Critiquing an action plan is entirely logical, and your plan dedicates the same amount of actions to wealth generation. It just ends up with less because you're avoiding cash crops and using overflow instead, while pursuing innovation rolls instead of things like stability, martial or completing quests. There are plenty of reasons to be against this, and it has little to do with simply wanting the most wealth possible.

*Deletes rant.*

You have offered, at best, an opinion as to what you feel should be done and presented it as fact on what should, in fact, be done, with a couple of suggestions on how you would go about achieving that.

I have expressed counter arguments for why much of that doesn't hold up and you did not express arguments that actually addressed my concerns and misinterpreted various aspects of my plan.

Since you have failed to address any of my concerns, I can't count anything beyond your initial statement as being critique, and one based on personal goals.

Btw, biggest sticking point? You want to wait a turn to get stronger before we attack an enemy completely out of position that we could murderize. I can't even begin to express how much you have failed to address this issue.
 
I'm not sure how much the Mass Levy will actually help.

Our primary combat arm is going to be our cavalry, who either will be operating separate from the levies anyway, or are going to be giving up their major advantage to escort slow-moving levies everywhere.
AN mentioned that our cavalry will be heavily restricted in the HK's territory. Unless we want to just stay on the defensive, we're going to need infantry.

Actually, I wonder how the Levy would affect us, considering the Half Exile changes we are about to make.
 
AN mentioned that our cavalry will be heavily restricted in the HK's territory. Unless we want to just stay on the defensive, we're going to need infantry.

Actually, I wonder how the Levy would affect us, considering the Half Exile changes we are about to make.
I mean, I don't want to invade their actual territory. Maybe if the others join in fast enough. Maybe.
 
AN mentioned that our cavalry will be heavily restricted in the HK's territory. Unless we want to just stay on the defensive, we're going to need infantry.

Actually, I wonder how the Levy would affect us, considering the Half Exile changes we are about to make.

Do we really need that much infantry when we're going to be fighting in constricted space sieging their pass? Or for that matter, sieging their lowland holding, which will be located along river systems.
 
Okay, but if the intent instead is 'end slavery for good for 10% of our population' then we need a reasonable expectation of that, right?

Like, I wouldn't support a heart transplant from a healthy person to a sick person; if we have knowledge of the evils of the action, then that too must be part of what we intend by it, right?

Bluntly? No. The heart transplant example does not apply, because that kills the healthy donor (though if they provided informed consent that would actually be an ethical operation under this framework). A better comparison is: you can perform a needed surgery to help a sick person recover (or whatever) but they will need followup treatments or they'll die. It's still ethical to perform the surgery, because you can reasonably expect successful execution of your intent to help your patient recover. It is also ethical to do your utmost to ensure the followup treatments go well, but the fact that you might fail in that task does not make the original action unethical.
 
Problem is, that means a war of attrition aka action drain. If you're willing to spend a few turns with a dedicated war action taken from us, then that's fine. Otherwise, striking hard and fast will be better.
No.
I mean beat the crap out of the army in the lowlands, take whatever they have there, and then peace out if the other two partners haven't joined in yet.

If they have joined in, we really don't need the levy.
 
Do we really need that much infantry when we're going to be fighting in constricted space sieging their pass? Or for that matter, sieging their lowland holding, which will be located along river systems.
I'd have to find the quote, but AN told us we'll need quite a lot of martial to besiege their capital, and while their outer territory might not be quite as bad, it will still take a fair amount of effort.

Levy might not be needed, but if we go to war I'd at least suggest changing to Offensive.
 
I'd have to find the quote, but AN told us we'll need quite a lot of martial to besiege their capital, and while their outer territory might not be quite as bad, it will still take a fair amount of effort.

Levy might not be needed, but if we go to war I'd at least suggest changing to Offensive.

Most of the thread don't even want to siege their capital, much less invade their inner territory.
 
I'd have to find the quote, but AN told us we'll need quite a lot of martial to besiege their capital, and while their outer territory might not be quite as bad, it will still take a fair amount of effort.

Levy might not be needed, but if we go to war I'd at least suggest changing to Offensive.
It was all three merc companies to siege their capital. I'm pretty sure that was it...

Like, that's 24 martial to siege a city so we were suitably impressed.
 
No.
I mean beat the crap out of the army in the lowlands, take whatever they have there, and then peace out if the other two partners haven't joined in yet.

If they have joined in, we really don't need the levy.
I mean, this is based off the assumption that we will just be able to dominate them with ease, which is not something I will just assume.

