Paths of Civilization

[Citino]

Edit: I wish you worked further on the interaction between the King, and Alyxunmyn. Give the King a more badass normal type mentor-ship to the War Hero Alyxunmyn. Instead of using tired discussion from the forum to create the illusion of originality.

Click to shrink...

In my mind, the King is pretty good, but he's no figure of legend. He gives some tips to Alyx as he can, which are based upon his own experiences, but Alyx is one of those guys who has been shown to just be really talented. It's hard to mentor someone like that.

Plus, if anything, I'd say trying to promote our current king as a badass normal doesn't really make sense. He's a good enough king, but he hasn't done anything that different from a lot of our other kings.

He's solidly competent, in a country with a higher bar for competent than most others. That doesn't mean that he's going to be good at mentoring a true blue genius.

tl;dr The king can really only give some tips to someone like Alyx based on his experience, but Alyx is already pretty competent at this sort of stuff. Only actually doing kingly stuff is going to help him grow further, and so that's what the king will have him do (as seen here, where the king is leading him through the thought process behind why he can't give Alyx the levies, even if they both know it's a good idea)

 

[agumentic]

Infrastructure x2

Click to shrink...

That's insane. We have insatiable need for infrastructure, and you want to do it at five progress per turn? Especially since player-chosen infrastructure will double, as opposed to faction-chosen. I'd rather let someone like Guilds have that industry, which is the same for everyone. Our current 4 policies is pretty good place to be, I think.

 

[Redium]

That's insane. We have insatiable need for infrastructure, and you want to do it at five progress per turn? Especially since player-chosen infrastructure will double, as opposed to faction-chosen. I'd rather let someone like Guilds have that industry, which is the same for everyone. Our current 4 policies is pretty good place to be, I think.

Click to shrink...

That was in addition to what we already have. I didn't explicitly state it, but it's referenced in the Defense section. From ThrawnCA's post, I thought we were getting 14 additional policies so laid out which ones I thought we should pick up.

 

[agumentic]

That was in addition to what we already have. I didn't explicitly state it, but it's referenced in the Defense section. From ThrawnCA's post, I thought we were getting 14 additional policies so laid out which ones I thought we should pick up.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, unfortunately, we don't.

 

[Marlin]

In my mind, the King is pretty good, but he's no figure of legend. He gives some tips to Alyx as he can, which are based upon his own experiences, but Alyx is one of those guys who has been shown to just be really talented. It's hard to mentor someone like that.

Plus, if anything, I'd say trying to promote our current king as a badass normal doesn't really make sense. He's a good enough king, but he hasn't done anything that different from a lot of our other kings.

He's solidly competent, in a country with a higher bar for competent than most others. That doesn't mean that he's going to be good at mentoring a true blue genius.

tl;dr The king can really only give some tips to someone like Alyx based on his experience, but Alyx is already pretty competent at this sort of stuff. Only actually doing kingly stuff is going to help him grow further, and so that's what the king will have him do (as seen here, where the king is leading him through the thought process behind why he can't give Alyx the levies, even if they both know it's a good idea)

Click to shrink...

Alright, I just don't really like how the King feels as a stone to be stepped on in Alyx's story. We don't really see the King as anything exceptional in the narrative when they aren't a hero. When the King's are supposed to be capable of leading the administration. The King is supposed to be someone competent that can handle the problems of the Ymaryn. I really wanted to see that type of competence from someone who isn't a hero admin. Maybe giving advice to a legal mater, or explaining to Alyx why the King doesn't do something incredible like Yshyn the Great did with the Theatres, or why most King's don't take over the turn if they aren't a heroic Admin?

Instead we got the Forum King impression. Like how if you don't read the forum seeing the Half-exile system as slaves is really difficult. In addition to noticing our problem with women in Society, corruption, and culture. There are some things that are more obvious if you guess what the stats mean instead of look at the narrrative. And here you are saying our Kings are worthless if they aren't a Hero. That is the type of impression I got. If you see the Kings as anything else than worthless compared to our Hero Kings I'm not seeing that.

