Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Alratan said:
I've thought about what happens after conquest. They're an expansionist theocracy that is investing significant cultural capital in the concept of conversion at sword-point. That's likely to be unstable, and take a massive knock to its legitimacy as a doctrine if we conquer them. The social tools required to justify and motivate conquest are not well adapted to dealing with being conquered yourself. They've also just undergone a social revolution with the decapitation of their old government and its replacement with a theocracy, which will also have been destabilising. This is the best moment we're likely to get to assimilate them, rather than them remaining a perpetual thorn in our side. We're dominant in pilgrimage, we have high religious authority, and we're experienced in assimilating hostile religious groups that have just suffered a crisis of legitimacy (as we just did with the Pure).

We can be pretty confident that they've not formed an ethno-religion like the Israelites, as if they had conversion wouldn't be on the table.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Pure are bad comparison since those lacked monotheist religion uniting them. Highlanders have unifying culture, long-term values that protected them from our influence (meaning resistance to foreign cultures) and now xenophobic religion.

Like....yes, technically we can totally assimilate them. Main Influence Subordinate - Highlanders each turn for ~10-20 turns should probably do the trick.

I just am 99% sure we are not going to invest enough in conversion/assimilation and then it will blow up in our faces.
 
Marlin said:
This is something that has been confusing me. We have far less land, but we can't control all our periphery states. Worse, there are players that don't ever want to absorb all our periphery states. Yet, there are civs with far more land, but they don't seem to need the ridiculous amount of administrative reach we have. They can become incredibly huge, but no periphery state of theirs rises in rebellion for them to deal with.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Most other nation states run off of negative centralization governments, which means that they can have most of their lands administer themselves using local governments, but they also have less say over what can be done with those lands.

Because we run off of a high cent government, we have to keep up high inter connectivity and centralization in order to administer our lands, otherwise our gov form will no longer work and we will essentially collapse into a negative cent form of government.
 
Marlin said:
This is something that has been confusing me. We have far less land, but we can't control all our periphery states. Worse, there are players that don't ever want to absorb all our periphery states. Yet, there are civs with far more land, but they don't seem to need the ridiculous amount of administrative reach we have. They can become incredibly huge, but no periphery state of theirs rises in rebellion for them to deal with.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually they totally do. Hath made a trading post Trelli, then Trelli rebelled. Trelli made colonies in the former Hath territory that rebelled (then reunited when we backed the slaves.)
Xoh kept control via pure force and the lowland minors never had any real opportunity to rebel. Khemetri have the whole god-king thing that keeps them culturally united.

We build up our colonies so that they have the local resources to rebel, and we don't have any strong unifying values- Lord's Loyalty and Joyous Symphony help but aren't really strong enough.
 
Marlin said:
This is something that has been confusing me. We have far less land, but we can't control all our periphery states. Worse, there are players that don't ever want to absorb all our periphery states. Yet, there are civs with far more land, but they don't seem to need the ridiculous amount of administrative reach we have. They can become incredibly huge, but no periphery state of theirs rises in rebellion for them to deal with.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What neighbours, exactly, are you talking about? I cannot recall anyone big without high level of internal unrest near us....except Khemetri, but we know literally nothing about their internal situation.

SY are facing something internal to the point we had an option to lend them mercenaries. And that's with our administrators.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Like....yes, technically we can totally assimilate them. Main Influence Subordinate - Highlanders each turn for ~10-20 turns should probably do the trick.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we did it once a turn five would be plenty.

That's still horrendously expensive and excessive, but I'd rather go for overkill.

I'm willing to go for that, but I can understand your hesitance to trust the thread.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Like....yes, technically we can totally assimilate them. Main Influence Subordinate - Highlanders each turn for ~10-20 turns should probably do the trick.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It'd also almost certainly provoke lots of unpleasant reaction events.

Like, our Purists were, on the extreme end, willing to murder our own Traders for being excessively foreign.

Do you really want to have to adjust our justice system to make it function as a weapon against an uncooperative populace?

Because our other option is going to be "put up with the Highlanders regularly murdering Ymaryn doctors," and that's not going to do our values any good, either.
 
Candesce said:
It'd also almost certainly provoke lots of unpleasant reaction events.

Like, our Purists were, on the extreme end, willing to murder our own Traders for being excessively foreign.

Do you really want to have to adjust our justice system to make it function as a weapon against an uncooperative populace?

Because our other option is going to be "put up with the Highlanders regularly murdering Ymaryn doctors," and that's not going to do our values any good, either.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Let the HK be what the HK is fated to be, roadkill on the path of Ymaryn.
 
bluefur87 said:
If we did it once a turn five would be plenty.

That's still horrendously expensive and excessive, but I'd rather go for overkill.

I'm willing to go for that, but I can understand your hesitance to trust the thread.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I promise you that I will vote against any attempts to spend multiple secondary Influence actions on the highlanders, much less FIVE MAIN actions. You can absolutely trust me on that.



