Oh, I forgot about that.

That's going to be very problematic though.
There is also building a bath every three turns and building an aqueduct every three turns on average, which pushes us 2 points closer to a new city every 3 turns.

Not really surprising we're running into getting more cities than we can control easily.

The infra+forest policies are pretty much designed to rain cities.

The solution, funny enough, is Block Housing, since that changes Many Cities into Few Tall Cities
 
Last edited:
We need a armament policy so we can always be able to drain martial when needed for quick stat boost from retraining and building up the martial tradition we lost from shifting away from Yeoman militia that kept up their own upkeep. Also the HK introduced flat out monotheism huh, pleasant surprise but it makes sense with their extreme focus on stability and obeying the King.

EDIT: Screw golden ages until we have our foundations more solid before introducing more societal upheaval.
Also sad we can't address the half exiles problem...probably my biggest regret in this quest.

I actually hate Monotheism. I expect them to go around crusading other religions (us) pretty soon if unchecked.
 
There is also building a bath every three turns and building an aqueduct every three turns on average, which pushes us 2 points closer to a new city every 3 turns.

Not really surprising we're running into getting more cities than we can control easily.

The infra+forest policies are pretty much designed to rain cities.

The solution, funny enough, is Block Housing, since that changes Many Cities into Few Tall Cities

Oh god, we can go full Greece if we mishandle this.
Lots of cities and all.
Ugh.
Actually just barely. After Ironworks 2 it provides +4 econ/turn, so 4x4 =16. We currently eat 13 econ/turn, so 3 of them wouldn't actually pay the full costs of the cities.


As to the prior argument... In 3 turns, infrastructure can get a main action's worth of progress at no stat cost. We have to pay 6 stats for the equivalent in addition to the main action.
If you're planning on taking the infrastructure anyway, you should expect to get almost two mains worth of value from it over the next three turns. That's just how efficient our doubled Infrastructure actions are: we boosted them via corvee labor, so they're much more powerful now.

So?
Efficiency is important, to a degree, but not be all end all; again, Trelli were very efficient at generating wealth, so what?
We would very much like an option to not take Infrastructure action, thanks. That's the point.

And I still don't understand veekie's progress math. We lack a whole of 2 progress as far as I can see, which is not a reason to pick up a whole policy.
 
And I still don't understand veekie's progress math. We lack a whole of 2 progress as far as I can see, which is not a reason to pick up a whole policy.
We're lacking 3 progress, so yeah the bare minimum to get the quests requires only a secondary action and 6 stats. This means getting no more baths and nothing else besides the absolute bare minimum required infrastructure to pass the quests. FC passives are reasonably likely to take Infrastructure despite not getting the doubling. This means losing out on effectively a whole passive action per turn (2 FC infrastructure passives = 1 player passive, whereas if they do anything else it's equivalent)

Not getting the Infrastructure passive won't kill us. It just locks in a few player actions to infrastructure every once in a while, and forces us to pay for them at full 6-stat points cost. (Some refunds may apply). It's certainly not a major problem, it's just wasteful and leaves us with less actions to do other things we want done.
 
Last edited:
We're lacking 3 progress, so yeah the bare minimum to get the quests requires only a secondary action and 6 stats. This means getting no more baths and nothing else besides the absolute bare minimum required infrastructure to pass the quests. FC passives are reasonably likely to take Infrastructure despite not getting the doubling. This means losing out on effectively a whole passive action per turn (2 FC infrastructure passives = 1 player passive, whereas if they do anything else it's equivalent)

Not getting the Infrastructure passive won't kill us. It just locks in a few player actions to infrastructure every once in a while, and forces us to pay for them at full 6-stat points cost. (Some refunds may apply). It's certainly not a major problem, it's just wasteful and leaves us with less actions to do other things we want done.

The problem is, having Infrastructure locks us into taking actions to maintain infrastructure - at least Kilns, and a lot of forests once we run out of those.

Can/should we reduce cent or just let PSN do it next turn?

All the free cities IMO (or at least 2 more). Hope AN will give it as a separate choice as opposed to us manually doing it.
 
The problem is, having Infrastructure locks us into taking actions to maintain infrastructure - at least Kilns, and a lot of forests once we run out of those.
Current infrastructure projects which consume forests:
1) Ironworks (2 forests per)
2) Baths (1 forest per)
That's it. We have no strong reason to build more Ironworks in the near term, so we really only have to pay for the baths. We currently gain 0.5 forests/turn from our single passive, and we can get +3 from using our guild main. We're fine for now without any trouble.
Can/should we reduce cent or just let PSN do it next turn?
I'm in favor of setting up a 3rd free city personally, but losing LTE for that is annoying when we really want to raise our LTE as much as we can to pop a couple cities.
 
