Paths of Civilization

Sivantic · Mar 16, 2017

I just don't want these bozos raining on my Main Annual Festival Parade ;_;

Also,

Omegahugger said:
Oh yeah, we were led by a she-demon once. What was it she gave us again? Ah yes, glory, warcarts and adorable babies.

That reminds me of something they did that really ticked me off,

Academia Nut said:
Tales told of how they were once lead by a she-demon who stole much from the People, including the design of the wagon that Patrikwos' brother

These filthy, bleathering, oaf-looking, nyaff, plookie, milk-drinking, hotten-blaugh, vile-stoochie, expired jars of mayonnaise think they can claim credit for what our glorious genius of a madwoman Gwygoytha created!

This cannot stand!

redzonejoe said:
It wouldn't kill all of our dudes off, surely. Then the ones that survive are more motivated to develop anti-cav tech!

'Surely'

I'd rather not be so callous with our Warriors thanks.

Also keep in mind that instead of spears it could better wheel tech as they would get really tired of them breaking all the time. So still potential shiny there too.

redzonejoe · Mar 16, 2017

@veekie I dunno if you're basing your arguments off of historical precedent, or something in the text I missed, or whatever else. But this isn't history, and the text has been pretty vague. So what I'm working on is word of gm, which strongly suggests we'll develop anti-nomad tactics and weaponry. Whether you call them mechanized infantry or whatever else, our guys will learn how to fight them.

Maybe they'll suggest more war carts in the text itself, and we'll actually be economically able to pay for it next turn. Maybe they'll figure out something else. Maybe both.

Here's my train of thought, exactly as follows:

minerva-n-memes said:
Also, if we developed pikemen, it would make fighting against the nomads so much easier. Organized groups of pikemen have, historically, been absolute murder against cavalry.

Umi-san said:
I support the, if possible. @Academia Nut. Can this be an option/development at some point?

I think pikemen won't work that well vs cavalry if they're ranged cavalry. But the descriptions haven't been determinative.

Academia Nut said:
If you fight lots of cavalry, you'll develop anti-cavalry tactics and weaponry, yes.

Academia Nut said:
Cavalry
War Wagons

Me: oh, so fighting war wagons will let us develop anti-war wagon tactics and weaponry. Neat.

Sivantic · Mar 16, 2017

redzonejoe said:
Me: oh, so fighting war wagons will let us develop anti-war wagon tactics and weaponry. Neat.

Fighting? Yes.

Getting slaughtered by? No.

Athanor · Mar 16, 2017

[X] Formalize breaking and exposure
[X] No aid is needed
[X][Secondary] Build War Carts

Not caught up to all the arguments but i vote like this for now. I belive the punishment is fitting for our people and that the WC needs to safeguard against DP. With the war carts we can match them on the field and by having a larger pop and production base we should outnumber them with both warriors and carts.

Omegahugger · Mar 16, 2017

Sivantic said:
Also,

That reminds me of something they did that really ticked me off,

These filthy, bleathering, oaf-looking, nyaff, plookie, milk-drinking, hotten-blaugh, vile-stoochie, expired jars of mayonnaise think they can claim credit for what our glorious genius of a madwoman Gwygoytha created!

This cannot stand!

Ah, this is actually fully justifiable.

See, the fact that he refers to Gwygoytha as a "she-demon" obviously means he doesn't know who he is talking about. And since Gwygoytha married one of his People, she technically married into said people. Meaning that, to him, a she-demon of the south stole the hard work of a woman who went to great lengths to join his own folk.

I mean, given that he decided to pick a fight with us, obviously he cannot be that smart a person, and we must not hold his lack of intelligence againt him.

VoidZero · Mar 16, 2017

This war of ours are not even a major conflict. Just people playing go-cart and chariot with spears, axes, arrows, and rocks. Like children having a mock war.
Except the problem are all on the inside of our settlement instead of outside threat.

All the while the bystanders are screaming and being killed in the field of battle.

