ThrawnCA
Carbon-based biped
- Location
- Australia
Er... What we would induce is probably not a baby boom, but a golden age. Which is good too.
Paths of Civilization
- Thread starter Academia Nut
- Start date
- Original
BungieONI
Seven gremlins in a trench coat
- Location
- Lickwidget
- Pronouns
- She/Her
If Expand Econ is affected by the "main effects, secondary costs" then taking it as a faction repeated action means that for one level 3 Ironwork it would do +7 Econ, -7 Expansion, -1 or -2 Tech cost depending on how he wants to round it.(I doubt expansion numbers would be affected unless this represents a really big jump in land use efficiency but if they are, just adjust them in half in your head) That is better than the Agriculture passive at the same point which will do +5 Econ, -5 Expansion, -2 Tech though it obviously costs one of our secondaries. If we have three level 3's then Expand Econ does +13 Econ, -13 Expansion, -4 or -5 Tech. Agriculture at that point does +13 Econ, -13 Expansion, -6 Tech. With four its Expand Econ giving +16 Econ, -16 Expansion, -6 Tech and Agriculture is +17 Econ, -17 Expansion, -8 Tech.
The main cost difference here is that the faction repeated Expand Econ costs whatever a faction repeated action does(I can't remember offhand except for increasing faction power per turn) while an Agriculture costs one secondary to initiate and depending on the number of level 3 ironworks we have it may cost us more tech in the long run.
Hooo whoops, yep that was a boo boo you are correct about the net stats.
Yeah that was where I was going with that particular paragraph. At some point post multiple high level Ironworks agriculture should be better. I'm really really inclined to make sure they build tall with these things.
fictionfan
Please sir, may I have some Meows?
- Location
- Tempe, AZ
So I will have your support?
ExNihilo
SPACE!
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yeah, I think the secondary costs/main effects is only if we pair it with a policy and give it to a faction, which greatly increases their power. So not always bad, but definitely something to think about.
ThrawnCA
Carbon-based biped
- Location
- Australia
All true, and I agree that the future belongs ultimately to the passive policies. However:
- That's a lot of ironworks we still have to build.
- You're using up a lot of policies that could have been used elsewhere, eg for Tech drips. Remember, some uses of policies are better than secondary actions.
- Even when the policies start providing more Econ, they're costing more Tech.
- Faction actions are always main, so double all your Expand Econ numbers.
Last edited:
fictionfan
Please sir, may I have some Meows?
- Location
- Tempe, AZ
Better then doing a repeated expand economy would be to up our stability and start a baby boom. Then do repeat expand forrest to keep that going.
BungieONI
Seven gremlins in a trench coat
- Location
- Lickwidget
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Yeah besides that, its kinda a weird action was also my point. I'm kinda thinking it may not be eligible for the secondary costs/main effects thing since as far as I recall the other actions which are only secondaries, the extended projects, are not eligible.
Yeah it is, I'm totally fine with using Expand Econ while we build them in time. The point was simply that it will be phased out.
One policy for agriculture vs one policy we have to donate to get Expand Econ going. Unless you are also including the policies already in place which built the Ironworks?
Oh hmm so I did.
In that case it would be this:
If we have three level 3's then Expand Econ does +26 Econ, -26 Expansion, -9 Tech. Agriculture at that point does +13 Econ, -13 Expansion, -6 Tech. With four its Expand Econ giving +32 Econ, -32 Expansion, -12 Tech and Agriculture is +17 Econ, -17 Expansion, -8 Tech.
Since they are main I have to increase both the Econ and Tech costs. Which changes things around a bit.
ThrawnCA
Carbon-based biped
- Location
- Australia
For more Stability? Upgrading the gilded age so we stop bleeding Econ to the Storm Ymaryn? Sure. Might not need to go all-out, depending on how well RoO rolled.
fictionfan
Please sir, may I have some Meows?
- Location
- Tempe, AZ
I want to try and get more than one stability. In fact going to go for as much as possible.
If we get extra lucky we'll be at 3/3 stability. More likely we'll be at 2/3 or 1/3, but there is hope.
Unfortunately I doubt we'll be able to fit in a PG during the midturn since IMO getting the cities online and refilling our stats from the GA's drain will be more important.
