Only -1.5 because higher ones probably have no chance at all.
Granted, -1.5 is not doing too hot either, because genocide has no numeric representation in Stats page which means it does not impact the discussion of actions to take.

Granted, Stallions and North divergence have no numerical impact either, and yet actions are being taken, so it is not all bad, it is partially me being salty as fuck.
But other part is, in my opinion, legitimate problem of numbers in statsheets (EDIT: disproportionately) dominating the discussion except for, on top of my head, one issue - North-South divide. Maybe there are others?
The admin issues in general are only informed by the stats. Our IC clerks don't understand them enough to provide us with stats for them.

Generally speaking, things we understand well IC can be well represented by stats. We know roughly what it takes to train more people this generation as artisans, and that's represented by the costs and benefits of Art Patronage. We understand less fully the relationship between decentralization and abuse, so we end up with SEEMINGLY broken combos like Enforce Justice and Distribute Land.

Finally, there are things like the admin issue and the North/South issue which we just can't understand with stats at all.

As a final point, I don't know why you're bringing up refugees as if it's people voting by stat sheet. Per stat sheet, the cost of raising stability via DL+EJ is 1 secondary action. Taking more refugees is actually stat efficient. Personally I oppose it because I don't buy your narrative. I don't think the genocide threatened CA significantly.
 
Last edited:
Some people are being pragmatic in their votes and decided that keeping stability relatively high in case the Lowlanders all screw up and make us hemorrhage stability is more important than taking more than required refugees this turn.

I personally value the econ the refugees give, and the possibility that Lowlanders can be given an example of how they can successfully assimilate into our culture.
If we didn't still have that 'explode if stab+legitimacy=0' thing hanging over our heads from previous integrations, I'd definitely say go -3 stab to tell everyone we are apocalypse-free. That would be amazing!

But it's just too dangerous: we'd be 1 stability or legitimacy point loss away from exploding.
 
EDIT: Okay, maybe we would've gotten now-Stewards and now-Symphony, but now-CA would have not had a chance in hell to appear if we had 'Econ' and 'Stability' sliders at that moment.
We did have the stat sliders at that point in time.

We've had the stat sliders for a long, long time. What we didn't have was the stability slider.

Either way, the refugee argument really boils down to narrative this turn. Adding a whole bunch more voices to an already tumultuous situation and important debate just isn't a terribly good idea. Additionally, we are already having some serious problems with our administration. Exacerbating that with a large refugee influx is just asking for trouble.
 
EDIT: Okay, maybe we would've gotten now-Stewards and now-Symphony, but now-CA would have not had a chance in hell to appear if we had 'Econ' and 'Stability'
I disagree greatly with this. Evem from the beginning we saw that acceptinf people had a negative effect on morale. There is also the fact that despite taking us to negative stability on multiple times, we still took it, never once turning people away. You could hardly say that numbers were all important then.
 
Here are the currently leading options:

Religious Authority
Clear Winner: Increase debates to determine the truth (-2 to +2 Religious Authority based on success of debates, potential shift in Spiritual Values)

Reaction
Clear Winner: Main Improve Annual Festival

Highlanders
Clear Winner: Extra tribute (+2 Prestige, +2 Wealth, probably completes this turn)

Refugee
Strong Leader (39): Those who come of their own initiative (Potential stab loss, +2 Econ)
Runner-up (24): Bring in a bit more than usual (-1 Stab, potential further loss, +4-5 Econ)

City
Strong Leader (37): No
Runner-up (29): Yes (Transfers 2 Econ + 2 Econ expansion, nulls cost of maintenance for Sacred Forest)

Red Banner
Leader (23): Deploy against Highlanders from Hatvalley
Runner-up (17): Deploy against Highlanders from Valleyhome
Runner-up (13): Deploy to assist vassal against the Swamp Folk

Lowlands
Definitely Happening (68): Introduce black soil to improve their conditions (Teaches black soil to vassal)
Definitely Happening (63): Introduce mill technology to improve their conditions (Teaches water mill to vassal)
Definitely Happening (60): Force them to follow the spirit of the law (Potential stability loss, potential war with vassal)
Probably Happening (36): [Low] Send over assistance (Transfer 1 Econ + 1 Martial)
Runner-up (22): Crack down on their priests (-1 Stability, potential war with vassal, potential +1 Religious authority)
Adhoc vote count started by PrimalShadow on Jul 7, 2017 at 2:07 PM, finished with 69870 posts and 79 votes.
 