Sivantic · Mar 16, 2017

Athanor said:
[] Formalize breaking and exposure
[] No aid is needed
[] Build War Carts

Not caught up to all the arguments but i vote like this for now. I belive the punishment is fitting for our people and that the WC needs to safeguard against DP. With the war carts we can match them on the field and by having a larger pop and production base we should outnumber them wirh both warriors and carts

Those votes need 'x's in the brackets, [X].

ctulhuslp · Mar 16, 2017

Wasn't best anti-nomad tactic strategically placing forts which eased encroaching on their land and protected against raids to a degree + capitalizing on their internal divisions?

Sivantic said:
Fighting? Yes.

Getting slaughtered by? No.

They are better than us in steppe warfare, and have Hero Leader to boot. I am tentatively voting for Wagons so far, but maybe turtling until Hero dies is a better option. Hordes tend to lose because of internal disunity among other things.

redzonejoe · Mar 16, 2017

Sivantic said:
Fighting? Yes.

Getting slaughtered by? No.

Not building them won't be the instant death of our entire civilisation, don't fearmonger.

We already have war wagons, and we'll probably steal animals and carts from them, because this war will be a series of fights, not one hand battle to determine how the rest of history plays out.

Mechanically, building war carts probably gives us a +5 or 10 bonus on the rolls. Not insignificant, but hardly on the level of "we'll all definitely die if we don't do this"

VoidZero · Mar 16, 2017

ctulhuslp said:
Wasn't best anti-nomad tactic strategically placing forts which eased encroaching on their land and protected against raids to a degree + capitalizing on their internal divisions?

That is the frontier settlement with wall option i suggested, but our Econ is unable to support it.

We shouldn't count on them fragmenting, but we can't do much anyway.

Omegahugger · Mar 16, 2017

redzonejoe said:
Not building them won't be the instant death of our entire civilisation, don't fearmonger.

Our armies getting slaughtered won't mean the end of our civilization, no.

But it won't give us good anti-chariot strategies either.

ctulhuslp · Mar 16, 2017

VoidZero said:
That is the frontier settlement with wall option i suggested, but our Econ is unable to support it.

We shouldn't count on them fragmenting, but we can't do much anyway.

I sorely doubt we can pull a win against united Horde led by the Martial Hero Leader on their home ground. And War Wagons suggests developing aggressive option to make our attacks better.
If at least one of three was false - if they were attacking our hills instead of us counter-raiding, if horde was fracturing, if they had no strong leader - War Wagons would be more appealing. As is....color me skeptical.

veekie · Mar 16, 2017

redzonejoe said:
@veekie I dunno if you're basing your arguments off of historical precedent, or something in the text I missed, or whatever else. But this isn't history, and the text has been pretty vague. So what I'm working on is word of gm, which strongly suggests we'll develop anti-nomad tactics and weaponry. Whether you call them mechanized infantry or whatever else, our guys will learn how to fight them.

Maybe they'll suggest more war carts in the text itself, and we'll actually be economically able to pay for it next turn. Maybe they'll figure out something else. Maybe both.

...

Build War Carts - The new, smaller design of the war wagons are significantly more effective than the larger, slower, less maneuverable design. A few are already switching over, but more of these could be most useful on open plains

What did you think the text just told us about how to fight them?

Anti chariot tactics that work:
Defense:
-Ditches - Causes them to lose momentum, or possibly crash. Not applicable, nomads not fighting inside our territory.
-Walls - Horses can't climb walls. Not applicable, nomads not fighting inside our territory.
-Hills - Chariots are dangerous on hills. Not applicable, nomads not fighting inside our territory.
-Archers - Shoot at them before they arrive/get clear. Vulnerable without prepared cover or close range warriors. Early archery has poor accuracy against fast moving objects.
-Chariots - Chase them down with your own.

Offense:
-Attack their home settlements - Difficult, nomads have no fixed home settlements. Finding camps require scouts with high mobility to spot them and bring the hammer before they run..
-Chariots - Chase them down with your own.

Strategic:
-Psychological tactics - Find some way to get their blood up so they attack you where the ground doesn't allow chariots rather than play to their strengths.
-Exhaustion tactics - Extended running battles. Early chariots have poor stamina, so you can potentially wear them down, if you have your own.
-Political tactics - Bring in allies to harry them from other directions, divide their attention, deny glory, etc.
-Early warning network - Set up towers to raise the alarm and get everything inside walls before they arrive anywhere...well if we had towers. And the ability to build on the plains.

