Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
PrimalShadow said:
Here is our wealth income for next turn:
Maintainance
-1 (PK upkeep)
-1 (Academy Upkeep)
-1 (Iron Age Law Upkeep)
-3 (Doubled Innovation Cost on our Base Innovation, Harbor Innovation, and Innovation Policy)

Units
-3 (Unit Upkeep) Units paid from main budget

Trade
+1.5 Redshore Market
+1 Valleyhome Market Valleyhome is not currently a city
+3 Strategic Goods No External Trade
+3 Luxury Goods No External Trade
+1 Salterns (Southshore, Northshore)
+1 Gold Mines (<Unknown Province>, Heaven's Hawk)
+0.5 Salt Mines (Heaven's Hawk)
+1 Salt/Gold Trading (Amber Road, Grand Docks) No External Trade

Total
Either [-3] or [-2], depending on where the 2.5 income from gold/salt combines with the 1.5 income from the Markets to make +4, or if Salt/Gold and Marketplaces each take their own totals and round down for a total of 2+1=3.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Do the Salterns still give profit without external markets for salt? IIRC they required trade post per saltern to give income.

PrimalShadow said:
I'm thinking something like this next turn:
{M} Expand Forest
{M} Proclaim Glory
{S} Restoration of Order
{S} Support Thunder Horse
{S} Change 2x Forestry Policy -> 2x Infrastructure Policy
{GM} Plant Cotton
{GM} Plant Cotton x2
{GS} Plant Cotton

So here are the main themes of this vote:
1) Expand Forest and Plant Cotton, hopefully pushing towards paper.
2) Plant lots of Cotton, restoring our wealth so we have something to spend next turn.
3) Restore our stability, hopefully to cap.
4) Support the overly dependent thunder-horse if they still need it. If they don't, some other action can fill this slot.
5) Swap our Forestry policy. We were going to do this anyways once we got invested actions; doing it right now just means we can get it in time to help us build the Market.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


> swap out forestry
Nope. Only if AN introduces invested actions and we invest expand forests.
> no guild kilns

Mate. Our Heroic leader did not dare to decrease forests margin while at plague +- his turn was net + 1 with passives.
Kilns every turn, even only secondary, should be mandatory at this point.
 
Last edited:
PrimalShadow said:
We literally threw our mercs into a blender and said "see if you can get one of the blades stuck". :(
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Tbf, it worked. :V

But we should probably avoid any wars for a while, to allow the Banners to recover a bit. Honestly, I have to admit to being worried about sending them to put down a rebellion at this point. I mean, hopefully they'd stay loyal, but if we actually lost all 3 banners to the colonies, we'd be in a pretty bad situation.

@Academia Nut why exactly are our Banners so low on loyalty? I mean, what are their exact complaints?
 
ctulhuslp said:
Do the Salterns still give profit without external markets for salt? IIRC they required trade post per saltern to give income.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We get 1 point of income per Saltern + Trade Post, or 1 point for Saltern + Saltern. Thus suggests to me that while trading the salt internally isn't as profitable, we can still do it.

ctulhuslp said:
> swap out forestry
Nope. Only if AN introduces invested actions and we invest expand forests.
> no guild kilns
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm already putting forward a compromise by putting forward an Expand Forest action (the first in generations, mind you.)

As for wanting Kilns, I'd be all for it... if we had the money. We don't, and we will CONTINUE not having money if you make us build the Marketplaces ourselves instead of giving our policies the infrastructure actions to do it, especially since we have to do a Main More Warships action next turn.
 
Ghostdevil said:
All our merc groups have low loyalty :(
3/5
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just leave them at home for a couple of turns. They got a harsh run
PrimalShadow said:
Yeah, but I would be surprised if popping Free Cities in general didn't cause problems, even if we only did it for a moment.

Not to mention that it holds up our ability to use Plant <Good> actions, thereby leaving us stuck at low Wealth.


Overall, I just don't think it is worth pursuing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't really see any problems with free cities dissolving beyond the mechanical losses here. The city is of course, no longer free, returning to central administration...but nothing else is a problem?
Everything points to cities being additional burdens for benefits.

