I'd prefer step farms, but I'd support main pastures if it put festival to secondary.

We need food to throw a feast.

The reason people are doing festival is to combat strife from nomads, yes?

Strife is better than instability.

Unrest > strife > instability

Don't risk instability to counter strife. It's just not worth it.

Strife can be managed through an action or mini-turn aimed at appeasement. Instability however, has a much greater and more tangible negative impact, and it's unclear exactly how to return stability.
 
Ok look, I kinda skipped the past 10 pages or so. Just read the update, saw the bandwagon building, skipped to the end, saw the vote, wanted to address the thing I was worried about.

On that note, AN said there's a risk of going negative as is. So I'm not entirely unjustified here.

However, if arguments have been brought up that adequately address my concerns, I'll get around to reading them... eventually.

it does with that attitude.

Here's a narrative based analysis of what'll go down:

Accepting in the Nomads will logically occur b4 the festivals we're putting a bunch of effort into planning, so that will maybe be a +1 econ boost beforehand, tho that really depends on if they're willing to sacrifice cattle and stuff. Like, if they don't then the festival that occurs the first year will draw terribly on our food stores, but if they do then their stock will be diminished, social unrest will be diminished cus of their sacrifice and then general happy melding of minds that the festival will promote. But they won't have a large breeding supply so they won't provide econ for the rest of the turn as they raise the numbers up.

BUT if they're total b*****s we'll go low on food/aka neg econ, people will be pissed and centralization will decrease. And then we'll get angry at them later, after the problem is solved - I say later to logic in how it's a diff roll - and strife will occur once again and they'll get pissy and then our econ will bump up again as people hoe their anger out. And then the Nomads will supply the cows that they've started breeding, providing another bump to Econ.

Meanwhile, the new settlement will be built and become the Temporary Ranger Settlement cus it mostly just manages the forests and provides education. It'll return a positive econ eventually, but probably too late to feed into the main Festival. But people will be living in tents in the forest or something while the houses proper are built & space is cleared, so they'll will provide some food and wood - both to satisfy the settlement and possibly to send off to other ppl. Because these occur so late, they basically have no impact on the festival/nomad situation, but will still bring Econ to our granaries.

Aka, narratively, it's likely that the Nomads will be a +1 Econ up front & then the Festival will be a -1 Econ but provide stability. (Likely because they're swearing their fealty and are being welcomed into our home, so they're going to be more inclined to cooperate fully & try to start on the right foot, even if it costs them their herds.)
But if the Nomads don't sacrifice their herd, providing an early econ, the festival will occur first with people unhappy, probably making people unhappy again w/ the Nomads. However, because the Nomads have more cattle to raise on the pastures, they'll start providing them later, w/ a +1 Econ that's completely irrelevant and helps nothing but our granary.
 
On a different note, we could always go literal w/ the tree elf vibe and make bodymodding our people's ears to look like elves a regular thing. It's not too hard, you just have to cut out a bit of cartilage and sew the ear back together (with plenty of use of alcohol to sterilize and clean)

If we did this though, it would probably make sense to wait until a person's ears have fully developed before we cut and sew. Maybe do it to mark a rite of passage?
 
Last edited:
There are arguments on both sides.

For step farm
  • Finishing the step farm will integrate the practice into regular "expand farm" actions
  • Part of bring land under our management tendency
  • Relative low risk, nomads not required
  • More stable food production, add synergy with new settlement
For pasture
  • Nomad contributes their experience on beast handling
  • More beast for other heavy labor
  • More animal protein and calcium
Okay, but where's the argument for just not making the new settlement.

Edit: @minerva-n-memes Or... we could just not be elves. We could just be dwarven elves, who lack pointy ears but possess a smug superiority in regards to nature, a dour disposition, and a tendency to be good with stone and cask.
 
Last edited:
K so the vote is basically Invite; M Fest; Step; settle.

What should we vote next turn? P & F & ?
Can't we use full words?

Deep breath in. Now let's go.

