Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
veekie said:
Depends on the possible combinations.

Main Art Patronage + Main Festival should promote the arts enormously, that Work of the Third Kind has it's own worthy place in society.
Main New Settlement + Main Festival should be about building homes and breaking new ground.
Main Restore Order + Main Festival should be about Justice and the Wicked.

Etc. We'd get a free one at the end of the Law project probably, so if we take that one it'd be about the importance of obeying the laws.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Double [Main] Festival would probably be a festival for the sake of being a festival, thus partying.
Reader of all said:
We can double main festivals or kick festivals next next turn to celebrate overcoming the crisis.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can't kick festivals. :V
 
Personally I think we need more floating mysticism in addition to the law or maybe some boats to ease communication. There's even a chance the law will raise our centralization cap and we can do trails.
 
Kilns don't need to be taken. They're being passively upgraded.
Odds are they'd be finished by the time we deal with the crisis. All available actions should address the crisis.
Reader of all said:
We can double main festivals or kick festivals next next turn to celebrate overcoming the crisis.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Worth noting that Main Festival does not actually produce MORE Stability, so if the level of stability is important we should rely more on Grand Sacrifices.
 
Actually I wouldn't mind that much with maining law+kick and Festival. Our art is getting very low and festival upgrade grants it at the going rate (1 action/art). The risk there is that if we get unlucky on the snub roll or get another LoO trigger next turn we're going to only barely hit the stability requirement given a main sacrifice the turn after.

I think going kick The Law + main Grand Sacrifice is the better option though, since it gives us maximum versatility the turn after, when we should have a good idea of what we need to do (if anything).

Actually
@Academia Nut
Will another Main Grand Sacrifice extend the turn timer again?
 
So, burning down and enslaving an entire city wouldn't be the way of the Ymrri.

But I did figure out a solution?

Ymrri: We shall condemn you to a lifetime of labor by the deprivation of your slaves, and let it be known that there shall be no selling or buying of slaves in this city. Any and all slaves shall be freed, and if they are willing, can come to settle in our land.
 
Last edited:
[X] Snub him (Small chance of -1 Stability)
[X] Stop trading with both (-4 Diplomacy)
[X] We will find land for you to settle (-1 Stability, +2 Econ)

If Cwriid becomes king, watch as he does another tax revamp and drop us more Stab points.
While declaring war on HK.
 
Last edited:
I just remembered that there were a few points I wanted to bring up about veekie's analysis. Overall it was good, but:
veekie said:
We got a point of diplomacy from somewhere. Probably those boats.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's because a ton of our people went to the Stallion Tribes, giving us -1 econ +1 diplo. They count as a separate group now so they feed into our diplo score.
veekie said:
Lets see, revert the reforms that we're ALMOST done fixing(1-2 turns left), have land ownership change to the less effective form...in exchange for +1 Stability and 1 turn of Hero unit?

There's no reason to choose this unless you never wanted the reforms to begin with, in which case you're one of the Young Stallions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would like to note that we could get a lot more out of this if we also keep trading with both. Action rates calculated here.
1 stability is worth ~2 actions, and 4 diplo is worth ~4 actions. It will cause a war... which is fine since we'll have a heroic martial leader at the time. The TH and HK will be busy fighting each other so probably won't be able to afford sending more than a secondary at us, which means that we should be able to easily crush them with the defensive bonuses and heroic leader. That means that the war missions will actually cause us to gain martial instead of losing it, at just about the going rate (1.5 actions per martial) while also hurting our neighbors' martial score. We'd be gaining 6 actions from raw stats, 0.5 actions from not needing to rush The Law, and probably an action or so saved on integrating the March. That's basically an entire turn's worth of actions (including provinces).
In addition, continuing to elect every single hero unit we find might be a path to evolving our Humility trait and reduce the hero generation malus. I'm very surprised at how many hero units we've gotten since we got that trait...

It comes at a major cost, but the benefits of that plan I find to be almost equal. However, it's obvious that it won't win since "Trade with Both" is hilariously far behind and I'm happier with the current vote anyway so it doesn't matter, I just wanted to point out something that you might find worth considering.

Plus, keeping him out makes a lot of sense narratively as well as mechanically. We really do need someone good leading the March due to the communication difficulties, and a heroic unit is perfect for that He doesn't seem to like the current administration much, and many of his goals are counter to our current plans. His plan is workable, but it would mean several generations of wasted effort. More than that, our efforts look likely to be giving a significant positive if successful and that success is looking quite likely. Giving up while trading with both gives a ton of benefits that might make it worthwhile, giving up and not doing that is just a waste.
 