The phrase you are looking at isn't "trust the thread"; it is "believe the thread will do the thing that I think is right in such a situation."
 
We're still over province cap-how can we get more GP? They are pretty powerful now, but still super expensive.
 
ExNihilo said:
We're still over province cap-how can we get more GP? They are pretty powerful now, but still super expensive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A secondary action should lead infrastructure passive to work on it as they prioritize quests, urgent projects, unfinished projects second, and then main priority of baths and aqueducts for everything else.
 
Last edited:
PrimalShadow said:
I promise you that I will vote against any attempts to spend multiple secondary Influence actions on the highlanders, much less FIVE MAIN actions. You can absolutely trust me on that.



The phrase you are looking at isn't "trust the thread"; it is "believe the thread will do the thing that I think is right in such a situation."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hm...
Thing is, as per AN, we need to throw Highlanders out of Lowlands to safely travel to Harmurri.

Second, we need to ensure noone hostile gets access to Lowlands, and HK are both hostile and liable to be conquered by somebody who then, via their passes, will get access to Lowlands.

So conquering them, while stupid statwise, offers pretty good strategic advantage.
It's just that we are unlikely to hold them properly.
 
ctulhuslp said:
So conquering them, while stupid statwise, seizing their lowland holdings offers pretty good strategic advantage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We don't need to conquer them.

Leaving the rest of the Highlands intact means that we don't have to deal with the worst of the Xenophobes, at that - because they'll leave, what with having a preferable civilization nearby to leave to.
 
Kiba said:
Depending on how much manpower we have access to and how many rivers there are, I don't think it will take 300 years to build the canal connecting both rivers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Compare Triangle Canal and that one on the map - if we build it high up, it's four or five times larger. 300 years is somewhat of a hyperbole, especially on MP Support, but it would be a needlessly colossal project. Really, the best thing would be to make deal with Hamurri and build it it their territory, but we would need tighter relationship with them.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Hm...
Thing is, as per AN, we need to throw Highlanders out of Lowlands to safely travel to Harmurri.

Second, we need to ensure noone hostile gets access to Lowlands, and HK are both hostile and liable to be conquered by somebody who then, via their passes, will get access to Lowlands.

So conquering them, while stupid statwise, offers pretty good strategic advantage.
It's just that we are unlikely to hold them properly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I thought the strategy is to kick the Highlanders out of the lowland and maybe take their pass if we could. Even if(and it's a big IF) they were conquered, they would need to fight their way out into the lowland, which would belong to us and the Harmurri and much more properly developed.
 
Kiba said:
I thought the strategy is to kick the Highlanders out of the lowland and maybe take their pass if we could. Even if(and it's a big IF) they were conquered, they would need to fight their way out into the lowland, which would belong to us and the Harmurri and much more properly developed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Some people are blowing the plans of others way out of proportion.

Like, I've been indirectly insulted several times by this behavior and it is making the thread really toxic.

*continues typing and deleting rants.*

Must... resist... actually posting them.

Anyways, yeah, most of us are still gunning for just getting them out of the lowlands.
ctulhuslp said:
Second, we need to ensure noone hostile gets access to Lowlands, and HK are both hostile and liable to be conquered by somebody who then, via their passes, will get access to Lowlands.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am curious as to who this would be, as their neighbors seem to all hate them and love us. I can certainly think of someone beating them up, but I can't think of it being anyone hostile to us for a long while.
 
Last edited:
bluefur87 said:
I am curious as to who this would be, as their neighbors seem to all hate them and love us. I can certainly think of someone beating them up, but I can't think of it being anyone hostile to us for a long while.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Khemetri? We haven't talked to them for...century or centuries at this point.
Granted, it's too far for them to go a-conquering at ~iron age or maybe even classical level, so it's a bit of a stretch. It is, however, not impossible.

I would be fine with just removing them from Lowland plains. Although them being smart and forting up does complicate things.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Khemetri? We haven't talked to them for...century or centuries at this point.
Granted, it's too far for them to go a-conquering at ~iron age or maybe even classical level, so it's a bit of a stretch. It is, however, not impossible.

I would be fine with just removing them from Lowland plains. Although them being smart and forting up does complicate things.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we're lucky the Harm or Freehills will declare war and we'll get an intervention CB.

...Or Forhuch, now that I think about it. Nomads would certainly hold no qualms about going and beating up the enemies of their new friends that are giving them lots of stuff. Whether or not they'll do it instead of just staying in their trade lane is another question though.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Khemetri? We haven't talked to them for...century or centuries at this point.
Granted, it's too far for them to go a-conquering at ~iron age or maybe even classical level, so it's a bit of a stretch. It is, however, not impossible.

I would be fine with just removing them from Lowland plains. Although them being smart and forting up does complicate things.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There is only so much you can fort up plains. One cannot meaningfully fortify fields against cavalry.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top