[X] [HK] Offer to send military aid
-[X] [HK] Mass Levy

No banners. Myranyn just complained that we keep sending out our Banners when we need them for his reforms

[X] [Policy] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct, governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn)
[X] [Policy] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct, governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn) x2
[X] [Policy] Armament (+1 Martial/turn)
[X] [Policy] Diplomacy (+1 Diplo/turn)
[X] [Policy] Skullduggery (+1 Intrigue/turn, -2 Diplo)

Infra is the best.
We need weapons, MI5 (internal intelligence) & MI6 (foreign intelligence)

[X] [Art] The entire half-exile practice should be reviewed (-1 Stability, ???)
 
Current infrastructure projects which consume forests:
1) Ironworks (2 forests per)
2) Baths (1 forest per)
That's it. We have no strong reason to build more Ironworks in the near term, so we really only have to pay for the baths. We currently gain 0.5 forests/turn from our single passive, and we can get +3 from using our guild main. We're fine for now without any trouble.

1. Iroworks are iron. Regardless of what we players think provinces and policies will always want more because iron. If mechanical representation does not mirror it it is a flaw of mechanical representation.
So I am expecting Ironworks in every true city actually, and that Tech cost is no concern to people because Iron.

2. I am sure there will be some other fuel-consuming project soon. Maybe Grand Docks as extended project, maybe something else.
 
I actually hate Monotheism. I expect them to go around crusading other religions (us) pretty soon if unchecked.
Attacking others for religious beliefs isn't exclusive to monotheistic religions though, they just tend to have a unifying doctrine and robust theology that focus on the underlying supreme force that polytheistic religions allude to and lends itself to a central authority that's natural to settled people. Also the popularity comes from its talk of a grand reward for its faithful followers and being open to worship by all people rather then a specific group of people. Why worship a single god of harvest that fails to uphold its end of the bargain when your harvest fails and your a devout believer. It's easier to believe in a single central God that answers all prayers and works in mysterious and unknowable ways so anything bad is associated to not understanding God's plan for you and anything good is attributed to God's plan for you.
 
1. Iroworks are iron. Regardless of what we players think provinces and policies will always want more because iron. If mechanical representation does not mirror it it is a flaw of mechanical representation.
So I am expecting Ironworks in every true city actually, and that Tech cost is no concern to people because Iron.

2. I am sure there will be some other fuel-consuming project soon. Maybe Grand Docks as extended project, maybe something else.
1) We just massively increased tech costs across the board. Luckily everything around it is going to be overflowing in so we should be fine, but it's clear that having ironworks and no artisans to work them is fundamentally useless. The provinces/passives undoubtedly realize this as well.
2) Perhaps. But we're still gaining forests because we've got tons of Kilns space. +3.5 Forests/turn (passive+guild main) should easily be enough for all near to medium-term forestry uses, and we can always [PSN] Main Expand Forests for +1 (effectively +2 forests via kilns)
 
Stop: What
What do you want to bet? I'll give you LITERALLY 100:1 odds that we will spend at least one action on extended projects in the next ten turns. I win, you donate $5 to Against Malaria Foundation. You win, I will donate $500 to it. What do you say?

what I'm all for users donating to charitable causes, but this display is baffling and totally inappropriate.

This thread keeps finding new ways to generate drama. Stop generating drama.
 
1) We just massively increased tech costs across the board. Luckily everything around it is going to be overflowing in so we should be fine, but it's clear that having ironworks and no artisans to work them is fundamentally useless. The provinces/passives undoubtedly realize this as well.
2) Perhaps. But we're still gaining forests because we've got tons of Kilns space. +3.5 Forests/turn (passive+guild main) should easily be enough for all near to medium-term forestry uses, and we can always [PSN] Main Expand Forests for +1 (effectively +2 forests via kilns)

1. It's still iron. They will rather expect us to suck it up or will use FC policies on infrastructure than not go for iron. Remember how we ate -4 stab hit with some other debuffs for iron? That's going to be their approach, if perhaps with less dropping of our stability. Hopefully.

2. Which requires us to build kilns every turn - to which I not object, mind you.

2.5. Also, 3.5 seems like a lot, but just this turn we've spent 4 and list 0.5. And while it *was* a bit of outlier (manual Ironworks + Bath) it is only an outlier *because* we only have 2 infras. If we had, like, 4 infras, it would be a more commonplace occurence.
 