Last edited:
Powerofmind said:
God forbid I give up on a point and take a different tack. I don't see you setting up a fanfare every single time I make a point you can't refute.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
By "God forbid I give up on a point" do you mean you have given up on your claim I "believe that one action combo permanently removed corruption from the system". Because you repeated it and haven't yet acknowledged that your offensive strawman claim was wrong, so I had no reason to think you have taken "a different tack".
You haven't made any points I cannot refute, and all I want are points that make sense. The one reasonable, good answer you made I thanked you for.

Powerofmind said:
I never said it was evidence that their position was right. I said it was evidence that their position has a reason to focus on that, that reason being that the problem does exist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
??? The first part contradicts the second part and your previous posts. You have repeatedly claimed "the problem does exist" so saying that you "never said it was evidence that their position was right" is a blatant lie.

Powerofmind said:
A strawman is an example-like proposition that is significantly easier to defeat than the intended point, compared to the intended point to conflate the two together. That's exactly what you did. You took something wildly out in left field (the completely indefensible anti-inoculation argument), incorrectly conflated it with the point I was arguing, and claimed that because your incredibly poor example (political corruption is significantly different than actually being paranoid, so much so that the example falls flat on that alone) was wrong, that obviously the stallions were creating a problem ex nihilo that they took issue with.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Where the hell are you pulling this from? It directly contradicts my post. What you are making up now is not merely something I did not say, but in direct opposition to what I did post.
You posted a question "If the problem was solved, then how could the Young Stallions have formed as an opposition movement to that problem?"
I responded with "Perception does not equal reality. " I gave an inarguable example of an opposition movement to a non-existent problem as proof that the Young Stallions could be opposing a non-existent problem. There were NO comparisons between the example and anything or anyone. There were NO conflating the example and your point.
I followed with a brief possible way for the Young Stallions to have become opposed to the problem incorrectly. "All it would take is one of the more popular Young Stallion to have had a father/aunt/etc who suffered that at one point in their lives. Angry at the bad thing that happened many years ago, they add it to the list of grievances which gets taken up by the Young Stallions as a whole." By giving an example of a possible (not claiming it was the correct, or the only possible) way, my post not only did not claim "obviously the stallions were creating a problem ex nihilo" but this example is opposite to the stallions creating a problem ex nihilo. No claims of the Young Stallions making it up were made. The only one creating arguments ex nihilo is you.

Powerofmind said:
Your example's obvious incorrect position doesn't automatically imply that my position was incorrect, because not only is it just an example, not the actual case, it's a bad example, and comes immediately with connotations of paranoia and sheer idiocy on the part of the people arguing in favor of it (which you compared my argument to, so I can only assume you were trying to tie the inherent insanity of that position to mine).

I did answer the question. You reiterated your first question in the first half of the third question, which my original answer covered, and then argued that obviously if it was a problem we should have seen stability hits (to which I pointed out previous instances of that corruption caused no stability hits).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It does not automatically make your position incorrect, it does demonstrate your evidence is insufficient. It is a good example(it perfectly demonstrates my point). The intelligent response would have been to add another piece of evidence for your point(if you have any). If your problem with the example was "connotations of paranoia and sheer idiocy" then you should have responded with that, and requested a different example. I would be happy to edit my post with any other example you like, so you are not bothered by any connotations (an idea or feeling which a word invokes for a person in addition to primary meaning). I apologise for invoking feelings you dislike, I only considered the main meaning of my example(the part that relates to the previous sentence). You response of making up dishonest claims (such as I "compared my argument to" the example) is the stupidest possible response.

  1. You did not answer the question
  2. I did not reiterated my question in part of the third
  3. what "original answer covered"?
  4. I argued no such thing, I asked a question. ONLY asked (3)questions, to clarify parts of your position.
  5. The Family matters update said "a few recent scandals involving local chiefs repeatedly reassigning people" "taking away bonus food and luxury rations for good work from the people who actually deserved them". You made the claim that the corruption involved the majority of the local chiefs and it was ongoing. I asked why did you think that it was a major problem, if it involved more than a few chief, shouldn't we have suffered more lost stability. By pointing out that "a few" instances did not cause stability loss does not answer the question
  6. Let me rephrase the question, maybe you can understand it better in different way. Why do you think we have not suffered stability loss from an ongoing corruption involving many local chiefs? Any reasonable answer will do, whether I agree with it or not.
Stop claiming I believe stupid things, that I made arguments that exist only in your imagination, and ignoring most of my actual (in my posts) points.
Your completely unfounded assumptions is making a complete ass of u and me.
Can you stop assuming without reason and instead just respond to what is really posted.