I think we're putting things in flux this turn, and what we vote on next is extremely dependent on how things turn out this turn. We have some pretty volatile stuff going on.

Tentatively I'm voting for internal buildup and infrastructure improvement. We need to fortify our economy against future disaster and our wish to continue building megaprojects. We also need to fortify our society itself against strife and disunity. Yes this sounds oddly Orwellian, but @Hangwind had a good point when he noted that the major strength of our people is their ability to act in unison. This ability is essentially governed by the centralization stat, though I suspect a high stability and a low(er) centralization stat would work just as well. (So why not have both?)

To that end, I'm thinking of actually going along with my previous idea, at least in part:

[FUT][Secondary]/[Main] Expand Forests
[FUT][Secondary]/[Main] Study Forest

The forest is our single greatest asset. It gives us the best bonuses, both martially, and economically, considering every bit of it is considered managed. Expanding it and studying it can only pay dividends, and currently, we haven't even had the chance to use "study forest" once. There is, of course some issue with expanding it too far, but we have been in the process of increasing our population anyway, so I think we can keep a hold of this land without stretching ourselves too thin.

The studying action is, I think, our first hard science action. It isn't a 'build this or do that' type of action. It is quite literally a 'look at this and tell me what you think' action. This is absolutely unique in what we've seen of the game so far. Let's leverage it.

Additionally, I suspect that working on the forest in large meaningful ways will help raise our stability. The forest is the core of our culture; spiritually and societally. Doing anything to further it should produce dividends in unifying our people. This should help mitigate any problem effects that may have come about in this turn. If there were no issues this turn, this will help fortify our society against future strife and make those difficult choices less stressful.

Wether or not 'Study' or Expand Forest' is a main action or secondary. They synergize extremely well, and linking them in the same turn is, frankly, obviously a wise idea.

TL;DR, the idea behind these first two actions is to stabilize our society and econ with tree planting, and gain some dead useful techs and insight along the way, which should also help our econ.

[FUT][Secondary] Expand Places to Spirits

(I don't know if we actually have to pick, but he forest shrine is the way to go here)

So, I don't actually know what to pick here. Our mysticysm is at 6, so I'm not terribly worried. The only reason I put this here is it would synergize well with the above actions, and promote some unity and intellectual thought.

Other choices to go here would be any major action that improves our internal workings. Walls, Snail domestication, pastures, what have you. These will all boost our econ, permanently improve our infrastructure, and prepare us for our next project.

Personally, I'm in favor of walls, pastures or even a duplicate of whatever forest related secondary we did above. Eventually, we will have walls as an auto build for new settlements. Pastures will build our animal base for #projects, and provide sorely necessary nutritional variety. As for the duplicated forest action, I've already beaten that horse until it turned into Black Soil.
 
Last edited:
Okay, but where's the argument for just not making the new settlement.

Edit: @minerva-n-memes Or... we could just not be elves. We could just be dwarven elves, who lack pointy ears but possess a smug superiority in regards to nature, a dour disposition, and a tendency to be good with stone and cask.
The new settlement wouldn't actually solve any problems by replacing it with an econ action, since the settlement will also give 1 econ (due to PS being active).
 
[X] If you behave yourselves, you may settle (Strong chance of causing strife)
[X][Main] Expand Pasture
[X][Secondary] Step-Farm
[X][Secondary] Establish Annual Festival

Maybe if we focus on them they will assimilate faster. If they get assimilated, our people won't have anything to grumble about anymore
 
Okay, but where's the argument for just not making the new settlement.

Sorry i'm for new settlement and step-farm, so wouldn't help you there.

For new settlement
  • Bring more land under our control, good with almost all actions
  • More position of power for people to compete, increases amount thinking people
  • Reduce the population density for our current settlements
  • Shorter travel area that are without warrior stations
Edit: One more point, if PS activates; then they will concentrate on new settlement instead of spreading out, this further reduces any shitty events from happening.
 