Also, they are attacking the Harmurri first. If they attack the Harmurri, we have to attack them. We can't just sit in the lowlands in a vaguely threatening manner and expect it to tie up more than a small portion of their military. Which means assaulting their land, a place they have fortified to an extreme.
 
I mean, this is based off the assumption that we will just be able to dominate them with ease, which is not something I will just assume.

Also, they are attacking the Harmurri first. If they attack the Harmurri, we have to attack them. We can't just sit in the lowlands in a vaguely threatening manner and expect it to tie up more than a small portion of their military. Which means assaulting their land, a place they have fortified to an extreme.
I don't think we should attack their land or wait until they attack the Harm.

I think we should attack this army that is completely out of position and anything they have taken since we are dealing with a nation that has all but declared war on us along with attempts to cause civil unrest in our population by encouraging 'their people' to revolt.
 
1. Without Mass Levy if you get into a fight on their home territory it will be hard. Without all the Banner Companies, cracking their home territory will be impossible. As it is, while they can probably be kicked out of the lowlands with considerable effort if they start attacking the Harmurri, you will almost certainly need to go all in if you want to actually dig them out of their home territory
2. Away from their homes it will be of considerable use, but in their homes territory it will be far less useful
3. All three together can probably hold off any one of your significant neighbours. If the Forhuch, Storm People, and Freehills all decided all at once that they despised you, you would probably be overrun, unless you already had your levies up, in which case you might squeak out a stalemate and status quo ante bellum



Possibly.

Yeah we need mass levy to fight them and our merc companies to hit their capital from 3 different sides at the same time to beat them. The HK have spent centuries fortifying and building walls so it wouldn't be easy.
 
Yeah we need mass levy to fight them and our merc companies to hit their capital from 3 different sides at the same time to beat them. The HK have spent centuries fortifying and building walls so it wouldn't be easy.
...Why do we believe it would take considerably effort to kick them out of the lowlands?

Are they rocking 30+ martial here or something?
 
Most of the thread don't even want to siege their capital, much less invade their inner territory.
Unless we get lucky and they do something stupid, we are going to have to fight in their territory. I sure don't want to take a go at their capital (Ruling the HK heartlands? No thanks.) but we do need to take some of the fortifications on our border if we want to pressure them into surrendering on good terms.

Well, unless we absolutely wreck their army, as in wipe out the vast majority of their martial in 1 turn. If you think that we can do that, then we won't need to fight on their territory. I just don't believe we will be able to do so, even with LC 4.
 
...Why do we believe it would take considerably effort to kick them out of the lowlands?

Are they rocking 30+ martial here or something?
They are exceptionally good at fortifying every piece of land they conquer. They do the same thing the Khem did, in that they immediately begin buidling walls and various defences the moment they enter an area.
 
They are exceptionally good at fortifying every piece of land they conquer. They do the same thing the Khem did, in that they immediately begin buidling walls and various defences the moment they enter an area.

They never had faced an enemy who had an opportunity to use even rudimentary siege engine like a battering ram.

Edit: They did when they Yenyna. But pretty much almost nobody in the region had any experience with siege warfare.
 
Last edited:
Unless we get lucky and they do something stupid, we are going to have to fight in their territory. I sure don't want to take a go at their capital (Ruling the HK heartlands? No thanks.) but we do need to take strategically placed fortifications on our border if we want to pressure them into surrendering on good terms.

Well, unless we absolutely wreck their army, as in wipe out the vast majority of their martial in 1 turn. If you think that we can do that, then we won't need to fight on their territory. I just don't believe we will be able to do so, even with LC 4.

Why are we going to have to fight in their territory? If they invade the Harmurri, then just turn around and leave when we show up, doesn't that mean we won the war? If they're forced to flee back to their fortifications without even attempting to hold any ground in the lowlands, that means we've effectively neutered any ambitions for eastward expansion on their part.
 
I find it annoying that 8 martial and a little over 5 cavalry can beat the tar out of our vassals yet we apparently would have a much harder time against the HK's fortifications in the lowlands where we have room to maneuver.

Something is very wrong here, but I don't know what.
 
Why are we going to have to fight in their territory? If they invade the Harmurri, then just turn around and leave when we show up, doesn't that mean we won the war? If they're forced to flee back to their fortifications without even attempting to hold any ground in the lowlands, that means we've effectively neutered any ambitions for eastward expansion on their part.

We need to actually secure the territory we take from them to dissuade them from another try. Securing the mountain passes would be a good start, as it allows us to reliably threaten their capital if they get funny ideas. If we could it might be a good plan to try to found marches on their new borders, since we don't want to bloat Txolla-kun too much.
 
