Now you're moving the goalposts.
So...he explicitly says "Investing in war during war is good" and your reaction is "Let's invest in land (when our main problem is lack of manpower not lack of land)?

WHAT?!?!?
I will thank you to not misrepresent my points. You will notice that my main point was that WOG explicitly stated that investing in war was better than any economic plan. The manpower statement was in parentheses and thus entirely tangential to the rest of the statement. That's what parentheses are for.

So please, just stop!
 
You do know that we are building the war cart not our old war wagons right?
War carts are the latest in warfare of our era and will be relevant for quite a while longer most likely.
Yes, as I said our best design (carts[design gen 2] not wagons[design gen 1]) but I anticipate one of the raids by the nomads failing allowing us to steal their upgraded carts[design gen 2.5]

Build War Carts construct more of the new war carts, offers a slight chance of winning this turn at the cost of a worse situation long term
 
Last edited:
Hm, I have a theory: If we choose skull smashing and anonymous burial this turn, I think there's a not insignificant chance of Eye for an Eye upgrading to something else. Something that would ameliorate it's disadvantages. Like when caretakers upgraded to gardeners.

Because this is kind of how we got it in the first place, wasn't it? By choosing how to deal with those who wrong us?

Edit: Note the insightful rating from Acadamia Nut...
 
Last edited:
Hm, I have a theory: If we choose skull smashing and anonymous burial this turn, I think there's a not insignificant chance of Eye for an Eye upgrading to something else. Something that would ameliorate it's disadvantages. Like when caretakers upgraded to gardeners.

Because this is kind of how we got it in the first place, wasn't it? By choosing how to deal with those who wrong us?

Quite possibly.

I imagine it is developing into an early Law of Wars. Whereas our enemies rape, pillage, and make trophies, we draw the lines so to speak.
 
[X] Skull-smashing and anonymous burial
[X] Any who are interested may join the fight
[X] [Secondary] Step-Farms

Both choices are essentialy gambles, but loss if Wagons fail (and chances of victory are far from the best because lol Chengiz) is much more severe than loss with Farms.
Basically, I am being a pessimist and do not believe we can win with or without investing in wagons, so I am for cutting losses, not giving in to sunk costs fallacy and propose attacking them next turn, when they are (hopefully) out of leader, or we are at least finished with this blight.
 
I will thank you to not misrepresent my points. You will notice that my main point was that WOG explicitly stated that investing in war was better than any economic plan. The manpower statement was in parentheses and thus entirely tangential to the rest of the statement. That's what parentheses are for.

So please, just stop!
If your entire argument is that AN said a thing, then yes he did. He wrote it, it exists, I acknowledge that. Congratulations, you win.

I'm assuming, however, that your actual argument was that one option is clearly superior to the other option, and this is what I was addressing. This is where the issue is.

You made the argument that your option was better by first mentioning my paraphrasing of AN's quote, and then attacking my chosen option (in brackets, so I guess it doesn't count or something?). You also said what in all caps as if I was so stupid you were shocked, so if I came across as hostile in my response, that's why.

I defended my chosen option, also using AN quotes, and explained my reasoning for why. I value stability, and despite AN suggesting war preparations are a good idea (not better, not the best, just good), I placed a higher priority on other, long term plans instead.

You responded to this by acting like I ignored your argument completely, like I'm in denial of the facts, and that AN's suggestion is the holy gospel and to question it is heresy.

To which I suggested you were moving the goalposts, because as far as I was aware, we were discussing the validity of the options, and more specifically I was defending my preferred option, while you made it sound like the whole argument was about whether or not AN said a thing.

So... I guess if that was your whole argument, then I'm in the wrong here. Sorry.
 
probably not the best time, but maybe we should consider a settlement near the area where we're dealing with the blight. We're already pouring resources and people into cultivating the area, and we've already made roads to it.
 
probably not the best time, but maybe we should consider a settlement near the area where we're dealing with the blight. We're already pouring resources and people into cultivating the area, and we've already made roads to it.
Blight's pretty much done, and our next settlement area is already chosen as being between the farming village and the fishing village (and therefore close to the shrine as a result (the shrine's location being chosen for much the same reason)).
 
