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.

That just flatly isn't supported by the mechanics. A single faction can easily hijack actions, regardless of the administrative competence of the king. Alyx will probably be able to manage them efficiently (for instance, if he takes over a turn, I expect the action ordering will be such that the lowest-impact action is at the bottom whenever hijacking is a risk) but the fact that he'll have to do so will be irritating. It'll chafe. Doesn't mean he can't or won't handle the situation, just that he won't enjoy doing so.
 
That just flatly isn't supported by the mechanics. A single faction can easily hijack actions, regardless of the administrative competence of the king. Alyx will probably be able to manage them efficiently (for instance, if he takes over a turn, I expect the action ordering will be such that the lowest-impact action is at the bottom whenever hijacking is a risk) but the fact that he'll have to do so will be irritating. It'll chafe. Doesn't mean he can't or won't handle the situation, just that he won't enjoy doing so.
If you want to fully seize the reins, double Admin/Diplo hero would be needed...and you can bet the factions will adapt soon.
 
That just flatly isn't supported by the mechanics. A single faction can easily hijack actions, regardless of the administrative competence of the king. Alyx will probably be able to manage them efficiently (for instance, if he takes over a turn, I expect the action ordering will be such that the lowest-impact action is at the bottom whenever hijacking is a risk) but the fact that he'll have to do so will be irritating. It'll chafe. Doesn't mean he can't or won't handle the situation, just that he won't enjoy doing so.
Have we actually seen a faction hijack an action from a King that took over the turn? or had a WoAN on the topic?

Besides, though, it doesn't need mechanical support: action hijacks begin at the narrative and can be defeated at the narrative before it becomes a mechanical question. Diplomacy skill seems quite relevant there to me.
 
Have we actually seen a faction hijack an action from a King that took over the turn? or had a WoAN on the topic?

Besides, though, it doesn't need mechanical support: action hijacks begin at the narrative and can be defeated at the narrative before it becomes a mechanical question. Diplomacy skill seems quite relevant there to me.

And if Alyx were a Heroic/Genius Diplomat then I might believe he could just flatly shut the factions down. Seems improbable for a mere Excellent though, that's only one level above our average at this point.
 
Have we actually seen a faction hijack an action from a King that took over the turn? or had a WoAN on the topic?

Besides, though, it doesn't need mechanical support: action hijacks begin at the narrative and can be defeated at the narrative before it becomes a mechanical question. Diplomacy skill seems quite relevant there to me.
What? The update is for after the goverment update not now wtf
 
And if Alyx were a Heroic/Genius Diplomat then I might believe he could just flatly shut the factions down. Seems improbable for a mere Excellent though, that's only one level above our average at this point.
sure yeah, you just said 'regardless of the administrative competence of the king' which I thought you meant to extend to heroic and genius admin.
What? The update is for after the goverment update not now wtf
We're kinda talking in abstract about an omake, not about what will happen next turn...
 
sure yeah, you just said 'regardless of the administrative competence of the king' which I thought you meant to extend to heroic and genius admin.

Okay fair, that was an overstatement without the obligatory "Geniuses are bullshit (and Heroes may be close enough)" rider. Point stands in this case but in general you're (probably) right.
 
So...we know that the Yeomen dislike cities because they lose power the more people move away from farming.

But power is only a means to an end. What do they actually want it for? If every city were dissolved, and they had more power than every other faction put together, what would they then want to do? Forests? Expansion to new settlements?

If we can work out their end goal, maybe we can give them what they want without needing to wreck our cities for it.

@Academia Nut?
 
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.
As Expand Econ collects more ironworks boosts, it could happen. I agree it's unlikely at this point; just wanted to point out that the failure mode for Expand Forests is even less likely. And has less impact.

I'll run some scenarios on the forest options, see how things stack up.
 
So...we know that the Yeomen dislike cities because they lose power the more people move away from farming.

But power is only a means to an end. What do they actually want it for? If every city were dissolved, and they had more power than every other faction put together, what would they then want to do? Forests? Expansion to new settlements?

If we can work out their end goal, maybe we can give them what they want without needing to wreck our cities for it.

@Academia Nut?

I do not think power is a means to an and in the context of the faction system. The more power a faction has the more prestigious and welthy its constituent members are. The yeomen want cities to go away because it makes them more important.
 
An idle thought about factions: factions have different "class" associated with them:
2.) In the case of a tie, the higher class faction goes first

Idea of mine is to account for it when looking at their powers: so, ideally, lower class factions are a bit more powerful than higher class.
So, if, for example, our Patricians, Priests and Guilds are high class factions; Yeomen, Traders are middle class; Urban Poor are low class.

So if Patricians have 6 power, other high class factions should have approximately same power (5-7 range) and lower classes should be in 6-8 range to account for class power.

Or at least sum total of lower class powers and higher class powers should be relatively equal.
 
At all costs? We have repeatedly overextended ourselves and robbed our people of many enhancements to quality of life and basic infrastructure while mainly only advancing our forging techniques. With the Trelli weakened to a more reasonable level I am more than happy to move to a more isolationist focus and do what we do best. Shape the land.
Trelli? There aint even a trelli anymore for centuries.
 
So...we know that the Yeomen dislike cities because they lose power the more people move away from farming.

But power is only a means to an end. What do they actually want it for? If every city were dissolved, and they had more power than every other faction put together, what would they then want to do? Forests? Expansion to new settlements?

If we can work out their end goal, maybe we can give them what they want without needing to wreck our cities for it.

@Academia Nut?
The whole purpose of power is to ensure that ALL their interests can be met. Most of the uses of power happens below our visibility level, it means on the day to day level, if they want something, they generally can get it.

