Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
McLuvin said:
Ironic that those whose culture and ethnicity derive from our greatest enemy are our most loyal servants and provide us with some of the best warriors (horse archers and cavalry).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Even more ironic is that the guy that changed the Ymarin was the chief from Heavens Hawks, the best is this:

"In Phygrif's opinion, the southerners were a very odd people. They did many things that were very foolish or weak in his opinion, but they were also incredibly loyal to those they had a relationship with, and that had included his own tribe."

Of course we put a damn dent on that reputation with the Trelli stupid war (mea culpa), but the nomads look at what we do and go:
"These guys are loyal as heck to the people they consider friends, so let's accept that they roll by "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb with them"

We showed this again this last turn to the Thunder Horses, that yes, we might have fought on the past, but we are blood-brothers now, and we will go Feymood against anyone that mess with one of our vassals.
 
Travisplo said:
So much salt, sodium poisoning inevitable. Does anyone, besides MAYBE Academia actually know how to fix the issues that The People are facing? Or is everyone just flailing about, desperate for a solution, any solution, to this self-made, trapped dead end everyone has built for themselves? Is there even a solution that does not involve whatever nation-name is from splintering and sundering apart?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

TBH, "flailing about, desperate for a solution, any solution, to this self-made, trapped dead end everyone has built for themselves" is a pretty good 1-sentence summary of human history, so I'd say this is the game working as intended.
 
Kiba said:
Why do people keep saying we don't need megaproject X? There has never been a megaproject that don't pay off in the long run.

The mountain pass is CRUCIAL if we want to maintain the connectivity of the empire.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because the mountain pass does nothing for the interconnectivity of our empire.

It massively improves the strategic maneuverability of our anti-nomad armies by letting us and only us pass through the normally impassable mountains. It basically means we can outflank every single nomad attacking force. It's definitely valuable, but not for empire connectivity reasons. It doesn't help that at all.

Unless we start heavily expanding into the steppes, but I don't think that's a good idea.
 
notgreat said:
It massively improves the strategic maneuverability of our anti-nomad armies by letting us and only us pass through the normally impassable mountains. It basically means we can outflank every single nomad attacking force. It's definitely valuable, but not for empire connectivity reasons. It doesn't help that at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


It allows us to outflank some nomad hordes, the ones that attack our western colonies, if we can afford to send armies to interdict reinforcements from coming from further east. I don't see how it does much for nomads that attack our eastern possessions.
 
Alratan said:
It allows us to outflank some nomad hordes, the ones that attack our western colonies, if we can afford to send armies to interdict reinforcements from coming from further east. I don't see how it does much for nomads that attack our eastern possessions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The steppes land are much firmer ground than the lowlands area, so we can use the steppes as a highway for our troops, because every-time and again the lowlands becomes a muddy area;

At a strategic point of view, we will probably need a true city inside the Memory of Spirits spring area, because sending reinforcements down the Tcholli will become easier. Them put a Via over the steppes connecting Memory of Spirits with the Ymarin core.
 
Well, even more than an 'in the life of a Ymaryn,' update, I'd really like a map. We now have a vassal in a bit of land that isn't even on our current map.
 
HanEmpire said:
@Academia Nut has the Ymaryn writing system been adopted by anyone else? What are the other prominent writing systems in the known world?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Most of your neighbours use it. The prominent writing systems are Ymaryn and Khemetri, with various other systems descended from one or the other (or blends of the two) and adapted to local languages. There is also a mysterious system that everyone is pretty sure is writing used by peoples of the Far East, beyond the Salt Sea. No one knows what any of it says, although since they appear on various trade goods and artwork they are probably descriptors of the scenes shown or the stories that accompany them.
 
Malevolo said:
The steppes land are much firmer ground than the lowlands area, so we can use the steppes as a highway for our troops, because every-time and again the lowlands becomes a muddy area;
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The region of the steppe the pass we're opening into should be chernozem soils, which are absolutely notorious for mud. They should, if anything, be worse to travel for that alone, ignoring the fact that we won't have the advantage of marching on roads through home territory with local supplies rather than having to carry everything with you.
 
Alratan said:
The region of the steppe the pass we're opening into should be chernozem soils, which are absolutely notorious for mud. They should, if anything, be worse to travel for that alone, ignoring the fact that we won't have the advantage of marching on roads through home territory with local supplies rather than having to carry everything with you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

AN has said that the piece of Steppes we have is considered poor soil, and that we will need to unlock Terraforming to be even be able to use them, so not chernozem, and looking at the coloring, it's the same type of land as the land were we will possibly build the Triangle Canal, so it's probably clay.

About the Home Territory advantage i must concede.
 
notgreat said:
Because the mountain pass does nothing for the interconnectivity of our empire.

It massively improves the strategic maneuverability of our anti-nomad armies by letting us and only us pass through the normally impassable mountains. It basically means we can outflank every single nomad attacking force. It's definitely valuable, but not for empire connectivity reasons. It doesn't help that at all.

Unless we start heavily expanding into the steppes, but I don't think that's a good idea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

IIRC, the mountain pass does something for our connectivity and trade.
 
Kiba said:
IIRC, the mountain pass does something for our connectivity and trade.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, it will make moving around between settlements in the area easier, as they will be part of the control for the road system, and thus very much a part of it.

It would probably be completely negligible to just building roads for the same amount of effort, though it might also unlock an advanced form of road/bridge building that lets us build better roads through all of our hilly land, or just build roads better from now on after working on that absurd road based megaproject.