Last edited:
It causes instability, decreases centralization, and... does it splinter people off to form a new settlement? If it does, that's a new settlement that is angry with us. Not a good thing.

Remember the lowlanders, how they used to raid everybody, fight amongst each other and splinter off? There were about 6 main tribes? We got this pioneering trait from their remnants.

So yes, I'd say fractured. Not broken, not dissolved or destroyed or whatever. Fractured. Big angry lines that require a lot of time and effort to mend.
Fair enough
 
and that AN's suggestion is the holy gospel and to question it is heresy.
Word of God. Yes, I would say that ignoring that is fucking retarded! No shit Sherlock! The person that controls the world looked at your argument and said that it was a bad idea! You know what that means? YOU ARE WRONG!
 
That quote always reads to me as if AN is saying, "Yes, choosing this will do what you think it will, but since saying that is likely to make the entire thread hop on that option I'm gonna mention that the other option also has value. (Can't make it too easy for you.)"

I mean, I could be wrong, but usually QMs tend to avoid straight out telling us that on option is better than the other.
 
Holy shit guys can you please calm down?

At this point I don't even care what wins anymore as long as it puts a stop to this whole War Carts VS Step Farms argument.
 
Last edited:
My current plan is next turn; major project the war(replacing the blight) and built carts or expand warriors as one of the secondaries depending on how we go this turn. It will be far more likely for us to win if the war is a major project and not the secondary it currently is. Also the enemy leader is described as hair going grey so I am hoping age catches up with him.

What do people think of going ahead with the festival next turn no matter how the war goes?
Nomad Raider:What are you doing?
People Trader:Celebrating our new festival, it's spring and the last blighted area is sprouting new trees
Nomad Raider:But we are at war
People Trader: Yes and we will not stop until you get a good spanking for your bad behavior. But this is far more important, the trees are finally safe.
Nomad Raider:???

:lol
 
That quote always reads to me as if AN is saying, "Yes, choosing this will do what you think it will, but since saying that is likely to make the entire thread hop on that option I'm gonna mention that the other option also has value. (Can't make it too easy for you.)"

I mean, I could be wrong, but usually QMs tend to avoid straight out telling us that on option is better than the other.
It literally says that the current situation makes one superior to the other.
However, given the military necessities, investing in the military is probably a good idea, even if it will be disruptive.
How could you possibly get any other meaning out of that? "This will do that, but this other thing is a better idea given the current situation" is the exact structure of the statement, just broken across two sentences!
 
I really think we should be doing the breaking and exposure execution. We must remember that we're not doing this just because we were raided, but that they defiled our dead which should be a no no along with the fact that we choose the option previously where we fear becoming spiritual impure by interacting with dead bodies. AN came out and said that if our own warriors were to do such a thing, they would be executed by their fellows. It's that serious.

Breaking and exposure suits the goals as:
  • It's a good tool of fear and warning that'll far easier send it's message, rather than simply killing and disposing of the body. The latter punishment should be reserved for something less severe than this.
  • It satisfies our Eye for an Eye trait, as it's a specific and cruel punishment for a notably horrendous act by our culture standards.
  • It fits with how our culture has been built up, as it utilizes the forests and undoubtedly the bodies will be picked clean by carrion like crows and ravens giving nice symbology. This would end up being similar to Sky Burials, but more fitting our environment.
  • Our civilization fears being contaminated by the dead, so those claims of increasing the chance of diseases seem extreme. These bodies aren't going to be near settlements or our water sources, and our people aren't going to go out of the way to them due to cultural prejudices against doing so which include exile from our community until you've been deemed pure.
 