 

[PrimalShadow]

Is anyone opposed to at least a temporary repeated yeoman Expand Forest action? It will give +2 LTE as well as the forest and innovation, and will help their faction power to balance out a bit.

Note that the yeomen have some great actions, but their overall agenda (move everyone out of the cities) will usually not match the king's, so they are likely to shed power quickly. It may actually be feasible to leave the repeated action going (time will tell).

Click to shrink...

I'm opposed. Given current mechanics, I would rather make it a King action, and use the Yeoman action on Expand Economy or Build Roads or something that has a significant cost component.

 

[veekie]

Does that mean that something makes it unlikely? Would we need a ridiculous innovation roll plus gilded age? Why did it take Earth so long?

Click to shrink...

Nothing special. Innovations are not sequential, or held back.

Any innovation arises from preexisting conditions, coupled to serendipity for it to emerge out of the greater mass of stupid or dead end ideas.
You can force it only so far with need and with fiscal incentive.

As for the real obstacles, the big difficulties of fully mechanizing paper production was a lot to with with the medium. Milling grain to flour, or ores to powder is very different from milling rags to paper.
In the former case of grain, the input is largely uniform(a grain is a grain), the shape is easy to mill and output irregularities quite acceptable.

In the case of rags, you're looking at milling ALL sorts of garbage into paper, ranging from former pieces of clothing, rope, rags(which may have used to be clothing), used paper, or even fresh bark and reeds. All of these presents choking hazards for a mill, where an ill advised thread winds around the grinding surfaces, or clogs up. You also had rags which had grease or worse, been used to mop up an alchemical spill at some point.

Then you had to deal with it being a pulp solution. Unlike with other mills, you'd be dealing with a relatively moist environment, which gives you things like wood swelling from moisture(which may muck up gearing thats not made with tolerances for that) and rust.

Then you need to reduce them to fibers without reducing them to powder. The more finely you ground it the more fragile the resulting paper, which meant that there's a distinct sweet spot between "usable for writing" "spongy mass" "cardboard" and "lint".

Then you would bleach it. Relatively easy part at our level of alchemy, but keep in mind the source material and that they're going to have a bunch of dyes, some of which are not waterfast, and some of which are too waterfast.

Then you form it on trays, press it and dry it.

It wasn't really blocked. After all, China turned their vast milling and ironwork logistics chain to the production of paper as well for court uses.

But theres a lot of small problems with small solutions that wouldn't even show up at our level.

From what you had seen of the man, he would be excellent at the job. He would hate every minute of it, of course, but most of the historical accounts of the great Kings of the past mentioned that to not be uncommon. Yshuyn the Great had even been said to have thought that a virtue in a ruler.

Click to shrink...

The mark of a great ruler is one who didn't want it, but had to do it.

Though our kings have routinely had big headaches heh.

 

[Citino]

Alright, I just don't really like how the King feels as a stone to be stepped on in Alyx's story. We don't really see the King as anything exceptional in the narrative when they aren't a hero. When the King's are supposed to be capable of leading the administration. The King is supposed to be someone competent that can handle the problems of the Ymaryn. I really wanted to see that type of competence from someone who isn't a hero admin. Maybe giving advice to a legal mater, or explaining to Alyx why the King doesn't do something incredible like Yshyn the Great did with the Theatres, or why most King's don't take over the turn if they aren't a heroic Admin?

Instead we got the Forum King impression. Like how if you don't read the forum seeing the Half-exile system as slaves is really difficult. In addition to noticing our problem with women in Society, corruption, and culture. There are some things that are more obvious if you guess what the stats mean instead of look at the narrrative. And here you are saying our Kings are worthless if they aren't a Hero. That is the type of impression I got. If you see the Kings as anything else than worthless compared to our Hero Kings I'm not seeing that.

Click to shrink...

Part of the problem is that Alyx is just better than most people. Geniuses are a big deal when the game is over a period of centuries, and compared to Alyx, the current king just isn't his match. Had Alyx been good or fair for admin/diplo, then the king likely would have a lot more to teach him, but Alyx is exceptional even in those skills.

