Repeating the arguments seems unnecessary, so just read my previous posts on the subject if you want.Uhh.
What does the other option even do? What's to say another quest will be any good?
Repeating the arguments seems unnecessary, so just read my previous posts on the subject if you want.Uhh.
What does the other option even do? What's to say another quest will be any good?
But all of your points were proven at least to some degree false, with the exception of the innovation rolls (which are very hard to quantitatively evaluate)Because of all the reasons I listed and probably more. An extra point of navy is nice, but is not something we can't live without. The quest rewards are only one factor in many.
We're in the middle of Epic Age 2.0 Next turn will be the end of Epic Age 2.0. A turn after that will be totally open and free, and we should be easily able to afford the navy then. And if not, then something big has gone wrong and we can just fail the quest at no penalty, keeping the free failure since this quest has no failure penalty.Some people want the long term benefit of completing the current Trader quest for a free +1 Navy. This is a pretty nice reward... if we have time for it. We certainly don't have time for it during the coming main turn, since we'll pop all of our non Free Cities if we don't overflow into econ. The turn after that doesn't look much better, since we're currently in the middle of Epic Age 2.0, need to deal with the fallout of overmartial, need to deal with the fallout of government reform, need to fix our stability situation, need to fix our econ after leaving Mass Levy, all while finishing the Damn Dam.
We don't need to worry about failing the current one, it doesn't have a failure condition. In fact, we need to worry about failing the next one, which a new quest would very much be. A new quest now is the opposite of what we want, as it moves the timer several steps closer.If the reward was better, or we needed Navy for the war, or we weren't in a 3 front land locked war, or the New Quest vote had no potential long term benefits, then this would be a great quest to complete. But that's not the case. Generating a new quest means we no longer have to worry about failing the current one and still lets us fail the next one for free if we need to. It's one thing off our plate for a little bit and gives us some breathing room.
This is true to a degree, but strong quests from happy factions can still be bad quests. Like the current Guild quest. Stronger quests are harder to complete and have the potential for more rewards, but no guarantee. It is a mystery box. One with potential for more than what we currently have, but also the potential for much less. Something like "Get Dominating in a new Trade Good within 2 turns. Failure: -1 Stability" is very much a possibility. It's no guarantee either way. Getting a new quest is taking a significant risk for moderate potential benefit. It might be easier than the current one (15 stats and 2 actions) or it might be harder (do 6 more Plant X actions... while we're still on Mass Levy). The reward might be better, but it very much can be worse, and the new quest could very easily have a failure condition.As an added bonus, generating a quest from a Strength 9 happy Trader faction has the potential for a great reward, with a quest more aligned with our current needs or wants. If your goal is just wanting the bonus from completing quests and mollifying the Traders, then a new quest suits your purposes fine without putting us in crunch mode.
Because of all the reasons I listed and probably more. An extra point of navy is nice, but is not something we can't live without. The quest rewards are only one factor in many.
I actually think that has more to do with the massive amount of Nuclear weapons in the US Arsenal.It makes you wonder why the US Navy is so big that it had more aircraft carriers than all other navies combined. If you don't want a war, build a navy so big that nobody will dare challenge us in a naval war.
You disagreeing is not proving them false. Your arguments revolved around the idea that we'll finish with the war in time to get the quest done, which I still disagree with for various reasons, which were not assuaged by your argument that it'll be over because it didn't last long last time. We're at a disadvantage in advanced stats, we don't have a tech or tactics advantage, the enemy has defensive bonuses or the ability to disengage easily, they're not stretched to the end of their supply lines like the Khem were, we're no longer on easy mode, we have more fallout to deal with afterwards, etc. We've had many failed military attempts since then, so I'm not inclined to plan as if we'll have no problems mopping up everyone around us and be back in time to go on a cruise. Furthermore, the quest rewards were by no means the only factor in my points. The arguments were getting circular though, so I let it drop.But all of your points were proven at least to some degree false, with the exception of the innovation rolls (which are very hard to quantitatively evaluate)
We don't exactly have biggest moats in the world protecting us, so navy isn't quite as useful.It makes you wonder why the US Navy is so big that it had more aircraft carriers than all other navies combined. If you don't want a war, build a navy so big that nobody will dare challenge us in a naval war.
