East + North votes should probably consolidate either by voting for both or switching to one *cough North cough*
North will tie up the Red Banner at the exact time we'll want them defending our shipping. And the climate gets three chances to just kill them. No thanks.

ETA But I added approval votes for mercs and simply doing nothing.
 
Last edited:
But the point stands, slaves are a commodity right now that can be had anywhere. The Danubian basin is ripe for the taking and I'm pretty sure the TTs have a river leading there. The TTs are entirely capable of securing an alternate source- especially if we provide incentive and support for them to do so.
No, we don't deal in slaves, if we set up a trade post on the river lo and behold were endangering the Tin Tribes slave trade in order to mine out tin. In other word their not going to side with us.
 
[X] [Exp] Found Far Northern Trade Post
[X] [Exp] Do nothing here
[X] [Exp] Found Trelli Trade Post, East

I changed my mind so many time....But I think this is it. I don't care much about what wins in the other two options.
 
@McLuvin What will actually convince you to switch your vote?
AN saying that this war will end in a defeat or pyrrhic victory and that choosing the East TP will definitely lead to that war or will lead to war literally next update full stop.

Leading to war full stop next update would make me sit back and reconsider it, although smothering Rome/Venice in the crib is extremely tempting
 
If land can be an object, not all objects are mortal. (Same goes for airspace, but I 1000% doubt that we have that as a legal concept rn. @Academia Nut Do our villages tend to prevent people from building really high, yet feasible apartments? What philosophical justification do they use, if any?)

p sure we recognize ownership as you defined it, tho that's a vague conclusion w/o any effort put into verification >.>

If you're sleepy from it being night, go to sleep. If you're sleepy from waking up, go work out. <3

The vague, you mean my statement or the concept?
As for sleep, am still 20 mins more walking away from the bed.
 
North will tie up the Red Banner at the exact time we'll want them defending our shipping. And the climate gets three chances to just kill them. No thanks.
I mean... are you proposing that we put a squad of RB on every single boat or what? That sounds really ineffective for a land-fight Merc Company.

The vague, you mean my statement or the concept?

As for sleep, am still 20 mins more walking away from the bed.

I meant that my belief (that we have a concept of ownership as you defined it) is based on a vague assessment of our history/culture/philosophical principles garnered through reading the story over time, rather than having any reliable textual basis.

Oh, that's weird but I've been there. I don't suppose you're drunk? If you are, remember to not sit down under a bush because your feet hurt and you want to rest for a bit.
 
Last edited:
AN saying that this war will end in a defeat or pyrrhic victory and that choosing the East TP will definitely lead to that war or will lead to war literally next update full stop.

Leading to war full stop next update would make me sit back and reconsider it, although smothering Rome/Venice in the crib is extremely tempting

So your problem is that you have dangerously high risk tolerance. Jesus. I don't think I can convince you there.
 
All the trade posts are a major investment that we can't really support right now.
Actually we really can.

We'll have baby boom Econ up to our ears soon, Diplomacy is filling up fast, shedding Martial would *help* with Stallion integration, and the Wealth would break even in two turns and be pure profit - or another mercenary company - after that.
 
Option 1, our sailors kill their raiders. Especially if we use the eastern trading post to fund another mercenary company and train them for ship combat.

I don't see how anyone could hold this view while simultaneously thinking that a TP will be a disaster.

Option 2, they beat a few of our ships, but take enough losses due to our superior tech that it's not profitable. They focus on juicier targets.

The whole point is they're the ones who have superior ocean ships, it we trundle along doing nothing in response to them as you advocate then there's no way it will not be profitable for them.

Option 3, they dominate our ships. We can just withdraw from the whole sea and trade elsewhere. Saltern income doesn't require the market.

This is madness, abandoning ocean travel will be horrible for our civ when a huge portion of it borders the coast. We also can't do that even if we wanted, our traits will force a response.

Ten turns isn't all that long if they're not motivated enough to go to war with us. Enough time to finish all our megaprojects, then turn our attention westward as they hit a bump in the road, temporarily can't pay some of their mercs, and get into a huge civil war.

Ten turns in which they're not motivated to go to war with us because in your view we should just let them have unrestricted access to the whole ocean to do what they please with and build up even further with...
 
@BungieONI I spent most of my quest time adding econ expansion to the history sheet and lurking. The salt defenses on the castle were down.

*Pokes anti-salt gun accusatorally*
 
So your problem is that you have dangerously high risk tolerance. Jesus. I don't think I can convince you there.
I see it as the risk of not doing it outweighs the risk of doing it personally.

They are going to hit us anyway, might as well try and hold their economy hostage to avoid that as long as possible, or if it comes down to it beat them down before they snowball like Rome or Venice.

I'm not going to bet on them not snowballing, they just went from a Trade City to a significant threat within a turn.
 
I mean... are you proposing that we put a squad of RB on every single boat or what? That sounds really ineffective for a land-fight Merc Company.



I meant that my belief (that we have a concept of ownership as you defined it) is based on a vague assessment of our history/culture/philosophical principles garnered through reading the story over time, rather than having any reliable textual basis.

Oh, that's weird but I've been there. I don't suppose you're drunk? If you are, remember to not sit down under a bush because your feet hurt and you want to rest for a bit.


Hah I wish, I could bloody use some whiskey right now. Unfortunately it's the more mundane problem of enjoying nature's bounty and having to walk back.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for being presumptuous and insulting.
Look at my reply to him mate, then go back and try to be a nicer person

Given that your criteria for change of opinion is literally QM swooping in to say that one of the votes is the trap option, which the QM will not do, I...well, I guess I did overestimate the degree of your hatred for them, but not by much; you are not categorically unable to agree to peace with them, it's just your criteria is unreachable enough for the difference to be meaningless.
 