Currently, Expand Econ is +5 stats, increasing by 1 for every two GPs. Agriculture policy is becoming +3, increasing by 1 every Ironworks 2+. Assuming we get one more GP sometime soon, we need 3 more Ironworks 2+ before they become comparable. Note that either way we will be having significant tech problems by that point, hopefully we find a solution before then. If not, we'll be surviving purely via overflow into tech even moreso than we already are.
ThrawnCA
Carbon-based biped
- Location
- Australia
I think you missed a point: we were talking about repeated yeomen Expand Econ, which has main effect but secondary (ie half) costs. Which would currently be +11 stats, increasing to +12 with the level 3 ironworks.
Edit: Note that this is approximately equivalent to a main Expand Econ + agriculture passive, the difference being that we ensure the yeomen will do what we expect instead of whatever they feel like. And we owe them a favor.
Last edited:
BungieONI
Seven gremlins in a trench coat
- Location
- Lickwidget
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Well that's if you stick to level 2's. Level 3's you need fewer which makes it somewhat easier to finagle actually having the cities for it. Tech cost is still ehh though, you basically need to pick one and do that.
Is there a WoAN somewhere that I missed which confirmed we can actually do this, beyond the Yeomen Tag being there?
I was specifically referring to the passive agriculture vs. normal Expand Econ. Repeated actions are still unconfirmed mechanics and subject to change at any time, I don't want to start matching them out until we know for certain how they're going to work.
My terminology was somewhat unclear, but when I said 2+ I meant any Ironworks greater than or equal to an Ironworks 2. Building an Ironworks 4 requires first building all the levels below it, meaning it would count 3 times there.
ThrawnCA
Carbon-based biped
- Location
- Australia
Actually that's probably enough, since faction actions are exclusively mains. And extended projects are kind of a special case, since it doesn't really make sense to put them on repeat, but main Expand Econ is perfectly ordinary.
Otherwise I'm just working from this.
BungieONI
Seven gremlins in a trench coat
- Location
- Lickwidget
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Ja okay, thanks. And yeah. Also requires, for a level 4 in particular, for us to have basically built a warpgate to hell even with our cleanliness techs.
It seems ordinary, but one of the run on effects is that we will be more likely to refuse to go for passive policies(and rightly so) which seems to run counter to AN's stated goal of shifting us away from active actions to passive policies. Seems like something he might nix.
ThrawnCA
Carbon-based biped
- Location
- Australia
I think he'll allow it, but remember that it will make the yeomen stronk. Once the agriculture policies have a few more boosts, using them will be less problematic even if it's not more mechanically effective.
Edit: And in your earlier maths, it would have been fair to compare a repeated faction Expand Econ to two passive policies, since repeating an action consumes one.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Plans to update tonight were derailed by unanticipated factors.
To prepare you all ahead of time, upcoming concerns will be how to deal with your mines being noncompetitive with foreign mines, how to address all of the men who were levied and are returning home to disrupted lives, and how much to press the Highlanders in the east - the west has not been able to crack their defensive positions, while in the east they have been unable to hold the field and are retreating to their fortifications.
To prepare you all ahead of time, upcoming concerns will be how to deal with your mines being noncompetitive with foreign mines, how to address all of the men who were levied and are returning home to disrupted lives, and how much to press the Highlanders in the east - the west has not been able to crack their defensive positions, while in the east they have been unable to hold the field and are retreating to their fortifications.
fictionfan
Please sir, may I have some Meows?
- Location
- Tempe, AZ
[mines]Buy the foreign ore, but Subsidize one mine to make sure we don't lose the skills.
[Men coming back] There is always more work to do. Also give them favored status in the games. It is the priests job to deal with PSTD.
[Highlanders] Make better siege weapons
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
Hmm
On the competitiveness of the Mines, we could just rely solely on foreign imports from SY and Freehills, but that would of course end up fucking us over whenever there is a large enough trade disruption, as well as pissing off the priests by benefiting from tons of slave labor.
We could stop importing iron, forcing us to rely on our own Iron mines, likely negatively affecting the Ironworks and making them more expensive, as well as being forced to take a ton of survey actions to get a shit ton of mines up and operational.
We could also maybe make import tariffs, in order to increase the competitiveness of Ymaryn iron, but it would also really piss off the Traders and Guilds by getting rid of their cheap iron.
Retraining actions should help acclimate some of the people returning home, hopefully, or possibly pacifying them with actions such as theaters or festivals to keep them entertained and not trying to put their martial experience to use.