Word of God. Yes, I would say that ignoring that is fucking retarded! No shit Sherlock! The person that controls the world looked at your argument and said that it was a bad idea! You know what that means? YOU ARE WRONG!
These are getting long, spoilering for the people who don't care.
First, it's not word of god. It's word of our economic advisor, spoken through god's keyboard.

Second, he did not say I was wrong. As I quoted previously, he said that my choice successfully fulfills my goal of economic stability. What he actually said was that military build-up was 'probably a good idea'

Let me break that down for you.

Probably means there's a chance. It could go either way. It could be a good idea, it could be a bad idea, but the chances lean in favor of it being a good idea.

Good means beneficial. Positive outcome.

Taken together, this statement means that there is a >51% chance that this option will have a beneficial outcome.

What he did not say was that this was the only good option. What he did not say was that this was the best option.

Now keeping in mind that this is a player run quest, the QM chipping in is meant to be helpful, not an indication that we must play the game exactly as he wants it. That's not how quests work. That's the opposite of how a quest works.

So taking all of this in mind, I'm modestly suggesting that there is more than one option available to us that don't end with our immediate and total destruction.

I'm then going a step further, and arguing that my own values and playstyle synergize well with one of these options.

So when you attacked that option (in brackets!) I defended it, and you got even more upset that I dared stand up to the almighty Lord! Even though that's not really what I'm doing. I'm standing up to you.
 
Last edited:
Word of God. Yes, I would say that ignoring that is fucking retarded! No shit Sherlock! The person that controls the world looked at your argument and said that it was a bad idea! You know what that means? YOU ARE WRONG!

First, stop shouting, please. This helps nobody - well, maybe it helps you to vent, but that does not exactly justify it.

Second, I do remember that post.
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.

There are several parts worth noting:
1. Any food-related thing will keep economy stable.
2. Investing in military will be disruptive, but is probably worth it.
3. We aren't necessarily going to be fighting in the plains.
4. We are not likely to be punished for not investing into Military this turn by unrest (nothing says we can't lose due to it, mind), we just have to eventually do it.
5. Econ is generally exchanged 1:1 for Centralization, but that does not remove strife, just makes it bloodless (unless things are really fucked, but we are pretty stable civ).

Those are the facts, now to speculation.
1. Phrase about 'probably a good idea' was a response to 'what would our Econ advisor say?', which means it may or may not be straight Word of QM.
2. If we think it is Word of QM and not answer to 'what would econ advisor IC recommend', which is the question that was asked (and come on, AN would not give us advise in his QM capacity) , then you are right. That's one big if.

So, before we spiral into the further argument, we should confirm with QM whether it was an answer to the question of 'What IC advisor would say' or straight-up QM advise.
 
Honestly, even if it is word of QM it doesn't necessarily mean he's right. The quest is based in part on dice results, which AN can't fully predict (even though he does have more insight into the numbers than us), and future player actions, which again AN cannot fully predict... which lead to more dice rolls... see where I'm going?

QM advice isn't to be ignored, but it's not perfect or infallible either. His predictions can also be wrong.
 
It literally says that the current situation makes one superior to the other.

How could you possibly get any other meaning out of that? "This will do that, but this other thing is a better idea given the current situation" is the exact structure of the statement, just broken across two sentences!
Actually I see it as: This will do that, but this other thing is also a good idea. Which I feel is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Edit: The Mwahaha, can't make it easier for you is implied by QM-ship alone.
Edit2: And considering I just got an insightful from AN on my original post (and on my post about Eye for an eye) I'm leaning towards me being correct here.
 
Last edited:
[X] Skull-smashing and anonymous burial
[X] Any who are interested may join the fight
[X] [Secondary] Build War Carts

Kill the tree haters!
 
