Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
8bitBob said:
It only adds a potential 1 turn more than the winning vote. Pretty tight margin of error to be worried about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm less worried about the 1 extra action and more worried about the 12-16 extra Wealth (and 5-7 extra tech that won't overflow into Wealth for a total of 17-23 extra stats)

edit: fix numbers, it's 4-6 turns of 2 wealth and 1 turn of 4 wealth.
 
Last edited:
notgreat said:
I'm less worried about the 1 extra action and more worried about the 14-18 extra Wealth (and 5-7 extra tech that won't overflow into Wealth for a total of 19-25 extra stats)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're forgetting tech refunds.

That's also over the course of 5-7 turns though. In that time, we could generate literally hundreds of wealth if we wanted, and when you're spending 8 wealth an action, it's not that much of an additional burden. I'm not saying it won't cost us anything, which is why I mentioned no Kilns this turn, but we could certainly afford it.
 
This is a terrible time to throw the People into chaos. But if this is the chance we get then this is the chance we take.

[X] [Dam] Make it as big and impressiveas possible (2 Wealth and 2 Tech per action added to remaining costs, requires an additional 3 actions to complete)
[X] [Purity] If slavery is so bad in comparison, maybe even the half-exiles need to be addressed (-1 Stability, the next Patrician, Guild, and Trader quests are all spite quests, all Wealth costs are doubled going forward)
[X] [PP] City Support (4 Econ cost for True Cities offset each turn, -1 Tech)
[X] [PP] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct, governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn)
[X] [PP] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct,governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn) x2
[X] [PP] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct,governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn) x3

If we do not come to the aid of our neighbors as soon as possible, we are not good neighbors.

Also, marches. All of them.
 
Last edited:
@Academia Nut, you said that the primary reason for why the half-exile reform will go through narratively speaking is because the people are afraid of being themselves being abused. I don't think that alone should be the primary reason. We are not only going through with the half-exile reform, but we are also keeping up our ban on slavery, indicating that the People want justice for all, not just for themselves. It's more than just self-interest.
 
Candesce said:
We get one tech refund per action. It's already accounted for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
notgreat said:
No I'm not. We currently have 1 tech refund, so the medium-cost dam costs us nothing. The big dam costs us.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, we're currently at 1.5 tech refund. We're a single GP away from 2 tech refund, have 11 infrastructure passives and just upgraded the hell out of them. I'm assuming we'll get one built within a few turns, further cutting down tech costs.
 
tenchifew said:
Yes.
We can actually afford it, if barely, and I would love us to have a Wonder.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...We already have a wonder. We already have *two* wonders. Of the 4 wonders we know about, we own half (Greater Sacred Forest + International Games), and got a legacy from destroying a third, that gives us most of its bonus (Destroying the wall of bones gave us the terrify action, where the actual wonder only did that plus a diplo drip iirc).
(Also as has been said, AN hasn't said it would be a wonder (in fact, the only recent result for "wonder" as a search term by AN was a post answering a question "wondering" about the IC reason for the half exile reform going through. The benefits are primarily prestige, with the actual "can hold more water" being an afterthought; the larger version is already going to be the pinnacle of engineering in the known world, and be large enough for dozens of mills.)
 
Last edited:
Abby Normal said:
...We already have a wonder. We already have *two* wonders. Of the 4 wonders we know about, we own half (Greater Sacred Forest + International Games), and got a legacy from destroying a third, that gives us most of its bonus (Destroying the wall of bones gave us the terrify action, where the actual wonder only did that plus a diplo drip iirc).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

All I'm hearing is we need to go destroy that last Wonder! :V
 
8bitBob said:
No, we're currently at 1.5 tech refund. We're a single GP away from 2 tech refund, have 11 infrastructure passives and just upgraded the hell out of them. I'm assuming we'll get one built within a few turns, further cutting down tech costs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And if we want to upgrade to Ironwork Level 3, it will mean Expand Econ will cost 3 tech per action. So we better build at least four more palace to get the tech refund, unless we improve GP refund efficiency.
 
[X][Dam] Move to the bigger but more useful proposal (1 Wealth and 1 Tech per action added to remaining costs, requires an additional 2 actions to complete)
[X][Purity] If slavery is so bad in comparison, maybe even the half-exiles need to be addressed (-1 Stability, the next Patrician, Guild, and Trader quests are all spite quests, all Wealth costs are doubled going forward)
[X][PP] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct, governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn)
[X][PP] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct, governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn) x2
[X][PP] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct, governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn) x3
[X][PP] Skullduggery (+1 Intrigue/turn, -2 Diplo)

And locked.
 
