This is outright word of AN from before. I'll source it if required, but again, quoting on mobile.Every damn time. Main actions represent a larger commitment, not a better commitment. In the case where more is better, then yes, a main action is 'better,' but I would say that a larger effort put into building a village doesn't necessarily mean we'll build a smaller village quicker, it has just as much possibility (if not more) to be a larger village at the same pace.
Settlement MAXIMUM success primarily depends on the location, and investing more effort means it reaches maturity faster, which in turn means that it starts producing returns from it's surrounding lands sooner.
Which is to say there's usually not much reason to Main a settlement unless speed of construction is vital.
In this case our population density is already very high, before we absorbed the migrants remember? We definitely have the manpower to operate two new settlements in rapid succession.@veekie The first part yes, even if the order still needs to wait until the update. But the second part I can't agree with. We need to see if the settlement we build next is sufficient before we make plans to make a second one.
The walls are threefold:The Walls in the main village I see no reason for. To get to it, they have to somehow pass both our northern and southern borders that have walled villages and mountains to contend with as well with no route directly to our east. Stability is nice, but with the Economy as we have it and better awareness of what might be needed, I don't think the buffer is necessary. Better to just start up the Canal second turn as we only have so much grace period from the Nomads.
-The main village is theoretically vulnerable. Remember there are no hard borders, and raiders can simply bypass a village that's defended to hit another. Also there's an eastern access to the main village through the badlands without passing through the lower valley village. Would prefer to have walls up and not need it than to need it and not have it. Especially when we just brought all the nomads past it, so they know where to find it and they know how rich it is. Paranoia yes, but in this case the cost is minor.
-Boosting institutional stoneworking knowledge helps the Canal. A crew of masons from a wall project on the turn previous should still be available when the Canal starts.
-Attempting to make Walls automatic with each settlement. Build them often enough and we should be able to automate basic city walls for all major settlements
Stability:
-Remember we're intentionally starting a clusterfuck in the south. Being prepared to tank at least one Stability hit is essential because I anticipate at least one of the lowland factions to suffer stability loss in the next three or four turns. Hitting negative stability during the megaproject is a major bad thing.
It's explicit that pushing fishing will have low returns without a second coastal village(and that a second coastal village next turn will be able to take advantage of this turn's fishing expansion).I would rather avoid building a settlement on the coast until we can push fishing, but it's the only other viable location.
We can build a village without Fishing, but not the other way round.
Uh...not getting the logic of this. Sorry.The only real issue I have with this setup is that instead of study forest, I would rather expand it for a first action. We have the people to care for and defend it, and if I recall, our northern village needs some trees. Essentially a border expansion.
Mostly, less chance of improving boats. The simplest way to trigger a boat improvement is to have more people on boats. We've already reached the limits of putting more people on boats with Fishing alone, so a new village would double the number of boats and thus boost the chances of coming up with a new one.I like it. If it was me though, I would probably switch the two settlement actions around on the off chance that not having an extra coastal settlement for a little while longer might prompt someone to invent better boats. It's rather unlikely, but what would we lose?
Certainly. It's good to have, but it's not locked into the slot.Also I might leave the walls in the valley slot open to be filled in with something to deal with the inevitable crisis or opportunity that is bound to appear.
Megaproject takes 3-4 turns to do, so that would be highly optimistic and leaves us highly vulnerable through the construction process.Heck, depending on how the nomads do and what else is going wrong, I might push for getting the canal immediately- completing a mega project provides stability along with its other benefits thanks to our trait, and we want to get it done before the DPs come to attack us. Getting the canal done before the Nomads get more than a few generations down (thus weakening the promise) would be very useful.
This is not true though?Restore Harmony should only be use when corruption is in play. Using it when instability comes from refugees leads to xenophobia or internal persecution. Using it when it's at 0 or 1 leads to Autocracy, as Restore Harmony is an action that uses the military and the Blackbirds to enforce the High Chief's will.
Restore Harmony involves police action, but this mainly involves the Blackbirds watching people and catching criminals. In times of high stability, it helps reinforce social stability by removing sources of trouble before they brew.
You only get Autocracy when Restore Harmony replaces the normal power structure, which only happens when the power structure is more corrupt than the society.
See the Blackbirds update and the one after that for the effect of Restore Harmony. They mainly watch for problems and report in.
If people are unhappy in a small way, they enable the chiefs to react to the unhappiness before it becomes civil disobedience. If people are causing trouble, the Blackbirds gather evidence, and then the chiefs enforce punishments to bring them back in line
Considering Restore Harmony is specifically enabled by the traits that reduce xenophobia, internal strife and autocracy, the claim doesn't hold up.
Remember Protective Justice. Justice is served by minimizing harm.
Thats why the chiefs were on the takedown list. Bastards were causing more harm than good
Last edited: