Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Legion0047 said:
The feudalistic furry nutcase, umi, veeki , oni and a few others are the regulars i remember and max and umi have some preety extreme views if i remember.
i am kinda out of the loop.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

> Bungie
> extreme views
Now that's something weird. I do not think I've ever heard them having extreme views.

HeWhoAdds said:
That was the impression I got. I think the new action formula is 4 Secondaries + 1/Non-Free TC.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

*looks at UP quest*
*looks at the glorious possibe action bloat of 6+ TCs*

Let's hope AN does not do this, because if he does action bloat will only get worse because we can maintain 6 TCs for grand total of 10 Secondaries or so per turn.
 
ctulhuslp said:
You forgot forests.
Unless you plan on using Forestries for it, but it'd probably drive some people here apoplectic :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Absolutely I would put it into our passives rather than dedicating an action to it especially now that we have paper. If we have a passive gathering vital resources for us than we should be using them. If we had passives for the three actions I listed I would be arguing to use them instead.
HeWhoAdds said:
I actually hadn't thought about repeated Docks, but that's an excellent idea. It's an extremely cheap action, and we do need to improve our connectivity in the Black Sea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yup and occasionally raising our naval stat as well.
 
If we can get actions from non-true true cities than we are failing that Urban Poor quest.
 
Last edited:
ctulhuslp said:
Let's hope AN does not do this, because if he does action bloat will only get worse because we can maintain 6 TCs for grand total of 10 Secondaries or so per turn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, it's looking like half of them will be repeated actions(roads, forests, docks, watchtowers, potentially something else), which should help a great deal
 
ctulhuslp said:
Yes, it's pretty decent idea and is basically a naval equivalent of repeated roads.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The big gap between the mechanical effect of docks and what their narrative effects should be makes it problematic for me to vote for them. Currently, the only thing they seem to effect is external relations, when the biggest effect they should have is on the interconnectivity of the core and connectivity to the overseas colonies, leading to improved government and more internal trade.

I've mentioned this more than once, but Greenshore and Tinriver should be closer in real terms to the core's coastal cities than the most interior bits of the core, just as Rome was effectively closer to Carthage, Alexandria and Barcino (Barcelona) than it was to Helvetia (Switzerland), despite Rome having famously good roads and the latter being much closer in terms of distance.
 
Alratan said:
The big gap between the mechanical effect of docks and what their narrative effects should be makes it problematic for me to vote for them. Currently, the only thing they seem to effect is external relations, when the biggest effect they should have is on the interconnectivity of the core and connectivity to the overseas colonies, leading to improved government and more internal trade.

I've mentioned this more than once, but Greenshore and Tinriver should be closer in real terms to the core's coastal cities than the most interior bits of the core, just as Rome was effectively closer to Carthage, Alexandria and Barcino (Barcelona) than it was to Helvetia
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And yet Italy, not Med coast, was considered Imperial Core.
 
Legion0047 said:
the passive policy that plants trees
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh. I'm perfectly fine with more forests however we can get them.
It IS definitely a waste, yes. We might as well just do infrastructure or vassal support passive policies and have a recurrent EF action, instead. It's less targeted than a straight-up mill/library action, of course, but I am of the opinion that it's more stable to do things in a broader way than a fast race.

Y-you dislike me? :cry:
 
Last edited:
ctulhuslp said:
And yet Italy, not Med coast, was considered Imperial Core.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes. Italy is a giant peninsula that you can sail all the way around, making all the coastal cities even closer than the places I named. Funny that.

Edit: Also, much of the Med coast was considered core. Look at my map in a later post.
 
Last edited:
Alratan said:
The big gap between the mechanical effect of docks and what their narrative effects should be makes it problematic for me to vote for them. Currently, the only thing they seem to effect is external relations, when the biggest effect they should have is on the interconnectivity of the core and connectivity to the overseas colonies, leading to improved government and more internal trade.

I've mentioned this more than once, but Greenshore and Tinriver should be closer in real terms to the core's coastal cities than the most interior bits of the core, just as Rome was effectively closer to Carthage, Alexandria and Barcino (Barcelona) than it was to Helvetia (Switzerland), despite Rome having famously good roads and the latter being much closer in terms of distance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We can't exactly build road connection to Tinshore and Greenshore, so docks it is.
 
Umi-san said:
Oh. I'm perfectly fine with more forests however we can get them.
It IS definitely a waste, yes. We might as well just do infrastructure or vassal support passive policies and having a recurrent EF action.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
repeated sec should be: watchtower, expand forests, roads. passive policy should be secundary things and not important things that we never have time for.
And passives make infrastructure and walls free.
 
Honestly, I'd kinda like to do both a repeating Expand Forest action (or two), AND have some Forestry policies active. I'd like to build up a significantly larger buffer of forests. We're going to need the charcoal and timber.
 
