"Myranyn reforms?"
"It is a military reform of the 2nd century BCE that formalize and professionalize the military of the Ymaryn Kingdom, starting from recruiting the urban poor, replacing the rural petty nobility as the core of the Kingdom's military power."
"Sounds familiar. Like the Marian Reform, in which the Roman Republic turned to the poor as the source of military manpower in order to meet a crisis."
"Our crisis was the result of the sons of Yeomen running away to become warriors in some far away land for glory and land, risking retaliation on the rest of the People."
"Uh. Yeah. Different crisis. Ultimately that led to the fall of the republic and to the rise of the Roman empire. The soldiers were too loyal to their general. Did that happen in your history too?"
"...well, after the reforms, King's authority was preserved for the time being, and Myranyn was elected King for his achievement."
"Wait. What? Electoral monarchy?"
"At that time, it was in place for at least two thousand year stretching into pre-history, as far as we know."
"...Tell us how this system works."
 
Last edited:
The last time we increased hierarchy was during the rein of Rulwyna, when we got overcentralization and chose to increase hierarchy as a way to lower cent during a midturn event.
ANd the last time our hierarchy tolerance changed was when we evolved our government from Early Classical Elective Monarchy to Classical Elective Monarchy, back during Epic Age II. Specifically, it was the legacy bonus from Early Classical Elective Monarchy. Before that our Hierarchy was yellow, so we're currently at the last white number for Hierarchy.
 
ANd the last time our hierarchy tolerance changed was when we evolved our government from Early Classical Elective Monarchy to Classical Elective Monarchy, back during Epic Age II. Specifically, it was the legacy bonus from Early Classical Elective Monarchy. Before that our Hierarchy was yellow, so we're currently at the last white number for Hierarchy.
Yeah, evolving our government changed our tolerance, but we had been at hierarchy 7 since Rulwyna.

It was just 7(yellow) instead of the 7(white) it is now.
 
Hm. I guess a more accurate description of the thing I want is, like, "steady, self-reinforcing growth on a rock-solid footing".

Stomp down on things that pose existential threats as quickly as possible, if any of them are present ignore shinies completely, keep stab and legit near max, sustain golden ages as long as possible, focus on conservative diplomacy and a defensive military, when things are calm favor investing in productivity, tech, health, and admin innovations...
 
Me: Hey, nobody's made a wiki page about the Thunder Horse yet, I'll put together a couple sentences and at least get the basics down.

@Kiba, probably: I'm going to map out every turn in detail and correct all the mistakes and format everything and rewrite everything.

Seriously, quality work. I don't know how you do it.

I have experience with doing it. Once summarized an entire quest's story for a wiki timeline, and that was non-trivial, since it was hundred of thousand of words at that point. Probably not up to date now.
 
Instead of golden ages we should be aiming to maximize our roads instead.
Right now we are six roads away from half road cap, which means we need to find a way to use up 6 cent while building the roads.

After that, we can spam roads so long as we no longer expand, since the cent will be banned and we won't have to worry about being overcentralized.

This plan relies on us not integrating though, which is something that many people in thread are advocating to do.

Thus, it seems like we won't be getting too many roads anytime soon.
 
Right now we are six roads away from half road cap, which means we need to find a way to use up 6 cent while building the roads.

After that, we can spam roads so long as we no longer expand, since the cent will be banned and we won't have to worry about being overcentralized.

This plan relies on us not integrating though, which is something that many people in thread are advocating to do.

Thus, it seems like we won't be getting too many roads anytime soon.
Which is a great shame and I feel like before our lack of roads is hurting us in ways we can't see. We'll have to aim consistently dropping cent with PSN all the time and praying the thread sticks in a secondary roads action until we no longer gain cent from it. However we can start on watchtowers in the mean time. A couple mains and secondaries should max that out for us and will have interesting narrative effects.
 
Last edited:
Right now we are six roads away from half road cap, which means we need to find a way to use up 6 cent while building the roads.

After that, we can spam roads so long as we no longer expand, since the cent will be banned and we won't have to worry about being overcentralized.

This plan relies on us not integrating though, which is something that many people in thread are advocating to do.

Thus, it seems like we won't be getting too many roads anytime soon.

We have no idea about the conditions of the roads in Gullvalley and what its impact on us, hence there's a risk to integrating. Western Wall has "not terrible" roads, which we then found out that it lower our centralization by two, putting us away from our goal but supposed to mitigate the impact of Second Sons.
 
