We had an option to support Gwygotha's son's attempt to claim nomadic throne. If we did it, instead of letting him go it alone, we wouldn't have this current crisis on our hands now.
Well no, although that would because if we still failed the war would've begun far eariler and we might not have been able to fight the Blight properly.

Just because we commit more forces doesn't mean we'd be assured success.
 
Well no, although that would because if we still failed the war would've begun far eariler and we might not have been able to fight the Blight properly.

Just because we commit more forces doesn't mean we'd be assured success.

With Gwygotha leading it and us fresh after her army update spree? I'd say we had pretty good shot - definitely better than a boy doing it alone.
Besides, we were in a much better place for a war, economy and military-wise. Of course, it would be offensive one, which is not really our cup of tea, so...still better than defending from nomadic hero with united horde while at Econ 0-1.
 
We had an option to support Gwygotha's son's attempt to claim nomadic throne. If we did it, instead of letting him go it alone, we wouldn't have this current crisis on our hands now.
Note it was of one tribe. Just one. Theres dozens of nomads out there.
Well no, although that would because if we still failed the war would've begun far eariler and we might not have been able to fight the Blight properly.

Just because we commit more forces doesn't mean we'd be assured success.
Or for the matter, that success would enable us to unify and assimilate the nomads before the hordemaster shows up to do it his way.

Due to their low centralization and large geographical span, fast unification methods by warfare are inherently unstable(as you're trying to culturally absorb people who outnumber you), while slow unification methods fail to acquire enough tribes to gain a decisive lead before the next guy with ambitions towards unified tribes show up.

Long term solution is just to peel off peripheral tribes and territory through terraforming while your traders take advantage of peace to diploconvert their culture.
 
Last edited:
Long term solution is just to peel off peripheral tribes and territory through terraforming.

Terraforming is going too far, series of forts and slow encroaching and assimilating tribes should be it.
Again, I am looking at historical Muscovy/Russia example of how to encroach into steppes at average rate of Netherland's territory/year for couple of centuries.
 
Terraforming is going too far, series of forts and slow encroaching and assimilating tribes should be it.
Again, I am looking at historical Muscovy/Russia example of how to encroach into steppes at average rate of Netherland's territory/year for couple of centuries.
Terraforming is however, what we have to work with. We don't have the concept of a settlement for the sole purpose of defense, and steppe soil is less fertile, so intensive agriculture would present a large, vulnerable target, with fewer warriors to each settlement than the nomads can bring to bear on a raid.

That's where terraforming comes in with our new Expand Forest option. Once we stabilize our economy, we 'push' forests up north, planting them around our allied settlements as we assimilate them. The increased trees would immediately choke off the nomads mobility, and at the same time, do not look like a target to fight(also trees are a lot harder to kill and kidnap than farmer :p). Then the tree shaded and black soil enriched earth can feed another population boom, and continue onwards.

It's a tower-walk strategy without towers to use.
 
Last edited:
Terraforming is however, what we have to work with. We don't have the concept of a settlement for the sole purpose of defense, and steppe soil is less fertile, so intensive agriculture would present a large, vulnerable target, with fewer warriors to each settlement than the nomads can bring to bear on a raid.

That's where terraforming comes in with our new Expand Forest option. Once we stabilize our economy, we 'push' forests up north, planting them around our allied settlements as we assimilate them. The increased trees would immediately choke off the nomads mobility, and at the same time, do not look like a target to fight(also trees are a lot harder to kill and kidnap than farmer :p). Then the tree shaded and black soil enriched earth can feed another population boom, and continue onwards.

It's a tower-walk strategy without towers to use.

Well, not forts for the sole purpose of defense, no, but slowly assimilating tribe after tribe and forting them up after they become more sedentary is possible way to do things.
Expanding forests probably takes time and is generally slower, especially since steppes are indeed not all that fertile. Usually. Although, Eurasian natural black soils belt begs to disagree - one of the most agriculturally rich types of soil, and is mostly in steppes of Ukraine, southern Russia and the like.
Also, heh.
Chernozem layer thickness may vary widely, from several inches up to 60 inches (1.5 metres) in Ukraine.[3]
There is a reason Ukraine was breadbasket of Russian Empire and USSR.
 
