pbluekan
Somethin's Fucky ...
- Location
- Trumpistan
There is a button at the top of thread. Just do it yourself.
There is a button at the top of thread. Just do it yourself.
I've seen this lots in quest threads.It was agreed by a lot, but not by most, and that's the problem you're running into here.
Why are so many omakes not threadmarked? If AN isn't going to do it can someone make a list of links to the forgotten omakes?
Remember that only happened with TWO heroic nomads who BOTH crit their attack rolls. It's absolutely unfair to describe that as "(which is the only one that counts, since lesser forces aren't really a problem)"Recall after that a Heroic Nomad(which is the only one that counts, since lesser forces aren't really a problem) punched through them anyway.
The sequence for a March would be:
1: Settlement, Significant Walls
2: Expand Econ, Raise Army/Chariots
3: Expand Econ, Towers
4: Expand Econ, Forests
That's speculation. We don't know how 'hard' each hit is, and we've never actually lost a significant amount of core land until Hatvalley a few turns ago (and then only for 4 years or so.) Unless you can provide some WoG on this, I don't accept it as true.Bolded is wrong. We've been hit in core land and subordinate land. It hurts equally bad, except a subordinate might secede if we don't fix it, while core is 'just' a stability hit.
[March]
--Slower to regenerate Martial after war damage
[Merc]
--Capable of deep strike into Steppes due to low logistics train
--Capable of covering any location along our Steppe border, for instance, the current far western extent of Western Wall is out of range of Stallion support missions.
--Higher martial density, according to everything we've seen, our Red Banner punch harder than our Marches, since it's all cream of the crop full time warriors
Over half the people are voting against the inclusion of the Highland Kingdom into the games, which is all that is required for us to be able to go to war against the Highland Kingdom. The heroic king will live for 1-2 turns. The CB will last 2-3 turns. That means that there is [1,2,;1,3,;2,2,;2,3] a 75% chance that the CB will outlast the heroic king. There is also a chance that the heroic king will declare war on his own*. I'd take a 1/8 chance of losing our CB in exchange for a heroic administrator.Because I thought people could cooperate.
Apparently I was wrong
Wait what?
Really? We don't have calendars or any timekeeping? I thought that having bureaucracy would already assume that this is true.
Eh. Wait till the debate is actually relevant and see what popular opinion is. I still support the HK war next turn, but I'm not interested in arguing about it two updates in advance.Because I thought people could cooperate.
Apparently I was wrong
On the subject of being untrustworthy, I would like the Ymaryn to preserve their ability to white-peace out aggressors in multi-front wars rather than having to go through and exterminate every last one of them.You can know that if there is a chance that the situation changes that their statements are unreliable, but you don't know that they are untrustworthy.
Do you have proof (preferably via WoAN) that each probability is statistically equivalent?The CB will last 2-3 turns. That means that there is [1,2,;1,3,;2,2,;2,3] a 75% chance that the CB will outlast the heroic king.
Nobles? The whole network was set up after Rulwyna left noble life and settled down with a normal guy with a Inn down in Redshore. The original network consisted of various merchants, traders and skilled labourers. Its a not a surprise we had a surge in crime and corruption when we refused to build the Palace due to cries of elitism thus locking our government into the early bronze age while our economy was running full speed ahead to the Iron Age.Personally I find the idea of a centuries old conspiracy of power-hungry nobles mentaining a moral center highly dubious. He'll, the first time we heard of the SK was after highly disruptive acts of corruption at a time of social upheaval.
It sounds more like he didn't have an opinion considering it was his cohorts musing about the Shadow King. It seems if we make it a FC then the network is legitimized but we can flush it out if you want but most problems seem like general crime and a administration too far and slow to deal with rapid change. The SK has helped us a total of two known times which were very crucial but any problems they may have caused are not confirmed and may be used as a scapegoat. In fact our own admin genuis may have restored to embezzlement if that was the only way he could manage a better life for himself which I think is what the SK network is. A group of talented and skilled people who are locked out of power no matter what they do so they resort to law breaking to utilize their talents and make wealth.As in, AN had said that the overmartial problem depends on stability, and that when it's exactly at the cap(like we are now) it does not produce issues at positive Stability.
Recall after that a Heroic Nomad(which is the only one that counts, since lesser forces aren't really a problem) punched through them anyway.
The sequence for a March would be:
1: Settlement, Significant Walls
2: Expand Econ, Raise Army/Chariots
3: Expand Econ, Towers
4: Expand Econ, Forests
At the 4th turn they can be considered to be 'hardened' but thin and easy to penetrate. The 10(well, 12 really) turn timeline allows them to settle and fortify the 3-4 settlements, as well as generate the Wealth needed to raise Chariots and Armies, then wait for their forests to reach maturity for defensibility.
Bolded is wrong. We've been hit in core land and subordinate land. It hurts equally bad, except a subordinate might secede if we don't fix it, while core is 'just' a stability hit.
Only if you discount the degree of steppe exposure the new march has.
March:
-Pros:
--Builds infrastructure, can take more complex responses to nomads.
--Permanent assignment means that players cannot 'helpfully' take them away.
-Cons:
--Extends length of Steppe border
--Establishes future political and cultural difficulty as they build infrastructure
--Slower to regenerate Martial after war damage
--Steppe soil is too dry to be good for agriculture, which means they get poor efficiency out of settlements.
Company:
-Pros:
--Capable of deep strike into Steppes due to low logistics train
--Capable of covering any location along our Steppe border, for instance, the current far western extent of Western Wall is out of range of Stallion support missions.
