Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Umi-san said:
Yeah... we definitely should switch to Trade soon-ish. The more trade missions we send to them the more likely it is that we can come to an accord that assimilates them or the like. It will also bend us some away from militarism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is if they allow us to disengage, if their "now or never" view holds they might just keep up the attack. Especially if they think the potential plunder they can get from us might keep them alive.
 
Last edited:
BungieONI said:
Well if we are attacked we should get a free switch to offense policy. And what our econ is going to be at next update means if we do go offense we will have at least one province action to raise economy, probably more. So switching is not going to be horrific.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No guarantee we will get a switch. And even if we get a switch I am not sure going for offensive would be ideal.
 
Candesce said:
Econ Expansion is "growth potential," yes. Our primary economic sources - the Expand Economy action and refugees - both use up available land. The trick is, two True Cities means we get most of that land back when we build stuff as people move from rural areas to urban ones, so most of our actions "recycle" land rather than committing it permanently to support whatever we've built.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly, I don't quite get that part.

As I understand it, Econ Expansion is supposed to represent unused land, and Econ represents surplus labor past what is needed for our food production. Productivity-increasing actions like building mills or enriching the farms with black soil mean that less labor is needed to keep us fed, so that is the same number of people doing work; thus, those actions produce econ without taking up econ expansion. Expanding Vineyards means that we have less free land to grow ordinary food on, so it makes sense that it eats Econ Expansion. Taking immigrants means that we have more land being worked (and therefore takes up Econ Expansion), but assuming that they produce more than they eat this also means a surplus, so we can direct more people to doing stuff*. Alternatively, the Expand Economy action means that we assign our people to use land more aggressively, thereby taking up Econ Expansion slots but also getting more food with our current population and freeing up part of that population to work elsewhere. Okay; great so far.

What I'm stuck on is the next part: what happens when we spend econ, and how do cities play into it? Without a True City, any econ you use doesn't refund its Expansion slots when spent. I'm not sure how to visualize this. For something like new trails or more boats, I can see it as permanently typing up some of our surplus for permanent maintenance - but what about clearly single-use actions like Survey Lands or a Sailing Mission? There is no way that those would be tying up our resources in the future, so where did the Econ Slots go? It makes sense for these things to use up Econ and return Econ Expansion, since it might be absorbing extra labor (in roughly an inverse of the process we use when taking Expand Econ or gain new immigrants), but that is clearly not what is happening. This is all made more confusing by the effect of True Cities. Somehow, true cities counter loss of Econ Expansion - but how? Do true cities somehow stop our projects from needing maintenance in the future or something?

So really. What I'm missing here is an understanding of how Econ spending that doesn't refund slots works, and why True Cities "fix" whatever problem is going on there. If anyone could explain what is going on, I would very much appreciate it.




*By the way, this is an explanation for why our econ drain might give us better benefits than it costs the polities being drained; our tech and organization are good enough that each worker produces a solid surplus and we are good about collecting that surplus. Other polities might not be capable of leveraging labor to gain econ as easily (due to lacking iron tools), and more importantly might not be able to organize said surplus in a useful manner.
 
[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)
 
You know, I'm a bit divided on Kick+mill+low refugees vs simple project completion+medium refugees.

Both are -1 Stability, and give similar Econ.

The mill adds slots, which are very low, and possible innovation (maybe synergy with the new mill usage?).

The refugees strengthen a very powerful trait (which we know still has room to evolve), and further weaken the HK, who are IMO a bigger threat than the TS, simply because they're closer and better suited to hill fighting. Moreover, after their significant military loss a few turns ago, being bailed out by our mercs, they have probably been very hard pressed to build up their strength to even think of attacking us. If there was a chance that they would leave us alone, I'd say let them be, but since they're desperate, may as well finish them.

So, at this point I've voted for more refugees, but both paths have strong arguments.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
defensive policy would be better if everyone attacks us mind you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because defense or offense policies are not doctrines and having our provinces committing war actions to repel our attackers is good and done on offense.

Spacegnom said:
No guarantee we will get a switch. And even if we get a switch I am not sure going for offensive would be ideal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Every time we're attacked we get a switch so I am confident we will. Also the defensive or offensive or balance policies are all going to act similar because we will have 2 econ or less with the leading vote, so nothing for them to spend. The only big difference is that offense would send defensive war missions.
 
These are no brainers to me, so
[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)
 
Candesce said:
I'm going to say no, we should bite the bullet and distribute land instead. New provinces has to wait until we've finished the Palace, except maybe the one to link up to the lowlands vassal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am OK with that, if we can cure the thread's DL-lergy.