The king is almost certainly competent, and if I failed to show that he knew what he was doing, that was my mistake. But I'm not sure if I see where I made the current king out to be useless.

Note that Alyx fails to see why the king can't just delay the Great Hall for a few more years to free up the resources he needs for the HK war, even though Alyx is part of the Patrician class and has access to all of the resources of both his family and the position of Heir.

The king, on the other hand, has already realized that the Patricians won't be denied this, and has taken that into account. He has also realized how important this current war is, and has tried to find the resources to send the levies out for a bit longer. He failed to get those resources, but it was not from a lack of effort or talent, and Alyx is no more able to find those resources either.

Your thing seems to be that you don't like to see our average king, a group of people who are noted to be well above average as rulers in most aspects, treated as though they can't effect change as much as a hero character. The problem with that is that heroes and geniuses are special because they are the rare kind of people who can create solutions where anyone else can't see one.

Heroes and Geniuses are innovators. They figure out how to do things that should be impossible. That's their thing.

Also, the current king is a stone to be stepped on, tbh. A thousand years from now, how many people will remember the name of the king who ruled before Alyx? It might be noted somewhere, but he just didn't do anything comparable to Alyx.

We, as a thread, see the long-term view. We especially note the Heroes that rise up, do great things, and then die. But we also see the great things that occur without them as well. For every Alyx, we praise the work of 5 unnamed inventors of paper, steel, or religion.

If I asked you who irl invented paper, or which emperor was in power at that time, I find it unlikely you could give me an answer without looking it up. If I asked you to name the greatest conqueror or ruler, you could name me half a dozen people, at the least.

The normal kings do great things, and we know it. But the heroes are the ones that capture the imagination. Our current king has to have realized by this point that Alyx will be something else. The king knows that Alyx will sear his name into the history books, but he can also pity Alyx, since success is not always a good thing, nor does it guarentee that you will have a good end.

 

[PrimalShadow]

Agriculture x3

Gaining 12 Econ, -12 EE, and -6 Tech per turn hurts, but it's necessary. It's about as good as a [Main] Expand Econ action every turn. That means that we can reassign that to something else. The easiest is obviously Expand Forests as our PSN action choice, but having an additional Main action each turn is extremely helpful.

Click to shrink...

Three passives is worth more than a Main Expand Econ. We could get the Main Expand Econ by setting a Secondary on Repeating, which means you are comparing three passive policies vs an extra action. I think its moderately clear that the former is more valuable, though ping me if you don't believe it and we can discuss.

 

[ThrawnCA]

I'm opposed. Given current mechanics, I would rather make it a King action, and use the Yeoman action on Expand Economy or Build Roads or something that has a significant cost component.

Click to shrink...

The biggest cost of roads is the Cent increase, though, and that is technically not a cost, so it probably won't be halved.

The Wealth cost of roads is the same for secondary or main, so no savings there.

It will save 2 Econ, which is nice, but that's all.

Repeating yeomen forests, OTOH, will change it from +1 Econ, neutral Econ Expansion, to +2 Econ, +1 Econ Expansion. No downsides of taking the action every turn, faction bonus is just as good as roads.

Isn't it safer for repeating actions to be completely stat-positive?

 

[PrimalShadow]

The biggest cost of roads is the Cent increase, though, and that is technically not a cost, so it probably won't be halved.

The Wealth cost of roads is the same for secondary or main, so no savings there.

It will save 2 Econ, which is nice, but that's all.

Repeating yeomen forests, OTOH, will change it from +1 Econ, neutral Econ Expansion, to +2 Econ, +1 Econ Expansion. No downsides of taking the action every turn, faction bonus is just as good as roads.

Click to shrink...

Hmm. I suppose Roads aren't the best option, either.

I guess I'll just go with my first thought, which was Expand Economy. That is something we want on automatic anyways, and using a faction slot for it saves us half the tech cost. It makes sense to do right now.

 

[ThrawnCA]

I guess I'll just go with my first thought, which was Expand Economy. That is something we want on automatic anyways, and using a faction slot for it saves us half the tech cost. It makes sense to do right now.

