Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Umi-san said:
My understanding is that he wants us to build more walls so that when the Khem come back and attack us they'll be attacking walls.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
He's mistaken then; us setting a defense policy would build walls in the core territory, not the subordinate states vulnerable to attack, and the defense of the core territory is nearly irrelevant, since we can experience cascade failure if we lose subordinates.
 
Welp, history sheet updated. I'm not up to pumping out an illustration though.

@Abby Normal Thanks for all the diffs. You're a life saver.

We're at 936 old-secondary actions to date. Two more turns @BungieONI . Will the apples be ready?
 
Last edited:
Falsehaven said:
How many turn have people been talking about that, how many time has it happend? The march will have to go first that will require taking millitary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
a) why would it have to go first? b) Mercenaries, again. c) look at Hatvalley province.

Citino said:
Seems he favors a realist interpretation of international politics. I.e. other nations can't be trusted without some sort of reason or force, so building goodwill does nothing.

Which is actually a legit argument.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
no...
maximillian said:
Oh no trade is fine and all, and I have no inclination of changing cultures or influencing thier values, I just want them to bend the knee.
But any diplomacy further than trade must have the clear intention of subjugation. I'd be a shite imperialist if I don't favour the expansion of empire afterall.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I support diplomacy that furthers our interests regardless of its extent. Offering merc companies or selling econ or etc. to polities that are weaker than us to damage ones that are of comparable strength or create a buffer is good or which simply are not an extreme danger and share our morality is good. The only time when it's bad is when they end up reaching parity w/ us or have technology we might want to steal from their refugees, in which case we should let them suffer so that we can move in.

I made a manifesto for my bloc somewhere but I'll need to edit it.

George said:
He's mistaken then; us setting a defense policy would build walls in the core territory, not the subordinate states vulnerable to attack, and the defense of the core territory is nearly irrelevant, since we can experience cascade failure if we lose subordinates.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
hatvalley is a core province vulnerable to attack
loss of any territory including both subordinates and core provinces can result in cascade failure
though that issue largely hinged on the disloyal and low dependency hatvalley
 
Last edited:
[X] The war will continue (War continues, have mid-turn actions before next War Mission rolls to potentially regenerate forces)

They didn't win but want to pretend like they won? Well screw that, we got a Hero+ unit, let's go all the way to their Capital.
Adhoc vote count started by Genji on Jul 30, 2017 at 8:41 PM, finished with 864 posts and 147 votes.
Click to expand...
 
PyrrosWarrior said:
I just realized something about Max's party. For all he talked about tradition and named his "flock" as being about tradition and propriety, his major planks...




...actively go against what is traditionally part of Ymarri society. You are not a party of tradition and propriety. Your beliefs run against what would be considered "tradition and propriety" for the Ymaryn. You are, in fact, an advocate of change. You're not a "progressive" change like some of the other people here, but most definitely a party of a type of change.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The term progressive carries with it an absurd amount of self righteousness and self superiority. I prefer simpler more clear and honest terms.

And of course I champion traditions, it just the the Ymaryn have been denied those traditions, and I seek to bring to Ymaryn what thier birthright.

And there is nothing more proper than faith and tradition, which the Flock champions.

As for change, I don't advocate for it or against it. With everyones fate in thier own hands, they can change things or leave then be zero the over structure is unconcerned.
 
Last edited:
Genji said:
[X] The war will continue (War continues, have mid-turn actions before next War Mission rolls to potentially regenerate forces)

They didn't win but want to pretend like they won? Well screw that, we got a Hero+ unit, let's go all the way to their Capital.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Vote closed. We're tributing them. It's just a lot cheaper than war, and lets us put the screws to the Trelli.
 
Falsehaven said:
we have to expand somehow or someone else will and eventualy conquer us.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have a LONG time before we need to worry about that, though.

For one thing, we have a decent amount of expansion room right now. There are territories in the Lowlands that are technically our territory but aren't settled, plus room around the sea, plus we can always push a bit into Nomadlandia or the North, and so on. The point is, we really aren't pinned in right now, and there is plenty of settle-able land that we can grab without even having to contest it with anyone.

For another thing, we don't actually need to expand right now. Our polity doesn't need to expand to function, and at present we have more than enough useful things to do with out rime without expanding. Even if we want to go to our cap of 12 provinces, we could probably manage most of that just by absorbing some of our peripheral subordinates. In other words, we aren't actually under any pressure to expand right now, and while there can be some benefits from it at this stage in our development they are minor. We could easily spend hundreds of years at this point building up our current territories instead of grabbing new ones.