Last edited:
Naw, we have just barely enough room to Integrate the Stallions here even if they lower the cap again(since Centralization 3 is considered high enough to ignore most environmental woes already), as we need the resources from them to build the palace quickly and reliably enough and we really need to get their temple site under our control.

It's not that easy. Going to a cap of 3 means that we become incredibly vulnerable to stability losing actions as well. After all Stab + Cent must remain greater than 1, lest we cause a devastating chain reaction.
 
We did have the stat sliders at that point in time.

We've had the stat sliders for a long, long time. What we didn't have was the stability slider.

Do you honestly mean to say we would've gotten Share the Circle with Stability slider? :V

I disagree greatly with this. Evem from the beginning we saw that acceptinf people had a negative effect on morale. There is also the fact that despite taking us to negative stability on multiple times, we still took it, never once turning people away. You could hardly say that numbers were all important then.

Well, yes? I am talking exactly about how it seems to me voters became less generous wrt non-numeric things last times; what was happening before Stability slider reveal was equivalent to going for big options more than once, what with how we got Redshore and Lower Valley.

Admittedly, I was not a participant in the quest back then, so this perception may well be skewed by only reading the updates in question and not voter disposition.

On the other hand, take a look at that stat-reserve graph. It's obvious that stats have become far more important to the quest since the early days. Early on, in was slow and steady growth. Now, we swing up to half our stat pool (30+ secondary actions) in one-two turns for huge gains (iron and temple+Library, most notably.) Maintaining a balance between high stats to take advantage of opportunity and consistent growth is hard, but it's even harder without good stat tracking and analysis.

Think about the narrative of modern governments; as much as anything, it's a narrative about stats. Congressmen don't rely on the narrative behind a bill; they have the CBO built specifically to track and present the stats they need.

As government gets more complex, more decisions have to be made essentially for accounting. That's true both in real life and this quest.

North-South divide had no numbers attached, and yet it was more important to us and Art or Mysticism numbers for the last....two IRL weeks at least, maybe ever since their creation.
So, no, I understand the point you are trying to make - that the numbers dominating the discussion is the cause of us having access to more information in such a form - but I have to disagree or at least state that they still have way too big part of discussion dedicated to them.

Although I may well be wrong here. In the refugees department, the only thing thrown around is numbers - not a lot of arguments against refugees in narrative sense besides "it's troubled times and different people", which is basically Stability protection. Too much numbers.

In the 'What does the RB do?" there are no numbers shown so the discussion is on tactics. Good and healthy one.

In the Highlanders vote, there are numbers, so instead of discussing how new Province overstrains bureaucracy, at least some people are voting for it to lower Centralization, which is ignoring narrative in favour of numbers (misleading yet again) to the point of absurdity. Again, way too much numbers > narrative.

City discussion was largely divied on these lines specifically: veekie argued that TS becoming Free City would bring forth narrative cultural long-term troubles and pointing and historical examples, while his opponents were pointing at Centralization cap rising at Econ payout. Average and amusing once you look at it this way.

Lowlands discussion was focused on how to bring them closer; the winning votes are the ones which do not have numeric costs attached (despite Support Suboridate being of much use due to cultural mingling - it has Econ cost, others lack it, guess which ones are winning?), with the exception of not giving away iron due to narrative concerns of them leaking like an old sieve. Could be better, could be worse.

Religion discussion is great in that despite having stats listed, discussion was focused almost exclusively on narrative impact. No complaints at all here.

Overall: I was overestimating how bad it is, but the issue seems to indeed exist, at least from my subjective POV.
 
The lower the centralization the quicker and greater chance for our government type to change into one that is more decentralized.

Which is more than likely to developed into a negative feedback loop.

Bad things happen - unable to react - more bad things happen.
 
Personally I don't think CA is in danger, but even if it is I would rather lose or degrade CA than collapse or fracture our Civilization.
 
Personally I don't think CA is in danger, but even if it is I would rather lose or degrade CA than collapse or fracture our Civilization.

Explain the scenario in which taking -1.5 option instead of -0.5 could break us now?

EDIT: Like I said to, IIRC, Susano, I would not be nearly as salty if it was actually dangerous or if Stability point saved was used on breaking secular power of priests in the Lowland vassal. As is, we are edging away from this option of -1.5 because...why? It does not make us meaningfully more endangered than -0.5 and I am not advocating for -3.5 here.
 