In the bolded case? They become Patricians, we transition to Feudalism as the power shifts away from the clerk-patricians to the rural landholder warrior-patricians.
An idle thought about factions: factions have different "class" associated with them:


Idea of mine is to account for it when looking at their powers: so, ideally, lower class factions are a bit more powerful than higher class.
So, if, for example, our Patricians, Priests and Guilds are high class factions; Yeomen, Traders are middle class; Urban Poor are low class.

So if Patricians have 6 power, other high class factions should have approximately same power (5-7 range) and lower classes should be in 6-8 range to account for class power.

Or at least sum total of lower class powers and higher class powers should be relatively equal.
Class only acts as a tiebreaker. Lower class means they must organize a group effort to enact change. Higher class means they have a lot of individual, personal power.

As such we SHOULD have the following class order:
-Patrician(Bureaucrat + Military) - Ruling class. Artificially elevated due to government system and continuity. Normally the ruling class are Warrior or Priest based who pick up bureaucracy out of necessity.
-Priest - Nominal equal to the ruling class as the spiritual class.
-Guilds - Organized production class. Artisans are individually low class, but their collective bargaining power can be substantial when represented as Masters. Artificially elevated due to our economic system, normally at a lower class.
-Yeoman(Agriculture + Military) - Rural ruling class. Has control over food production and military power beyond the state.
-Trader - Commerce class. Has power through personal wealth. Artificially lowered due to our legal system.
-Urban Poor - Organized Masses. Has power through combined effort.
-Rural Poor(Unrepresented) - Disorganized Masses. Has no power.

But noting that the order can always change, except the Urban Poor are always at the bottom.
Also noting that AN said the class divisions are not a given. As society changes new classes form or dissolve. The priests may eventually split into Intellectuals and Priests for instance, while for many smaller states the Bureaucrats aren't a class at all, much less the ruling class.
And once mass media arises the Media will become a thing.


One constant is that the ruling class generally contains the warrior elite however. Any ruling class without direct personal control over their military soon ceases to rule.
 
I'll run some scenarios on the forest options, see how things stack up.
OK, so, in the short term, my maths agrees that if we want a repeated Expand Econ, it's better for that to be our Yeomen action, rather than forests. Ironworks are piling up so much Tech cost that halving it is worth more than most other rearrangements.

Note that in the longer term, agriculture policies get better ironworks boosts, and as we keep building those, the policies will eventually surpass Expand Econ.

However, for now, I'd like to point out that with ironworks in a transitional state, basically anything with an ironworks boost is not great. We should perhaps minimize Expand Econ and prioritise forests simply because they have no Tech cost. And, of course, that will help fuel enough ironworks to get through the transition and reach a new equilibrium.
 
Some thoughts on Econ options from discussion with @PrimalShadow:

A regular Expand Econ is basically capped by our tech refund. Currently, a main is worth 9 stat points. Adding more ironworks just moves more points from Tech to Econ, which most would agree is not in our favor.

A repeated faction Expand Econ is better able to take advantage of ironworks boosts, since the tech cost grows only half as fast as the Econ boost. However, it has the associated drawbacks (occupies a passive policy slot and increases faction power). Initially, it will be worth 11 stat points, increasing soon to 12.

Agriculture policies are likewise able to properly benefit from ironworks, without the drawbacks of supporting a faction. However, they start off much weaker than a plain Expand Econ, especially with steel blooded, so they'll need a bunch more ironworks to catch up. Currently, the first is worth 3 stat points, and each additional one is worth 2. Finishing the level 3 ironworks should increase that to 4 and 3.

So, currently we use Expand Econ pretty much every phase we can. If we run two agriculture policies and repeated yeoman expand forest, that should give comparable Econ income once the level 3 ironworks finishes. As I see it, the alternative is for either Expand Forest or Expand Econ to be a repeated king action, and I think we'd rather spend two passive policies than give up a direct action.
 
Last edited:
and I think we'd rather spend two passive policies than give up a direct action.
I disagree. Our efficient passive policies are worth more than a single secondary each. Skullduggery and Infrastructure are trivially so. The former is outright a secondary action with reduced costs for the same output, a significant reduction. The latter gets 2/3 of a secondary done but for ~1 secondary worth of stats for free.

Defense passives are similarly efficient when building normal walls. Its aid in the Colossal Walls brings it a bit under the value of a secondary action.

Vassal Support seems to be efficient as well, though it's harder to prove. Influence is expensive enough that it seems like a much worse version is still quite good.

Innovation might've been efficient and might still be, but it's hard to actually accurately evaluate the costs and benefits of innovation rolls. The doubling of wealth costs hurts this policy's utility.


However, actions are unquestionably more versatile, despite some passives being stronger. Still, I'd much prefer to have two passives than one secondary action.
 
Last edited:
So, has the option of spending actions of helping the colossal walls been considered yet? Our wall passive wont operate at peak efficiency as long as these projects are going on and our free cities could also do better stuff. I am bad at the mechanics part of this quest, but I think a secondary spent on the walls will give us three additional passive policy turns in the future. Seems like a badass trade for three econ and a martial.
 
So, has the option of spending actions of helping the colossal walls been considered yet? Our wall passive wont operate at peak efficiency as long as these projects are going on and our free cities could also do better stuff. I am bad at the mechanics part of this quest, but I think a secondary spent on the walls will give us three additional passive policy turns in the future. Seems like a badass trade for three econ and a martial.

Add a manual secondary added to the price and the equation changes: actions are, as always, expensive.
 
Back
Top