Romv said:
Don't forget about the treeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
HeWhoAdds said:
Honestly, I'd kinda like to do both a repeating Expand Forest action (or two), AND have some Forestry policies active. I'd like to build up a significantly larger buffer of forests. We're going to need the charcoal and timber.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Stretch goal: 400 forests within next 1000 years. Because as per AN at that level it will actually impede nomads all over the empire, even in Lowlands.

New turn length: 10 years. So, 100 turns.
We need ~360 more forests. Which means 3.6 forests per turn. Let's make it ~4 fpt.
It means either 8 forestry passives, 4 repeated forestries or somethig between.
 
Legion0047 said:
repeated sec should be: watchtower, expand forests, roads. passive policy should be secundary things and not important things that we never have time for.
And passives make infrastructure and walls free.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As long as a single sec -> main produces enough forests to cover our costs that's fine.
I would agree with whatever that plan someone else had to do a recsec mills, but idr if mills costs wood or not.

The only two passive policies I feel we need to emphasize are Infrastructure & Vassal Support. Like, I get that the other stat drip and city support policies are important but these are the two policies that will drag us upward and prevent the western colonies from abandoning us, #forfree.
 
Also, as a reminder, here's an example map of the Roman Empire:



The pink sections are senatorial provinces, in some ways their equivalent of the Core. Grey is a vassal. Green are regions with local governors.

Kiba said:
We can't exactly build road connection to Tinshore and Greenshore, so docks it is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But docks don't seem to do anything to help with that. We also probably can build road connections there now, as the Storm Ymaryn don't have a Yllthon Sea coast.

It would be stupid to need to, as the roads should mainly be radial from the sea down to docks, rather than centripetal around it. You should build such a road when you can afford to in case you lose control of the seas, but that's very long term thinking, and probably wrong when your main enemies are steppe nomads.
 
Last edited:
Alratan said:
The big gap between the mechanical effect of docks and what their narrative effects should be makes it problematic for me to vote for them. Currently, the only thing they seem to effect is external relations, when the biggest effect they should have is on the interconnectivity of the core and connectivity to the overseas colonies, leading to improved government and more internal trade.

I've mentioned this more than once, but Greenshore and Tinriver should be closer in real terms to the core's coastal cities than the most interior bits of the core, just as Rome was effectively closer to Carthage, Alexandria and Barcino (Barcelona) than it was to Helvetia (Switzerland), despite Rome having famously good roads and the latter being much closer in terms of distance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It takes about 3 days for Blackmouth, Greenshore, Tinriver and Trelli to reach Redshore. It takes a week to reach Valleyhome from Redshore alone so yeah your right about our coastal cities being close hence why our Western vassals told us naval power would be a flashpoint for them.
 
PrimalShadow said:
Except we can't minimize Expand Econ - it is by far our strongest stat-generator, and we need to keep it going to feed all of our other expenses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Having pondered this a bit, I'm leaning toward agreeing with you: Expand Econ should be a repeated Yeomen action.

My reasoning for this boils down to the fact that the faction discount will allow it to actually improve every time we build or upgrade an ironworks. For an action that's all about being stat-positive, that's a big deal. Looking at it another way, the faction discount would effectively give us a +1 Tech drip for every level of ironworks that exists. And we know that we'll be building a lot more ironworks.

Whereas Expand Forest produces more LTE with the faction discount, but its most important effect, +1 Sustainable Forest, doesn't gain anything from the discount. We're better off in that regard saving the passive policy for Forestry. (Does anyone know whether the passive policy slot consumed for a faction repeated action is a faction-controlled policy or a player-controlled one?) And the effect of the faction discount on Expand Forest won't be improved by any infrastructure that we know of.

In the short term, we can probably count on the Yeomen to spontaneously spam forests due to their quest. In the longer term, I think we should seriously consider doing it as a king repeated action.

TL;DR We should repeat Yeomen Expand Econ, because the faction discount will keep increasing in value as we build ironworks, and we should probably repeat King Expand Forest after the current Yeomen quest finishes.
 
Last edited:
ctulhuslp said:
Stretch goal: 400 forests within next 1000 years. Because as per AN at that level it will actually impede nomads all over the empire, even in Lowlands.

New turn length: 10 years. So, 100 turns.
We need ~360 more forests. Which means 3.6 forests per turn. Let's make it ~4 fpt.
It means either 8 forestry passives, 4 repeated forestries or somethig between.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I kinda hope that if we take enough Expand Forest actions we'll get an increase in the number of Sustainable Forests/action, as we get better at expanding and maintaining forests. We could supplement this with a few more Mills, Charcoal, and Black Soil actions to make our Terra Preta production cheaper and more mechanized.
 
ThrawnCA said:
Isn't that backward?

(Although IIUC the answer is no, we can't get actions from non-true cities; instead, the priests get an action, and the yeomen don't get an action penalty.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think he meant non-Free True Cities. In that case, we'd lose an action ourselves every time we Freed a True City (although the Urban Poor and Guilds would probably gain some.)
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top