Click to shrink...

Except that we now have a feasible replacement that won't explode faction power, in the form of iron-boosted agricultural passive policies. At this point they're fully tech-refunded, and we'll have a lot of passives.

And with a forest repeated action (which someone will need to do, either us or the yeomen), we would gain further Econ each turn. Between the two, Expand Econ would become less necessary. Not necessary enough to be worth the Yeomen overgrowth, anyway.

 

[PrimalShadow]

And with a forest repeated action, we would gain further Econ each turn. Between the two, Expand Econ would become less necessary.

Click to shrink...

Um. No.

A repeated forest action gets us a small enough amount of econ to be entirely insignificant. Even as a faction action, it is only, what, 2 Econ a turn? That is NOTHING when compared to options like Expand Econ which would bring in 14 Econ a turn.

Except that we now have a feasible replacement that won't explode faction power, in the form of iron-boosted agricultural passive policies. At this point they're fully tech-refunded, and we'll have a lot of passives.

Click to shrink...

If you want a replacement that doesn't explode faction power, take Expand Economy as a Player Repeated Action instead of as a Yeomen repeated action. It means we are giving up a secondary, true - but the alternative would be to set three passive policies to the task. Unless you believe that three policies is worth less than a single secondary?

And once you've set Expand Economy as a Player Repeated Action, it is silly to set Expand Forests as a Faction Repeated Action, because swapping the two gets you something like 3 Tech in exchange for 1 Econ and 1 LTE per turn. I think we all agree that as a general rule, Tech is more valuable than either Econ or LTE, correct? In that case, the tradeoff leans heavily in favor of choosing to make Expand Economy the repeated action.

 

[notgreat]

Except that we now have a feasible replacement that won't explode faction power, in the form of iron-boosted agricultural passive policies. At this point they're fully tech-refunded, and we'll have a lot of passives.

Click to shrink...

This is doubly false.
With the new Ironworks level 3 being built, Agriculture/City Support is going to -2 Tech, which isn't refunded.
More importantly though, is that passives get added into income. Refunds only apply once to all of our income, no matter how many separate things make up that income. As such, even the first passive isn't fully refunded, and any further ones don't get any refund at all.

 

[Redium]

Three passives is worth more than a Main Expand Econ. We could get the Main Expand Econ by setting a Secondary on Repeating, which means you are comparing three passive policies vs an extra action. I think its moderately clear that the former is more valuable, though ping me if you don't believe it and we can discuss.

Click to shrink...

I believe that AN's said that he's going to be balancing repeated actions by requiring that they be paired with a Passive Policy...

Also, I think I have figured out how to balance Repeated Actions based on Faction actions. Instead of Double Main strength for Repeated Faction actions, they will remain Main Strength but only have Secondary Cost. I think Repeated actions will also require a Passive Policy slot to be tied up as well.

Click to shrink...

Thank you search function.

The question then becomes is a Secondary action + a Passive Policy worth more than 3 Passive Policies? I know you have it calculated out how much each policy is worth and some of them (Defense, Infrastructure, Skulduggery) are equal to or worth more than a Secondary action on their own. Even then, a repeated Expand Econ is better than three passive policies stat wise: +14 Econ, -14 EE, -3 Tech versus +12 Econ, -12 EE, -6 Tech. (Note: I assume that the EE cost is double for Expand Econ even though by RAW, it shouldn't be as a cost. Doing that lies infinite LTE and madness. Although, giving us too much LTE could be a huge complication all on its own.)

The thing is, having an extra action each turn does a lot for our flexibility. Passive policies are basically set and forget; have we ever changed a passive policy deliberately? We don't ever really need to lean on them in order to get things done in the moment-to-moment. All passive policies do good work getting stuff done, but when we have a need to solve now that's the time for actions and we always need to get stuff done now. We're looking to have 4 Secondary actions +1 Secondary/True City (likely 1, sometimes 2) after government reform. Even if we have 5-6 actions every turn, that has to solve our ongoing problems, service Faction quests, and cover repeated actions for Roads, Forests and other wonderful things (Watch Towers, Black Soil, Theaters/Gymnasiums, etc.).

