Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Kiba said:
Could well be. If chiefs want to make more money, they have to manage their land better. Which might mean paying peasants higher wages.

My chief concern is preserving geographical mobility and preventing the subchiefs from accumulating too much power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't see much of how DL could affect the first, it is a offshoot of what we already do. The subchief thing is a messier subject, especially when I am of the opinion that we do need to give them some power as we get bigger. My main contention is how much. I think WC stuff we have done is good for the moment but this will be a recurring thing for... basically ever, until we get far into the modern age.
 
BungieONI said:
Which I don't think is what would be happening here, since some of the efficiency claimants that might benefit from this could well be peasants.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As a counterpoint, peasants are relatively unlikely to achieve a successful project proposal pitch, since the castes with the necessary background knowledge to do this are Clerks, Nobles and Priests.
Carrnage said:
And the justification for going full hereditary was that they had a right to the land that they've put so much work into.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It'd keep cropping up no doubt. The key to coping with it is largely ensuring that we have the Stability to pay for it, and to refuse de-jure at every point, not to sabotage empire building to try to avoid triggering it.

Each event sets a precedent, so over time the pressure will reduce even as more sources of mid-range local authority forms.
And we DO need mid-range authority, as long as we can maintain that final authority remains with the state.
 
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal x2
[X][Secondary]War Mission-Northern Nomads
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
[X][Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)
 
[][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal x2
[][Secondary]War Mission-Northern Nomads
[] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads

I don't understand this vote. Not changing policy just makes us waste the Law bonus, so it's just more efficient to change it now and take the war mission, instead of doubling down on SFR. We're currently at (5/8-12?) progress, so doubling it now doesn't do anything given it just takes the progress up to 7 so we can't complete it now, and we'd be struggling to take it twice next turn due to how much resources it's consuming along with potential environmental disruption, so it's quite likely we'd have to drop down to just taking it once next turn anyway. This action efficiency should mean, that the below vote is superior.

[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Secondary] War Mission-Northern Nomads
[X][Secondary] Change Policy - Balanced
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads

This has us change policy right now to take advantage of The Law bonus, and because balanced is better in this position given the provinces can take optimal actions whether that's expanding to a new province, taking study forests to synergy with the wonder, or general point gain. This still let's us take a secondary war mission to the north, and take the main action mega project.
 
Neptune said:
[][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal x2
[][Secondary]War Mission-Northern Nomads
[] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads

I don't understand this vote. Not changing policy just makes us waste the Law bonus, so it's just more efficient to change it now and take the war mission, instead of doubling down on SFR. We're currently at (5/8-12?) progress, so doubling it now doesn't do anything given it just takes the progress up to 7 so we can't complete it now, and we'd be struggling to take it twice next turn due to how much resources it's consuming along with potential environmental disruption, so it's quite likely we'd have to drop down to just taking it once next turn anyway. This action efficiency should mean, that the below vote is superior.

[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Secondary] War Mission-Northern Nomads
[X][Secondary] Change Policy - Balanced
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads

This has us change policy right now to take advantage of The Law bonus, and because balanced is better in this position given the provinces can take optimal actions whether that's expanding to a new province, taking study forests to synergy with the wonder, or general point gain. This still let's us take a secondary war mission to the north, and take the main action mega project.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That ends up one action less efficient.

In Balanced, the Law almost always doubles a secondary Enforce Econ. Your vote will give us three useful actions in the controllable ones, and +1 from Law in the provinces. The leading vote gives us five useful actions in the controllable ones, and 0 from Law.
 
[X] [Divine] Speak up for the idea (+1 Religious Authority, other effects)
[X][Main]Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Secondary]Change Policy-Expansion
[X][Main]Sacred Forest Renewal x2
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
 
veekie said:
Yes, basically this.

Mine or land, once you assign an administrator, generally the best person to continue administrating it is the child of the previous administrator, who is raised and taught how to manage it, what quirks, it has, etc, and this will continue to be true until even the modern era(where, surprise, many CEOs and top tier politicians/executives come from similar backgrounds)

It's under Heroic Admin assuming direct control, so a few oddities applied.


