full capacity.
pbluekan
Somethin's Fucky ...
- Location
- Trumpistan
TBH this is what I'm most excited to see. We've seen some of the results already, namely better trails throughout our territory and some tech increases, but I'm looking forward to what AN writes for it.
- Location
- Staring into the void
[X] Formalize breaking and exposure
[X] Any who are interested may join the fight
[X] [Secondary] Build War Carts
[X] Any who are interested may join the fight
[X] [Secondary] Build War Carts
Powerofmind
In Madness Fallen
- Location
- United States
Except your argument doesn't matter here. According to veekie's guesswork, regardless of the form the instability takes, we're going to have TWO instability hits that will proc pioneers. It's just a question of where you want the hits to come from; losing a war, or even worse economy.
Not true, by the way. Getting everyone to charge at once requires much more logistics and coordination than you think. Bringing a thousand cavalry units together means bringing enough food for 2000 men(assuming on the light side, each warrior comes with only one support unit to handle their food and equipment), and about 2000 warhorses(assuming one horse chariot, with one spare they can swap to to avoid ruining it from exertion, though the mongols had a small herd of 5 or so they cycle through) and 2000 regular horses to carry the food, water and fodder.
This increases if the want the warriors to be in top condition and bring a herd of cattle along to provide meat and milk, which means even more people to handle them.
Our people might be able to manage a heavy mobilization due to our high Centralization, but nomad war parties in this era are typically 10 to 30 horsemen, who will perform a hit and run attack, overwhelming defenders before they can be roused, grabbing the loot and then riding off to resupply with their home camp.
If their warchief personally leads a raid, you might see a few hundred in the raid. If they want to go all out and bring everyone, their economy is going to tank HARD, and they would be playing to our strengths.
Thus, the model of warring with the nomads is to perform devastating raids on their individual caravans, FORCE their leader to group them up and counter raid us in force or lose respect because Martial Honor.
Fun fact: Martial Honor culture waging war on an Eye for an Eye culture leads to a Grudge Spiral.
VoidZero
Passing Flan 布丁魔王
- Location
- Anywhere but RL
I think we should attempt to discuss the definition of "Losing a War".
Our holding in the hill area are strong, and the enemy appears reluctant to enter the hill. This almost ensures our food and other production remain unmolested.
So from this point of view, losing is not quite possible.
Our holding in the hill area are strong, and the enemy appears reluctant to enter the hill. This almost ensures our food and other production remain unmolested.
So from this point of view, losing is not quite possible.
Powerofmind
In Madness Fallen
- Location
- United States
The war-mission is aggressive enough that we're not on favored terrain, which has it's own risks and if it FAILS, will still trigger Eye for an Eye.
Even if the mission doesn't decrease economy, it's universal across both equations. Removing it just means there's 1 less on each, which keeps them even.
Step-farms doesn't guarantee 0, it just puts a greater risk on the heads of the war.
Alternatively, I could argue that most successful attacks against the nomads could allow us to raid for pasture and animals, which would also raise Econ if we're lucky. If it comes down to you being right, then we'd either be trading a chance at instability for a higher chance of winning, or a greater chance of losing for a greater assurance we don't hit instability.
- Location
- Australia
Check the previous page.
VoidZero
Passing Flan 布丁魔王
- Location
- Anywhere but RL
- Location
- in the trash
The immediate reaction would be fear and shock. But once they've settled down a bit, their fear will probably turn to anger.
Inducing this kind of panic can be useful in the heat of battle. It's less useful when they find the bodies outside of battle and thus have the time to get over their panic and get really pissed at what we're doing, strengthening their resolve to fight.
You want worse? They could start throwing the severed heads at our ranks, just to give an example. I'm sure they can come up with something more inventive and horrifying than what they've already done, if given an incentive.
(Please refrain from going overboard with speculation, excessive gore is against the forum rules)
Last edited:
- Location
- Mists of Albion
Wouldn't losing the war potentially have a much more long term affect on the economy?
- Makes us look weak, more raids on people in our area (WC etc), more damage to the economy
- Lessens man power for little gain, we see less guards to protect trade caravans
- Loses trading power in the area, we are forced out as our enemies target our traders specifically, assured of their superiority
Weak economy:
- Less soldiers for a while, weaker trade
- Some starvation, less manpower on the farms
Or am I just overestimating the value of Trade?
Cause if I am tell me please so I don't make the same mistake again
Last edited:
- Location
- Huezil
They want a carthage, they will have a carthage.
VoidZero
Passing Flan 布丁魔王
- Location
- Anywhere but RL
This so much! There is a reason that people stopped mutilating dead bodies.
Powerofmind
In Madness Fallen
- Location
- United States
We're not actually bickering all that badly. At worst, we're tossing possibilities that have some merit to voting considerations, and are trying to determine which one is more accurate. Regardless, if veekie is right, and both will cause instability, I'd rather do a better shot at winning, and if Andres is right, and instability is only a chance pick depending on which way we lean, I'd still rather have a better shot at winning, even if it maybe risks instability.
- Location
- Mists of Albion
Do we get a Hannibal?
Cause if we get a Hannibal....
Ghostdevil
The Devil of Ghosts
- Location
- United States
Well Hannibal lost, and after he did the Roman Empire expanded Heavily without any real rivals
Motoko
Herald of Iron to The People
- Location
- Canada, ontario
I was still a couple pages back when people were being pretty spiteful. Sorry.
Powerofmind
In Madness Fallen
- Location
- United States
-Not necessarily. Just because they 'win' the war doesn't mean we look weak.
-There's a surprisingly small number of deaths in war from actual combat. Permanent casualties, sure, but deaths aren't nearly to the level of more than half the participating soldiers dying. The technology simply doesn't support it.
-That is a risk.
-Weak economy means lower growth, and leaner times for the people in general. Fortunately, that's something we are uniquely capable of bouncing back from due to the way our government is structured.
Frankly, I feel we can afford to have a minor internal crisis. I'm not quite as optimistic about losing a war with the plainsmen.