Attacking others for religious beliefs isn't exclusive to monotheistic religions though, they just tend to have a unifying doctrine and robust theology that focus on the underlying supreme force that polytheistic religions allude to and lends itself to a central authority that's natural to settled people. Also the popularity comes from its talk of a grand reward for its faithful followers and being open to worship by all people rather then a specific group of people. Why worship a single god of harvest that fails to uphold its end of the bargain when your harvest fails and your a devout believer. It's easier to believe in a single central God that answers all prayers and works in mysterious and unknowable ways so anything bad is associated to not understanding God's plan for you and anything good is attributed to God's plan for you.

I'm not saying Monotheism is bad or whatever, esp relating to IRL.

But mechanic wise, that's the worst religion archtype we can create.

Part of the problem is it's too uniting. Unity leads to division & discord.
Like salt, evenly distributed on the table. There is no unity, but there is no division either.
Once you group them together, you now see a mound.
Get a 2nd mound, and you've successfully divided what once was homogeneous.

Our current religion is exceptionally tolerant, because it accepts whoever you are, whatever you worship.
This religion practically won't crusade any other religion, other than fanatical peeps who's start it 1st.

Going over to IRL...
Crusades are only done by monotheistic relgions AFAIK.
 
{S} Found Free City - Valleyguard
{S} More Spiritbonded
{S} Expand Economy
{S} More Spirit Bonded
{G} ???
{G} Gold Mine

Econ 24-2-2-2-7-4+6= 13
Wealth 7+3+11-10 = 11

We could go for this.
One more time - stats don't work that way.
For one thing, our income next turn goes to -1 because we pay our own mercenaries.
For another thing, you forgot timing issues. 7-1-10 is -4, which loses stability and causes problemsm.
 
1) We just massively increased tech costs across the board. Luckily everything around it is going to be overflowing in so we should be fine, but it's clear that having ironworks and no artisans to work them is fundamentally useless. The provinces/passives undoubtedly realize this as well.
2) Perhaps. But we're still gaining forests because we've got tons of Kilns space. +3.5 Forests/turn (passive+guild main) should easily be enough for all near to medium-term forestry uses, and we can always [PSN] Main Expand Forests for +1 (effectively +2 forests via kilns)

I want Infra, because F'ing Roads.
I want to finally finish the damned infra, and get on Roading with Infrastructure policy.
 
Last edited:
What do people think about turning both Valleyguard and Lower Valleyhome into Free Cities over the next couple of turns?
Seconded.
Also, I do not think we will neef our actions for market; your progress math uis different. Aren't we generating 5 progress point per turn?
We need 6 progress for Ironworks, plus6 more for two Lvl1 markets, plus 6 more for the Lvl 2 market. Both quests need to be done in 3 turns. No infrastructure policy means we have to do stuff ourselves, like build Ironworks this turn instead of Kilns.
 
2.5. Also, 3.5 seems like a lot, but just this turn we've spent 4 and list 0.5. And while it *was* a bit of outlier (manual Ironworks + Bath) it is only an outlier *because* we only have 2 infras. If we had, like, 4 infras, it would be a more commonplace occurence.
I guess it comes down to how many ironworks the passives are going to take. With the new and awesome Marketplace eating up all their slots for the next several turns I doubt it, but yes- if they decide to go crazy on that, we're in trouble. Same as how we're in trouble if the province actions decide to go crazy and eat all of our stats.

If it goes all out the Infrastructure policy can screw us over, but it's basically run by a conservative AI so that's unlikely. On the other hand, we're still running low on LTE while having the LTE-draining Forestry passive running. It is actively making a problem of our worse (while also helping solve the forestry issue so it's probably worth keeping on)

Anyway, this is useless as Infrastructure has clearly lost. Let's look at plans.
Overcentralized: Losing a Main Action due to bureaucratic paralysis, as well as -2 Wealth and -2 Econ from mismanagement
So that leaves us with... not enough Wealth. At all.
{S} Support Faction - Patricians
{S} New Settlement edit: {S} Integrate Gulvalley
{S} Free City
{S} Proclaim Glory
{G} Gold Mine
{G} Ironworks 2
That's what I'm looking at now. Damn, Overcentralized is harsh.

edit: I've been convinced we need the LTE ASAP, and Integrate is the easiest solution to that
 
Last edited:
Back
Top