Last edited:
Bluntly? No. The heart transplant example does not apply, because that kills the healthy donor (though if they provided informed consent that would actually be an ethical operation under this framework). A better comparison is: you can perform a needed surgery to help a sick person recover (or whatever) but they will need followup treatments or they'll die. It's still ethical to perform the surgery, because you can reasonably expect successful execution of your intent to help your patient recover. It is also ethical to do your utmost to ensure the followup treatments go well, but the fact that you might fail in that task does not make the original action unethical.
I'm trying to understand the framework; not insisting on examples that line up right with this situation. So if the intended action includes a reasonable expectation of bad things as part of the process then it's not a correct action? Like, intending to fix a brain tumor by removing the brain is incorrect even though you're successfully removing the tumor, right? I know that's a little silly, but you say you don't follow this in real life so I want to verify its implications by you identifying a scenario where it calls an action incorrect.

As to 'the fact that you might fail in that task does not make the original action unethical' does that also mean that any chance that you might succeed at a good intention makes it correct? Or do you still need reasonable expectation to succeed where reasonable expectation of failure is insufficient?

To keep it on topic I'll frame it in terms related to this vote, though I do hope you'll still address the above so I can better understand. I believe there's a decent case for a reasonable expectation of this action to directly cause the wholesale slaughter of the exact half-exiles who would be freed (among many others) at the hands of the Highlanders and that, supposing such a case is made and found valid, such would necessarily be part of the intent of the action. Is a case for that relevant to your ethical framework?
 
I find it annoying that 8 martial and a little over 5 cavalry can beat the tar out of our vassals yet we apparently would have a much harder time against the HK's fortifications in the lowlands where we have room to maneuver.

Something is very wrong here, but I don't know what.
Calvalry on the plains is supremely OP, less so in the mountain passes and against fortified cities.
 
We need to actually secure the territory we take from them to dissuade them from another try. Securing the mountain passes would be a good start, as it allows us to reliably threaten their capital if they get funny ideas.

The lowland is their breadbasket, where they grow most of their food. Unlike the pass, which can be difficult to take because they are constantly supplied from one side, we can actually surround and starve out a settlement.

And we will be able to use cavalry to discourage any notion of even trying to supply or reinforce their settlements.
 
Last edited:
*Deletes rant.*

You have offered, at best, an opinion as to what you feel should be done and presented it as fact on what should, in fact, be done, with a couple of suggestions on how you would go about achieving that.

I have expressed counter arguments for why much of that doesn't hold up and you did not express arguments that actually addressed my concerns and misinterpreted various aspects of my plan.

Since you have failed to address any of my concerns, I can't count anything beyond your initial statement as being critique, and one based on personal goals.

Btw, biggest sticking point? You want to wait a turn to get stronger before we attack an enemy completely out of position that we could murderize. I can't even begin to express how much you have failed to address this issue.

My argument has always been simple. Use some of our Guild actions on textiles (since it's our best wealth generator) to build a wealth buffer and pay for other things, which allows our King actions to take important actions. It's a short list of suggestions because it's easy and the main thing I'm interested in. The exact specifics of what those king actions do are less of a concern for me, aside from broad stuff like wanting to complete quests when possible and increasing stability if we can, which is why I mentioned them. You don't need an action plan for everything.

I responded to your counter arguments. Of note, Trader quest, the value of stability/martial and the relative lack of urgency for Docks innovation rolls at this time, none of which you responded to. The only way I could have misinterpreted your plan is in that I said it avoids textiles and uses other actions and overflow to cover for lacking it. By your own admission, your goal with the plan was to not monofocus on wealth (something I wasn't advocating either, by the way), which translates to no textile actions, so I stand by that statement.

As for the war concerns, I addressed them. They'll still be in the lowlands if they're occupying the minors instead of attacking, and it allows us to build up another turn. In the event that this happens, I would consider it a good thing because this turn is likely to be our most dangerous since we're coming into it with little wealth or martial, and we can use the breathing room to rectify that situation and hulk out next turn if needed. If they do attack, then they're still out of position and we can use a react vote to intervene, freeing up actions.

As I said, the only situation where I don't see waiting as a positive is if our goal is war with the HK, rather than simply dealing with them when they cross the line. Even if they spend generations turning the new territory into hardpoints and we lose the chance to strike them entirely, that breathing room is a godsend to us right now. I don't see how that doesn't address those concerns.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top