But I also think that after a double main trails, our admin capabilities could probably extend a bit further, so if everyone keeps getting rashes, well, new settlements are known to be very beneficial for LTE.
 
Dutch said:
That is if they allow us to disengage, if their "now or never" view holds they might just keep up they attack. Especially if they think the potential plunder they can get from us might keep them alive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Very true. What I'm imagining might happen is that we'll switch to Defensive policy, regardless of whether we're being attacked or not, and make the Easter Redhills and Lowland settlements that will provide us direct contacts with our lowland vassal. We don't want to back out of the lowlands, after all, and these settlements will help with future defensive actions and cultural reformation. (Defensive will cost a lot of money, but tbh I'd rather not burn through the Palace. Going slow provides us with more choice and is thus more desirable.)

After that, if they're attacking us we won't be able to send them Trade Missions, iirc. So Trade won't have a point until that ends. It might still be worth sending Trade Missions to whoever isn't attacking us, though.

If they aren't attacking us, Trade will help prevent them stacking us while we fix other things. It will also provide the Art necessary for the Palace, The Games, and the Census. (I'm willing to bet that if someone else does the games before us we lose it as an option.)

E: I swear to god my grammar is fine. Blame errors on autocorrect.
 
Last edited:
PrimalShadow said:
The refugees make potential progress towards strengthening a powerful trait. It is by no means a sure thing, and it is an open question how much of an effect this will have at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What do you mean by "not a sure thing"? And what do you even mean by "an open question how much of an effect..."?
It is pretty explicitly stated that the bigger portions of refugees we take, the bigger 'progress' we make.
From the history of the quest we know that the 'breakthroughs' on cool traits were when we were willing to take a risk for them - Share the Circle, CA, Love of Wisdom, Justice line, Lord's Loyalty. So, while whether taking more in this particular case may not be more 'valuable' than usually, it is a reasonable enough assumption.

George said:
All of this assumes that you're taking into account every possible factor and that as long as we make it to next turn in decent shape we'll get through okay. I'm not convinced of either of those and thus value each point of stability quite highly. I think we need all the Stability we can get and just enough Econ to do what needs doing, rather than all the Econ we can get and just enough Stability to not collapse with bad rolls from known problems.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As long as we have Renewal done and are at 3 Centralization, we are insulated from the worst effects of climate change (though not from all) and a Double Main Trails can deal with some of the problems.

And in this particular case one-time infusion of a lot of Econ is actually extremely beneficial; it means we can rush Palace, another part of solution to our current problems, whenever we want. Just put provinces to Megaproject focus, do whatever for two turns (Doube Main War Missions, probably) and Palace is done.

Like, in our current situation, we actually need all the Economy we can get to build all we need to pull through.

Now, I am not saying that the next turn is going to be easier: we will probably be fighting off two-three enemy attacks, and our main actions will hopefully be taken up by roads, which means Offensive/Defensive Policy while at negative or 0 Stability (and yes, 0 is possible even with the Max Refugees option because of Renewal payout if we roll okay on refugee roll), which is going to be a paain. Plus internal problems are not going away easy, though Trails are definitely going to help.

By the way, Trails are going to help in an impeding defensive war too because of easing troop movement within our land, creating better logistics.
 
PrimalShadow said:
Honestly, I don't quite get that part.

As I understand it, Econ Expansion is supposed to represent unused land, and Econ represents surplus labor past what is needed for our food production. Productivity-increasing actions like building mills or enriching the farms with black soil mean that less labor is needed to keep us fed, so that is the same number of people doing work; thus, those actions produce econ without taking up econ expansion. Expanding Vineyards means that we have less free land to grow ordinary food on, so it makes sense that it eats Econ Expansion. Taking immigrants means that we have more land being worked (and therefore takes up Econ Expansion), but assuming that they produce more than they eat this also means a surplus, so we can direct more people to doing stuff*. Alternatively, the Expand Economy action means that we assign our people to use land more aggressively, thereby taking up Econ Expansion slots but also getting more food with our current population and freeing up part of that population to work elsewhere. Okay; great so far.

What I'm stuck on is the next part: what happens when we spend econ, and how do cities play into it? Without a True City, any econ you use doesn't refund its Expansion slots when spent. I'm not sure how to visualize this. For something like new trails or more boats, I can see it as permanently typing up some of our surplus for permanent maintenance - but what about clearly single-use actions like Survey Lands or a Sailing Mission? There is no way that those would be tying up our resources in the future, so where did the Econ Slots go? It makes sense for these things to use up Econ and return Econ Expansion, since it might be absorbing extra labor (in roughly an inverse of the process we use when taking Expand Econ or gain new immigrants), but that is clearly not what is happening. This is all made more confusing by the effect of True Cities. Somehow, true cities counter loss of Econ Expansion - but how? Do true cities somehow stop our projects from needing maintenance in the future or something?