Of course that's how megaprojects tend to work out, opening new doors or making them better as opposed to having pure gains.

Edit: Actually, thinking about it more, this is very likely to give us a relay check point system to our roads since that would be critical to implementing this for its military based purposes to allow for fast response to the situation. So we might get that message upgrade we've been asking for forever.
 
Last edited:
bluefur87 said:
I mean, it will make moving around between settlements in the area easier, as they will be part of the control for the road system, and thus very much a part of it.

It would probably be completely negligible to just building roads for the same amount of effort, though it might also unlock an advanced form of road/bridge building that lets us build better roads through all of our hilly land, or just build roads better from now on after working on that absurd road based megaproject.

Of course that's how megaprojects tend to work out, opening new doors or making them better as opposed to having pure gains.

Edit: Actually, thinking about it more, this is very likely to give us a relay check point system to our roads since that would be critical to implementing this for its military based purposes to allow for fast response to the situation. So we might get that message upgrade we've been asking for forever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It allows the Heaven's Hawk to support the lowland south of them, and it is also another route to our core as opposed to taking the river.
 
Oshha said:
And how accurate is that article? Because at the moment, I don't see any reason to care about Wikipedia says about it since it says "However, no known historical sources support this" without giving any sources of its own for that claim.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, it's kinda hard to prove a negative. What are you gonna do, provide every historical source in existence that fails to support the claim? 'cause that'd take a while.
 
Wiadi said:
I mean, it's kinda hard to prove a negative. What are you gonna do, provide every historical source in existence that fails to support the claim? 'cause that'd take a while.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, I just don't trust Wikipedia, a publically editable website, if it doesn't have sources to back it up. That Wikipedia pages lacks sources for all of its claims and therefore I don't consider it to be a reliable source. If he wants to provide an unreliable source of information as a cite for being correct, then I am going to consider him incorrect until a reliable source of information is provided.

In summary, I want a reliable source of information for that claim before I will take it seriously.
 
Last edited:
Oshha said:
No, I just don't trust Wikipedia, a publically editable website, if it doesn't have sources to back it up. That Wikipedia pages lacks sources for all of its claims and therefore I don't consider it to be a reliable source. If he wants to provide an unreliable source of information as a cite for being correct, then I am going to consider him incorrect until a reliable source of information is provided.

In summary, I want a reliable source of information for that claim before I will take it seriously.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, do you have a reliable source for the alternative claim? 'cause my point is that the burden of proof is kinda on the one making an affirmative assertion (i.e. "this is the correct version") if there's even a reasonably plausible dispute on the matter. And the article does provide sourcing on its general usage, so that condition seems met.
 
Oshha said:
No, I just don't trust Wikipedia, a publically editable website, if it doesn't have sources to back it up. That Wikipedia pages lacks sources for all of its claims and therefore I don't consider it to be a reliable source. If he wants to provide an unreliable source of information as a cite for being correct, then I am going to consider him incorrect until a reliable source of information is provided.

In summary, I want a reliable source of information for that claim before I will take it seriously.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm. What source do you base your opinion on? Because usually people refute bad sources with better ones.
I mean I too thought that the blood of the covenant thing was the original but when I tried to explain that to a couple of Germans and went to Google to find a way to back up my assertion I couldn't find any source better than some weird German versions of urban dictionary and a few blogs proudly showing how smart they were for knowing the "real" meaning of the saying (again without source). Until I switched to English, looked at Wikipedia and found what I just linked here.
Now one can say that both is sourceless and say whatever, but the Wikipedia article actually does have sources for the usual version and it's how my mother and grandparents and all the other adults from my childhood used to use it, while the "it actually means the opposite" version is something I've only seen on the internet and heard from a few young Christian friends.
So when I tried to research it today the Wikipedia article was enough to change my opinion.
 
Wiadi said:
I mean, do you have a reliable source for the alternative claim? 'cause my point is that the burden of proof is kinda on the one making an affirmative assertion (i.e. "this is the correct version") if there's even a reasonably plausible dispute on the matter. And the article does provide sourcing on its general usage, so that condition seems met.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sure. Wikipedia is unreliable because it can be publically changed with limited accountability and there are several examples 'edit wars' where people try to push their preferred version/interpretation of things.
Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed
Study reveals bot-on-bot editing wars raging on Wikipedia's pages
Wikipedia:Edit warring - Wikipedia

Because of this, I stand by my claim that wikipedia is an unreliable source unless it has proper sources to back up what it claims. In this case, Rafin's claim of what the original version of the phrase isn't sourced while there are two sources claiming that the Malevo usage of the phrase is the original version.

So looking at, according to Wikipedia, Malevo's usage of phrase isn't right, but according to Wikipedia's sources, Malevo is correct.

I will also note that I don't care which is the version of the phrase is the correct one. I just don't like it when people use unreliable sources to assert their points, which is my claim here, Wikipedia is an unreliable source unless properly sourced.

Rafin said:
Hmm. What source do you base your opinion on? Because usually people refute bad sources with better ones.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Here you go.
Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed
Study reveals bot-on-bot editing wars raging on Wikipedia's pages
Wikipedia:Edit warring - Wikipedia

Wikipedia is unreliable because it can be publically changed with limited accountability and there are several examples 'edit wars' where people try to push their preferred version/interpretation of things. Because of this, I stand by my claim that wikipedia is an unreliable source unless it has proper sources to back up what it claims.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top