Hm, I can't say for the period, but in general influence and impact, well... you usually always get to premier works of military strategy cited, Sun Tzu's Art of War and Clausewitz' On War. Now, I'm not familiar with Jomini, but according to Wiki:

"His operational prescription was fundamentally simple: put superior combat power at the decisive point."

That seems to be the exactly same doctrine as Clausewitz: Schwerpunkt, and what we nowadays would call KISS (as opposed to Sun Tzu's advise to go for trickeries). Furthermore, Jomini seems to have mostly dealt in the more directly applicable matters of tactics - matters that wouldn't actually contradict Clausewitz' statements on the fundamental nature of war.



Jomini was the premier military author of the era. He was a believer in war as a science, his writings focused on logistics, supply, economics, drill, overarching strategy ,formations, arms. Basically big picture stuff although with insane amount of detail and minutia , which wasn't glamourus, and his heavy academic style of writing made him of interest to only military officers, and he was extremely interesting to them , so much so that warfare of the early to late mid 19th century was structured almost entirely on his writings (Jominian warfare) Clausewitz hated him with a passion as they were in competition in military writing and yet it was Jomini who the military men of the era adhered to, whilst Clausewitz had more public appeal. ( it helped that Jomini was a highly respected and accomplished napoleonic general)


Here's Jomini on warfare
 
Last edited:
So. Everybody seems so kin on fucking up loads of people , having a way of helping as much of them as possible while also getting an advantage in upcoming war...and instead we fear taking the pretty small risk and go "if you can leave everything behind with no guarantee of anything waiting for you then whatever we take you, otherwise you are on your own".

Because, well, people who are fucked over but do not even know running to us is an option certainly do exist, and not helping them, especially those whom we have created, is going to be a source of cultral dissonance arguably worse than one from taking in everyone, because for the first time it is in a large part our fault.
umm, I have no clue what the heck you are talking about. Mind saying it in a straightforward manner rather than dancing around the subject?
 
...

I

You

You just stated it right there
In terms of the Economy, Stability, and Econ Expansion penalties we take from the climate change, Centralisation only helps against so much. Against anything else, there is no cap where higher Centralisation does not help (unless it's yellow or red, of course).

Against a plague, for example, it will always be that higher Centralisation mitigates damage. There is no cap to how much Centralisation can help (aside from yellow/red Centralisation). Assuming it's not yellow/red, Centralisation 4 will always help us handle plague better than Centralisation 3, and Centralisation 3 will always help us handle plague better than Centralisation 2, and so on.
 
Last edited:
In terms of the Economy, Stability, and Econ Expansion penalties we take from the climate change, Centralisation only helps against so much. Against anything else, there is no cap where higher Centralisation does not help (unless it's yellow or red, of course).

Against a plague, for example, it will always be that higher Centralisation mitigates damage. There is no cap to how much Centralisation can help (aside from yellow/red Centralisation).
Now you are moving goal posts.

Have a good day sir.
 
Most people are doing the mills because it gives econ without eating up expansion slots, and aren't doing a new settlement because we currently are at administrative capacity and almost literally cannot govern any more land effectively.
Taking the settlement also gives both economy and mysticism (which'll go into something else, I don't know the wheel of by heart), and unlocks further expansion slots on it's own. While the administrative capacity is an issue, it's one that is going to be helped via new trails, and the palace. It should also to an extent reduce some administration issues given territorial continuity with our large vassal, should make things easier to organize and direct things, and should provide increased defense of the trails instead of having no settlement there.

Word of AN, the new settlement is smack in the raid path of the Thunder Speakers AND further stresses our admin
The smack dab in the raid path of the Thunder Speakers is irrelevant though, given the logistical trails already there are incredibly important for the movement of both soldiers and goods, so if we are attacked they are going to be raided regardless. We'll likely have the luxuries our core provinces produce flowing into our vassal, and whatever our vassal produces going back towards the core provinces, soldiers going both ways as you need to protect those goods, and people moving between the places in general.