Academia Nut said:
[X][Dam] Move to the bigger but more useful proposal (1 Wealth and 1 Tech per action added to remaining costs, requires an additional 2 actions to complete)
[X][Purity] If slavery is so bad in comparison, maybe even the half-exiles need to be addressed (-1 Stability, the next Patrician, Guild, and Trader quests are all spite quests, all Wealth costs are doubled going forward)
[X][PP] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct, governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn)
[X][PP] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct, governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn) x2
[X][PP] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct, governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn) x3
[X][PP] Skullduggery (+1 Intrigue/turn, -2 Diplo)

And locked.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're breaking my heart, AN. :cry:

RIP Wonder-kun. You'll live on in my heart.
 
Last edited:
8bitBob said:
No, we're currently at 1.5 tech refund. We're a single GP away from 2 tech refund, have 11 infrastructure passives and just upgraded the hell out of them. I'm assuming we'll get one built within a few turns, further cutting down tech costs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We've got a ton of other infrastructure that's high-priority as well.
in progress: baths, 2x Colossal walls: 18 progress
lvl 2 temple: 6 progress
5x markets: 15 progress
3x baths: 9 progress
So that's already 48 progress worth of actions just on the "high demand/in progress" section. And they might decide to build more aqueducts which I don't really want but we can't really stop them from doing either.

I certainly won't complain if the passives build us another palace, but I don't consider it highly likely.
 
George said:
Alright thanks! Honestly this vote is a little more settled than what would motivate me to actually attempt to convince you to switch your stance on it, especially when I'm still not sure of my own stance. For whatever thing comes up next, though, I think I understand well enough that a productive debate of the option will be possible.

I do think you might be underestimating the harm caused by collapse under these terms, though; I think it would be far worse than collapse due to disease or a collapse without clear cause. If collapse occurs and is blamed on not leaving unclean work to unclean people, then I dread what sort of society might be built up around the remnants of this one. I agree that collapse on its own can reasonably not warrant an ethical imperative against it, but in specific cases I think it's a clear and predictable cause of things that do warrant ethical imperatives against them, like chattel slavery and genocide - this current case does not meet those standards, but I do think it meets standards that some people using the same ethical framework would accept, such as maintaining a minimum standard of living for the lowest class members of our society, which is most prominently seen through Panem and the lead up to that where no Ymaryn is left to starve.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, when evaluating this particular situation we also have to consider the alternatives. Option A takes the actions of "removing Purity" (ethically good, given its current xenophobic form) and "risking permitting slavery" (ethically bad). Option B consists entirely of "ceding ground to the Puritans" (ethically bad). Option C is "codifying doublethink in our justice system," which is ethically terrible. Option E is purely random, and so necessarily cannot be the most ethical choice*, unless all choices are equally ethical.

I contend that fixing the plight of the half-exiles is a higher ethical imperative than removing purity (ceasing your own unethical behavior is more obligatory than preventing that of others). Moreover I hold that not risking collapse is a lower ethical imperative than not risking slavery, largely because our own actions can mitigate the former but not the latter. That is, if we lose our prohibition on slavery, it's just gone - risk of collapse from increased wealth costs can be reduced by responsible and careful action over the following turns. You will note a common theme of personal agency in both of these analyses; this is because, fundamentally, a virtue-ethical approach cares about what you personally do/don't do. The other options are, from the prior paragraph, fairly clearly not in competition; as such, Option D is ethically superior.

*unless under a system which specifically prohibits any unethical behavior; there Option E could be seen as obligatory, in that it is the only choice with a chance of not including an unethical action as one of its components (since I do agree that risking collapse is, in a vacuum, unethical).
 
notgreat said:
We've got a ton of other infrastructure that's high-priority as well.
in progress: baths, 2x Colossal walls: 18 progress
lvl 2 temple: 6 progress
5x markets: 15 progress
3x baths: 9 progress
So that's already 48 progress worth of actions just on the "high demand/in progress" section. And they might decide to build more aqueducts which I don't really want but we can't really stop them from doing either.

I certainly won't complain if the passives build us another palace, but I don't consider it highly likely.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Aqueducts might be a positive fairly soon, supposing that they have a net positive impact on our Disease rolls when the settlement they are built in is not active as a True City. Due to Block Housing and how True City formation works, and with how many Infrastructure Policies we now have active, we're likely to idle at a low number of active True Cities regardless of how many cities are eligible.
 
Citino said:
We're max tech though, and we've been consistently overflowing mysticism and culture. It'd be preferable to have the refund, but it wouldn't be bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wealth costs being doubled has a ton of hidden effects.

If our Light Cavalry goes down, replacing that is going to cost 10 Wealth per unit. Influence Subordinate costs six Wealth. Salt Gift costs more than half of our maximum Wealth. We are probably never taking another Study Action in the foreseeable future because they're outlandishly expensive now. Most relevant to the Dam: we have exactly one way of generating Tech that doesn't cost 8 or more Wealth, and that's the Industry passive policy, which we chose not to take.

Even though our Tech is stable right now, we have essentially no way of recouping any losses.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top