Paths of Civilization

tryrar · Apr 9, 2017

Sivantic said:
Then why not do the Nomad Trade Mission first so we don't have to deal with raiding next turn? That way we can focus better on upgrading our military.

BECAUSE NOMAD TRADE IS NOT GUARANTEED TO STOP THEM FROM RAIDING. Don't make plans on them not raiding us because we traded with them this turn, since there's absolutely zero guarantee of that. Sure, it seems like a reasonable outcome, especially with a Diplo hero, but remember, fucking nomads.

ctulhuslp · Apr 9, 2017

tryrar said:
So you're saying ignore the lowlands entirely? Never bother expanding into them?

If we had a guarantee that Highlands and not Priests are getting them - yes, certainly. Seeing as we lack such a certainty - well, we have to intervene.

tryrar said:
BECAUSE NOMAD TRADE IS NOT GUARANTEED TO STOP THEM FROM RAIDING. Don't make plans on them not raiding us because we traded with them this turn, since there's absolutely zero guarantee of that. Sure, it seems like a reasonable outcome, especially with a Diplo hero, but remember, fucking nomads.

Mmmhm. But it prrooobably will give more influence to the friendly-ish factions of the nomads.
Probably.
Fucking nomads.

bluefur87 · Apr 9, 2017

tryrar said:
BECAUSE NOMAD TRADE IS NOT GUARANTEED TO STOP THEM FROM RAIDING. Don't make plans on them not raiding us because we traded with them this turn, since there's absolutely zero guarantee of that. Sure, it seems like a reasonable outcome, especially with a Diplo hero, but remember, fucking nomads.

Except you are admitting that we should just assume we're dealing with nomad raiding next turn. If that's true, if that happens, we don't get to go down to the lowlands, basically ever.

If we don't find a way to semi-permanently deal with the nomads we don't ever get to go down there to actually deal with the lowland problem, because we'll always be fighting off raids. This is our best chance to stop the nomads until we, at the very least, have a large enough army to fight them off much more easily. If you think we can't stop the raiding, you might as well put us down to just a main and secondary action for the foreseeable future.

Entropy Engineer · Apr 9, 2017

Hey @Academia Nut what ever happened to expand step farms? Were they just made automatic now?

Speed53066 · Apr 9, 2017

[X] [Secondary] New Trails
The new trails so that we can trade and expand quicker, also better logistics.
[X] [Secondary] Trade Mission - Highlands Kingdom
For more money and the ability go check out their culture.

tryrar · Apr 9, 2017

I mean, trading with nomads for the chance to get them to raid somewhere else is not a wasted action, but planning for next turn like it succeeding is a forgone conclusion is incredibly dumb and is what pisses me off about the current discussion the most. Sure, if you support nomad trade, making a plan based on if we suceed in stalling raids some more is fine, but also make plans for if it flops.

Kiba · Apr 9, 2017

bluefur87 said:
Except you are admitting that we should just assume we're dealing with nomad raiding next turn. If that's true, if that happens, we don't get to go down to the lowlands, basically ever.

If we don't find a way to semi-permanently deal with the nomads we don't ever get to go down there to actually deal with the lowland problem, because we'll always be fighting off raids. This is our best chance to stop the nomads until we, at the very least, have a large enough army to fight them off much more easily. If you think we can't stop the raiding, you might as well put us down to just a main and secondary action for the foreseeable future.

No civilization has ever deal with the nomads semi-permanently until the Russians? I am just guessing here.

ctulhuslp · Apr 9, 2017

bluefur87 said:
Except you are admitting that we should just assume we're dealing with nomad raiding next turn. If that's true, if that happens, we don't get to go down to the lowlands, basically ever.

If we don't find a way to semi-permanently deal with the nomads we don't ever get to go down there to actually deal with the lowland problem, because we'll always be fighting off raids. This is our best chance to stop the nomads until we, at the very least, have a large enough army to fight them off much more easily. If you think we can't stop the raiding, you might as well put us down to just a main and secondary action for the foreseeable future.

Spoiler: Until enlightenmet age, we are not going to be able to deal with the nomads, period. The only possible hope is to delay the inevitable raids, but 'semi-permanently deal with' is bullshit, and 'we'll always be fighting off raids' is exactly what is going to happen, because that's how nomads roll.

We can't stop the raids, period. That's nomads for you.

EDIT: Like, if nomads were possible to actually deal with, things would be much easier for us. But noo, we have blob of angry dicks to the north, and organized smaller blob of dicks to the south because lol fuck us in the prehistory everyone is a warmonger.

tryrar · Apr 9, 2017

bluefur87 said:
Except you are admitting that we should just assume we're dealing with nomad raiding next turn. If that's true, if that happens, we don't get to go down to the lowlands, basically ever.

If we don't find a way to semi-permanently deal with the nomads we don't ever get to go down there to actually deal with the lowland problem, because we'll always be fighting off raids. This is our best chance to stop the nomads until we, at the very least, have a large enough army to fight them off much more easily. If you think we can't stop the raiding, you might as well put us down to just a main and secondary action for the foreseeable future.