Yes, they will return, we'll quell them like we did back then.
The road infrastructure is not a nice extra, but ESSENTIAL to the health of a longstanding nation. It is better to have to beat "lets move de facto to de jure" off than to just set things up so that the country tears apart from lack of internal connectivity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Alright, I'll drop it, but I only meant that the "unequal" part - the claiming of mine profits - wouldn't be passed onto future managers.
 
pblur said:
That ends up one action less efficient.

In Balanced, the Law almost always doubles a secondary Enforce Econ. Your vote will give us three useful actions in the controllable ones, and +1 from Law in the provinces. The leading vote gives us five useful actions in the controllable ones, and 0 from Law.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not really, as that seems to assume we'd be able to double mega project next turn which I see as unlikely. So we're liable to have to take just one mega project action next turn if two are taken this turn; or as I suggest, we do it the other way around and take 1 mega project action this turn and do 2 mains next.

This then allows us to change policy this turn so it can benefit us, given we're restricted in our current restoration policy with max stability and yellow centralization, and our admin hero is dying thus losing her ability to smooth things over.
 
Last edited:
Neptune said:
Not really, as that seems to assume we'd be able to double mega project next turn which I see as unlikely given our low art. So we're liable to have to take just one mega project action next turn if two are taken this turn; or as I suggest, we do it the other way around and take 1 mega project action this turn and do 2 mains next.

This then allows us to change policy this turn so it can benefit us, given we're restricted in our current restoration policy with max stability and yellow centralization, and our admin hero is dying thus losing her ability to smooth things over.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No... I'm making no such assumption? I'm only evaluating this turn. Next turn, if we only have the stats for one megaproject action we'll have actions free to do other things. But that's not relevant to this turn's action efficiency.
 
Neptune said:
Not really, as that seems to assume we'd be able to double mega project next turn which I see as unlikely given our low art. So we're liable to have to take just one mega project action next turn if two are taken this turn; or as I suggest, we do it the other way around and take 1 mega project action this turn and do 2 mains next.

This then allows us to change policy this turn so it can benefit us, given we're restricted in our current restoration policy with max stability and yellow centralization, and our admin hero is dying thus losing her ability to smooth things over.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The limiting factor right now is not art but econ. Recall that each megaproject action costs -2 econ, -2 mysticism, and -1 art. Mysticism is irrelevant given refund.
 
Kiba said:
Anybody tempted to spam watermills like crazy? It has all sort of uses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It does, but it's pretty expensive. Both Secondary and Main options cost a full action more than their stats justify. In the long run, that's still amazing (innovations ahoy!) but it's not really a luxury we have now.

Edit: Actually, it's 2 extra actions for Secondary and 3 extra for Main. Ouch.
 
Last edited:
pblur said:
It does, but it's pretty expensive. Both Secondary and Main options cost a full action more than their stats justify. In the long run, that's still amazing (innovations ahoy!) but it's not really a luxury we have now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Actually, it's almost a direct transfer of wealth to econ. If we're on max econ, all it does is go back to wealth. The one cost we can't defry are the art cost which is -1 per action.
 
pblur said:
No... I'm making no such assumption? I'm only evaluating this turn. Next turn, if we only have the stats for one megaproject action we'll have actions free to do other things. But that's not relevant to this turn's action efficiency.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Of course it's relevant if you seem to be using the fact you can double up on two main actions, as an argument for why I'm wrong and why it losses actions. Remarking that it's unlikely you'll be able to double up next turn, while mine can do so, thus effectively being the same due to the project being unable to be completed this turn.

Otherwise how is my plan losing an action efficiency wise?
 
Kiba said:
Actually, it's almost a direct transfer of wealth to econ. If we're on max econ, all it does is go back to wealth. The one cost we can't defry are the art cost which is -1 per action.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I actually got the numbers wrong, it's worse that I'd thought.

1 Art costs 1 action to produce, and we're also spending one or two actions just to build it (depending on Secondary vs. Main.) So it costs 2-3 secondary actions more than the stats it gives.