Which is a great shame and I feel like before our lack of roads is hurting us in ways we can't see. We'll have to aim consistently dropping cent with PSN all the time and praying the thread sticks in a secondary roads action until we no longer gain cent from it. However we can start on watchtowers in the mean time. A couple mains and secondaries should max that out for us and will have interesting narrative effects.
I would be up for that, and it only takes 13 secondaries or about 6 mains to max our our watchtower coverage.

They both only cost 1 Econ too, so they're pretty stat efficient.
 
Me: Hey, nobody's made a wiki page about the Thunder Horse yet, I'll put together a couple sentences and at least get the basics down.

@Kiba, probably: I'm going to map out every turn in detail and correct all the mistakes and format everything and rewrite everything.

Seriously, quality work. I don't know how you do it.
Hmmm I thought I made one already and put it in the browse category.

I shall go check! I probably didn't!
 
Maybe we should swap out one of the infrastructure passives for diplomacy? We'd still be producing one extended project per turn.
 
Go for it.

Edit: Unnamed kings might be a bit of a mess here and there though, since it's hard to measure when a reign ends without a character calling it out IC in a period where events are happening in quick succession.

When the generational turns begin, I will be able to estimate how many kings we should have, because kings by that time shouldn't last longer than a generation unless they're unusually young. However, early Ymaryn history are very much fuzzy.
 
I would be up for that, and it only takes 13 secondaries or about 6 mains to max our our watchtower coverage.

They both only cost 1 Econ too, so they're pretty stat efficient.
Eh disregard efficiency and think about what our civ lacks and how we can fix those problems first. Stats should be used to discern the viability of the actions required to solve those problems in a way that doesn't directly cause us harm.
 
Eh disregard efficiency and think about what our civ lacks and how we can fix those problems first. Stats should be used to discern the viability of the actions required to solve those problems in a way that doesn't directly cause us harm.

We lack a early warning system, which a complete core spanning watchtowers will complete. It will be a precursors to castles and the Great Wall of Ymaryn. The next step is building a wall between the watchtowers.
 
Maybe we should swap out one of the infrastructure passives for diplomacy? We'd still be producing one extended project per turn.
Ehh, i like diplomacy, but thats a bit far. 5 progress vs 3 is still a big difference. Plus, swapping out policies takes a secondary action for 2, which is an annoying cost. Besides, we're getting probably 2 more policies active by next turn, so we should just fill those up with vassal support and diplomacy (or skullduggery, since @PrimalShadow and presumably others dont like diplo policy but would be willing to compromise with skullduggery)

How does City Support work? Does the maintenance it takes care of include Panem and block housing?
Nope. Only 2 econ per policy, explicitly, no matter how much each city costs:
City support pays for 2 Econ cost.
However, this will likely change at some point in the (nearish?) future:
Passive policy balance is likely to change, and having more ironworks will alter other effects.
 
We lack a early warning system, which a complete core spanning watchtowers will complete. It will be a precursors to castles and the Great Wall of Ymaryn. The next step is building a wall between the watchtowers.
Oh yeah for sure our low amount of watchtowers and walls means our means of combating smuggling and various other crimes and corruption are nowhere near as effective as they could be. The wonders it will do for our defences against nomads and other enemies can not be stated.
 
Maybe we should swap out one of the infrastructure passives for diplomacy? We'd still be producing one extended project per turn.
We are apparently getting two passive policies to use next turn, so I think we're going to be fine keeping both Infrastructure passives.

I think we should spring for City Support and Diplomacy. Diplomacy because as I mentioned earlier, we have a massive intel problem, and City Support because it makes managing cities less of a headache. I also really want to see some kind of reform in how we manage our cities, because Panem doesn't strike me as sustainable or desirable.

Ehh, i like diplomacy, but thats a bit far. 5 progress vs 3 is still a big difference. Plus, swapping out policies takes a secondary action for 2, which is an annoying cost. Besides, we're getting probably 2 more policies active by next turn, so we should just fill those up with vassal support and diplomacy (or skullduggery, since @PrimalShadow and presumably others dont like diplo policy but would be willing to compromise with skullduggery)
Why are we adding a second Vassal Support policy?

And while I think skullduggery is great, doing it before diplomacy is kinda puting the cart before the horse.
 
Back
Top