Last edited:
Here's a narrative based analysis of what'll go down:

Accepting in the Nomads will logically occur b4 the festivals we're putting a bunch of effort into planning, so that will maybe be a +1 econ boost beforehand, tho that really depends on if they're willing to sacrifice cattle and stuff. Like, if they don't then the festival that occurs the first year will draw terribly on our food stores, but if they do then their stock will be diminished, social unrest will be diminished cus of their sacrifice and then general happy melding of minds that the festival will promote. But they won't have a large breeding supply so they won't provide econ for the rest of the turn as they raise the numbers up.

BUT if they're total b*****s we'll go low on food/aka neg econ, people will be pissed and centralization will decrease. And then we'll get angry at them later, after the problem is solved - I say later to logic in how it's a diff roll - and strife will occur once again and they'll get pissy and then our econ will bump up again as people hoe their anger out. And then the Nomads will supply the cows that they've started breeding, providing another bump to Econ.

Meanwhile, the new settlement will be built and become the Temporary Ranger Settlement cus it mostly just manages the forests and provides education. It'll return a positive econ eventually, but probably too late to feed into the main Festival. But people will be living in tents in the forest or something while the houses proper are built & space is cleared, so they'll will provide some food and wood - both to satisfy the settlement and possibly to send off to other ppl. Because these occur so late, they basically have no impact on the festival/nomad situation, but will still bring Econ to our granaries.

Aka, narratively, it's likely that the Nomads will be a +1 Econ up front & then the Festival will be a -1 Econ but provide stability. (Likely because they're swearing their fealty and are being welcomed into our home, so they're going to be more inclined to cooperate fully & try to start on the right foot, even if it costs them their herds.)
But if the Nomads don't sacrifice their herd, providing an early econ, the festival will occur first with people unhappy, probably making people unhappy again w/ the Nomads. However, because the Nomads have more cattle to raise on the pastures, they'll start providing them later, w/ a +1 Econ that's completely irrelevant and helps nothing but our granary.
So what I got out of this was "maybe we'll be lucky and not go negative if we get free Shit from the nomads that we have no reason to expect."

I'd rather not rely on luck when we have good planning available as an option.
 
@minerva-n-memes Or... we could just not be elves. We could just be dwarven elves, who lack pointy ears but possess a smug superiority in regards to nature, a dour disposition, and a tendency to be good with stone and cask.

Ehhh, I think it would nice to have someway to physically mark the mark between the People and the ecologies around. We can go for interesting aesthetic without going full prissy elf.

I don't think we'll always be dour though. Emotional communities tend to form based off the conditions around the people within, and if the outside circumstances change, the emotional community tends to change.

we're playing a continuum of societies on periods of hundreds of years, and if this game keeps going, thousands. A lot can change throughout time.
 
So what I got out of this was "maybe we'll be lucky and not go negative if we get free Shit from the nomads that we have no reason to expect."

I'd rather not rely on luck when we have good planning available as an option.
Its less relying on the free pasture expansion the nomads give us and more the instability from taking them in triggering PS.
 
[X] If you behave yourselves, you may settle (Strong chance of causing strife)
[X][Main] Establish Annual Festival
[X][Secondary] Expand Pasture
[X][Secondary] New Settlement
 
Relying on instability?

My whole argument is INSTABILITY IS BAD

IT'S THE WORST

AVOID AT ALL COSTS
...what? Taking in the Nomads is going to cause strife no matter what. Since it's the first action, it stands to reason that it'll come before the main. If its the first then it'll bring in strife, trigger PS and its subsequent Econ boost.
 
Can't we use full words?

Deep breath in. Now let's go.