Those actions are going to be super tight where policies aren't really.

Repeating yeomen forests, OTOH, will change it from +1 Econ, neutral Econ Expansion, to +2 Econ, +1 Econ Expansion. No downsides of taking the action every turn, faction bonus is just as good as roads.

Click to shrink...

I guess I'll just go with my first thought, which was Expand Economy. That is something we want on automatic anyways, and using a faction slot for it saves us half the tech cost. It makes sense to do right now.

Click to shrink...

The issue is: repeated Faction actions may not be all that great. Using them gives Factions a lot of extra power. Depending on how much it gives them, we may not be able to really have them on for more than a few turns without ballooning a faction's power all out of control. That won't do healthy things for our society. Even if we found something that we could put on repeat for all of our factions, it will massively empower them and then cause them to start stealing our actions all the time. It really depends on how much Faction power it gives per turn.

@Academia Nut how much Faction Power are you thinking that Repeated Faction Actions will give factions?

 

[Academia Nut]

how much Faction Power are you thinking that Repeated Faction Actions will give factions?

Click to shrink...

1 per turn active, but I am going to be making their power more finely delineated. So their scores will all double from what they are now, but each point will only represent half the power they do now. When I cut down on the turn lengths I will probably do that again.

 

[PrimalShadow]

I believe that AN's said that he's going to be balancing repeated actions by requiring that they be paired with a Passive Policy...

Thank you search function.

Click to shrink...

That is for Repeated Faction Actions as far as I can tell.

The issue is: repeated Faction actions may not be all that great. Using them gives Factions a lot of extra power. Depending on how much it gives them, we may not be able to really have them on for more than a few turns without ballooning a faction's power all out of control. That won't do healthy things for our society. Even if we found something that we could put on repeat for all of our factions, it will massively empower them and then cause them to start stealing our actions all the time. It really depends on how much Faction power it gives per turn.

Click to shrink...

That is fine, but in that case we shouldn't be setting Expand Forest as a faction action. *shrugs*.

 

[ExNihilo]

1 per turn active, but I am going to be making their power more finely delineated. So their scores will all double from what they are now, but each point will only represent half the power they do now. When I cut down on the turn lengths I will probably do that again.

Click to shrink...

Will this come with a change in faction abilities? Not sure we can handle that much RA, for instance, but the legit cap up would be nice.

 

[George]

Will this come with a change in faction abilities? Not sure we can handle that much RA, for instance, but the legit cap up would be nice.

Click to shrink...

I would think it definitely will change those so that their end effect is the same.

 

[ThrawnCA]

With the new Ironworks level 3 being built, Agriculture/City Support is going to -2 Tech, which isn't refunded.

Click to shrink...

Ah, my mistake - once the ironworks is complete. I was only looking at the current level. However, the ironworks will also provide a Tech drip, yes? And increase the effectiveness of the policy.

More importantly though, is that passives get added into income. Refunds only apply once to all of our income, no matter how many separate things make up that income. As such, even the first passive isn't fully refunded, and any further ones don't get any refund at all.

Click to shrink...

Didn't realise that. However, even just one policy plus repeated faction forestry would yield +5 Econ, including +3 LTE.

And since we want roads, we will certainly be taking PSN actions. So we'll get extra Econ there.

We'll definitely still want Expand Econ, but I think that with passive income, it could move to "as needed" rather than "every turn".

Also, repeated Expand Econ could plausibly cause problems in a situation where Econ Expansion slots are low (eg due to cash crops). Whereas repeated Forestry could only be problematic if we don't want to gain LTE, which would basically mean "Econ is maxed and slots are about to pop our cities." Which is pretty rare; we normally only threaten our cities by spending most of it.

 

[Marlin]

Part of the problem is that Alyx is just better than most people. Geniuses are a big deal when the game is over a period of centuries, and compared to Alyx, the current king just isn't his match. Had Alyx been good or fair for admin/diplo, then the king likely would have a lot more to teach him, but Alyx is exceptional even in those skills.