Well, not forts for the sole purpose of defense, no, but slowly assimilating tribe after tribe and forting them up after they become more sedentary is possible way to do things.
Expanding forests probably takes time and is generally slower, especially since steppes are indeed not all that fertile. Usually. Although, Eurasian natural black soils belt begs to disagree - one of the most agriculturally rich types of soil, and is mostly in steppes of Ukraine, southern Russia and the like.
Also, heh.

There is a reason Ukraine was breadbasket of Russian Empire and USSR.
Well...no reason to wait for the natural black soil when we can bring our own. Hook up roads, lay down walled settlements, lay down forests around the walled settlements, expand until secured, then repeat.
 
Were going to outpace the other civs in POP quick. I mean we have like 3 villages, and we outpopulate most of our neighbors despite them most likely expanding naturally and frequently.

Just before this war began, we found out we are outnumbered and others have between double and triple the number of settlements we have. Our lack of population and settlements is a big problem

Mannan said:
How is our number of settlements in comparison to our peers?
Half to a third.

General populations are:

Spirit Talkers < Dead Priests = The People < Northern Nomads < Western Confederacy, although the differences are currently relatively small.
 
Last edited:
I count two, not three, the main farmer settlement and the fishing settlement. Which one is the third?
Just before this war began, we found out we are outnumbered and others have between double and triple the number of settlements we have. Our lack of population and settlements is a big problem
The south valley village. The one founded by WC migrants. Their part of us now
 
The south valley village. The one founded by WC migrants. Their part of us now
Thank you.
Nishiphur's village, for some reason I thought it was not a full Settlement. I remembered they joined us when we helped with their farms, but kept on thinking of them having a small village.

So everyone else has 6 to 9 Settlements, and we have only 3. At one per a full turn it will take a minimum six turns to catch up. We really need build another Settlement and diplo-annex someone soon.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.
Nishiphur's village, for some reason I thought it was not a full Settlement. I remembered they joined us when we helped with their farms, but kept on thinking of them having a small village.

So everyone else has 6 to 9 Settlements, and we have only 3. At one per a full turn it will take a minimum six turns to catch up. We really need build another Settlement and diplo-annex someone soon.
Who needs settlements when we have trees!

Let's just abandon this silly city nonsense and start our new arbourial lifestyle! Remember, war carts can't climb~
 
Just before this war began, we found out we are outnumbered and others have between double and triple the number of settlements we have. Our lack of population and settlements is a big problem
Yes...though we have absurd population density, so we have a lot of specialized trades and are probably the only people who have a dedicated caste to just count how much shit we have.

So from the sound of things:
-Spirit Talkers, one major settlement, large number of minor as affiliates, likely 2 more medium sized ones.

-Dead Priests, same as Spirit Talkers, but with no minors and likely 5 or so medium settlements.

These guys are basically running on the Mega Capital model. One megasettlement they focus the majority of their infrastructure and culture generation on, with many more settlements that are just food production and resource harvesting.

-Western Confederacy meanwhile are allied tribe blocks of 7-8 independent, but culturally similar tribes, with each administrating large family sized units of minors.

-Nomads are probably something like 7-12 clans that spawn and breakup regularly. Nearly no infrastructure, pretty much all their assets are easy come easy go, which means new tech tends to be adopted and spread fast.

These models are more than anything nearly immune to lasting damage and can bounce back from losses in a generation or two.


Then you have us, the infrastructure and improvement nuts. 3 settlements, each with a capital city level of buildup.
Thank you.
Nishiphur's village, for some reason I thought it was not a full Settlement. I remembered they joined us when we helped with their farms, but kept on thinking of them having a small village.

So everyone else has 6 to 9 Settlements, and we have only 3. At one per a full turn it will take a minimum six turns to catch up. We really need build another Settlement and diplo-annex someone soon.

Due to population density, we should catch up within 2 new fully developed settlements.
Population gaps are pretty small, nobody has outright twice someone else's dudes.
 
With regards to next turns option discussion, I'm not going to be voting for expand forest. The only reason we should be taking that is when there is no longer natural forest to found a settlement in, and given we haven't once founded a new settlement that's going to take a while as our influence over the area is much greater than our actual control or ability to harvest it.

