We did hit 1 econ. See Bungie's math earlier. In addition, the Influence would have dropped us to 3 wealth, which would trigger a Stability loss, allowing WY to nom us, costing more econ (and maybe starving us outright? Not sure of order of operations here) and potentially not paying out a full Stab roll for the Enforce Justice. Legit all of that would have been pretty bad, so I don't think an Influence would have been smart this turn.
Paths of Civilization
- Thread starter Academia Nut
- Start date
- Original
BungieONI
Seven gremlins in a trench coat
- Location
- Lickwidget
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Well aside from the fact of what this does to our Wealth income if we take it every turn, which is admittedly not too bad a hit, and that Wealth is our most limited stat right now I don't have a lot of problems with doing kilns every turn.
- Location
- Austria
Yes: we can. We are consuming slots faster than we are creating them IIRC, and with Ironworks becoming new Extended project this is not going to change - this is prpbably going to speed up: 7 cities with Ironworks consume 14 forest slots, 7 with baths another 7 slots; so we get 21 slots tied down purely by extended projects which are going to be taken.
If passive/provinces build baths+ironworks/turn, we are going to consume 3 slots/turn on those alone. Demand rises faster than supply quite clearly here.
If we run out of cities for extended projects (should happen soon enough?), then it's less if a concern, until you look at all the guild actions which consume forests.
Oh, and Baths are not limited to TS: only requirememt is aqueduct. So there's your 1 forest slot/turn forever, alone outstripping sole passive policy.
This turn we used 2 slots for IW, 1 for Baths, 1 for Porcelain - 4 total. And added 3 via Kilns. Net -1 slot. And people are discussing posdibility of not doing Kilns every single turn, when they are not enough. This is not enough evidence for you still?
Seriously, 4 slots per turn is a bit of an outlier (probably), but with Baths, guild actions and all I expect at least 2 slots/turn. Not taking either Kilns or forests every single turn is not an option anymore, and that is not guaranteed to be enough. eiyher.
Eh. I will reply with action plan when I get home: pretty sure we could do it.
You're not accounting for the Ironworks and Baths we've already built. @Rakuhn did the math earlier (thanks!), and if our passives did nothing but build Ironworks and baths, we would need 15 slots, which we could cover with a single Guild action per turn and forest passive. In the event that they went crazy and did that for some reason, we could just use both Guild actions on Kilns for anything else we wanted on top of that. Or, you know, an Expand Forest action.
Errr...
Bath - Any city with an aqueduct may have a bath. Each {S} committed consumes 3 Wealth and 3 Tech for 3 Progress, and then ties up 1 Sustainable Forest once complete. Completion adds +1 Econ Expansion and decreases disease roll penalty for True Cities further
Says any city right there. Is this different from True City mechanically?
Last edited:
We don't actually need Vassal Support.
Or, more precisely - vassal support is useful land important, but it is not required as part of what we want to do. In contrast, Forests are a prerequisite of things we actually want to build. It is like the Temple we needed to make an Observatory; if we want the Observatory enough to push for it, we have to get the Temple along the way.
We already have four (5) baths and one (2) ironworks. So we only have two more potential baths and five more potential ironworks, for a total forest consumption of 12.
We have 2.5 forests free, are going to generate 2.5 forests over the next five turns, and are likely going to reduce our forest consumption by 12 (kilns) over that same time period for a total increase of 17 forests, meaning that we'll have a net increase of five sustainable forests. And that assumes that our infrastructure policy is dumb enough to build enough ironworks that our expand econ action would cost too much tech to even use in the first place.
Going into the future, kilns effectively increase forest growth by half. So 1 passive forest policy will generate 0.75 additional forests per turn instead of its nominal 0.5 forests per turn. (1 kiln per 12 passive policy activations)
If every 2-3 turns we do a PSN main forest, we will be able to keep up with forest consumption for the short term future. By the time it is starting to become an issue, we will be looking at getting a new true city anyways, and can use its policy on forests.
Last edited:
BungieONI
Seven gremlins in a trench coat
- Location
- Lickwidget
- Pronouns
- She/Her
@Academia Nut, in the description for baths it says "Any city with an aqueduct" does that simply mean any town with an aqueduct in it or does it need an actual True City which has spawned.