The mechanical losses are substantial, but we have absolutely no problem spending back down to regain them either.
PrimalShadow said:
We literally threw our mercs into a blender and said "see if you can get one of the blades stuck". :(
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And they did!
 
veekie said:
I don't really see any problems with free cities dissolving beyond the mechanical losses here. The city is of course, no longer free, returning to central administration...but nothing else is a problem?
Everything points to cities being additional burdens for benefits.

The mechanical losses are substantial, but we have absolutely no problem spending back down to regain them either.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ehh, I think the narrative of the administration changing hands is kinda a nightmare. You're liable to lose a lot of technical knowledge on how the city is best run. And what about our Intrigue networks if Redshore and Valleyhome are both popped!?
 
Citino said:
Tbf, it worked. :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
veekie said:
And they did!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mind you, I'm not saying it was wrong. I'm just making the point that our Merc loyalty issues make perfect sense given this last turn.

veekie said:
I don't really see any problems with free cities dissolving beyond the mechanical losses here. The city is of course, no longer free, returning to central administration...but nothing else is a problem?
Everything points to cities being additional burdens for benefits.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, there are a couple of issue.

First of all, there are of course the mechanical issues. Even if the 2 Econ and EE from forming the true city are refunded, to get the free city back would require another secondary action per city, so even if Redshore doesn't pop that is 2 mains we are giving up. That is WITHOUT counting the opportunity cost of not having those cities up doing stuff.

Second, I wouldn't be so sure about the narrative issues. Our Free Cities have never dissolved before; I wouldn't be surprised if a decent number of trade agreements and the like depended on them staying up. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if there was enough people and investment tied up with keeping the Free City running that having the city up-and-disappear would start causing trouble.
 
PrimalShadow said:
I'm already putting forward a compromise by putting forward an Expand Forest action (the first in generations, mind you.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

One Expand Forests does not a continuous policy make. And seeing as the new crisis will be coming soon (not sure yet which one it will be actually), we won't have actions for it every single time.
I imagine promised government upgrade of nobles will introduce some of the new mechanics. As I've said, I am entirely willing to remove Forestries if we get Invested Expand Forests, but not before.

PrimalShadow said:
As for wanting Kilns, I'd be all for it... if we had the money. We don't, and we will CONTINUE not having money if you make us build the Marketplaces ourselves instead of giving our policies the infrastructure actions to do it, especially since we have to do a Main More Warships action next turn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fair enough - or rather, it depends on whether king dies. If he is still alive (somehow), then order-of-actions is cool and we can pay for it with the actions taken on the same turn.
If he is dead, well, that's another story.
And when choosing forests or markets - sorry, I am choosing forests. I would not mind an Infra policy or two, especially in light of how well we handled plague thanks to all the baths, but not at cost of Forestry - in fact, especially not at cost of Forestry, as Infrastructure needs Forestry policies because their buildings eat forest slots.

If you mean "swap to infra to finish UP quest" - yeah, no, policies are not the tool for finishing quests. It's convenient when they do, but that does not mean they are a good tool for it.

@Academia Nut , how much more will our king live?
 
ctulhuslp said:
One Expand Forests does not a continuous policy make. And seeing as the new crisis will be coming soon (not sure yet which one it will be actually), we won't have actions for it every single time.
I imagine promised government upgrade of nobles will introduce some of the new mechanics. As I've said, I am entirely willing to remove Forestries if we get Invested Expand Forests, but not before.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, luckily there's a vote and not just a council of two people with differing objectives :p

That is, maybe focus on a performative debate on why you think that, rather than just stating that you're not going to compromise?
 
George said:
That is, maybe focus on a performative debate on why you think that, rather than just stating that you're not going to compromise?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think the reasoning is pretty clear:

We're not going to get that government upgrade next turn, let alone invest the action, and without the passives handling it there's going to be quite a bit of pressure on the voters to say "Eh, how bad could going over our forest limits really be?" and vote for a shiny instead of forestry.

"Trust the voters" is a much worse argument now that we've intentionally starved our own polity once, not that it was ever a very good one.
 
