>ally
Lol. What kind of naive player would let you grow while he fights your wars instead of either forcing you to do your part of wars or backstabbing you and taking all your delicious economy for yourself?
And yes, AN stated than other factions are what Nega-SV could go for, so I think of them as of other players in multiplayer game, roughly as smart as us.
You... don't have friends?
Anyways, Multiplayer is a shit comparison since it isn't organic.
Sick burn. It isn't organic cus it's metagamed, but we're metagaming and the negaverse players are metagaming so none of this is organic, even if it kinda is cus we still need to keep the fluff in mind.
@Academia Nut Are all the players spirits or something? Like, if you were going to put the players in this world what would we be?
Anyways, yeah, friends literally do let you grow while they fight wars, especially if you feed them. Though, personally, my friends do my wars for me while I feed them and I make new allies and then backstab them with my friend's help.
Better yet, your friends play in a similar way to you and as a pair of players who trust each other you therefore grow much faster together, cus you know that if one of you get attacked the pair of you will dedicate warriors to fighting that off.
Riiight. 'Obvious'. So from the very beginning you were arguing that, what, we absolutely shouldn't build a lowland settlement and absolutely should expand warriors? No, you argued the inverse of both, simultaneously, and are still arguing against the latter. So obvious these are things that you didn't even bother to support either one!
No, it was obvious but imho not worth caring about. Establishing the lowland settlement had a risk of being attacked by the DP. And, while we knew the DP were quite strong, the defenses we'd set up would make the impact negligible.
By "didn't even bother to support either one!" what do you mean..? I was supporting the Lowland Settlement, balanced out by sending a trade mission. A trade mission that happily occurred anyway and fulfilled most of my hopes for it.
Sending a cart through the badlands and back up into the hills, when our previous trade route with the WC skipped down our lowland river for ease of transport, which is both impossible now and was significantly easier than transporting several carts of goods through dry, barren hills.
The trade mission is not along the old standard routes, those are partly overtaken by the DP. You can't argue that the trade mission will cost 1 because that's how much it costs for expand warriors, and then go off and say expand warriors can cost 2.
For the nth time, economy is food. There is no such thing as money. We give them copper shit, all it gives us is more diplomacy, not fucking economy. Holy shit how many times do I have to repeat that trade missions are 100% never going to give us economy before people stop daydreaming that currency is on our tech list.
I'd argue that they're still along the old standard routes, because while these *might* be partly overtaken by the DP we do not *know* this. Also, I said badlands because I'm not entirely certain how our trails work. Either you or veekie argued that sending goods through the river in that way was impossible because part of the river is impassable due to a cataract, after that is waterfalls and rough water, and once you've gone that far by foot you might as well continue that way..?
I'm assuming our traders go through the same area where we would establish the lowland settlement, i.e. on the west side of the river. As a result, there is just a small square of lowlands to get through before we reach the mountain chain that limited the WC. At this point, we're in the WC's remnant area, which we need to get through to reach the HK. Unless the DP has already conquered the WC's remnants to this extent - in which case the HK can do nothing and we need to prepare for war - the trade mission is likely to be safe. And since we don't KNOW yet whether or not they've extended that far, even if we sacrifice the econ cost of the Trade Mission to learn this it's still a good trade.
I wasn't arguing that the trade mission will cost x and the expand warriors will cost y, I was arguing that warriors are likely to cost y through x, just like the trade mission, and then arguing that you yourself are imo overestimating the cost of the trade mission. The comparison between expand warriors and trade mission thus serves to acknowledge that we can't be certain what either of them will cost and, because of this, that we might as well count them as the same cost.
Economy
was food, yeah, but we also just sent out a couple of ships with a bunch of luxuries and bought metal, and that *somehow* cost 2 Econ.
Somewhere along the line he had been presented with a petition for one of the merchants to take a collection of privately collected luxuries and rent some of the larger boats to travel out to the far west.
I'd argue that this indicates that either a) "some" ships provides more econ than either a sizable expansion of farms and intake of foreign workers or b) our society's conception of Econ has shifted to include "privately collected luxuries" as a type of Economic good.
Fair enough. Though, remember the northern barrens are bad for growing. Expanding there is liable to be especially anemic and prone to failure.
Expand Forest is a 0-1 return since forests aren't especially well-known for their bountiful harvests, not to mention we're trying to forest a steppeland.
Your plan may give protection from the north, and even assuming it passes well enough that it doesn't have to be repeated several times, will give no economy back for it.
Our hills are bad for growing, too, due to the fact that they're rocky and inclined, which means water flows off them and the soil is poor. Our combination of black soil and irrigation knowledge means that we will most likely be able to rehabilitate the steppelands to accomodate forest, which will presumably be of a satisfactory lushness. Managed forests
are especially well-known for their bountiful harvests, especially since a lower amount of labor per acre is required. If we plant those plants that provide a harvest it will be a decent long-term, low-effort food source. Roughly as good as cows, which graze on grass and return ~1/10th of the caloric energy to be consumed by us.
If the forest works, regardless of how anemic it is it will still provide some protection from the north, and will provide as much or more economy back than a war mission will if we get attacked at any point in the future.
Our only other option for longish term protection from nomadic raids is a trade mission which, according to you, will cost 2 Econ for 3 turns of protection. In comparison, a forest that forestalls 2 turns of protection is an economic win if it returns enough econ to null its cost. This is including the action-economy paradigm, which would have a flat return of 1 econ on any econ action, making even a self-nulled forest cost 1 econ and a trade mission cost 3.
Your plan may give protection from the north, and even assuming it passes well enough that it doesn't have to be repeated several times, will give no economy back for it. It will give you 2 diplomacy. It will give you 1 stability. Mine will most likely cost just as much econ, reward just as much econ as yours, give 1 centralization, 1 stability, and 1-2 military, or just as likely, 1-2 economy should it be fishing instead, stats we have more obvious immediate use for.
If the forest nulls its cost yours will still cost more econ and return less. Even a dismal chance is still a higher expected value than none at all. 2 diplomacy + 1 stability = 1 + 1 + 1, though admittedly in the unlikely case that mil rewards 2 yours would come out ahead in a straight by-the-numbers.
Regardless, it *may* provide protection from the north, saving us actions and potentially rewarding econ, though we cannot be certain because we've never done Expand Forest. A Trade Mission to the HK is *likely* to provide diplo + a suppressive force on the DP which has a benefit larger than a marginal expansion of our warriors, who are only useful if we do War Missions which return 0 economy.
If you want to do fishing instead of military, feel free to say so.
Also, do you think that doing the Blue Quarry Settlement + New Trails next turn will result in a null centralization gain or a +1? I'm leaning more toward the null, but idk.
No, that's what Talkers tried to do. They did not know how to wall and to farm though, and did not improve army to compensate for this.
We are more like..Civ5!Inca: Terrace Farms and getting tons of food in the hilariously defensible Forest+Hills nobody would even bother settling.
I don't really play Civ-Anything, so idk what the walls of babylon, writing, and the great library involve. However, the ST certainly didn't seem any good at walls. The cave does rather parallel what the great library sounds like, though.
R.e. games, friends, and allies, WC3, SCII, other 4X types. I've played civ 5 three times.