I think we're putting things in flux this turn, and what we vote on next is extremely dependent on how things turn out this turn. We have some pretty volatile stuff going on. Tentatively I'm voting for internal buildup and infrastructure improvement. We need to fortify our economy against future disaster and our wish to continue building megaprojects. We also need to fortify our society itself against strife and disunity. Yes this sounds oddly Orwellian, but @Hangwind had a good point when he noted that the major strength of our people is their ability to act in unison. This ability is essentially governed by the centralization stat, though I suspect a high stability and a low(er) centralization stat would work just as well. (So why not have both?). To that end, I'm thinking of actually going along with my previous idea, at least in part:

[FUT][Secondary]/[Main] Expand Forests
[FUT][Secondary]/[Main] Study Forest

The forest is our single greatest asset. It gives us the best bonuses, both martially, and economically, considering every bit of it is considered managed. Expanding it and studying it can only pay dividends, and currently, we haven't even had the chance to use "study forest" once. There is, of course some issue with expanding it too far, but we have been in the process of increasing our population anyway, so I think we can keep a hold of this land without stretching ourselves too thin.

The studying action is, I think, our first hard science action. It isn't a 'build this or do that' type of action. It is quite literally a 'look at this and tell me what you think' action. This is absolutely unique in what we've seen of the game so far. Let's leverage it.

Additionally, I suspect that working on the forest in large meaningful ways will help raise our stability. The forest is the core of our culture; spiritually and societally. Doing anything to further it should produce dividends in unifying our people. This should help mitigate any problem effects that may have come about in this turn. If there were no issues this turn, this will help fortify our society against future strife and make those difficult choices less stressful.

Wether or not 'Study' or Expand Forest' is a main action or secondary. They synergize extremely well, and linking them in the same turn is, frankly, obviously a wise idea.

TL;DR, the idea behind these first two actions is to stabilize our society and econ with tree planting, and gain some dead useful techs and insight along the way, which should also help our econ.

[FUT][Secondary] Expand Places to Spirits

(I don't know if we actually have to pick, but he forest shrine is the way to go here)

So, I don't actually know what to pick here. Our mysticysm is at 6, so I'm not terribly worried. The only reason I put this here is it would synergize well with the above actions, and promote some unity and intellectual thought.

Other choices to go here would be any major action that improves our internal workings. Walls, Snail domestication, pastures, what have you. These will all boost our econ, permanently improve our infrastructure, and prepare us for our next project.
If you put what I wrote in relation to the previous discussions, it's relatively clear that P & F are the commonly-discussed-together-pair of Pastures & Fishing.

I 100% support Study Forest as a main. It is indeed our first scientific action, and choosing to do such a thing will impact both our culture and our ability to shape the forest and other plants so as to suit our needs and better sustain themselves.

However, I would honestly suggest not doing Expand Forest as a secondary. I feel that after we've dedicated a large amount of time to Studying the Forest, we will be better able to expand it. Furthermore, since it is unlikely that we will Expand Fishing now, I would prefer to do it next turn.

I support Expand Places Dedicated to the Spirits because it will synergize well with Study Forest - incentivizing our people to develop words that are at least related to biology and agriculture, and also probably a couple of botanical texts. In other words, it will synergize with Study Forest and expand both writing and education.

Sorry i'm for new settlement and step-farm, so wouldn't help you there.

For new settlement
  • Bring more land under our control, good with almost all actions
  • More position of power for people to compete, increases amount thinking people
  • Reduce the population density for our current settlements
  • Shorter travel area that are without warrior stations
I was just asking because if we do Step Farms and Pastures we both finish off Step Farms & get the synergy from Pastures. I voted for new settlement and step-farm, too. It's just that you seemed stuck by the choice - or at least the response you offered balanced between the two.

So what I got out of this was "maybe we'll be lucky and not go negative if we get free Shit from the nomads that we have no reason to expect."

I'd rather not rely on luck when we have good planning available as an option.
We 100% have a reason to expect it because the Nomads should be inclined to want to start out on the right foot. While they presumably value their cattle quite a bit, they also value their safety - which they are receiving because of us. It would also seem to them like we're a) celebrating their grandfather (even if we're also celebrating our victory over him) and b) welcoming them with a grand feast that will introduce them to all the various peoples that make up our society.

Ehhh, I think it would nice to have someway to physically mark the mark between the People and the ecologies around. We can go for interesting aesthetic without going full prissy elf.