Last edited:
Do you honestly mean to say we would've gotten Share the Circle with Stability slider? :V



Well, yes? I am talking exactly about how it seems to me voters became less generous wrt non-numeric things last times; what was happening before Stability slider reveal was equivalent to going for big options more than once, what with how we got Redshore and Lower Valley.

Admittedly, I was not a participant in the quest back then, so this perception may well be skewed by only reading the updates in question and not voter disposition.



North-South divide had no numbers attached, and yet it was more important to us and Art or Mysticism numbers for the last....two IRL weeks at least, maybe ever since their creation.
So, no, I understand the point you are trying to make - that the numbers dominating the discussion is the cause of us having access to more information in such a form - but I have to disagree or at least state that they still have way too big part of discussion dedicated to them.

Although I may well be wrong here. In the refugees department, the only thing thrown around is numbers - not a lot of arguments against refugees in narrative sense besides "it's troubled times and different people", which is basically Stability protection. Too much numbers.

In the 'What does the RB do?" there are no numbers shown so the discussion is on tactics. Good and healthy one.

In the Highlanders vote, there are numbers, so instead of discussing how new Province overstrains bureaucracy, at least some people are voting for it to lower Centralization, which is ignoring narrative in favour of numbers (misleading yet again) to the point of absurdity. Again, way too much numbers > narrative.

City discussion was largely divied on these lines specifically: veekie argued that TS becoming Free City would bring forth narrative cultural long-term troubles and pointing and historical examples, while his opponents were pointing at Centralization cap rising at Econ payout. Average and amusing once you look at it this way.

Lowlands discussion was focused on how to bring them closer; the winning votes are the ones which do not have numeric costs attached (despite Support Suboridate being of much use due to cultural mingling - it has Econ cost, others lack it, guess which ones are winning?), with the exception of not giving away iron due to narrative concerns of them leaking like an old sieve. Could be better, could be worse.

Religion discussion is great in that despite having stats listed, discussion was focused almost exclusively on narrative impact. No complaints at all here.

Overall: I was overestimating how bad it is, but the issue seems to indeed exist, at least from my subjective POV.
Forgive me if I'm misreading your position, but you seem to think that numbers shouldn't ever be a factor in decision making because it stifles narrative?

If I may offer a solution, you could just look at the numbers from a narrative pov.

Extra Stability loss from taking in more refugees will create an influx of people who do not understand our laws and customs and will screw up and do things that we don't like, causing stability loss.

For the Highlander vote, you can think of the lowering centralization as the Government granting more autonomy to the provinces to lower strain, possibly causing a shift in government style as a mid turn option.

I mean, the main reason some people focus so much on numbers is because we know the narrative effect of having low numbers, high numbers, or overflowing numbers.
 
Explain the scenario in which taking -1.5 option instead of -0.5 could break us now?

EDIT: Like I said to, IIRC, Susano, I would not be nearly as salty if it was actually dangerous or if Stability point saved was used on breaking secular power of priests in the Lowland vassal. As is, we are edging away from this option of -1.5 because...why? It does not make us meaningfully more endangered than -1.5 and I am not advocating for -3.5 here.
Frankly, if -1.5 was winning I'd be OK with it. It's not going to kill us. But I don't agree that CA is in danger, and I'm generally in conservative/crisis mode. In crisis mode I don't think we should volunteer for social disruptions without a countervailing narrative benefit.

And because I disagree with you on the impact of the genocide on our culture, I don't see that benefit.
 
@ctulhuslp I'm not voting for support sub because I want the lowlanders too weak to win any war they might start as a result of forcibly altering their culture. Though I suppose that having x/y of their military be from our core region would have an effect.

Also, who is getting genocided this turn? The HK? Or as a result of environmental impact? I'm voting low (the same as you, iirc) on this because:
a) I kind of want a reduced number of people debating religious things. I feel that it would spread our priests out too much, though at the same time I guess having more religions competing would result in a better end result.
b) I want to impact the lowland minors as much as reasonable, and those choices risk stability loss. I therefore can't go very high on refugees.
c) Honestly, I figure that by now people are adapted to the suffering the climate is causing.
 
Anyways, as to my vote.

