Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
There's no point in palatial fortifications because a) if they can siege our capitol city we should have already given up and been vassalized, b) if they can siege the governor's palace within a different city that city is already defeated so having a fortified palace is of little benefit.

Palatial fortifications are only useful to provoke further development (which can be achieved through building walls) and to shelter us from the public, which goes against the culture of open-ness, accessibility, and mutual responsibility we have deliberately cultivated for our king as an emblem for his subordinates and our country as a whole.

City walls, on the other hand, are fully desirable.
 
Last edited:
Umi-san said:
There's no point in palatial fortifications because a) if they can siege our capitol city we should have already given up and been vassalized, b) if they can siege the governor's palace within a different city that city is already defeated so having a fortified palace is of little benefit.

Palatial fortifications are only useful to provoke further development (which can be achieved through building walls) and to shelter us from the public, which goes against the culture of open-ness, accessibility, and mutual responsibility we have deliberately cultivated for our king as an emblem for his subordinates and our country as a whole.

City walls, on the other hand, are fully desirable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Admittedly, capital walls (and multiple layers of walls for that matter) would probably help with quarantine for this plague. But yeah, not super important for defense, with our setup.
 
Abby Normal said:
Admittedly, capital walls (and multiple layers of walls for that matter) would probably help with quarantine for this plague. But yeah, not super important for defense, with our setup.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It did help with quarantining the cities from rural refugees, and it might help to quarantine disease if we had separate quarters of poor people who are more prone to disease. But, to some degree, such clear distinctions will worsen those areas and that is undesirable. Our setup wherein people value the collective - or fear death and thus stay in their homes as much as possible - is in my and possibly your opinion sufficient.
 
Umi-san said:
There's no point in fortifications because a) if they can siege our capitol city we should have already given up and been vassalized, b) if they can siege the governor's palace within a different city that city is already defeated so having a fortified palace is of little benefit.

Fortifications are only useful to provoke further development (which can be achieved through building walls) and to shelter us from the public, which goes against the culture of open-ness, accessibility, and mutual responsibility we have deliberately cultivated for our king as an emblem for his subordinates and our country as a whole.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The point of fortification in my shopping list isn't about withstanding sieges, per se, but allowing the King to protect the grain supply during time of crisis, which may be also during sieges, but may also be during quarantine periods in which the local populace may panic.

If you want to forge tie between the lower and higher class, evolve social values rather than insisting on no walls. Or build grander halls.

This is like US presidents insisting on no executive protection because it seems "kingly". Ultimately stupid, because that is how Abraham Lincoln got assassinated.

George said:
I don't really agree. I think a lot of crises are perfectly capable of destroying us without threatening the capital or interacting with Temp Econ Damage, and something to help with our Tech Crunch would give us the action freedom we need to prevent regular crises from turning into catastrophes. I don't think we're capable of building to just tank catastrophes, and I think most crises turn into catastrophes unmanaged, so I think we have to build to maneuver safely out of crises.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Just like plane crashes, it is never going to be a single crisis that kill us. Multiple things can contribute which makes governing difficult. Eliminating or reducing the probability and possibility of crisis relating to climate changes and plague from the equations mean we can focus on other crisis.

Fortifications on my shopping list isn't about protecting the capital, but preventing panic from destroying the government's ability to govern, and that includes governor palace if we get level 3.
 
Kiba said:
Well, we never know if it will be a lost cause if you didn't speak up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mentioned it; I just didn't spend hours pushing for it like I occasionally do for things. It is just not worth it. Arguing with people who are perfectly willing to ignore risks as long as it gives them the shiny they want is just too disheartening unless I feel like I can change the vote's outcome.
 
Last edited:
Kiba said:
The point of fortification in my shopping list isn't about withstanding sieges, per se, but allowing the King to protect the grain supply during time of crisis, which may be also during sieges, but may also be during quarantine periods in which the local populace may panic.

If you want to forge tie between the lower and higher class, evolve social values rather than insisting on no walls. Or build grander halls.

This is like US presidents insisting on no executive protection because it seems "kingly". Ultimately stupid, because that is how Abraham Lincoln got assassinated.



Just like plane crashes, it is never going to be a single crisis that kill us. Multiple things can contribute which makes governing difficult. Eliminating or reducing the probability and possibility of crisis relating to climate changes and plague from the equations mean we can focus on other crisis.

Fortifications on my shopping list isn't about protecting the capital, but preventing panic from destroying the government's ability to govern, and that includes governor palace if we get level 3.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, this plague sure seems like 'a single crisis that kills us' as would a proper nomad horde, but that's more or less a digression. The main point here is that one point of arsenal may prevent a higher number of crises per turn than a point of garden and fortification combined, so unless we're building either of those right now for the current crisis then I prefer the arsenal.
 