The king is almost certainly competent, and if I failed to show that he knew what he was doing, that was my mistake. But I'm not sure if I see where I made the current king out to be useless.

Note that Alyx fails to see why the king can't just delay the Great Hall for a few more years to free up the resources he needs for the HK war, even though Alyx is part of the Patrician class and has access to all of the resources of both his family and the position of Heir.

The king, on the other hand, has already realized that the Patricians won't be denied this, and has taken that into account. He has also realized how important this current war is, and has tried to find the resources to send the levies out for a bit longer. He failed to get those resources, but it was not from a lack of effort or talent, and Alyx is no more able to find those resources either.

Your thing seems to be that you don't like to see our average king, a group of people who are noted to be well above average as rulers in most aspects, treated as though they can't effect change as much as a hero character. The problem with that is that heroes and geniuses are special because they are the rare kind of people who can create solutions where anyone else can't see one.

Heroes and Geniuses are innovators. They figure out how to do things that should be impossible. That's their thing.

Also, the current king is a stone to be stepped on, tbh. A thousand years from now, how many people will remember the name of the king who ruled before Alyx? It might be noted somewhere, but he just didn't do anything comparable to Alyx.

We, as a thread, see the long-term view. We especially note the Heroes that rise up, do great things, and then die. But we also see the great things that occur without them as well. For every Alyx, we praise the work of 5 unnamed inventors of paper, steel, or religion.

If I asked you who irl invented paper, or which emperor was in power at that time, I find it unlikely you could give me an answer without looking it up. If I asked you to name the greatest conqueror or ruler, you could name me half a dozen people, at the least.

The normal kings do great things, and we know it. But the heroes are the ones that capture the imagination. Our current king has to have realized by this point that Alyx will be something else. The king knows that Alyx will sear his name into the history books, but he can also pity Alyx, since success is not always a good thing, nor does it guarentee that you will have a good end.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, what I disliked was the whole Yes!man nature of the King you wrote. The King is mildly competent, but you didn't have this King worried about the flaws the heir might exhibit, or any flaws that might exist in Alyx. Just a mostly sunny nature of Alyx without any hint, or explanation for why, that maybe Alyx would screw up.

There is a strong difference between the belief that the world will end, and a logical foundation for the belief that the world called Earth will eventually die.

You have multiple sentences of the King praising Alyx, and one brief phrase condemning Alyx.

He would go on to do great things, you knew that for a fact, but it's likely he would chafe under the restraints of the crown as well.

Click to shrink...

How does this King see Alyx chafing under the pressure of the Crown when moments before that same King was praising Alyx for being a better diplomat, and admin than the current King? We were given nothing about the personality of Alyx the King had. Just, Forum thoughts from the Story-Thread. No mention of Alyx's off the battle field personality. Any attempt the King might make at working to change something about Alyx. You wrote that Alyx's personality is pretty much perfect in the eyes of the current King then went ahead and wrote, 'oh, but Alyx isn't perfect, and will possibly screw up if he believes he can do anything with the crown'. Where did this come from? It just jumps out of nowhere from a loyal Yes!man to a suspicious coward about to enter retirement.

 

[Wiadi]

You wrote that Alyx's personality is pretty much perfect in the eyes of the current King then went ahead and wrote, 'oh, but Alyx isn't perfect, and will possibly screw up if he believes he can do anything with the crown'. Where did this come from? It just jumps out of nowhere from a loyal Yes!man to a suspicious coward about to enter retirement.

Click to shrink...

That's not what the sentence is saying at all. "Chafe under the restraints of the crown" means that he will likely find it frustrating and burdensome having to deal with things like, for example, the Patricians' insistence on having their Great Hall Annex now and damn the consequences. Which is reasonable enough and lines up with Alyx's frustrations with said Patricians' short-sighted self-interest as detailed earlier in the story.