We don't exactly have biggest moats in the world protecting us, so navy isn't quite as useful.
Alas, I don't think Triangle Canal measures up favorably to Atlantic.
Not yet, give it time.Alas, I don't think Triangle Canal measures up favorably to Atlantic.
We've never truly lost a war, and even the Trelli war when we had 0 Naval ended in a success for us (we achieved our stated wargoal of freeing the slaves and got some bonus land for Gulvalley as well). What "failed military attempts" are you speaking of? I suppose the Pure were rampaging all over us for a single phase, but being plague-ridden was the real problem there. If you don't think the war will be over within ~40 years, we're likely dead anyway since without Expand Econ we're going to be bleeding stats like crazy.You disagreeing is not proving them false. Your arguments revolved around the idea that we'll finish with the war in time to get the quest done, which I still disagree with for various reasons, which were not assuaged by your argument that it'll be over because it didn't last long last time. We're at a disadvantage in advanced stats, we don't have a tech or tactics advantage, the enemy has defensive bonuses or the ability to disengage easily, they're not stretched to the end of their supply lines like the Khem were, we're no longer on easy mode, we have more fallout to deal with afterwards, etc. We've had many failed military attempts since then, so I'm not inclined to plan as if we'll have no problems mopping up everyone around us and be back in time to go on a cruise.
Well, nomads would not be able to live in the steppe if it's under new ocean, so there is some merit in the proposal.
Alas, I don't think Triangle Canal measures up favorably to Atlantic.
Growth mindset!
We've never truly lost a war, and even the Trelli war when we had 0 Naval ended in a success for us (we achieved our stated wargoal of freeing the slaves and got some bonus land for Gulvalley as well). What "failed military attempts" are you speaking of? I suppose the Pure were rampaging all over us for a single phase, but being plague-ridden was the real problem there. If you don't think the war will be over within ~40 years, we're likely dead anyway since without Expand Econ we're going to be bleeding stats like crazy.
How do our infantry have a tech advantage? Everyone has basic iron equipment, and only our elites use high quality iron, and even there they have access to things like riveted mail too due to absorbing the rest of the MH.We do have an infantry tech advantage, are par on tactics, and have 8x more martial than them. That should be easily enough to compensate for them having 2.5x more cavalry and a bit more cavalry tech.
While your general point stands, we're not completely outmatched in terms of cav. In particular, we still have better tech, at least in terms of prevalence of advanced armor: (Which, combined with the crit successes, is likely why we didn't lose any light cav points this last phase)More to the point though, I was mainly speaking about Light Cav, which is a hugely important factor in the conflict and capable of inflicting massive losses if a battle goes poorly (especially to our levies.) They have superior tactics, tech, training and numbers here.
Well damn :/ How does our war chief think our cav will stack up pound for pound? I assume we at least still have more prevalent chain maille and barding and maybe bigger horses still, but they have horse archers and generally better trained riders and better developed cav tactics?
Trelli+Pirates were both Naval battles. Which we needed more naval score to do well in.Trelli war, repeated failure to quell pirates, Pure. The Trelli war may have ended positively, but our ultimate goal was to take the Straits. We failed to do so because we underestimated them and tried to support the slaves instead of attacking them directly. Pirates were a protracted struggle that managed to birth a pirate nation due to our failures and required Trelli assistance, and the Pure would have been way worse if they didn't double crit fail their disease roll. While we haven't outright lost a war, we've certainly had major setbacks and barely avoided disaster due to luck since then.
Proposed canals and walls, some more feasible than others. Western Canal is probably unfeasible. Maybe not, given that the Grand Canal is about a thousand miles or more. For the record, I believe that AN stated that the triangle canal would be no more than 100 league.
Afaik russia has more nuclear weapons. World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile yeah, by 200.I actually think that has more to do with the massive amount of Nuclear weapons in the US Arsenal.
the Navy is just power projection. Which isn't as useful when you are land locked or close to a sea but don't control the strait.
Proposed canals and walls, some more feasible than others. Western Canal is probably unfeasible. Maybe not, given that the Grand Canal is about a thousand miles or more. For the record, I believe that AN stated that the triangle canal would be no more than 100 league.
I think the purpose is irrigation not shipping.the western canal doesn't add enough, it would be cheaper to built boats and ship cargo along the coast.