A settlement there makes all those things easier as you enable those travelling to find supply on the way, and they also act as a base from which to station our units to defend from the Thunder Horse. There's also a further benefit that you yourself mentioned; Red Hills is a source of our iron, is vulnerable to the Thunder Speakers raiding them, and we already know if Rulwyna is to be believed they have intention to attack there. By the very name of the provinces - Far Eastern Red Hills - it should indicate that they would help provide a buffer for our more valuable Red Hills province, and as previously mentioned, enable us to station troops long term there given they actually can be supplied. That also means we can make greater use of both our horsemen and blackbirds, giving us advanced information on when they're going to attack.

On the final point of stressing our admin; I would argue it both stresses it and eases it at the same time. While founding a new province would mean increased work, the province is also going to be in a location that is both highly valuable and highly vulnerable, and if there is no province there would of itself need considerably amounts of work and effort to protect it to maintain the links with the vassal and protect from the Thunder Speakers, which is presumably going to fall under the King's authority. Founding a new province there means that we can exploit our excellent Heirarchy stat to delegate many of the responsibilities that likely would have went to the King, onto the new Province Chief instead thus reducing the amount of work the King needs to do. The King can focus on the macro scale, while letting our hierarchy do it's work and the provinces focus on the micro which is arguably the more intensive work given the tedious and often delicate nature of it, along with the fact the information would of had to travel to the capital and back.

Thus for me the increased difficulty of administrating a new province is itself going to be mitigated by that new province, because the area is already a high interest area and requires administrating already.
 
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[X] [Boat] New design: Seaworthiness
[X] [Mill] Greater permission (-3 Wealth, -1 Art, -2 Centralization, +3 Econ, increased potential for innovation)
[X] [WC] Lesser assistance (-2 Art, -1 Centralization, Stallions pleased, ???)
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal Completion (-2 Econ, -2 Mysticism, -1 Art)
[X] [Refugee] They accepted all who came (Chance of stability loss, +2 Econ)
 
Now you are moving goal posts.

Have a good day sir.
I am not moving goal posts. This is what I've been trying to get at all along. Read the first of these posts again:
Wouldn't the drop in Stability exacerbate the problems that 2/3 Centralisation bring during this whole pseudo-crisis on top of make it less likely that Rulwyna becomes queen?
I wasn't referring to the climate change when I said "pseudo-crisis". It was referring to the whole mess of problems we're dealing with - plague, refugees, war, and low Economy. All of those things are things which we can handle better the higher Centralisation is, especially considering how much of that stuff we have to handle. Lowering Centralisation decreases our ability to handle that stuff. All of those things are also things which are made worse by lower Stability.
 
Last edited:
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[X] [Boat] New design: Seaworthiness
[X] [Mill] Lesser permission (-2 Wealth, -1 Art, -1 Centralization, +2 Econ, potential for innovation)
[X] [WC] Lesser assistance (-2 Art, -1 Centralization, Stallions pleased, ???)
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal Completion (-2 Econ, -2 Mysticism, -1 Art)
[X] [Refugee] They accepted all who came (Chance of stability loss, +2 Econ)
 
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[X] [Boat] New design: Seaworthiness
[X] [Mill] Lesser permission (-2 Wealth, -1 Art, -1 Centralization, +2 Econ, potential for innovation)
[X] [WC] Lesser assistance (-2 Art, -1 Centralization, Stallions pleased, ???)
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal Completion (-2 Econ, -2 Mysticism, -1 Art)
-[X] [Main] Kick the Megaproject (Pay 1 Stability, gain another Main action)
[X] [Main] Main Build Mill
[X] [Refugee] They accepted all who came (Chance of stability loss, +2 Econ)

We need the cent to pull through this.
 
Taking the settlement also gives both economy and mysticism (which'll go into something else, I don't know the wheel of by heart), and unlocks further expansion slots on it's own. While the administrative capacity is an issue, it's one that is going to be helped via new trails, and the palace. It should also to an extent reduce some administration issues given territorial continuity with our large vassal, should make things easier to organize and direct things, and should provide increased defense of the trails instead of having no settlement there.


The smack dab in the raid path of the Thunder Speakers is irrelevant though, given the logistical trails already there are incredibly important for the movement of both soldiers and goods, so if we are attacked they are going to be raided regardless. We'll likely have the luxuries our core provinces produce flowing into our vassal, and whatever our vassal produces going back towards the core provinces, soldiers going both ways as you need to protect those goods, and people moving between the places in general.