And as a final note, even if we can't wage war "just because", people have started wars with us or done stuff that enable us to wage a "just war" with relative regularity. If we eventually need to expand, I think it will be easy enough to find someone who deserves having their lands usurped.
 
Umi-san said:
a) why would it have to go first? b) Mercenaries, again. c) look at Hatvalley province.


no...

I support diplomacy that furthers our interests regardless of its extent. Offering merc companies or selling econ or etc. to polities that are weaker than us to damage ones that are of comparable strength or create a buffer is good or which simply are not an extreme danger and share our morality is good. The only time when it's bad is when they end up reaching parity w/ us or have technology we might want to steal from their refugees, in which case we should let them suffer so that we can move in.

I made a manifesto for my bloc somewhere but I'll need to edit it.


hatvalley is a core province vulnerable to attack
loss of any territory including both subordinates and core provinces can result in cascade failure
though that issue largely hinged on the disloyal and low dependency hatvalley
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I have no qualms with circumstance/opportunity diplomacy(hiring out of merc or giving support to one side in order to weaken both... Etc) . So long as it serves our interests, and doesn't hinder our empire making it alright.
 
Concho117 said:
...wait, did we just Chile the Khemetri?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


maximillian said:
I have no qualms with circumstance/opportunity diplomacy(hiring out of merc or giving support to one side in order to weaken both... Etc) . So long as it serves our interests, and doesn't hinder our empire making it alright.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
so basically you're fine w/ all diplomacy as long as it serves our interests and doesn't hurt us
i.e. not what you said
thx
 
[X] The war will continue (War continues, have mid-turn actions before next War Mission rolls to potentially regenerateforces)
 
PrimalShadow said:
We have a LONG time before we need to worry about that, though.

For one thing, we have a decent amount of expansion room right now. There are territories in the Lowlands that are technically our territory but aren't settled, plus room around the sea, plus we can always push a bit into Nomadlandia or the North, and so on. The point is, we really aren't pinned in right now, and there is plenty of settle-able land that we can grab without even having to contest it with anyone.

For another thing, we don't actually need to expand right now. Our polity doesn't need to expand to function, and at present we have more than enough useful things to do with out rime without expanding. Even if we want to go to our cap of 12 provinces, we could probably manage most of that just by absorbing some of our peripheral subordinates. In other words, we aren't actually under any pressure to expand right now, and while there can be some benefits from it at this stage in our development they are minor. We could easily spend hundreds of years at this point building up our current territories instead of grabbing new ones.

And as a final note, even if we can't wage war "just because", people have started wars with us or done stuff that enable us to wage a "just war" with relative regularity. If we eventually need to expand, I think it will be easy enough to find someone who deserves having their lands usurped.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Most people in thread are for conquering or vassalizing the Highlanders, so that would be a bunch of really good, fortified land that would be relatively simple to take.
 
Umi-san said:
"they have more land" lel do you see the map?? We have so much more land, so much more prestige to host subordinates w/, etc.

Diplo = a stat that overflows into other stats and which lets us integrate our subordinates so that we get more provinces so that we get more actions


if you want more population do some Study Health actions so we lose less to disease and injury
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Err...what map? None of AN's maps have even included the Khemetri? o_O We know almost nothing about their amount of land. We have more prestige, yes, but i'll not that they've been getting prestige same as us for all these giant battles, so we're still not that far ahead on that front.
 
maximillian said:
The term progressive carries with it an absurd amount of self righteousness and self superiority. I prefer simpler more clear and honest terms.

And of course I champion traditions, it just the the Ymaryn have been denied those traditions, and I seek to bring to Ymaryn what thier birthright.

As for change, I don't advocate for it or against it. With everyones fate in thier own hands, they can change things or leave then be zero the over structure is unconcerned.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I only used the term "progressive" to differentiate between different types of change, hence why I had used the quotes around progressive in the first place. It is not used to denote anything being inherently "better" or "worse"

No, you don't champion tradition. By the definition of what tradition IS, you are not in any way traditional. If the Ymaryn have "rejected" it as part of their society and haven't ever practiced it, that means it is not an Ymaryn tradition. By advocating for going against Ymaryn ways, you are, in fact, advocating a change in society to what you feel to be a better vision. Change and tradition are neither inherently good or bad. They are merely choices between direction versus staying where one is. If you choose to go west while another chooses to go north, you are both moving away from where you originally were, just not in the same direction.

tra·di·tion
[trəˈdiSH(ə)n]
mores · oral history · lore · folklore
  • a long-established custom or belief that has been passed on in this way:
    "Japan's unique cultural traditions"
    synonyms: custom · practice · convention · ritual · observance · way · usage · habit · institution · praxis
  • an artistic or literary method or style established by an artist, writer, or movement, and subsequently followed by others:
    "visionary works in the tradition of William Blake"
  • a doctrine believed to have divine authority though not in the scriptures, in particular.
    • (in Christianity) doctrine not explicit in the Bible but held to derive from the oral teaching of Jesus and the Apostles.
    • (in Judaism) an ordinance of the oral law not in the Torah but held to have been given by God to Moses.
    • (in Islam) a saying or act ascribed to the Prophet but not recorded in the Koran. See Hadith.
 