There's nothing about "screwing up if he believes he can do anything" in there, and I'm not sure where you're getting it from. It's just a further elaboration of the point that those well-suited for kingship would often rather not have it.

 

[Raichu1972]

Yeah, what I disliked was the whole Yes!man nature of the King you wrote. The King is mildly competent, but you didn't have this King worried about the flaws the heir might exhibit, or any flaws that might exist in Alyx. Just a mostly sunny nature of Alyx without any hint, or explanation for why, that maybe Alyx would screw up.

There is a strong difference between the belief that the world will end, and a logical foundation for the belief that the world called Earth will eventually die.

You have multiple sentences of the King praising Alyx, and one brief phrase condemning Alyx.

How does this King see Alyx chafing under the pressure of the Crown when moments before that same King was praising Alyx for being a better diplomat, and admin than the current King? We were given nothing about the personality of Alyx the King had. Just, Forum thoughts from the Story-Thread. No mention of Alyx's off the battle field personality. Any attempt the King might make at working to change something about Alyx. You wrote that Alyx's personality is pretty much perfect in the eyes of the current King then went ahead and wrote, 'oh, but Alyx isn't perfect, and will possibly screw up if he believes he can do anything with the crown'. Where did this come from? It just jumps out of nowhere from a loyal Yes!man to a suspicious coward about to enter retirement.

Click to shrink...

I'm pretty sure you're reading into things that weren't presented.
Stating that Alyx would chafe under the restrictions of the Crown is meant to call back to the growing power of the Patricians, and the fact that Alyx won't have the essentially free reign he was given as War Chief on the battlefield, and will instead have to take into account the needs and desires of the Patricians, even if what they are doing isn't the most optimal or necessary.

The King also likely wasn't suspicious of Alyx and what flaws he might have because he likely already personally knows Alyx, having named him his heir, and Alyx has already proved himself through his amazing campaigns against the Forhuch and the Nomads.

Also, I can only really speak for myself, but the reason @Citino likely based most of it off "Forum thoughts" is because that's all we really have to go off of. AN mentioned that Alyx is very dutiful, and persuasive on the battlefield, but we don't know anything else about him.

 

[Marlin]

I'm pretty sure you're reading into things that weren't presented.
Stating that Alyx would chafe under the restrictions of the Crown is meant to call back to the growing power of the Patricians, and the fact that Alyx won't have the essentially free reign he was given as War Chief on the battlefield, and will instead have to take into account the needs and desires of the Patricians, even if what they are doing isn't the most optimal or necessary.

The King also likely wasn't suspicious of Alyx and what flaws he might have because he likely already personally knows Alyx, having named him his heir, and Alyx has already proved himself through his amazing campaigns against the Forhuch and the Nomads.

Also, I can only really speak for myself, but the reason @Citino likely based most of it off "Forum thoughts" is because that's all we really have to go off of. AN mentioned that Alyx is very dutiful, and persuasive on the battlefield, but we don't know anything else about him.

Click to shrink...

Except the whole chafing under the Crown meant to only call back to the growing power of the Patricians wasn't completely obvious to me. I'm not used to that expression referring to such a narrow field of possibility, or the idea that the King, after glorifying the Hero, has the ability to fear that the Patricians will run rings around the Hero. If the Patricians, and multiple groups worked together, maybe that would make sense, but that would mean civil-war as multiple factions fight against the power of the King.

The normal kings do great things, and we know it. But the heroes are the ones that capture the imagination. Our current king has to have realized by this point that Alyx will be something else. The king knows that Alyx will sear his name into the history books, but he can also pity Alyx, since success is not always a good thing, nor does it guarentee that you will have a good end.

Click to shrink...

This is what led me to believe that Citino was pushing two different impressions the King had of Alyx into the omake.

 

[PrimalShadow]

Also, repeated Expand Econ could plausibly cause problems in a situation where Econ Expansion slots are low (eg due to cash crops).

Click to shrink...

We would have Expand Econ paying off right after we spend a bunch of Econ in the main turn, so unless Expand Econ produces more than we spend in a turn plus what we can cover in terms of overflow, the issue shouldn't come up.