- Location
- Austria
The issue is exactly that people are opposed to more than one (or even to one) forestry policies.
Wanna bet we won't find new ways to burn coal? Come on, take the bet
Will you?
My bet: we will consume at least 2, likely 3-4 slots per turn for the foreseeable future (before taking forests/kilns into account, pure consumption). Feel free to call me out on it if you think otherwise.
Re:baths: exactly, and not just any True City. Different things. Requires only aqueduct, which can and was built in non-True Cities.
Weren't aqueducts built in Greenshore, Lower Valleyhome and somewhere else before those became true cities?
But we *are* getting low on free slots: we have what, 25/28 now? That's Ironworks+Baths' worth only.
Last edited:
Then vote for more Vassal Support policies, which are massively more efficient than Forestry Policies AND still do something important that we have lots of trouble doing ourselves.
Why in the nine hells would we put ironworks in every city!?
Have you seen the mechanical effects on those things? They modify Expand Economy to eat Tech and spit our Econ. One of those is fantastic, since we have 1 point of tech refunds. A second or maybe third is decent, since it lets us transmute Tech (and thus effectively everything generated by the Mysticism/Tech/Culture block) into the much more finicky Econ. But after that, not only is there no benefit, but it is arguably NEGATIVE; at that point, tech costs go up enough that we might be blocked from doing Expand Economy at all for lack of Tech, and that can be catastrophic.
You forgot the forest policy, which got us .5 forest. So... we lost 0.5 forests total.
People are discussing the possibility of not doing Kilns every turn because we still aren't actually using all of our forests. I promise you that when we actually need those forests for projects we want, we will stat working those kilns.
Note that all the Forest-consumers you've listed so far are NOT projects we actually want. Baths are nice, and we like them, but we don't really care. Guild Actions that take forests aren't all that much better than ones we don't; by my count, this turn is literally the first time we took one of them. Building more Ironworks sounds more like a thing that a broken AI would want rather than the players. Really, the ONLY thing that we currently NEED which requires Forests is Lvl2 Ironworks, and that is one action.
Last edited:
Obviously you're correct. Eventually we will find more uses for coal. Counter bet: our passives will not build nothing but Baths and Ironworks. Come on, take the betWanna bet we won't find new ways to burn coal? Come on, take the bet
Will you?
As for whether or not we use 3-4 forests per turn, it's possible, although I feel unlikely long term since many people aren't gung ho about Ironworks without more tech refunds. If it does happen, it'll be because we're still actively building Kilns, so it's the player actions allowing us to do that. If we continue to do so, then we can use 3.5 forests per turn comfortably.
Aqueduct does not specify that it must be built in a city.
Aqueduct - Stonepen (0/3), Hatmouth (0/3), Valleyguard (2/3). Each {S} committed consumes 3 Econ for 3 Progress. Completion adds +1 Econ Expansion, can allow for the formation of another True City, and decreases disease roll penalty for True Cities
The only places where Baths have been built so far are True Cities, even Sacred Forest (just built) which is listed as a True City with a <Plague> modifier in the stats sheet.
Last edited:
- Location
- Austria
Because guilds would like it and they can 'pressure' our passives since they are most powerful faction. And Urban Poor would not mind more jobs. And traders more iron for sale, and patricians more iron for army.
We already need them though. Without those kilns we would be at limit already, and we lost .5 slots.
Obviously you're correct. Eventually we will find more uses for coal. Counter bet: our passives will not build nothing but Baths and Ironworks. Come on, take the bet
As for whether or not we use 3-4 forests per turn, it's possible, although I feel unlikely long term since many people aren't gung ho about Ironworks without more tech refunds. If it does happen, it'll be because we're still actively building Kilns, so it's the player actions allowing us to do that. If we continue to do so, then we can use 3.5 forests per turn comfortably.
Nah, we will find more ways to spend it. And kilns can only reduce to half the consumption, which means we can maintain such tempo for 5 turns or so.
Last edited:
And then we would have literally built every infrastructure project requiring forests, including the brand new project that costs more forests than everything else. An unprecedented display of concerted effort not seen since... ever. Never mind the fact that we currently have no reason to do so.