So really. What I'm missing here is an understanding of how Econ spending that doesn't refund slots works, and why True Cities "fix" whatever problem is going on there. If anyone could explain what is going on, I would very much appreciate it.




*By the way, this is an explanation for why our econ drain might give us better benefits than it costs the polities being drained; our tech and organization are good enough that each worker produces a solid surplus and we are good about collecting that surplus. Other polities might not be capable of leveraging labor to gain econ as easily (due to lacking iron tools), and more importantly might not be able to organize said surplus in a useful manner.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do Survey and Sailing Mission even take up Econ? Iirc they don't and thus wouldn't reward/consume Econ expansion slots.

Just remember that this is a game system that attempts to be realistic.
 
BungieONI said:
Because defense or offense policies are not doctrines and having our provinces committing war actions to repel our attackers is good and done on offense.


Every time we're attacked we get a switch so I am confident we will. Also the defensive or offensive or balance policies are all going to act similar because we will have 2 econ or less with the leading vote, so nothing for them to spend. The only big difference is that offense would send defensive war missions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Have we ever been attacked while already being at war (we already had our chance to switch to offensive/defensive)?
Well Restauration would be able to take Main Proclaim Glory (maybe even with Main RO) or Main Festival at 2 Econ. That said, I am all for taking at least 4-5 Econ worth of Refugees to avoid being at such low Econ.
 
PrimalShadow said:
The refugees make potential progress towards strengthening a powerful trait. It is by no means a sure thing, and it is an open question how much of an effect this will have at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you mean that evolving CA this turn is not a sure thing, absolutely. If I thought that was a significant possibility, I'd vote for as many as possible. CA is awesome.

What is certain is that using it more, especially when it gets hard to do, strengthens it over time, while minimizing its use weakens it.
 
ctulhuslp said:
"Song of Angry Men" intensifies


Also, about the refugees (yes, yes, again).

Thing is, AN has specifically stated that we will need to take some hard choices to get and take good traits.

To get Greated Justice, we risked pissing off warriors via reminding them that reveling in bloodshed is not really a good thing and then via pulling back our soldiers from conquered HK village because it was a right thing to do, even if unprofitable.

To get Love of Wisdom, we...hoo boy. We dumped a ton of resources into lucky Iron breakthrough, then we took the hardest possible challenge, then we gambled via betting our goddamn vaccination.

To get Cosmopolitan Acceptance, we risked mass starvation and/or riot of our people in their early days to feed the utter strangers, then we risked contact with ~foreigners~ gifting them away techs like teaching them how to farm because we could (and because those morons would have fucked up ecology otherwise, but still).
Then we *gifted away* the technology of cure for cholera, for which our people bled (or shat because cholera) and died on surgical tables. We did not know in whose hands it would end up, we knew that it would diminish the advantage in population that sanitation and salination gave us, but we sacrificed those potential advantages.

The point is, to get value, we must act in accordance to said value, even when it is hard - or rather, especially when it is hard, because it is not really a big deal to act all nice when you have stuff to spare, but only in the true crucible the mettle of those values gets truly known.

Soo, I am pretty sure that taking in as much people as possible (or even moderate amount, but it does not risk things that much so the narrative value of "even in this dire situation Ymaryn are charitable and generous" is not there that much) is more valuable towards improving CA (and probably Justice because this time it was, in part, our fault) now than when it is easy for us.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My question for that event is this: Can we tank that guaranteed stability hit?

Because if the answer is yes, I'm absolutely willing to change my vote.

Mind, I'm not online much longer, so tag me if you want it changed.
 
[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)

Screw it.

If we want to claim the Ymaryn are better than others, we need to act like it.

Come on you crazy tree huggers. I know you can do it.


Edit:

And I just realized. That extra Econ will translate to more Yeomen at home depending on the order of events.

And it makes for an awesome story if the freed slaves take up arms to defend their new homes. Unlikely to happen, but it makes for a nice image.
 
Last edited:
ThrawnCA said:
We don't know. I figure it will weaken them, though. If they have traits that use Econ to boost Martial, like us, that will help us quite a bit to resist their assault.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They very likely do because the original lowland civil that spawned the western confederacy and the dead priests had the quality of it's own trait line or something similar.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top