Last edited:
Umi-san said:



so basically you're fine w/ all diplomacy as long as it serves our interests and doesn't hurt us
i.e. not what you said
thx
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


But I have a slightly different definition of what our interests are I suspect.

And actually yes I do favour realist view of international relations.

The modern one anyways, the old one became outdated as soon as it was written.
 
Abby Normal said:
Err...what map? None of AN's maps have even included the Khemetri? o_O We know almost nothing about their amount of land. We have more prestige, yes, but i'll not that they've been getting prestige same as us for all these giant battles, so we're still not that far ahead on that front.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
the map of irl egypt -> anatolia or whatever is smaller than the map of all the land around the black sea

they were 23 behind us and didn't defeat 2 other polities. They're not gaining prestige from this tribute, or else they wouldn't need the wealth. Or at least that's how I read AN's comment.
 
Last edited:
Still on the rapid update pace, I see.
Academia Nut said:
possessing the majority of their cavalry forces and having the Sun Devourer's own luck at somehow being in the right place at the right time
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I really am curious as to how the pharaoh will view our religion if he learns about it, our Yenyna if he learns about who she is and how she directed the fights.

That would do things to their religion and views on us, and I kinda want to see it happen @Academia Nut .

Pwease?
 
PyrrosWarrior said:
I only used the term "progressive" to differentiate between different types of change, hence why I had used the quotes around progressive in the first place. It is not used to denote anything being inherently "better" or "worse"

No, you don't champion tradition. By the definition of what tradition IS, you are not in any way traditional. If the Ymaryn have "rejected" it as part of their society and haven't ever practiced it, that means it is not an Ymaryn tradition. By advocating for going against Ymaryn ways, you are, in fact, advocating a change in society to what you feel to be a better vision. Change and tradition are neither inherently good or bad. They are merely choices between direction versus staying where one is. If you choose to go west while another chooses to go north, you are both moving from where you originally were, just not in the same direction.

tra·di·tion
[trəˈdiSH(ə)n]
mores · oral history · lore · folklore
  • a long-established custom or belief that has been passed on in this way:
    "Japan's unique cultural traditions"
    synonyms: custom · practice · convention · ritual · observance · way · usage · habit · institution · praxis
  • an artistic or literary method or style established by an artist, writer, or movement, and subsequently followed by others:
    "visionary works in the tradition of William Blake"
  • a doctrine believed to have divine authority though not in the scriptures, in particular.
    • (in Christianity) doctrine not explicit in the Bible but held to derive from the oral teaching of Jesus and the Apostles.
    • (in Judaism) an ordinance of the oral law not in the Torah but held to have been given by God to Moses.
    • (in Islam) a saying or act ascribed to the Prophet but not recorded in the Koran. See Hadith.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I know right? It's a tragedy! The Ymaryn never experienced proper tradition for the thread has denied it to them! How can you let them suffer such a horrid tradition devoid existence?!?
 
Falsehaven said:
I brought it up because we have to expand somehow or someone else will and eventualy conquer us. Traits change/evolve we just have to make it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh before I leave completely, so I don't leave you in the lurch.

On our trait, I expect the Divine Stewards trait line to never lose that con of "lose land, lose stability". The reason is that AN has explicitly came out and said it's the root con of the Gardeners trait line, and literally all evolutions up to this point, of which there have been four if I recall correctly have done nothing to that con.

As to the expanding thing, I am fine with expanding the way we have so far, with colonies and defending ourselves into land. These are things we can handle.
I'm even okay with subjugating the HK and all that entails, because they have made themselves a large enough strategic pain in the ass to make it worth it.

What I am distinctly not okay with is continuing to fight the Khemetri so that we can take their land. This is for four reasons: Any land we take from them, we now have to defend, thus the more land we take from them the more vulnerable we are.
Next, the chance we could win the war if we continued and get a better deal was close to zero in my evaluation. We could have won it for a worse deal more than likely though.
After that, I think that if we did win enough to take a deal where we could claim land I think we would regret it as some part of them would be right next to us, even if they fractured, and then we'd have a very sore and antagonized enemy next door. I figured this would not turn out well.
Final point, Nomads are still up north. I do not want to have to deal with them while fighting the Khemetri.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top