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.
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)
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'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.
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.
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.

Also, the reward is very good. It costs 10 stats and an action to do a {S} More Warships, or 15 stats and 2 actions for the {M}. Getting ~3 free secondary actions' worth of value is a strong reward.
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.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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)
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.

The point about failing the current quest not consuming the Division of Power free fail has merit if it works that way (probably does, but do we have an example of this just to be sure?) but after you've secured 6 turns of not needing to finish Trader quests, you're getting into diminishing returns.

1 Navy is a nice reward if we have time for it, but it's not falling out of the sky into our laps. We have other concerns too, and committing to More Warships within the next two turns to benefit from this vote is too constraining. I'd rather be prudent for once and stop trying juggle so many things at same time, and if do we end up having time for more Warships, then losing one Navy and gaining other benefits seems a reasonable trade. One point of naval isn't going to make or break us.
 
Last edited:
Omake:
"Vegeance from the Heavens"
@Academia Nut


In the night that Branfael was born, a murder of crows built a cairn of stones. Some people thought the child was another dragon taken human form sent by Hynryn, but the starwatchers shamans thought differently. The child wasn't sent from the underworld, but from the heavens, so the he was named accordingly "Prince of Crow" and was sent to Horse Valley to be trained in the spiritual arts.

As the children grew, it was obvious that the spirits blessed him. He excelled in the powers of shadows that came with the Blackbirds teachings, had an avid look for the Carrion Eaters anatomy teachings, but all of that palled in the sight of him whispering and communing with horses. But all that talent sent the Priests in despair when they understood that Branfael wasn't made from Spiritual Cloth, but from hammered steel. All the signs became clear when under a patrol as a Blackbird, the young man killed a raving wild hog after trusting a lance down the throat of the animal.

But that wasn't enough, as the taste of the blood and meat of animal, only awakened in him the ancestral spirit that resided in his body, that spirit being revealed to be Arxyn during a trance session under the moonlight. Branfael was born so that Arxyn could have a second chance on this world and atone for his sins against the people.

Little did the Forhuch know, that Branfael was now the Warchief of the people.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.

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.

And worst case scenario, we can always just Support Traders again and get another extra turn. Having Naval 1 is not a safe place to be, and if we ever get into a naval war again, being at that position will be as bad as if we had Cavalry 1 now. We need that Naval in the medium future, and I'd much rather get it now than risk gambling on getting something good from the new quest and still managing to fit in More Warships any time in the next couple centuries.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

While I expect us to ultimately win, I'm not counting on us outright crushing them instantly, nor am I expecting everything to be fine afterwards so we can freely just More Warships. I'd rather keep our temp martial down to not further contribute to overmartial, take our massive wartime innovation bonuses to help with our efforts (tangent, but I realise now that Traders will actually be strength 10 for innovation bonuses, since we'll have supported them twice), still More Warships whenever we have the chance from now on, and most likely still get a favorable, rewarding quest out of it.
 
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.

 
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.
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)
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?
Yes, that's about right for the qualitative differences.
 
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.
Trelli+Pirates were both Naval battles. Which we needed more naval score to do well in.

Pure I'll grant you. If they didn't double-crit fail their disease check they would've done a lot of damage. They were fighting to destroy though, which is much harder to counteract. Plus the whole "in the middle of a civilization-destroying plague" thing.

It seems to me like you're holding to self-contradicting viewpoints. We both won't have enough resources to get +2 Naval and the +1 Naval bonus is not a significant bonus.

That being said, the innovation rolls are a valid point. I don't think it's worthwhile, but if you believe that the boosted innovation rolls are worth more than the bonus martial and naval score then that is certainly a valid opinion.
 
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.


What is the point of these canals? Just float downriver and use the sea and then go back up a different river. A dozen canals around an inland sea is ridiculous.

The triangle canal is there specifically for irrigation, not transport.

Edit: Not entirely just for irrigation, but mostly, so whatever.
 
Last edited:
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.
Afaik russia has more nuclear weapons. World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile yeah, by 200.
The navy is just power projection... via airplanes, the bombs on them, the potential for trooper drops, and the potential for blockading ports with the actual ships. Sea trade makes up a lot of trade. That the Navy also does nice things like saving drowning people, securing trade routes against pirates, and generally preventing the abuses of rival powers is a benefit.

As far as medieval war goes, the navy isn't very useful immediately - because we're trapped in the black sea and own most of the ports on it - but if we ever need to fight with Freehills (e.g. if they try to increase the tariff they charge) it will be very useful.
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'm pretty certain the Triangle Canal is more northward.
The Western Canal sounds dumb tbh.
The Future Expansion Canal might work, but is also a bit... odd... We need to explore up those rivers more.
 
Back
Top