Fighting chariots is basically like fighting a drive-by mugging. They preferentially target your most vulnerable targets, can engage peers at times and places of their choice, and will evade before superior forces arrive to hit them.

Sivantic · Mar 16, 2017

ctulhuslp said:
They are better than us in steppe warfare, and have Hero Leader to boot. I am tentatively voting for Wagons so far, but maybe turtling until Hero dies is a better option. Hordes tend to lose because of internal disunity among other things.

War wagons is turtling though, it evens the odds to ensure we won't get roflstomped.

ctulhuslp said:
I sorely doubt we can pull a win against united Horde led by the Martial Hero Leader on their home ground. And War Wagons suggests developing aggressive option to make our attacks better.
If at least one of three was false - if they were attacking our hills instead of us counter-raiding, if horde was fracturing, if they had no strong leader - War Wagons would be more appealing. As is....color me skeptical.

As I said, it's less about winning, it's about sending a message.

We need to make a good showing to stop people from thinking we are an easy mark.

redzonejoe · Mar 16, 2017

Omegahugger said:
Our armies getting slaughtered won't mean the end of our civilization, no.

But it won't give us good anti-chariot strategies either.

*rolls eyes aggressively*

When you say 'our armies getting slaughtered', what exactly are you imagining? A bloody battlefield, thousands dead, a few wounded deserters limping home, crying bloody tears at this great defeat? That's ridiculous.

Because I'm imagining a bunch of skirmishes, a few dozen deaths, people getting gradually more and more frustrated, and our civilisation not actually being affected all that much. New warriors are born and trained and replace the old, the feud grows larger, and our economy recovers thanks to the end of the blight and our increased farming.

And if my expectations are anywhere close to reality, even, no especially if we lost every individual fight, we can still develop weapons and tactics to let us fight back better.

This "we'll be slaughtered' argument is blatant fearmongering.

McLuvin · Mar 16, 2017

Omegahugger said:
Our armies getting slaughtered won't mean the end of our civilization, no.

But it won't give us good anti-chariot strategies either.

I just had a thought. We are not just going to be using War Carts right? We will be using infantry. As we know War Chariots are a step above our War Carts, so our infantry will have to develop anyway to fight against the carts...

Also as an aside, I think it Men our probably the best for fighting chariots, it's been mentioned before that we utilitise a high amount of advanced range weaponry due to our caravan skirmishes being our most common form of battle, thus we can outrange the primarily ranged based Chariots or use overwhelming firepower against the elite small Chariot units.

veekie · Mar 16, 2017

ctulhuslp said:
They are better than us in steppe warfare, and have Hero Leader to boot. I am tentatively voting for Wagons so far, but maybe turtling until Hero dies is a better option. Hordes tend to lose because of internal disunity among other things.

If we got a choice, yes. But we don't. Forced raid until cultural value is satisfied

pbluekan · Mar 16, 2017

Andres110 said:
Is First Steward canon?

@Academia Nut ?

redzonejoe · Mar 16, 2017

veekie said:
...

What did you think the text just told us about how to fight them?

I meant like, after this turn. We fight them, people suggest ways the fighting could go better. Some suggest longer sticks, some suggest more accurate archers, some suggest we invest in our carts.

Then we take the war carts action if it still seems like the best idea, and don't lose stability for it.

Anti chariot tactics that work:
Defense:
-Ditches - Causes them to lose momentum, or possibly crash. Not applicable, nomads not fighting inside our territory.
-Walls - Horses can't climb walls. Not applicable, nomads not fighting inside our territory.
-Hills - Chariots are dangerous on hills. Not applicable, nomads not fighting inside our territory.
-Archers - Shoot at them before they arrive/get clear. Vulnerable without prepared cover or close range warriors. Early archery has poor accuracy against fast moving objects.
-Chariots - Chase them down with your own.

