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
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)"

Lesser forces than double heroic double crit leaders? That's... every other fight we've ever had in 2000 years.

On top of that, you're not playing fair on the Merc vs. March here; a Merc would get run over equally well.
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.
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.

On the topic of speculation:
[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

If you could cite these, that would be helpful. Our marches have done deep strikes into the steppe before, and I'm unaware of any difference in logisitic train. Do we have WoG that stallion missions can't support western WW? And our marches have not been involved in a major war to fairly compare their punch to Red Banner; this one I know is speculation.

Please stop arguing for things on the basis of guesses masquerading as facts. It's not helpful.
 
Last edited:
Because I thought people could cooperate.

Apparently I was wrong
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.

Note that that doesn't mean that someone who is voting to invite the Highland Kingdom is voting for peace. Some people (veekie) believe that we can attack people participating in our games at any time without repercussions so long as we have a valid CB. I strenuously disagree with such a stance, and I believe that it would damage our diplomacy score, have negative narrative effects with the other participants, and probably cause a stability hit with our people. As neither side has any evidence of their claims, it goes down to personal beliefs.

Now, there is a sizable portion of the voters who have stated that they are voting against war at any cost. You can make a list of said voters, compare that against what people said when they were voting for the white peace. If any of them changed their position, you can know that they cannot be trusted in the future. I don't know anyone who has done this, but I wish you luck.

There are also people who see the Games as an attempt to redeem the Highland Kingdom. As the games did not exist before they made their initial declarations, it can be assumed that they changed their minds not out of malice, but from new information. 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.

*Two options [Y;N]. Lacking other information assume 50%, multiply by the chance that both the King and the CB expire on turn 2 (25%) and you get 12.5%.
 
Last edited:
Because I thought people could cooperate.

Apparently I was wrong
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.

The noisiest ones at any given time aren't necessarily a good representation of all the thread.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
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
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Yes. For a fact, I have.
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.
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.

You still want war, I still want war and a bunch of other people still want war too. But most of us, don't antagonise the ones who want peace. Angry complaining does not work, to make the other people work with you.
 
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.
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.

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, so as far as I'm concerned we won't ever get a new CB against them. We will have either the choice to prosecute the war after they attack us again, or wait until another treachery CB happens. Then we are right back to where we started.

Do you have proof (preferably via WoAN) that each probability is statistically equivalent?
Lacking any additional information, I am forced to assume that each possibility is equally likely.
 
Last edited:
changed their position
Are we not allowed to change our opinions anymore?


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.
 
[X] [WB] Upgrade Cosmopolitan Acceptance
[X] [Inv] Swamp Folk
[X] [Inv] Storm Wolves
[X] [King] Hertythn (Heroic Admin, Average Diplo, Poor Martial; takes control while alive (1, possibly 2 turns))
 
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.
Perfect. I'm cool with this. It makes sense.
 
Last edited:
The Stallion Tribes were amazing and saved us countless actions with dealing with nomads. However building that triangle canal up north(after Dam, Redhills Ironworks and possibly maxed out walls) for a well watered defensible position(Great Wall!) may make a March a moot point in the longterm but an excellent benefit in the short term (which Marches are supposed to be, small buffer military entity).
 
Are we not allowed to change our opinions anymore?
Well, the issue is that he made a decision on the basis of a perceived thread consensus to do something in the future.

On an individual level, of course people can change their opinions. But I get that it's upsetting when that basis appears to fall through.

(Of course, I think that war with HK will pass no problem, and this is just a sampling issue. Could be wrong though.)
 
Are we not allowed to change our opinions anymore?
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.
 
Last edited:
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

Rulwyna was herself a desinfranchised noble with ambitions to claim the crown. The fact that she was able to found a spy network points at deep pockets paired with ruthlessness and a contempt for the law. Any organisation built along those lines is not one I want to legitimise.
 
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.
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.

Take a look.
Mercenary Company: Military Activity (both offense and defense) anywhere within reach of our supply lines. Force Projection by being lent out to enemies-of-our-enemies.
March: Fortification of a territory, defensive military activity there, offensive military activity in the area, some help with military activity depending on distance, infrastructure in the territory - roughly in that order.
Trading Post: Taking over a territory, building fortifications/infrastructure, and extensively interacting with the neighbors.
Colony: Continuously expanding to new territory and building fortifications/infrastructure there.

So. If our problem was that we more war missions, a mercenary company could help out; they can take over doing war missions for us. If our problem was that we needed to expand in some way (either make a defensive territory, start forming a presence in faraway lands, or just expand nonstop), a March/Trading Post/Colony would be grand. But for anything else, subordinates aren't really a help.

In particular, what I'd really like to do now is build up. Make roads, do study actions, increase stability, product stats, that kind of stuff. And none of the afore-mentioned subordinates actually do any of that. or rather they do it, but on new territories, which can't be called putting out fires.

If we had any of the following subordinates, I'd support starting them up in a heartbeat:
Road Crew - Takes a New Trails every turn when under Yellow centralization. Builds Walls otherwise.
Performing Company - Does a Festival Action each turn.
Trading Company - Sends two secondary trade missions each turn.
etc.

Really, anything that acts on land we already have and our own stats. Unfortunately, such subordinates are not available, which is why I think the current value of new subordinates is limited.



There is one think missing from the above, as I'm sure you noticed: Free Cities. Unlike the other subordinate classes, this one DOES act purely domestically, by granting us free passive policy uses and a Culture drip. For that reason, I fully support the creation of multiple Free Cities when possible. The only problem is that of all our subordinates, this is the one we can't just decide to make. A pity.
 
So to use my high-school analogy...

After making peace with Khemetri-chan, Ymaryn-chan saw that a lot of her friends were feeling kinda bored without anyone to fight. So she went out, got a football, and organized a match to keep them occupied so that they wouldn't run around and cause trouble. Then she saw how successful it was and decided to invite some other teams to join in as well.

Khemetri-chan is still in a friendly mood, so she signs up straight away. The rest of the episode is Ymaryn-chan going to various other groups and saying "Wanna join our new game?" and trying to decide whether or not she wants to invite that Highlander bitch living next door.

On one hand, inviting her might soften relations and convince Highlander-chan to stop acting like such a bitch. On the other, Ymaryn-chan really, really, really wants to beat the shit out of her after getting back-stabbed during that last fight with Khemetri-chan. More importantly, she probably has to bring Highlander-chan under her heel so that she can't backstab Ymaryn-chan again during the next crisis. The only question is whether Ymaryn-chan is just going to take over the path between their houses or just burn Highlander-chan's house to the ground.

In the meantime, all the uninvited groups (random minor tribes/wandering nomad clans) are sitting at home and crying cause they weren't invited to the Cool Kid's club.
 
Back
Top