So unless your prediction is that our policies are going to go crazy, or Guilds burn all of their power to force Ironworks while we simultaneously discover a new project that happens to require trees which we need to get done immediately, I think we're good.
And if that does happen, we can *gasp* use an Expand Forests action to deal with the sudden and unexpected uptick in demand.
And look at that; we are starting to build Kilns!
What a coincidence.
Guilds can "pressure" one single main for 2 power, and I wouldn't expect to see them regaining power faster than one every three turns (we just don't finish quest that fast, and we don't always do what the guild asks anyways). That comes to one forest every 6 turns, even IF the guild uses all the power they accumulate thus way. That is one extra kiln required every 18 turns.
You have to excuse me if I'm not particularly worried.
You will note that this turn there was effectively no debate about building one kiln, which we had actually needed. I think you will find the same to be true in the future; when we need forests to avoid going over our cap, there will be broad consensus to build them.
Then we should find ways to make room for Expand Forest.
It is the same as our Centralization. We "found" a way to spend it with PSN, so now we do more EJ and Road actions than we did before. When we don't have time for those, our centralization falls, and when if falls somewhat low we grudgingly stop doing PSN actions.
So we should have three policies coming online during the mid-turn.
I think i'd like to choose:
-skullduggery. Useful to get a better idea of the problems facing our nation, and ensures that we have a higher passive defense against others.
-vassal support. Between our large number of vassals, our near civil war, our intention to integrate Txolla, taxing our colonies/vassals in food, and our currently tight subordinate limit, I think that this is near critical importance.
-defense. We are about to get hit by hard-mode nomads.
While our current rate of forest use is manageable, I'm afraid that more infrastructure policies will push it over the edge. I'd rather adopt a wait and see approach before adopting either policy, or adopt both immediately.
I think i'd like to choose:
-skullduggery. Useful to get a better idea of the problems facing our nation, and ensures that we have a higher passive defense against others.
-vassal support. Between our large number of vassals, our near civil war, our intention to integrate Txolla, taxing our colonies/vassals in food, and our currently tight subordinate limit, I think that this is near critical importance.
-defense. We are about to get hit by hard-mode nomads.
While our current rate of forest use is manageable, I'm afraid that more infrastructure policies will push it over the edge. I'd rather adopt a wait and see approach before adopting either policy, or adopt both immediately.
- Location
- Austria
Infrastructure instead of skullduggery since Redshore does it (although what is narrative of it?) and yes on the rest.
Hard no on this one for me. Redshore just set their passive to Skullduggery, and I cannot imagine we'd need two. If they change off of it later, we could switch one to it, but otherwise seems like too much.
I'm fine with a Vassal Support and Defense, but I really feel we should set the last one to Infrastructure and just use a few more Kiln actions.
I mean, Redshore is a birthplace of our intrigue network and its mayors had shadow network for two centuries. They know their tradecraft.
Edit: I am actually strongly in favor of squeezing Hunt Troublemakers somewhere during next few turns. Maybe for once we can find some problem before it blows up in our faces.
Last edited:
I kinda want one more Infrastructure Policy, honestly.
Right now, our Infrastructure backlog is something like:
- 3x Baths
- 2x Salterns
- Lvl 2 Aqueduct + Lvl 2 Bath, assuming block housing allows it
You know that isn't how AI policies work, right?
They choose a different policy each turn. Or the same policy, I suppose - but the point is that they get to freely more it around. So the fact that it chose Intrigue now is no indication that it will keep doing intrigue in the future.
The free cities don't seem to take any non-infrastructure policy for more than one turn at a time, so I don't see any reason to assume that Redshore is going to continue taking skullduggery.
Ah, my bad. I thought they stuck with one typically and only changed off if they felt the need.
Basing fuel consumption based on possible current actions is a bad idea, because demand may go up faster than we could put up our forest.
It wasn't based on current actions. It was based on the worst case scenario of us building every infrastructure project that demands forest slots as soon as possible. His plan to continue using Kiln actions, which I support, is simply planning for this (unlikely) possibility.