Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Umi-san said:
I think this is more or less my viewpoint, as well. Though I just don't want to lose the fluff of being a dour people who are careful even in revenge.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, if we fail to exact revenge, then we'd be known as the dour people who are so careful they can't even get revenge.
zamin said:
Settle in, fight defensively, and turn their raids into bloody meatgrinders. Force them to spend lives again and again for little to no gain. They want honor and glory? Hide in the trees and shoot them as they ride past. Set traps and ambushes everywhere. Build walls around our villages and laugh in their faces as we pour down arrows. Make their lives fucking miserable. They can whine and stamp their feet all they like, but unless they want to charge their entire army into the hills to get slaughtered, there's not much they can do about it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The issue with this plan is that we are defending our plains-friends, not our homeland. We get eye for an eye, but unless we want to just let our Cossack buddies just get steamrolled, we kind of have to at least fight to defend their settlements.
Sightsear said:
Basically, it's telling us that although one econ action will definitely keep us from crossing the line, the consequences of not doing so are not bad enough that the military option is unfeasible. I'd even argue that the tone suggests that it is preferable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not necessarily. The question is do we want to keep things stable and have a greater risk of loss, or push a greater chance at winning while letting our state decay internally.

My argument would be that we can afford a shake-up internally, but it'd suck if we couldn't appease Eye for an Eye because we neglected equipping our men with the best wargear.
 
[X] Skull-smashing and anonymous burial
[X] Any who are interested may join the fight
[X][Secondary] Step-Farms

Apparently we burn a point in Centralization to get a point in Economy. I am not sure if it is possible to have negative economy so we don't want to burn up too much centralization. Plus things should look up from next turn.
 
Ghostdevil said:
For a good 2 turns... maybe 3
then its a big whoop.
It'd be a setback but we'd build stronger and better.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, I'm sure it's no big deal to you or I that we get revenge, but our people all but demand it. I imagine ignoring that social value will lead to more than just a little embarrassment among the local polities.
 
Powerofmind said:
Well, I'm sure it's no big deal to you or I that we get revenge, but our people all but demand it. I imagine ignoring that social value will lead to more than just a little embarrassment among the local polities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It'll lead to nothing, violating it once is no big deal in least we really get fucked. But in least your planning for us to get super fucked we can handle a failure one time. But I don't really plan to lose either.
 
Ghostdevil said:
It'll lead to nothing, violating it once is no big deal in least we really get fucked. But in least your planning for us to get super fucked we can handle a failure one time. But I don't really plan to lose either.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do you think they'll just forget? One of our core social values is that the other guy has to bleed at least as much as you when he slights you. I wouldn't say it's guaranteed, but it's certainly going to mean a not-insignificant difference in our success chances this war if we ignore equipment improvements and favor the farms.

I would argue that losing the war and failing to execute a successful war in the following turn would immediately give us a stability hit. Would you disagree?
 
[X] Skull-smashing and anonymous burial
[X] Any who are interested may join the fight
[X][Secondary] Step-Farms
 
Powerofmind said:
Do you think they'll just forget? One of our core social values is that the other guy has to bleed at least as much as you when he slights you. I wouldn't say it's guaranteed, but it's certainly going to mean a not-insignificant difference in our success chances this war if we ignore equipment improvements and favor the farms.

I would argue that losing the war and failing to execute a successful war in the following turn would immediately give us a stability hit. Would you disagree?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What War?
Its just a bunch of raiding, there will be NO lasting damage to our core farms and land, in least we REALLY fuck up somehow. The Most likely event is that were going to stalemate, because a "War" of this era is impossible really. If it wasn't for our stupid Eye for an Eye, i'd just turtle up, Attacking them is retarded because they have the Mobility and we don't. They have nothing to attack really... Nothing that is easy to get to. Neither do we in our hills and valleys. This war is a Farce. This war is only troubling due to our cripplingly low economy and our incessant need to deal "Justice"
 
Ghostdevil said:
What War?
Its just a bunch of raiding, there will be NO lasting damage to our core farms and land, in least we REALLY fuck up somehow. The Most likely event is that were going to stalemate, because a "War" of this era is impossible really. If it wasn't for our stupid Eye for an Eye, i'd just turtle up, Attacking them is retarded because they have the Mobility and we don't. They have nothing to attack really... Nothing that is easy to get to. Neither do we in our hills and valleys. This war is a Farce. This war is only troubling due to our cripplingly low economy and our incessant need to deal "Justice"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But the point stands tall. We lose and don't get our pound of flesh by the end of next turn, and we lose stability and centralization (quite possibly again, considering that our forced war action likely consumes Econ along with the blight cleaning).