It wasn't a US mandate, it was an OPEC resolution that has been changing recently. But, no, that means nothing in regards to backing the dollar. If oil was backing the dollar in any form in he last few years, the dollar would be in the shitter. Oil is still only $44/ barrel which is half of what it was ~10 years ago.

Sure, all countries manage their inflation rates through easing and currency printing, but most don't literally alter their reported GDP and cook their books to keep their currency stable.

Have i said oil being the only factor in Dollar backing? If i have, then i have mislead.

But the main reason that US dollar haven't tank then oil have tank is that the Dollar structure is now too big too fall.

Almost every economy anchored their money to the Dollar. So individual currency can rise and fall without problem, but everyone will have problem when Dollar tanks.

Also don't forget that currency speculators also based their ammo in Dollar since Dollar is accepted by every country.

So the currency marketplace is very much favorable to USA because they spent the time to set it up, and China being called out on currency control despite everyone is doing it due to China not playing by other people's rule.

Agenda is agenda, control is control; people would dissent if they view rules being unfavorable.
 
I don't see how anyone could hold this view while simultaneously thinking that a TP will be a disaster.

Included for completeness, because we've *never fought them before* and don't really know.


The whole point is they're the ones who have superior ocean ships, it we trundle along doing nothing in response to them as you advocate then there's no way it will not be profitable for them.
Their ships are faster, but they're the ones who want to fight, so they have to approach us. Once the fight is joined, I reckon we have decent odds. Thus this option.
This is madness, abandoning ocean travel will be horrible for our civ when a huge portion of it borders the coast. We also can't do that even if we wanted, our traits will force a response.
We can't abandon land, but ocean is another matter. And we could still send supplies along the east coast if really necessary, without sending richly-laden merchants to the west.
Ten turns in which they're not motivated to go to war with us because in your view we should just let them have unrestricted access to the whole ocean to do what they please with and build up even further with...
I expect them to way overextend. Just look at the description of what's happening out west. Everything's in turmoil, and sooner or later they will find that they cannot put down what they have called up.
 
Given that your criteria for change of opinion is literally QM swooping in to say that one of the votes is the trap option, which the QM will not do, I...well, I guess I did overestimate the degree of your hatred for them, but not by much; you are not categorically unable to agree to peace with them, it's just your criteria is unreachable enough for the difference to be meaningless.
I see it as the risk of not doing it outweighs the risk of doing it personally.

They are going to hit us anyway, might as well try and hold their economy hostage to avoid that as long as possible, or if it comes down to it beat them down before they snowball like Rome or Venice.

I'm not going to bet on them not snowballing, they just went from a Trade City to a significant threat within a turn.
Yes because my reasoning is based solely on personal hatred.....

I'm not saying it's not there, The Trelli are dicks, but it's not just personal hatred but a dislike of the fact that they act in direct detriment to us and have done since we met them. It's pragmatism and paranoia mixed with dislike.

The fact you keep trying to say 'oh you just hate them' as trying to reduce my reasoning to that is actually really annoying and kind of insulting, and I'd like it if you could try to understand the reasoning behind the person you're debating.

For example you don't think the risk is worth it, you want to husband our strength and avoid a confrontation you don't think we can win without it not being cost effective. I understand that, it is a valid argument. However I don't agree with it, but I don't try to degrade your point of view by saying you don't want to do the Eastern TP because you like the Trelli.
 
Last edited:
*clears throat* In my opinion:
It is correct to believe that the Trell will become more problematic as time passes.
It is correct to say that at present our lack of offensive naval technology makes opposing them now more risky than it will be if/when we gain such.
It is correct to say that if we do nothing now we probably won't have time/motivation until the Dam is done.

anyways...






And for the weebs:

 
*clears throat* In my opinion:
It is correct to believe that the Trell will become more problematic as time passes.
It is correct to say that at present our lack of offensive naval technology makes opposing them now more risky than it will be if/when we gain such.
It is correct to say that if we do nothing now we probably won't have time/motivation until the Dam is done.

anyways...






And for the weebs:

Very good, aside from the Weeb section.

That was too far.
 
They are going to hit us anyway,
But there's a big difference between us being one of ten targets, vs us threatening their whole operation and getting all ten armies aimed at us.
they just went from a Trade City to a significant threat within a turn.
All the more reason to suppose that their system is unstable. They copied this from us, they don't have the experience or numbers or social foundations to make it work sustainably. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

If they had done what we did and built one company, maybe two, for home defense and selected aggression against worthy foes, they could have grown into it. But they are instead doing what our mine operators did.
 
*clears throat* In my opinion:
It is correct to believe that the Trell will become more problematic as time passes.
It is correct to say that at present our lack of offensive naval technology makes opposing them now more risky than it will be if/when we gain such.
It is correct to say that if we do nothing now we probably won't have time/motivation until the Dam is done.

anyways...






And for the weebs:

*sobs* All of my precious cat pics disappeared. *raises fist toward the tool bar* Curse you megabyte limitation!!!
 
*clears throat* In my opinion:
It is correct to believe that the Trell will become more problematic as time passes.
It is correct to say that at present our lack of offensive naval technology makes opposing them now more risky than it will be if/when we gain such.
It is correct to say that if we do nothing now we probably won't have time/motivation until the Dam is done.

anyways...






And for the weebs:

D'aaaaww 'sank youuuu~ Umi.

*cuddles fuzzy pictures*

*weeb pictures are look at curiously before being discarded*
 
Back
Top