I don't think we'll always be dour though. Emotional communities tend to form based off the conditions around the people within, and if the outside circumstances change, the emotional community tends to change.

we're playing a continuum of societies on periods of hundreds of years, and if this game keeps going, thousands. A lot can change throughout time.
At the moment, I'd be worried that people might get infections from the surgery.

I agree that we're unlikely to be dour, especially as we regularly take other cultures into our fold. I think, too, that the festival will likely help to change us. Though admittedly, IIRC, Germans have been considered dour and worksman-like for a while - despite their regular festivals and generally cheerful aspect in person.

seconded
 
Last edited:
Festival is to counter the stability drop from taking in the Nomads, cause there's the very real possibility taking it as a main will give us +1 stability, meaning we wont finish the turn in the negatives. There's a small risk that we'll take an econ hit before the other actions kick in, which could lead to a stability hit, but it's a smaller risk than than just taking the nomads but not taking festival.


@Academia Nut Does the festival increase stability?
Maybe, you've never done it before, you don't know what its full effects might be.

Why does everyone think that festival gives stability?
 
I was just asking because if we do Step Farms and Pastures we both finish off Step Farms & get the synergy from Pastures. I voted for new settlement and step-farm, too. It's just that you seemed stuck by the choice - or at least the response you offered balanced between the two.

And your observation is correct. It's that i also voted for annual festival to celebrate the positive events we have create with our hand.

And i don't want to bet on nomads being exceptional helpful on the topic of pasture. Not because i personally hate nomads, but due to the fact that they too need time to settle in their current environment. They will feel more indebted to us if we didn't ask for their help right away.
 
...what? Taking in the Nomads is going to cause strife no matter what. Since it's the first action, it stands to reason that it'll come before the main. If its the first then it'll bring in strife, trigger PS and its subsequent Econ boost.
See I'm making a distinction here.

Strife sucks, but we can deal with it. Our people are unhappy, we toss them some goodies and they settle back in.

Strife means we lose an action. Maybe.

Instability, however, is different. It's a stat that we've never managed to raise at all as of this point. -3 is a literal game over. -1 is one third of the way towards the total collapse of our people. It has a dozen little negative consequences that add up to everything sucking, and we have no real idea on how to fix it.

Strife sucks, but instability is the stuff of nightmares.
 
[X] If you behave yourselves, you may settle (strong chance of causing strife)
[X][Main] Establish Annual Festival
[X][Secondary] New Settlement
[X][Secondary] Expand Pasture
 
Relying on instability?

My whole argument is INSTABILITY IS BAD

IT'S THE WORST

AVOID AT ALL COSTS
Yes. The arguments being made are bad and kind of false:
Both are useful. A proper harvest festival where the fruits of yearly labour from all across the People would undoubtedly help tie the People further together and ensure important stories are better told for all rather than at more ad hoc times, while a new holy site would better commemorate the struggle against the blight and preserve the importance of the forest.
Festival's description, parsed mechanically is:
Economy -1
Stability +1 OR Centralization +1
Art +1

Doing it as Main should improve the returns(BOTH stability and Centralization?), reduce the costs, or improve the timing roll
This is because the Festivals are already happening, the action is about organizing them to happen at a standard schedule instead of whenever people are in the mood.
Okay, the two events are separate, but how it goes is...

Bring in nomads, piss people off, drop stability, raise economy, drop centralization
Have festival, which if it goes off before other econ raising actions drops economy, which drops stability because you're at 0, which triggers PS and raises econ and drops centralization

The order of things is determined by administrative skill, which means I roll for it. So it is possible you lose no stability (and thus gain no PS triggers), or you lose 2 stability. 2 stability is not probable, but it is distinctly possible.
Should go smoothly, assuming the next chief in isn't incompetent and that the spirits don't decide to punish us (or someone near us) over something.
There is a non-zero chance of a roll producing a bad Stability result.
However due to our institutional experience with administration, it is unlikely to proceed in an undesirable order, as we are used to planing for this sort of thing, and had live fire practice during the Blight battle.

Clearer?
Because both sides are using misleading and unsourced arguments
 
Last edited:
Back
Top