--Higher martial density, according to everything we've seen, our Red Banner punch harder than our Marches, since it's all cream of the crop full time warriors
-Cons:
--More expensive
--More vulnerable to players taking them away.
Thus, the Company is better for defense, the March is better for settling the land.
So make that a qualified statement:
-I will commit to forming a Mercenary Company to secure our northern border immediately.
-I will object and obstruct attempts to push further into the Steppes unless we carry out the Northern Dam or Triangle Canal projects, which will change the local biome that settling a mercenary company into a march like we did with the Hawks is a good idea.
A few things:
1) We cannot legitimize the network unless we know it exists.
2) They have been causing increasingly severe problems.
3) Whatever we do when we find them, the option to set up a counter-network will certainly appear.
4) The current King candidate has, according to the narrative, a very good familiarity with embezzlement and all forms of corruption from his position. He just needs the power to make it happen
Yes. For a fact, I have.A/N can't keep up, obviously. We generate a ludicrous amount of posts.
The level of condecension I'm detecting is amazing. Have you managed to unlock it's use as a power source yet?
Salty does not equal 'Doesn't mean it.'. I never said that you don't mean this, so I did never put words in your mouth, but you did when you claimed I have. You are angry because a lot of people don't seem to want war and are working together to stear away from it, they cooperate. Meaning the reason you are angry is, that they cooperate towards a goal you don't want.No, I'm miffed because it was agreed by most people that we would go to war with the Highlands later if we went for white peace. Now people are changing their minds. It's rather aggravating.
Oh and if you want to put words in people's mouths you should probably try to make those words a little more accurate, I know you have probably just finished your Psych course but that doesn't mean that you can say 'you don't mean this you just are salty because this' when you know absolutely nothing about me or my motivations besides from what I tell you, and I've already told you why I'm annoyed, you just elected to ignore it to make yourself feel more justified.
Eh. The treachery CB is there exactly to disincentivize back-stabbing while we're in a war. By using it, we're also make backstabbing us while we're busy less attractive.On the subject of being untrustworthy, I would like the Ymaryn to preserve their ability to white-peace out aggressors in multi-front wars rather than having to go through and exterminate every last one of them.
So I'd rather use a new CB versus the Highlanders rather than a vengeance CB after a white peace. If they'd stuck in, after all, we might have lost Gulvalley and come apart at the seams.
We don't have to exterminate every last one of them. Almost no one wanted to prosecute the war against the Thunder Horse, and as far as I'm concerned no one was asked to vote for peace in exchange for attacking the Thunder Horse later. Compared to the Highland Kingdom, where many people wanted to continue the war (myself included) and only backed down after being told that we would get a treachery CB in two turns time and we had the impression that the thread would prosecute said war.On the subject of being untrustworthy, I would like the Ymaryn to preserve their ability to white-peace out aggressors in multi-front wars rather than having to go through and exterminate every last one of them.
So I'd rather use a new CB versus the Highlanders rather than a vengeance CB after a white peace. If they'd stuck in, after all, we might have lost Gulvalley and come apart at the seams.
Lacking any additional information, I am forced to assume that each possibility is equally likely.Do you have proof (preferably via WoAN) that each probability is statistically equivalent?
Are we not allowed to change our opinions anymore?
We've got a pretty good idea they've been fucking around with the Ymaryn underworld.When is the last time that we had a non-treachery CB against the Highlanders? I've never seen us having the ability to generate one either,
Perfect. I'm cool with this. It makes sense.On a different note, I agree with both @pblur and @veekie . A march would be an extremely valuable addition to our subordinate state lineup for their ability to deal with minor threats on their own and develop themselves without our input. A mercenary company allows for flexibility in deployment and unlike a march, can be used all over the place, instead of in just a single area.
We can have both. We have the martial for it. @pblur if you want more subordinate states, we will need a mercenary company to protect the more vulnerable and distant ones, such as a NTP or Khemetri TP. We also will likely have to start building more and more distant subordinates as time goes by. @veekie in the mid to long run, placing a merc company on a province in place of a march is a bit of a waste. At a certain point, we might as well just build a march and then plop a merc company on it for a while until the march is built up enough to be safe and stable.
Well, the issue is that he made a decision on the basis of a perceived thread consensus to do something in the future.
It's always good to know who your enemies are.Before starting damn or canals we need to finish place to the stars.
It's the iron age and we still don't have a proper calendar (or time keeping for that matter) for crying out loud.
Absolutely. A person can change their mind as time passes and new information comes to light. Just as others are allowed to know that that said person might change their mind in the future, and thus they should not rely on that person's statements now about what that person intends to do in the future to determine their actions in the present.
Nobles? The whole network was set up after Rulwyna left noble life and settled down with a normal guy with a Inn down in Redshore. The original network consisted of various merchants, traders and skilled labourers. Its a not a surprise we had
While it would be absolutely lovely to have subordinates putting out fires for us, subordinates are not general purpose problem solvers. This wouldn't be so bad, since we do have classes of problems that could use continuous work, but sadly we only have a narrow range of subordinates available and they don't particularly align with what we need done.Making more action-taking subordinates is good to do first, because they can help put out fires and build up in the mean time. Our road network is the best its been in centuries, partially because we've been absorbing subordinates who spent their actions on roads (so we don't have to.) Same for forests.
I'm not arguing against doing those with main actions of course (and I want to do more roads soon.) But if we create a couple subordinates first, they can build roads, diplomance, plant forest, whatever while we're building roads.