Offense:
-Attack their home settlements - Difficult, nomads have no fixed home settlements. Finding camps require scouts with high mobility to spot them and bring the hammer before they run..
-Chariots - Chase them down with your own.

Strategic:
-Psychological tactics - Find some way to get their blood up so they attack you where the ground doesn't allow chariots rather than play to their strengths.
-Exhaustion tactics - Extended running battles. Early chariots have poor stamina, so you can potentially wear them down, if you have your own.
-Political tactics - Bring in allies to harry them from other directions, divide their attention, deny glory, etc.
-Early warning network - Set up towers to raise the alarm and get everything inside walls before they arrive anywhere...well if we had towers. And the ability to build on the plains.

Wow here's a whole lot of text I don't care about.

Our people have fought them before. Our people aren't mindless idiots. Our people can learn and adapt. We don't even have the option to be backseat generals, because they don't need us to.

So maybe we'll be at a disadvantage. Maybe we'll lose a few skirmishes. So what? We lose nothing of value, we recover from our losses, we dish out what hurt we can, and most importantly we learn.

In the end, it's all up to RNG anyways. A +10 to combat rolls isn't worth all the negatives from a fractured population.

I'm not saying war carts aren't useful, I'm saying that they're not useful enough for their cost at this point in time, and that alternatives may exist.

Fighting chariots is basically like fighting a drive-by mugging. They preferentially target your most vulnerable targets, can engage peers at times and places of their choice, and will evade before superior forces arrive to hit them.

So... we're going to get mugged and not slaughtered? I can live with that.

Power · Mar 16, 2017

Reading the paragraph on the chariot more carefully, i think whatshisname is saying we stole the improvement on the cart. He did say it was stolen from his brother and i highly doubt his brother came from Gwygoytha's generation (what 4 gens ago?)

ctulhuslp · Mar 16, 2017

Sivantic said:
As I said, it's less about winning, it's about sending a message.

We need to make a good showing to stop people from thinking we are an easy mark.

It will be 'sending a message' only if we win though; if we do not win, it will send a message of 'Hill folks are so pathetic they crashed and burned their economy to sustain war and still lost!'

veekie said:
If we got a choice, yes. But we don't. Forced raid until cultural value is satisfied

We do have a choice to do it later. Vengeance is best served cold, and we can always make Book of Grudges to not forget it, thus establishing first history book

But seriously, Eye for an Eye will be satisfied only if we win, and why do you all think we have good enough shot at winning against horde united by The Hero to justify not bothering to maintain economy and strike when they are not at their very strongest?

Athanor · Mar 16, 2017

Sivantic said:
Those votes need 'x's in the brackets,

Thanks

veekie · Mar 16, 2017

redzonejoe said:
When you say 'our armies getting slaughtered', what exactly are you imagining? A bloody battlefield, thousands dead, a few wounded deserters limping home, crying bloody tears at this great defeat? That's ridiculous.

Because I'm imagining a bunch of skirmishes, a few dozen deaths, people getting gradually more and more frustrated, and our civilisation not actually being affected all that much. New warriors are born and trained and replace the old, the feud grows larger, and our economy recovers thanks to the end of the blight and our increased farming.

And if my expectations are anywhere close to reality, even, no especially if we lost every individual fight, we can still develop weapons and tactics to let us fight back better.

The problem is that we're raiding them.
A force going out there to counter-raid them has the following outcomes:
-Try to engage their warparties while they attack. Manpower intensive strategy to actually cover the raiding targets, or to have our trade caravans be bait. High chance of significant opposition. Low chance of doing significant damage to them.

Failure means a normal skirmish, but more likely they'd wise up after a few ambushes and we're forced to either cover all the caravans/settlements or they start raiding in force.

-Seek out the camps backing their war parties. Decent chance of significant opposition. Decent chance of doing significant damage to them.

This would require some mobility to locate and hit before they move away, though not strictly impossible without. After we hit a few, they're going to wise up and have stronger patrols, which means after raiding such a camp the war party will be attacked by their war parties, though they can retreat home.
With chariots, this is quite effective at preventing them from doing any successful raids. Ride out, sack their camp, ride back flipping them the bird, so their warparty can chase them right into our less mobile warriors.