Kiba said:
Probably too OP given that our Academy is also a hero generator, which means heroes are going to be more frequent for the Ymaryn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Man, wouldn't it be great if we got a whole bunch of those right about now.

@Academia Nut do province/vassal governors have stats, and if so do they benefit from the Academy in any way?

Andres110 said:
gets the most of our Heroic Mystic, and gets us closer to dealing with the plague.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't recall confirmation we're getting heroic Mystic, may be getting Heroic Admin.

Andres110 said:
We're maxed out on Economy, so spending it won't be very risky, especially while policy is on Balanced. Guild actions can take care of Wealth.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm very reluctant to support this kind of thinking. We should be focusing on being *really damn sure* that *everything is taken care of* rather than handwaving things as 'not very risky' :/

Kiba said:
Annex shopping list for a more tanky polity:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agree on more storehouse/shrine/garden, would prefer library or moar storage/shrine/garden to fortification.
 
Wiadi said:
Counterpoint: those priorities are not especially specific to this crisis, as opposed to crises in general, which are sure to crop up in future. Favoring resistance to catastrophe over general utility is a valid approach (note Kiba's reference to "a more tanky polity").
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Having more Arsenals is also resistance to crisis, since it lets us sustain our polity without having to take actions & spend wealth to restore Tech.
 
Umi-san said:
It did help with quarantining the cities from rural refugees, and it might help to quarantine disease if we had separate quarters of poor people who are more prone to disease. But, to some degree, such clear distinctions will worsen those areas and that is undesirable. Our setup wherein people value the collective - or fear death and thus stay in their homes as much as possible - is in my and possibly your opinion sufficient.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It isn't about quarantining the cities from rural refugees. If you want that kind of protection, build colossal walls, which protect a city's farmlands and forests during a siege, or a plague for that matter.

Palace fortifications are meant to prevent populace from storming the storehouses in blind panic, at least for the purpose of my shopping list.
George said:
I mean, this plague sure seems like 'a single crisis that kills us' as would a proper nomad horde, but that's more or less a digression. The main point here is that one point of arsenal may prevent a higher number of crises per turn than a point of garden and fortification combined, so unless we're building either of those right now for the current crisis then I prefer the arsenal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It is a combination of factors that allow us to survive at all.

Our problem with tech is the lack of ability to train sufficiently large quantity of educated workers. An arsenal may be a solution to our problem, but it is an arsenal, not a training facility. Though getting a tech drip would be great. It is likely that the Academy is impacting our ability to train workers, given that the ideas from the gym had already spread to industry. We may be able to build technical schools once it opened up.
 
Last edited:
Gotta say, I'm really interested in what the narrative is going to be in the coming updates with the extent to which we've collectively accepted that hitting -4 Stability is the expected result and what we should plan for and play around.
OliWhail said:
...huh. Hadn't thought of that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not strictly necessary, since Redshore's Governor and the infrastructure there can replicate most of what's at Valleyhome and have reasonable legitimacy, but it certainly helps the likelihood of us ending up in the desired Redshore + Valleyhome + Redhills + Sacred Forest successor state. Plus, I think annexes are, to some extent, propagated out to Governor's Palaces, so it also mitigates the worst case of having not only our king & heir killed but also the shortlist of heir candidates and the Governors.
 
Last edited:
George said:
Gotta say, I'm really interested in what the narrative is going to be in the coming updates with the extent to which we've collectively accepted that hitting -4 Stability is the expected result and what we should plan for and play around.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No??? Despite some peoples doomsaying, AN said it's perfectly possible to survive the crisis with our important things intact, and I'm committed to trying rather than completely giving up and preparing for collapse.
 
@Academia Nut (or someone who actually knows a ding dang thing about Ymaryn history), at what point during the rule of a reigning king are our heirs elected? Is it just after the old king dies, leaving a small gap where there's no heir, or is it done as the old king nears death so that there's a period with an old king, an heir who's largely taken on the king's duties, and a new heir who's being tutored?

George said:
Gotta say, I'm really interested in what the narrative is going to be in the coming updates with the extent to which we've collectively accepted that hitting -4 Stability is the expected result and what we should plan for and play around.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Excuse you, I certainly haven't accepted that we're going to hit -4 stab.

In fact, I think we can plausibly hit a Golden Age in the near future, so there :p
 
George said:
Gotta say, I'm really interested in what the narrative is going to be in the coming updates with the extent to which we've collectively accepted that hitting -4 Stability is the expected result and what we should plan for and play around.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not convinced that's been entirely accepted. Seems more like we're planning around it because we don't have enough information to decide how to respond to less catastrophic outcomes, whereas we have a reasonable understanding of what fragmenting would entail. I know I still think we have a real chance at making it through this, which AN has supported, even if there's also a real chance that we don't. It's just perversely easier to plan for the latter.
 