George said:
Well, luckily there's a vote and not just a council of two people with differing objectives :p
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, yes?
I am just not seeing any point at removing them. Beyond the UP quest, but policies are the worst tool for quests.

PrimalShadow said:
I'm assuming he is dead, because if he is alive the whole discussion is moot (since Admin Kings choose their own action plans).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

True. Then kilns are indeed no go - which obviously makes switching away from Forestry even more of a dubious idea.
That Secondary can be instead used on a new Annex - they cost only Econ+Culture, which we have. Or put Forests into there as Secondary and use Main to start Dam - it'll be a while before GA, and separate track, IIRC, competes with equally attractive innovation options.
 
PrimalShadow said:
Well, there are a couple of issue.

First of all, there are of course the mechanical issues. Even if the 2 Econ and EE from forming the true city are refunded, to get the free city back would require another secondary action per city, so even if Redshore doesn't pop that is 2 mains we are giving up. That is WITHOUT counting the opportunity cost of not having those cities up doing stuff.

Second, I wouldn't be so sure about the narrative issues. Our Free Cities have never dissolved before; I wouldn't be surprised if a decent number of trade agreements and the like depended on them staying up. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if there was enough people and investment tied up with keeping the Free City running that having the city up-and-disappear would start causing trouble.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But the city still exists. Everything still exists, except the population fell below the critical threshold, and the very trade agreements mentioned are basically still in operation. The leadership is still leading, but no longer has any need for the additional privileges of a Free City
I believe in this case the mechanical loss of policies and income already fully reflects the situation at our level of abstraction.

AN had said before, if a city is popped by natural population outflow generally speaking its not going to be very bad because the transition is gradual and natural corrective forces will fix it. If a city was popped by plague, fire or war thats another matter.
Abby Normal said:
@Academia Nut when do you think you'll update the civ sheet?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Help me grab a snapshot if it shows up later. For tracking purposes even if I can't find the time to review.

Also I think our Horse tech was light barding?
 
George said:
Well, luckily there's a vote and not just a council of two people with differing objectives :p

That is, maybe focus on a performative debate on why you think that, rather than just stating that you're not going to compromise?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Keep in mind that both of our recent admin kings have clearly favored the forest policy pretty heavily, first with our Genius who added 2(or was it just 1?) forest policies, and now with our current king. That implies that keeping the forest policy running is probably pretty important.
 
Last edited:
Candesce said:
I think the reasoning is pretty clear:

We're not going to get that government upgrade next turn, let alone invest the action, and without the passives handling it there's going to be quite a bit of pressure on the voters to say "Eh, how bad could going over our forest limits really be?" and vote for a shiny instead of forestry.

"Trust the voters" is a much worse argument now that we've intentionally starved our own polity once, not that it was ever a very good one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, we're gonna get it in three turns or less, so the question is, can we stay within forest number until then, which is not really hard. So I can see some sense in turning off forestry for infrastructure.
 
veekie said:
But the city still exists. Everything still exists, except the population fell below the critical threshold
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If the population has fallen below a critical threshold, the city's doing things much less efficiently than it used to. The mechanical implications of losing the Econ->EE rebate make that quite clear.

And the loss of efficiency may well cause various trade agreements to fall through, because they were made on the assumption that the city's productive capabilities would still exist in the future.

Expect consequences for that.
 
agumentic said:
Well, we're gonna get it in three turns or less, so the question is, can we stay within forest number until then, which is not really hard. So I can see some sense in turning off forestry for infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Again, our Admin Hero turned off an infrastructure policy to keep the forest policy going strong. Unless you have a really good argument as to why you think he was wrong, be it that he's a biased priest or whatever, I think we should stick with the forest policy.
 
agumentic said:
so the question is, can we stay within forest number until then, which is not really hard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It might not be hard, but if you want people to trust you to actually do it, you might want to start by convincing @veekie to promise to never again intentionally starve Ymar.

Good luck with that.

I'm still annoyed that people aren't paying attention to "Independent Infrastructure," the religious trait we got from that bout of stupidity.

It's basically everything we were trying to avoid by never distributing land, after all.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top