-Go for their heartlands, YOLO. High chance of getting rekt. Best chance of getting a shot for their leader, but low chance of actually succeeding.

This is freaking suicide. Very satisfying though

McLuvin said:
I just had a thought. We are not just going to be using War Carts right? We will be using infantry. As we know War Chariots are a step above our War Carts, so our infantry will have to develop anyway to fight against the carts...

Also as an aside, I think it Men our probably the best for fighting chariots, it's been mentioned before that we utilitise a high amount of advanced range weaponry due to our caravan skirmishes being our most common form of battle, thus we can outrange the primarily ranged based Chariots or use overwhelming firepower against the elite small Chariot units.

Chariot archers are going to be pretty nasty yes. Ride up, stop, shoot, ride on(firing while moving is possible, but difficult to learn).

And we're always going to be using combined arms, especially when heavy chariot use doesn't work in our home terrain.

veekie · Mar 16, 2017

redzonejoe said:
I meant like, after this turn. We fight them, people suggest ways the fighting could go better. Some suggest longer sticks, some suggest more accurate archers, some suggest we invest in our carts.

Then we take the war carts action if it still seems like the best idea, and don't lose stability for it.

Wow here's a whole lot of text I don't care about.

Our people have fought them before. Our people aren't mindless idiots. Our people can learn and adapt. We don't even have the option to be backseat generals, because they don't need us to.

So maybe we'll be at a disadvantage. Maybe we'll lose a few skirmishes. So what? We lose nothing of value, we recover from our losses, we dish out what hurt we can, and most importantly we learn.

In the end, it's all up to RNG anyways. A +10 to combat rolls isn't worth all the negatives from a fractured population.

I'm not saying war carts aren't useful, I'm saying that they're not useful enough for their cost at this point in time, and that alternatives may exist.

So... we're going to get mugged and not slaughtered? I can live with that.

We fought them already. Our people already suggested that their new war-carts are running circles around our war wagons.
They came up with the new carts, but those take time to put into production.

And our own economic advisor said that we can handle the economic hit better than we can handle not improving our military. He can be expected to know how well our economy will take it.

I'm saying that our people are not stupid, and will learn and adapt if we followed their advice and adapted.

ctulhuslp said:
We do have a choice to do it later. Vengeance is best served cold, and we can always make Book of Grudges to not forget it, thus establishing first history book

But seriously, Eye for an Eye will be satisfied only if we win, and why do you all think we have good enough shot at winning against horde united by The Hero to justify not bothering to maintain economy and strike when they are not at their very strongest?

No? We don't have a choice:

Choose one [Secondary] Focus. [Main] Focus is Currently Fight Forest Blight for the next turn, one [Secondary] is devoted to a War Mission against the Storm Clan

We already chose to attack.
The only choice here is whether we want the attack to suck and hurt us in the military, and commit to further war, or whether we want the attack to do well, take a hit to economy, and potentially free up the ability to choose to turtle.

ctulhuslp · Mar 16, 2017

veekie said:
We already chose to attack.
The only choice here is whether we want the attack to suck and hurt us in the military, and commit to further war, or whether we want the attack to do well, take a hit to economy, and potentially free up the ability to choose to turtle.

You are making it sound as if commiting war wagons will guarantee it all going well. I am not convinced this will be the case, not against the horde at its strongest possible moment and us at our possibly weakest. It may well be better to assume that we are going to lose war action this turn no matter how much we invest (because Hero+united horde + Steppes + they are ahead in technology + they are equal or ahead in numbers), and plan for the worst, building up food, shoring up economy and waiting until horde weakens in some way to strike.

We are the weaker side here no matter how much we commit to the war, it may be better to cut losses and strike when we actually have a shot at victory.

Paths of Civilization

Vaguely Pastafarian

Inattentive Idiot

Passing Flan 布丁魔王

Vaguely Pastafarian

Passing Flan 布丁魔王

Inattentive Idiot

Vaguely Pastafarian

Somethin's Fucky ...

Vaguely Pastafarian