I personally won't consent to anything except maybe a shrine before getting another arsenal. It is stupid for us to waste our limited annex slots on breadth when we don't even know what depth does.
 
OliWhail said:
...huh. Hadn't thought of that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am not sure. Knowledge are frequently embodied in not only our government, but our population at large.

If we had build colossal wall, we may be able to quarantine our cities better since the farmlands would also be protected.
OliWhail said:
@Academia Nut (or someone who actually knows a ding dang thing about Ymaryn history), at what point during the rule of a reigning king are our heirs elected? Is it just after the old king dies, leaving a small gap where there's no heir, or is it done as the old king nears death so that there's a period with an old king, an heir who's largely taken on the king's duties, and a new heir who's being tutored?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As soon as the King is dead, a heir is elected. Or the Ymaryn may call for an election at any time they like if they found the heir lacking.

Frequently, it seemed that the Ymaryn likes to elect kings with similar ages in close succession. Probably not a good idea..
 
George said:
Gotta say, I'm really interested in what the narrative is going to be in the coming updates with the extent to which we've collectively accepted that hitting -4 Stability is the expected result and what we should plan for and play around.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't know where you got the idea that it was "collectively accepted".

At most, we have collectively accepted that it is likely for us to lose territory.
 
Mortis said:
No??? Despite some peoples doomsaying, AN said it's perfectly possible to survive the crisis with our important things intact, and I'm committed to trying rather than completely giving up and preparing for collapse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
AN saying we can survive with our important things intact does not contradict hitting -4 Stability. It just means we don't have our legacies shredded when we do.
PrimalShadow said:
I don't know where you got the idea that it was "collectively accepted".

At most, we have collectively accepted that it is likely for us to lose territory.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I guess I skipped the wrong pages and had a different impression of what people meant by stuff.
 
PrimalShadow said:
I personally won't consent to anything except maybe a shrine before getting another arsenal. It is stupid for us to waste our limited annex slots on breadth when we don't even know what depth does.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I agree to build an arsenal, because it seems to be the most likely source for tech income or refund, until we are shown new actions.

But I am betting opportunities for building technical schools will open up or our actions will start changing. In which case, if we hadn't already build the arsenal, we should build those schools instead, since they are more narratively appropriate.

Otherwise, I am pursuing the resiliency agenda to build a more tanky polity.
 
Internal walls and storehouses, beyond protecting from riots, are about having another, more easily defended line to retreat to during siege, thus improving your odds of outlasting the besiegers, or at least lasting long enough for reinforcements from another area to arrive to relieve you.

Imagine an army which at great difficulty breaks through the walls into the city proper, where they find that they face room-to-room fighting against every single inhabitant armed with a powerful ranged weapon which can potshot from every window and roof, blackbirds are popping out of the sewers to skewer then, only to penetrate to the heart through the constant flanking to find that all the valuable leaders, goods, and slaves are behind professional soldiers and another goddammed wall and those tens of thousands of damned peasants are still closing in and fighting like madmen to protect their besieged women and children.
 
The large tech cost for the ironworks seems, narratively, to come from the old apprenticeship system being unable to train enough metalworker to keep up with the massively increased demand. Given that the academy is based around teaching classes in a more modern method and it was at least narratively started by master artisans it seems likely that the method of teaching should soon spread to the artisans, reducing the tech cost the ironworks imposes, perhaps to +1/2 tech per +1 econ, which is much more manageable.
 
Last edited:
OliWhail said:
I'm very reluctant to support this kind of thinking. We should be focusing on being *really damn sure* that *everything is taken care of* rather than handwaving things as 'not very risky' :/
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is no such thing as a risk-free course of action here. Absolutely no such thing at all. If we compromise on Restore Order, our Stability may crash. If we compromise on Study Health, our cities might die out. Compromising our Economy is the safest option we have right now due to its high level.
 
Lailoken said:
Internal walls and storehouses, beyond protecting from riots, are about having another, more easily defended line to retreat to during siege, thus improving your odds of outlasting the besiegers, or at least lasting long enough for reinforcements from another area to arrive to relieve you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We don't plan on any part of our core coming under siege. We have a ton of tools to fight back at the cost of hurting ourselves, to the point where by the time our core is under siege then we've almost certainly broken ourselves from running out of Stability (kicked defensive wars + PSN downside triggering) and econ (Marian reforms)
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top