It also works out the same if we're NOT capped on econ, amusingly. Econ costs half an action (thanks to Iron blooded), but this ALSO gives us long term econ in that case. Which also costs half an action to get from More Boats or Black Soil. So we're trading 1:1 Wealth -> Econ + LTE, which is a fair trade, and with -1 Art and the actions we're spending which we're not refunding.
 
Neptune said:
Of course it's relevant if you seem to be using the fact you can double up on two main actions, as an argument for why I'm wrong and why it losses actions. Remarking that it's unlikely you'll be able to double up next turn, while mine can do so, thus effectively being the same due to the project being unable to be completed this turn.

Otherwise how is my plan losing an action efficiency wise?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah, I see. You're right, they're equal efficiency if we can't double megaproject next turn.

Still, time-value of moneyactions. Better to spend actions now than in the future if we don't get a positive exchange rate.
 
Neptune said:
Of course it's relevant if you seem to be using the fact you can double up on two main actions, as an argument for why I'm wrong and why it losses actions. Remarking that it's unlikely you'll be able to double up next turn, while mine can do so, thus effectively being the same due to the project being unable to be completed this turn.

Otherwise how is my plan losing an action efficiency wise?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

OK. Why do you think it's unlikely we will be unable to do another double main next turn? Did you do the math?

11 econ -> 3 econ
- 2 True Cities
- 4 megaproject cost
- 3 loss from weather.

If we're lucky, we can also assume one main econ expansion, which will give us 7 econ, plus 2 from immigrants, will end at 9.

7 art -> 5
- 2 megaproject cost.

I haven't done anything with stability restoration however.
 
Kiba said:
OK. Why do you think it's unlikely we will be unable to do another double main next turn? Did you do the math?

11 econ -> 3 econ
- 2 True Cities
- 4 megaproject cost
- 3 loss from weather.

If we're lucky, we can also assume one main econ expansion, which will give us 7 econ, plus 2 from immigrants, will end at 9.

7 art -> 5
- 2 megaproject cost.

I haven't done anything with stability restoration however.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, my ideal province actions would be something like:
[Main] Expand Econ
[Secondary] Art Patronage
[Secondary] New Settlement

A good mix of Econ, Econ slots and Art, which are our most critical resources. I think a net of:
+5 Econ
+2 Art
-1 Wealth
-1 Econ slots

Depending on how many econ slots we get from the settlement.
 
Last edited:
pblur said:
Yeah, my ideal province actions would be something like:
[Main] Expand Econ
[Secondary] Art Patronage
[Secondary] New Settlement

A good mix of Econ, Econ slots and Art, which are our most critical resources. I think a net of:
+4 Econ
+2 Art
-1 Econ slot

Depending on how many econ slots we get from the settlement.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

May be better to do glasswork instead of secondary art patronage. You'll spend econ instead of wealth, but it will hopefully lead to domination of a trade category.
 
Kiba said:
May be better to do glasswork instead of secondary art patronage. You'll spend econ instead of wealth, but it will hopefully lead to domination of a trade category.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Glassworks costs a charcoal slot, and we don't have any available.

Edit: Also, @Academia Nut , would you be willing to share how many charcoal slots Secondary and Main Expand Forest create?
 
Last edited:
On Restoration, our provinces are most likely going to act like Balance if we stay at 3 stability. This is key and people keep on forgetting it.

Otherwise, the Law will see something like. "Hey look, I can restore stability to 3 with [Main] Proclaim Glory, and it doesn't bring me below 0 in any other stat, plus we get the benefit of Heroic Admin Order. Let's do it!" It gets worse with two stability damage, since it can go for [Main] Proclaim Glory and [Double Main] Festivals (choosing double main to restore Art for more proclaim glory at the cost of Econ). Ideally, we'll get [Main] Proclaim Glory, [Main] Festival and [Secondary] Art Patronage for 2 stability damage.

And really, stop being afraid of corruption. It's entirely self defeating if the goal of decreased centralization from Distribute Land is wasted on using Enforce Justice if we can never get around to doing [Main] New Trails. You're just going to have to settle with the fact that we can't entirely remove corruption in this day and age.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top