Dude, nomads=always dealing with raids, for basically, forever. Because nomads. Deal with it.

Sivantic · Apr 9, 2017

tryrar said:
I mean, trading with nomads for the chance to get them to raid somewhere else is not a wasted action, but planning for next turn like it succeeding is a forgone conclusion is incredibly dumb and is what pisses me off about the current discussion the most. Sure, if you support nomad trade, making a plan based on if we suceed in stalling raids some more is fine, but also make plans for if it flops.

Yet it is guaranteed raiding if we don't try and deal with them this turn.

Speed53066 said:
The new trails so that we can trade and expand quicker, also better logistics.

Except that costs econ that we are low on and only does that as a Main Action, not secondary.

ctulhuslp said:
Spoiler: Until enlightenmet age, we are not going to be able to deal with the nomads, period. The only possible hope is to delay the inevitable raids, but 'semi-permanently deal with' is bullshit, and 'we'll always be fighting off raids' is exactly what is going to happen, because that's how nomads roll.

We can't stop the raids, period. That's nomads for you.

EDIT: Like, if nomads were possible to actually deal with, things would be much easier for us. But noo, we have blob of angry dicks to the north, and organized smaller blob of dicks to the south because lol fuck us in the prehistory everyone is a warmonger.

And it only gets worse unless we try to at least get a friendly nomad group up north, even better if we keep them in power. They keep their promises.

bluefur87 · Apr 9, 2017

Kiba said:
No civilization has ever deal with the nomads semi-permanently until the Russians? I am just guessing here.

ctulhuslp said:
Spoiler: Until enlightenmet age, we are not going to be able to deal with the nomads, period. The only possible hope is to delay the inevitable raids, but 'semi-permanently deal with' is bullshit, ad 'we'll always be fighting off raids' is exactly what is going to happen, because that's how nomads roll.

We can't stop the raids, period. That's nomads for you.

tryrar said:
Dude, nomads=always dealing with raids, for basically, forever. Because nomads. Deal with it.

China had many periods where they dealt with nomads by basically offering tribute. Until someone got it into their head that China was super big and tough and shouldn't have to pay tribute to them. Rome dealt with nomads by using diplomacy to turn them against each other, until they thought it wasn't a thing that was needed. We can definitely deal with nomads, we just can't invade them.

The nomads won't raid us if they get more benefits from trading with us, and if anyone tries to raid their trading buddies, well now they have a target to gain glory through combat, don't they? Pretending they don't exist does not solve the problem.

tryrar · Apr 9, 2017

Sivantic said:
Yet it is guaranteed raiding if we don't try and deal with them this turn.

Except that costs econ that we are low on and only does that as a Main Action, not secondary.

And it only gets worse unless we try to at least get a friendly nomad group up north, even better if we keep them in power. They keep their promises.

Spoiler: Friendly nomads only last a generation or two, and that doesn't even guarantee the won't raid us anyways, unless you can get them to promise to not do so. I don't see how a trade mission does that.

@Academia Nut we're just spinning our wheels here, so can you answer definitively if a trade mission north would have a chance for getting the nomads to back off some more? I don't even care for how long, I just want to know if it's possible, and how likely our advisers think it is, so we can settle this debate

ctulhuslp · Apr 9, 2017

Sivantic said:
And it only gets worse unless we try to at least get a friendly nomad group up north, even better if we keep them in power. They keep their promises.

Well, I am voting for the trading caravan to the north, but I am not hopeful about it's chances; I would outright dismiss it as 'This won't work' if not for Heroic Diplomacy giving us a sliver of a chance to delay raids or empower friendlier factions.
Within several generations, they'll start raiding again, of course, but maybe we can postpone it with this caravan...doubt it though, but we can try.

Academia Nut · Apr 9, 2017

ctulhuslp said:
1. How do local chiefs look upon the communal property? Are there problems because of it in our society?
2. Does the big difference between Centralization and Hierarchy have its own set of problems?

The local chiefs see themselves as the protectors and arbitrators of the common wealth. However, there are always those who get a little bit extra not because of extra contribution but because of who they know.

The difference between Centralization and Hierarchy does sort of have its own set of problems, but there are also problems with low hierarchy and low centralization and both of them high.

tryrar said:
how long would our advisors estimate that the Lowland Minors nearest to us would remain independent? 1 generation, 2?

Hard to say. Depends on the actions of the Dead Priests.

Entropy Engineer said:
Hey @Academia Nut what ever happened to expand step farms? Were they just made automatic now?

They were rolled into Expand Farms and now Expand Economy.

tryrar said:
we're just spinning our wheels here, so can you answer definitively if a trade mission north would have a chance for getting the nomads to back off some more? I don't even care for how long, I just want to know if it's possible, and how likely our advisers think it is, so we can settle this debate

There is no definitive answer. Could get them to back down for a while, could encourage them to raid further (unlikely with a Heroic Diplo leader, but still possible). Ultimately, there is no long term solution unless you can conquer and fortify the entire steppe.

tryrar · Apr 9, 2017

Well, at least we know that encouraging them to raid more persistently is likely off the table with our diplo leader. Still no guarantee of getting them to back off

Abby Normal · Apr 9, 2017

@Academia Nut What do our advisors have to say on the current debate between trade mission and trails?

bluefur87 · Apr 9, 2017

tryrar said:
Spoiler: Friendly nomads only last a generation or two, and that doesn't even guarantee the won't raid us anyways, unless you can get them to promise to not do so. I don't see how a trade mission does that.