Do you think ensuring economy doesn't dip one extra point is going to magically make up for both losing a war and suffering a social upset due to losing that war?
 
You know what? I'll go back to what i originally planned on voting for. I changed it since it rellied too much on Divine Favor (aka: RNG) but we'll see

[X] [Secondary] Build War Carts
 
Powerofmind said:
But the point stands tall. We lose and don't get our pound of flesh by the end of next turn, and we lose stability and centralization (quite possibly again, considering that our forced war action likely consumes Econ along with the blight cleaning).

Do you think ensuring economy doesn't dip one extra point is going to magically make up for both losing a war and suffering a social upset due to losing that war?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
According to the QM, if we expand our farms our economy will stabilize, and then we can build up military and attack NEXT turn, Probably isn't going to do much in least were lucky.... that or fucking wreck us. Either or.
 
Ghostdevil said:
According to the QM, if we expand our farms our economy will stabilize, and then we can build up military and attack NEXT turn, Probably isn't going to do much in least were lucky.... that or fucking wreck us. Either or.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
According to our GM, not boosting the economy will hurt, while not boosting our war capability will hurt WORSE
 
Ghostdevil said:
According to the QM, if we expand our farms our economy will stabilize, and then we can build up military and attack NEXT turn, Probably isn't going to do much in least were lucky.... that or fucking wreck us. Either or.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I uh, don't know where you got that. But the QM actually said differently.

Academia Nut said:
Depends how low Econ goes, but generally its a 1:1 exchange between Econ and Centralization.

More Fishing, Farms (Step or Regular), or Pasture land should keep things stable. However, given the military necessities, investing in the military is probably a good idea, even if it will be disruptive.

Also, the expedition won't necessarily chase the nomads out onto the plains, it is just that you are compelled to fight it out. Failure to pay back the attack this turn is unlikely to cause problems, but the score needs to be settled in some way eventually.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Ghostdevil said:
According to the QM, if we expand our farms our economy will stabilize, and then we can build up military and attack NEXT turn, Probably isn't going to do much in least were lucky.... that or fucking wreck us. Either or.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I simply don't want to take the risk. How much effort would have to be blown trying to scramble enough military might to prosecute enough kill-raids the following turn? It would get to the point where we'd be spending more actions trying to fix losing the war this turn than we could by simply getting it over with now and using those extra project actions to perform bigger economic boosts.
 
There's also the fact that if we give a bad showing, it would make us look weaker.

That has the potential of bringing in bad stuff down the road as well as there would be no doubt that they would be boasting about their victory to all. That there is this group that is rich and with weak warriors. We don't really want to kick this can further down the road like this.

It's not about winning. It's about sending a message.
 
Last edited:
veekie said:
According to our GM, not boosting the economy will hurt, while not boosting our war capability will hurt WORSE
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Potato and Chip said:
I uh, don't know where you got that. But the QM actually said differently.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Uh, no If you Read the quote, it says that The military has needs and even if it would hurt and be disruptive it should be worth it. Which means IT WILL HURT the Economy, since it seems the QM was saying it in a way that was IC for an Eye for Eye civ meaning Bias towards warring.
 
Ghostdevil said:
Uh, no If you Read the quote, it says that The military has needs and even if it would hurt and be disruptive it should be worth it. Which means IT WILL HURT the Economy, since it seems the QM was saying it in a way that was IC for an Eye for Eye civ meaning Bias towards warring.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yet you just as easily ignore where he says it would be worth it.
 
[X] Formalize breaking and exposure
[X] Any who are interested may join the fight
[X][Secondary] Step-Farms

Feels like relying on ps trait is a bad idea. Instability and splitting people off are never a good thing. This trait is meant to mitigate a bad thing, it's not something we want to proc deliberately.

Plus, I have objections to war carts itself. Being a defensive hill tribe, I want to encourage spears and pikes to play to our strengths.

We can choose to use our inferior war carts to fight theirs at a disadvantage, or we can force our infantry to fight their cavalry at a major disadvantage, and thus encourage military innovation.

Long sharp stick isn't too crazy an idea, so let's make it happen sooner rather than later.
 
Ghostdevil said:
Uh, no If you Read the quote, it says that The military has needs and even if it would hurt and be disruptive it should be worth it. Which means IT WILL HURT the Economy, since it seems the QM was saying it in a way that was IC for an Eye for Eye civ meaning Bias towards warring.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That sounds a bit like you're reaching. The QM as our economy adviser straight up said that it is a better idea to invest in the military then it is to worry about our economic stability right now. The adviser isn't trying to mislead us he is giving us straight facts.

We are at war now and our civilization can tank the hit to its economy. It'll hurt but we will recover.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top