New settlements also naturally organize themselves, expand the farms around them, manage the forests around them, and create black soil pits all of which repeats itself as the settlements grow in population meaning the forests should expand with this option anyway. Due to intra-settlement trade and one of our people being the Traders, they presumably also develop road networks. It also means that when you found a new settlement, the people who immigrate to the new location leave additional capacity where they came from, allowing that settlement to grow faster as well.

All of the above makes the action incredibly efficient and allows us to catch back up with the other polities around us, and with our greater population comes further benefits as it allows our people to specialize even further advancing tech and trade, and means we can more easily assimilate others into our culture.
 
With regards to next turns option discussion, I'm not going to be voting for expand forest. The only reason we should be taking that is when there is no longer natural forest to found a settlement in, and given we haven't once founded a new settlement that's going to take a while as our influence over the area is much greater than our actual control or ability to harvest it.
Do recall that trees take quite a while to grow. While we are working on a generational level, it'd probably still take two-three turns for new growths to be useable.
 
I was not aware of that, I fought the WC were the migrants we helped, I thought that we failed to absorb them and they were now just semi-allies.

Nope, the migrants were from the group that would eventually become the WC, but they were isolated from their relatives and the People were much closer so they got absorbed peacefully generations ago. The Western Confederacy is about a dozen different tribes who are loosely associated with each other for defensive purposes against the Dead Priests.

Also, going to lock things in as...

[X] Social
[X] New Holy Site
[X] Increase fortification around endangered settlements
[X] Send a diplomatic expedition to the Spirit Talkers to attempt to trade for assistance

The update will be in a few hours.
 
I was not aware of that, I fought the WC were the migrants we helped, I thought that we failed to absorb them and they were now just semi-allies.
They were a small clan from the WC that ventured too far from the confederacy's core territories in their search for better land
 
They were a small clan from the WC that ventured too far from the confederacy's core territories in their search for better land
Then Strong Opinions on Agriculture happened.

Do recall that trees take quite a while to grow. While we are working on a generational level, it'd probably still take two-three turns for new growths to be useable.
We have at least 2 settlements before we start running out of forest to use.

Unless we annex something outside the forest anyways.
 
Do recall that trees take quite a while to grow. While we are working on a generational level, it'd probably still take two-three turns for new growths to be useable.

Depends on the trees, really. I'd say one generation is enough to grow young forest?
Unless we annex something outside the forest anyways.

I want to. If we don't get to annexing tribes, new Drogo will happen eventually, and that will be annoying.
 
Depends on the trees, really. I'd say one generation is enough to grow young forest?
For fast growth trees, 5 years to maturity is possible, but these tend to be smaller and immensely water hungry, while also with less deeply penetrating roots.

Overall 2-3 generations to reach true forest maturity, but one generation can provide solid ground cover.

I want to. If we don't get to annexing tribes, new Drogo will happen eventually, and that will be annoying

It'd happen even if we do. Their culture is structured to be very hard to assimilate or annihilate alike.

You'd take out chunks, but sterilization is not simple.
The Western Confederacy is about a dozen different tribes who are loosely associated with each other for defensive purposes against the Dead Priests.
Huh, wonder how well it'd last past its purpose...
 
Last edited:
When I finished the first sentence, I almost ignored the second, assuming it would be "The moment someone points out something is a shiny, everyone bandwagons onto it."

Someone should make a list of all the SV quest rules. I think we all deserve the power to nod sagely, completely confusing new questers, whenever someone says "typical Quest Rule #6."
Rule #2: the first 10% of the posters decide 75% of the votes
Rule #3: If the main character of a quest is a guy, the questers will interpret him as straight; if the main character is a girl, they will see her as gay
Rule #4: The perversity of the dice tends towards the maximum
Rule #5: Turns where the dice are great always come alone, turns where the dice are terrible can always be followed by another turn where the dice are terrible
Rule #6: If a voting option has a "???" or involves the possibility of making out with a cute girl, then the chances of that option being chosen rise to 100%
Rule #7: The main character of any quest will tend towards Chaotic Good, even in cases when not being Chaotic Good is the point of the quest
 
It'd happen even if we do. Their culture is structured to be very hard to assimilate or annihilate alike.

Eh. Ex-nomads like Nogai now consider themselves "Russian", for example, so...it is more complicated in Stone Age (but we are nearing it's end or past it to be fair), but cultural assimilation is very much a thing and it works on nomads pretty well.
 
Back
Top