Friendly nomads last a lot longer if they get trinkets from other people to impress their groups and thus increase their legitimacy. And Academia Nut already answered that we could, at best, get 3 turns of peace with the nomads. That was in response to using a trade mission as secondary action without a heroic diplomacy unit.

We aren't going to get answers that say 'this will absolutely work' when we are talking about things like this, but this is quite possible with a heroic diplomat and we have more than enough information to back that up. The further plan here is that Stonepen will then proceed to occasionally send out diplomacy missions to the nomads to renew trade, thus both fostering diplomacy and relations.

It's not the perfect solution, none of us are claiming it is and we'd be silly to believe anything is the perfect solution to any problem, the quest quite clearly has never worked like that. It is, however, the solution that doesn't cost us econ so we can much more safely main expand warriors next turn, and by far the most likely to give us time to actually get a military set up to push back hard if they do decide to raid.

Sightsear · Apr 9, 2017

Academia Nut said:
The difference between Centralization and Hierarchy does sort of have its own set of problems, but there are also problems with low hierarchy and low centralization and both of them high

In other words: "Don't worry about it, no matter what you do, there's always some way it can screw with you. Do what you think will be most advantageous, and roll with the consequences"

Yay! Pick your poison! I'll have cinnamon, please!

2859 *dies of cinnamon overdose*

Academia Nut · Apr 9, 2017

Abby Normal said:
What do our advisors have to say on the current debate between trade mission and trails?

Both have their advantages and disadvantages, with the trails possibly being a more important issue to ensure that continued communication between the now further decentralized groups are kept up and running, but there is something to the possibility of improving relations with the Thunder Horse before memory of returning the star axe fades.

ctulhuslp · Apr 9, 2017

Academia Nut said:
The local chiefs see themselves as the protectors and arbitrators of the common wealth. However, there are always those who get a little bit extra not because of extra contribution but because of who they know.

The difference between Centralization and Hierarchy does sort of have its own set of problems, but there are also problems with low hierarchy and low centralization and both of them high.

...

@Sivantic , @veekie : either of those stats being too high or difference being too big can be a problem.
[X] [Secondary] New Trails
[X] [Secondary] Trade Mission - Highland Kingdom

Abby Normal · Apr 9, 2017

Academia Nut said:
Both have their advantages and disadvantages, with the trails possibly being a more important issue to ensure that continued communication between the now further decentralized groups are kept up and running, but there is something to the possibility of improving relations with the Thunder Horse before memory of returning the star axe fades.

Hmm...Does our Econ advisor think that our chiefs will improve our Econ this turn or the next with their personal actions?

tryrar · Apr 9, 2017

Academia Nut said:
Both have their advantages and disadvantages, with the trails possibly being a more important issue to ensure that continued communication between the now further decentralized groups are kept up and running, but there is something to the possibility of improving relations with the Thunder Horse before memory of returning the star axe fades.

As AN just pointed out, we've been further and further decentralizing for generations. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, with the government change we would probably want to keep trade and road links between provinces maintained so as to forestall any "ideas" a governor might get.

Omegahugger · Apr 9, 2017

Sightsear said:
Yay! Pick your poison! I'll have cinnamon, please!

The only poison I need is the sweet poison called Love!

Sivantic · Apr 9, 2017

Sightsear said:
In other words: "Don't worry about it, no matter what you do, there's always some way it can screw with you. Do what you think will be most advantageous, and roll with the consequences"

Yay! Pick your poison! I'll have cinnamon, please!

2859 *dies of cinnamon overdose*

So why not try Trade Mission to the Nomads? We currently have the least chance to fail that with our current Diplomat King not to mention that we helped them with the Star Axe

It's a limited time offer unlike the trails!

ctulhuslp said:
...

@Sivantic , @veekie : either of those stats being too high or difference being too big can be a problem.
[X] [Secondary] New Trails
[X] [Secondary] Trade Mission - Highland Kingdom

Except you'r panicking again. Read the statement again, everything causes problems

ctulhuslp · Apr 9, 2017

Academia Nut said:
Both have their advantages and disadvantages, with the trails possibly being a more important issue to ensure that continued communication between the now further decentralized groups are kept up and running, but there is something to the possibility of improving relations with the Thunder Horse before memory of returning the star axe fades.

....
okay, guys, why do we want to send a trade mission to the Highland Kingdom again?
[X] [Secondary] New Trails
[X] [Secondary] Trade Mission - Thunder Horses

Sivantic said:
Except you'r panicking again. Read the statement again, everything causes problems

Yes, everything causes problems, which is why ignoring this all is a bad idea.

Paths of Civilization

High Clerk of the Ymaryn

High Clerk of the Ymaryn

Inattentive Idiot