[X] [RA] Increase debates to determine the truth (-2 to +2 Religious Authority based on success of debates, potential shift in Spiritual Values)
[X] [Low] Force them to follow the spirit of the law (Potential stability loss, potential war with vassal)
[X] [Low] Introduce black soil to improve their conditions (Teaches black soil to vassal)
[X] [Low] Introduce mill technology to improve their conditions (Teaches water mill to vassal)
[X] [High] Extra tribute (+2 Prestige, +2 Wealth, probably completes this turn)
[X] [RB] Deploy against Highlanders from Hatvalley
[X] [React] Main Improve Annual Festival
[X] [City] Yes (Transfers 2 Econ + 2 Econ expansion, nulls cost of maintenance for Sacred Forest)
[X] [Refugee] Just those who come of their own initiative (Potential stab loss, +2 Econ)

I've sort of convinced myself with creating a debate centered city, and I do want to raise the cent cap to help deal with this.
 
Forgive me if I'm misreading your position, but you seem to think that numbers shouldn't ever be a factor in decision making because it stifles narrative?

If I may offer a solution, you could just look at the numbers from a narrative pov.

Extra Stability loss from taking in more refugees will create an influx of people who do not understand our laws and customs and will screw up and do things that we don't like, causing stability loss.

For the Highlander vote, you can think of the lowering centralization as the Government granting more autonomy to the provinces to lower strain, possibly causing a shift in government style as a mid turn option.

I mean, the main reason some people focus so much on numbers is because we know the narrative effect of having low numbers, high numbers, or overflowing numbers.

No, I mean that numbers have more impact than they should.

And about "know the narrative impact": this whole line of discussion was started by the fact that no, we do not know them. High Stability does not mean uncorrupted society, low Centralization does not mean effective delegation and self-governance, and so on and so forth. Every stat has the potential to lie in your face if you pay it too much attention.
 
No, I mean that numbers have more impact than they should.

And about "know the narrative impact": this whole line of discussion was started by the fact that no, we do not know them. High Stability does not mean uncorrupted society, low Centralization does not mean effective delegation and self-governance, and so on and so forth. Every stat has the potential to lie in your face if you pay it too much attention.
Not really the consumable stats. I mean, Econ is pretty much Econ at this point. Any modifications on that (Boats vs. Black Soil) are refinements at most.

It's the administration stats that have confusing narrative impact (because IC, our people don't really understand them either.)
 
[X] [RA] Increase debates to determine the truth (-2 to +2 Religious Authority based on success of debates, potential shift in Spiritual Values)
[X] [Low] Force them to follow the spirit of the law (Potential stability loss, potential war with vassal)
[X] [Low] Introduce black soil to improve their conditions (Teaches black soil to vassal)
[X] [High] Extra tribute (+2 Prestige, +2 Wealth, probably completes this turn)
[X] [RB] Deploy against Highlanders from Valleyhome
[X] [React] Main Improve Annual Festival
[X] [City] Yes (Transfers 2 Econ + 2 Econ expansion, nulls cost of maintenance for Sacred Forest)
[X] [Refugee] Just those who come of their own initiative (Potential stab loss, +2 Econ)

Changing my react vote to synergize with the debates. Also changing the High vote up to tribute, and changing the RB from fighting in the north to cleaning up the Highlander war to compensate.
 
No, I mean that numbers have more impact than they should.

And about "know the narrative impact": this whole line of discussion was started by the fact that no, we do not know them. High Stability does not mean uncorrupted society, low Centralization does not mean effective delegation and self-governance, and so on and so forth. Every stat has the potential to lie in your face if you pay it too much attention.

I don't think any one ever posited that stability correlates to corruption or its lack. Stability is what it says on the tin, how stable your society is in the face of future shocks, how content people are to be a part of it.
 
Inserted tally
Adhoc vote count started by Umi-san on Jul 7, 2017 at 2:29 PM, finished with 69888 posts and 79 votes.
 
No, I mean that numbers have more impact than they should.

And about "know the narrative impact": this whole line of discussion was started by the fact that no, we do not know them. High Stability does not mean uncorrupted society, low Centralization does not mean effective delegation and self-governance, and so on and so forth. Every stat has the potential to lie in your face if you pay it too much attention.
So, if you think that the numbers have more impact than they should, what would be your solution to making them have less impact?

Do you just want to get rid of the Stab stat like in the olden days? Do you not want for any of the options to come with an associated number?

And we do broadly understand most of our stats, just not centralization or hierarchy.
 
The lower the centralization the quicker and greater chance for our government type to change into one that is more decentralized.

Which is more than likely to developed into a negative feedback loop.

Bad things happen - unable to react - more bad things happen.



Decentralisation is mankinds only salvation from the tyranny of the center.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top