Time for another one!
Vote Tally : Paths of Civilization | Page 193 | Sufficient Velocity
##### NetTally 1.7.5

[X] Any who are interested may join the fight
No. of Votes: 56
Deadly Snark
Aigloss
Arbit
bluefur87
Chrestomanci
Citino
Crowhunter
Ct613hulu
ctulhuslp
Dirk93
Duesal
Ephemeral_Dreamer
Eri
ETA50M
Ghostdevil
godofsmallthings
Hangwind
highs2lows
hylas240
Ian Drash
keenscythe
Killer_Whale
Lone Wolf 666
Malevolo
Mannan
minerva-n-memes
Motoko
Neptune
Nicklance
NotAlwaysFanfic
notgreat
Omegahugger
pbluekan
Potato and Chip
PotentialPlateau
Powerofmind
redzonejoe
ScreenWatcher
Sightsear
Sivantic
Skjadir
SpeckofStardust
Spectrum
Speed53066
Theunderbolt
UbeOne
Umi-san
Varano
veekie
Versharl
Wellhello
wingstrike96
Xantalos
XkaliburRage
zamin
Zoxabels

[X] Formalize breaking and exposure
No. of Votes: 29
Deadly Snark
Arbit
Athanor
Chiperninerm
Chrestomanci
Crowhunter
Duesal
Ephemeral_Dreamer
ETA50M
Ghostdevil
highs2lows
Ian Drash
keenscythe
Killer_Whale
Malevolo
Mannan
Neptune
NotAlwaysFanfic
pbluekan
Potato and Chip
redzonejoe
Sightsear
Sivantic
Speed53066
Theunderbolt
Versharl
Xantalos
zamin
Zoxabels

[x] Skull-smashing and anonymous burial
No. of Votes: 23
bluefur87
Aigloss
Citino
Ct613hulu
ctulhuslp
Dirk93
Eri
godofsmallthings
hylas240
McLuvin
minerva-n-memes
Motoko
Nicklance
Omegahugger
Skjadir
SpeckofStardust
Spectrum
UbeOne
Umi-san
Varano
veekie
Wellhello
wingstrike96

[X] Build War Carts
No. of Votes: 7
Deadly Snark
Athanor
minerva-n-memes
Powerofmind
Theunderbolt
XkaliburRage
Zoxabels

[X] Burning at the stake
No. of Votes: 7
Powerofmind
Arcus2611
Hangwind
Lone Wolf 666
notgreat
PotentialPlateau
XkaliburRage

[x] Call upon friendships
No. of Votes: 2
McLuvin
Chiperninerm

[X]Step-Farms
No. of Votes: 2
Ephemeral_Dreamer
Ghostdevil

[X] No aid is needed
No. of Votes: 1
Athanor

[X] Hanging and display
No. of Votes: 1
ScreenWatcher


——————————————————————————————————————————————
Task: Secondary

[X][Secondary] Step-Farms
No. of Votes: 26
bluefur87
Aigloss
Chrestomanci
Crowhunter
Ct613hulu
ctulhuslp
Dirk93
Duesal
Eri
ETA50M
godofsmallthings
Kiba
Lone Wolf 666
Malevolo
Mannan
Motoko
redzonejoe
Skjadir
SpeckofStardust
Speed53066
UbeOne
Varano
Versharl
VoidZero
Xantalos
zamin

[X][Secondary] Build War Carts
No. of Votes: 25
hylas240
Andres110
Arbit
Chiperninerm
Citino
Hangwind
highs2lows
Ian Drash
Killer_Whale
McLuvin
Nicklance
NotAlwaysFanfic
notgreat
Omegahugger
pbluekan
Potato and Chip
PotentialPlateau
Power
Sightsear
Sivantic
Spectrum
Umi-san
veekie
Wellhello
wingstrike96

[X] [Secondary] Expand Fishing
No. of Votes: 2
Neptune
keenscythe

Total No. of Voters: 64
So that's 32-28 in favour of War Carts, and a lot of War Cart voters being lazy and not adding [Secondary] to their votes.
 
Back
Top