I would personally trust whatever Alyx's decision is on the HK, but I want to at least push them past the passes, so we can have a fortified position to defend from, as well as pushing them entirely from the Lowlands if we can.
On the competitiveness of the Mines, we could just rely solely on foreign imports from SY and Freehills, but that would of course end up fucking us over whenever there is a large enough trade disruption, as well as pissing off the priests by benefiting from tons of slave labor.
We could stop importing iron, forcing us to rely on our own Iron mines, likely negatively affecting the Ironworks and making them more expensive, as well as being forced to take a ton of survey actions to get a shit ton of mines up and operational.
We could also maybe make import tariffs, in order to increase the competitiveness of Ymaryn iron, but it would also really piss off the Traders and Guilds by getting rid of their cheap iron.
Retraining actions should help acclimate some of the people returning home, hopefully, or possibly pacifying them with actions such as theaters or festivals to keep them entertained and not trying to put their martial experience to use.
I would personally trust whatever Alyx's decision is on the HK, but I want to at least push them past the passes, so we can have a fortified position to defend from, as well as pushing them entirely from the Lowlands if we can.
ThrawnCA
Carbon-based biped
- Location
- Australia
Ah, slavery at work... anyone know if we have feasible mechanisation to help here, or do we just start importing ore?
Will have to see whether they need purpose and work, or comfort and relaxation.
I'm in favor of setting them back further than where they started, to discourage a repeat, but we don't need to entirely take over. As a bonus, the east is where we can make a show of force to the Harmurri.
BungieONI
Seven gremlins in a trench coat
- Location
- Lickwidget
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Yeah that's definitely a thing.
So assuming it is a thing, and so that we are all on the same page, part of the costing is going to be:
One secondary action and one policy slot for activating one Agriculture(plus another policy slot for some other passive since I think we assign two per secondary), if we don't select it as a non-action reaction.
One secondary action slot and one of our policy slots to maintain the Repeated Expand Econ, based on that post you have. Additionally Yeomen power increases at +1/turn.
Assuming that we are at a point where Agriculture is at parity with an Expand Econ Secondary. Three level 3's then Expand Econ does +26 Econ, -26 Expansion, -9 Tech. Agriculture at that point does +13 Econ, -13 Expansion, -6 Tech. We are gaining +3(+1) Tech/turn with Agriculture and +3(+2) Tech/turn for Expand Econ I think. Cities to run this require -12 Econ per turn all together, assuming we put all of the ironworks in Free Cities. Expand Econ does not count as part of the [] income calc since it is a repeated action, unless AN changes that. Agriculture does count as part of our [] income. To run the cities we will likely need one City Support, get to that in a bit.
In the Expand Econ form you have 26-12(required amount to support the cities) +5(Vassals) = +19 Econ per turn for -9 +3 +(+2) = -6(+2) Tech per turn.
In the Agriculture form where we don't take Expand Econ, 13-12 = +1, unless we take City Support. If we take Agriculture and City Support that is two policies, and we have 13 +5(Vassals) -12(City Maintenance) +14(City Support)= +18 Econ for -12 +3(+1) = -9(+1) Tech.
I think the big things Agriculture has over a Main Effects/Secondary costs Yeoman Repeated Expand Econ is that it doesn't increase their power, doesn't risk city shenanigans with income even slightly, and doesn't require us to donate a secondary to the Repeated Action Gods(which are now totally a thing, a sub section of Crow Itself
).As expected, we couldn't take western fortifications, so let's just fight until we kicked them out of the lowlands.
Also, @Academia Nut, did mill spam end up getting us anything interesting?
Also, @Academia Nut, did mill spam end up getting us anything interesting?
Last edited:
ThrawnCA
Carbon-based biped
- Location
- Australia
Agreed, though note that we would be donating one of the faction secondaries, not the king ones.
BungieONI
Seven gremlins in a trench coat
- Location
- Lickwidget
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Which is its own kind of problem since we want them to be doing things like Forests and Roads and Towers and New Settlements and the Plant actions too and they won't really have very many actions, fewer than we will in fact I'm pretty sure, if the hypothetical scenario where this is happening is under normal operations where we have 7ish cities up.
E: In fact my preference would be for them to do Forests and Roads and Settlements for EE and Trees and Plant Actions for bonkers wealth.
ThrawnCA
Carbon-based biped
- Location
- Australia
Indeed. So long as they are behaving themselves and using their actions and passive policies sensibly, we don't gain anything significant by repeating actions.