A settlement there makes all those things easier as you enable those travelling to find supply on the way, and they also act as a base from which to station our units to defend from the Thunder Horse. There's also a further benefit that you yourself mentioned; Red Hills is a source of our iron, is vulnerable to the Thunder Speakers raiding them, and we already know if Rulwyna is to be believed they have intention to attack there. By the very name of the provinces - Far Eastern Red Hills - it should indicate that they would help provide a buffer for our more valuable Red Hills province, and as previously mentioned, enable us to station troops long term there given they actually can be supplied. That also means we can make greater use of both our horsemen and blackbirds, giving us advanced information on when they're going to attack.

On the final point of stressing our admin; I would argue it both stresses it and eases it at the same time. While founding a new province would mean increased work, the province is also going to be in a location that is both highly valuable and highly vulnerable, and if there is no province there would of itself need considerably amounts of work and effort to protect it to maintain the links with the vassal and protect from the Thunder Speakers, which is presumably going to fall under the King's authority. Founding a new province there means that we can exploit our excellent Heirarchy stat to delegate many of the responsibilities that likely would have went to the King, onto the new Province Chief instead thus reducing the amount of work the King needs to do. The King can focus on the macro scale, while letting our hierarchy do it's work and the provinces focus on the micro which is arguably the more intensive work given the tedious and often delicate nature of it, along with the fact the information would of had to travel to the capital and back.

Thus for me the increased difficulty of administrating a new province is itself going to be mitigated by that new province, because the area is already a high interest area and requires administrating already.
The New Trails are supposed to be going into the North, not towards the Lowlands, which is where the settlement would be.
It kinda defeats the purpose of using trails to connect the North and South if we just use them to connect the South and Further South.
 
To clarify, it doesn't make subordinates prone to breaking away in the sense of creating a risk, it merely increases the risk they will.
AN has also said our neighbours may start wars against us out of principle. Not sure how relevant that factoid is in our current situation, but that is a thing that is true.
 
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[X] [Boat] New design: Seaworthiness
[X] [Mill] Lesser permission (-2 Wealth, -1 Art, -1 Centralization, +2 Econ, potential for innovation)
[X] [WC] Lesser assistance (-2 Art, -1 Centralization, Stallions pleased, ???)
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal Completion (-2 Econ, -2 Mysticism, -1 Art)
[X][Refugee] They were helping to create refugees, they should help more (-1 Stability, chance of further loss, +4-5 Econ)
 
Last edited:
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[X] [Boat] New design: Seaworthiness
[X] [Mill] Lesser permission (-2 Wealth, -1 Art, -1 Centralization, +2 Econ, potential for innovation)
[X] [WC] Lesser assistance (-2 Art, -1 Centralization, Stallions pleased, ???)
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal Completion (-2 Econ, -2 Mysticism, -1 Art)
[X] [Refugee] They were helping to create refugees, they should help more (-1 Stability, chance of further loss, +4-5 Econ)

I want to give all our neighbors another refugee stab in the gut to speed up their collapse so they stop fighting us. Also I feel that it is morally right to welcome more than the minimum amount of refugees since we caused some of them which hopefully will upgrade CA but isn't necessary.

Also about the centralization argument you guys do realize we have super high hierarchy too which means lower centralization will no let us actually command that hierarchy right?
 
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[X] [Boat] New design: Seaworthiness
[X] [Mill] Lesser permission (-2 Wealth, -1 Art, -1 Centralization, +2 Econ, potential for innovation)
[X] [WC] Lesser assistance (-2 Art, -1 Centralization, Stallions pleased, ???)
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal Completion (-2 Econ, -2 Mysticism, -1 Art)
[X] [Refugee] They accepted all who came (Chance of stability loss, +2 Econ)

Tightrope walking. We can only pray this works.
 
I am not moving goal posts. This is what I've been trying to get at all along. Read the first of these posts again:

I wasn't referring to the climate change when I said "pseudo-crisis". It was referring to the whole mess of problems we're dealing with - plague, refugees, war, and low Economy. All of those things are things which we can handle better the higher Centralisation is, especially considering how much of that stuff we have to handle. Lowering Centralisation decreases our ability to handle that stuff. All of those things are also things which are made worse by lower Stability.
We have spent most of our time at Centralization 3 and had dealt with all those problems before. Low Centralization is 0-1. With our Sacred Forest Project started as a way to deal with the climate change, finishing it now means we are better able to deal with those things, regardless of whether we are at Centralization 3 or Centralization 2.
 
The New Trails are supposed to be going into the North, not towards the Lowlands, which is where the settlement would be.
It kinda defeats the purpose of using trails to connect the North and South if we just use them to connect the South and Further South.
We don't actually specify where the trails go and we don't know what a double main trails does, and regardless the point still stands, as trails make administrating other provinces easier. No matter the area, wherever they're placed reduces the load on the King's bureaucracy thus itself enabling more effort to be spent elsewhere. And as my argument was, the effort is already going to be spent administrating the logistical trails between our provinces and vassals regardless, and a settlement enables the King to delegate to a Province Chief.
 
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[X] [Boat] New design: Seaworthiness
[X] [Mill] Lesser permission (-2 Wealth, -1 Art, -1 Centralization, +2 Econ, potential for innovation)
[X] [WC] Lesser assistance (-2 Art, -1 Centralization, Stallions pleased, ???)
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal Completion (-2 Econ, -2 Mysticism, -1 Art)
-[X] [Main] Kick the Megaproject (Pay 1 Stability, gain another Main action)
[X] [Main] Main Build Mill
[X] [Refugee] They accepted all who came (Chance of stability loss, +2 Econ)
 
We have spent most of our time at Centralization 3 and had dealt with all those problems before. Low Centralization is 0-1. With our Sacred Forest Project started as a way to deal with the climate change, finishing it now means we are better able to deal with those things, regardless of whether we are at Centralization 3 or Centralization 2.
While we can handle things at any Centralisation level (except maybe the really low levels), we can handle things better the more Centralisation we have. Thus it's better to have Centralisation 3 rather than Centralisation 2 for this mid-turn. We can also handle the problems of this mid-turn better by keeping Stability up. It's not necessary but it is helpful.
 
Last edited:
umm, I have no clue what the heck you are talking about. Mind saying it in a straightforward manner rather than dancing around the subject?

I see literally no reason which would make minimal refugees better than any other option, and all answres to my questions on this topic were either silence or basically fearmongering and blowing refugees danger out of proportions while utterly ignoring possible benefits.
Compounded by us being the cause of a current refugee crisis (mind you, not *the* cause), it makes me quite annoyed. If we are not ready to take responsibility for all war refugees, why the fuck have we voted in warmongering chief?


Admittedly, believing ourselves to be morally superior, while starting offensive wars and refusing to take responsibility for consequences makes Ymaryn much more American. :V
 
Last edited:
[X] [War] Withdraw main forces to defend Redhills, leave vassals and Red Banner
[X] [Boat] New design: Seaworthiness
[X] [Mill] Lesser permission (-2 Wealth, -1 Art, -1 Centralization, +2 Econ, potential for innovation)
[X] [WC] Lesser assistance (-2 Art, -1 Centralization, Stallions pleased, ???)
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal Completion (-2 Econ, -2 Mysticism, -1 Art)
[X] [Refugee] They were helping to create refugees, they should help more (-1 Stability, chance of further loss, +4-5 Econ)

I want to give all our neighbors another refugee stab in the gut to speed up their collapse so they stop fighting us. Also I feel that it is morally right to welcome more than the minimum amount of refugees since we caused some of them which hopefully will upgrade CA but isn't necessary.

Also about the centralization argument you guys do realize we have super high hierarchy too which means lower centralization will no let us actually command that hierarchy right?
Well, what level cent are you comfortable with? If you are arguing higher cent it's nice to elaborate where you think the breakpoint should be.
 
Well, what level cent are you comfortable with? If you are arguing higher cent it's nice to elaborate where you think the breakpoint should be.
Considering he's voting to drop Centralisation by -2, it looks like he's comfortable with Centralisation 3 for this turn.

We get Stability on completion, so kicking it is neutral at the end of the turn. If we kick it we can expand our mills and build up an economy buffer.
Kicking it means we complete it super-fast, making it likely we hit Economy 0 before anything else. There are also consequences for dropping Stability regardless of whether we make it right back up. Better to not drop it and end up at Stability 1/2 rather than Stability 0/1.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top