Powerofmind said:
You never proved the inadequacy of my evidence, you just presented a strawman, backhandedly compared me to insane people, and said that my evidence had no merit because you decided it had no merit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I showed via an example that your evidence is insufficient, calling the example a strawman does not make it one and does not invalidate it.
I never compared you to anything, READ MY POSTS, frankly your repeated claims I posted things I didn't is starting to make me wonder about your sanity.
I never said your evidence had no merit(yet another thing you made up), I said it was not enough on it's own to prove you correct. I have never claimed anything even slightly like 'because I decided it had no merit', why are you making up things? Why not respond to what I actually post?


Strawman arguments are very aggravating to me, especially when they are repeated again and again. Please start using reasonable arguments, and if you have to use logical fallacies use different ones.



EDIT:
My first vote response to the new update is:

[] Snub him (Small chance of -1 Stability)


[] Stop trading with the Highlanders (-3 Diplomacy, small chance of the Highlanders declaring war)
[] Stop trading with both (-4 Diplomacy)


[] We will find land for you to settle (-1 Stability, +2 Econ)

I'll read the pages after the update before I post my vote.
 
Last edited:
notgreat said:
I would like to note that we could get a lot more out of this if we also keep trading with both. Action rates calculated here.
1 stability is worth ~2 actions, and 4 diplo is worth ~4 actions. It will cause a war... which is fine since we'll have a heroic martial leader at the time. The TH and HK will be busy fighting each other so probably won't be able to afford sending more than a secondary at us, which means that we should be able to easily crush them with the defensive bonuses and heroic leader. That means that the war missions will actually cause us to gain martial instead of losing it, at just about the going rate (1.5 actions per martial) while also hurting our neighbors' martial score. We'd be gaining 6 actions from raw stats, 0.5 actions from not needing to rush The Law, and probably an action or so saved on integrating the March. That's basically an entire turn's worth of actions (including provinces).
In addition, continuing to elect every single hero unit we find might be a path to evolving our Humility trait and reduce the hero generation malus. I'm very surprised at how many hero units we've gotten since we got that trait...

It comes at a major cost, but the benefits of that plan I find to be almost equal. However, it's obvious that it won't win since "Trade with Both" is hilariously far behind and I'm happier with the current vote anyway so it doesn't matter, I just wanted to point out something that you might find worth considering.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know, raw number wise, it has advantages.
But current priority is to avoid War Missions locking up actions while we deal with the problem. We can always pick a fight or reestablish trade later as we expand.
Heck, it seems the March is acting as an Economy tax/Diplomacy source for us at present, so we'd regain the Diplomacy over 4 turns of baby boom. If it lasts that long
 
Umi-san said:
Minimizing the limitations is thus key. Allowing for monopolization (of land, of wealth, of education, of political positions) is the antithesis of this.

Resources are ultimately limited so not everyone is going to be able to do these things. But access to these limited resources is ultimately not limited. Allowing access to resources so that they have a chance to do more is 100% doable, and ultimately far more likely to end up w/ a better and more varied pool of people doing the same stuff that a small, homogenous pool of nobles would do.

Continued equality is both a more optimal option and a morally correct one.

Edit: By "resources are limited" BUT "access is not" I mean something like...
this: people can be given access to smaller pools of less risky resources w/o needing to consume all possible resources and resulting in a diminished level of efficiency than a smaller group of higher trained specialists would. i.e. observer-level exposure to diplomatic/governmental positions -> internship inside bureaucracy dealing with minor cases -> assistant on major cases -> lead on minor cases -> lead on medium cases -> lead on major cases; access to decent-level dirt so they can practice making sculptures/letting people mix pigments/giving people a stick and a knife to whittle with/etc. -> apprentice level in that art -> journeyman -> master -> etc.

The main issue is that in a nobility system people are not given free time, training, etc., even if it requires a minimal expenditure of capital to do so, because nobles are protective of their own resources and disinclined to allow competition from people they consider inherently inferior due to a difference in blood and breeding. The former, of course, does not matter, and the latter only matters because the training involved is limited by the people who claim it as a mark of superiority.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can't even stop it today and Communism is not the answer since it relies on Human Nature to not fuck it over. I mean today with all our technology some people are far richer than others, and the efficiency we can use limited resources has expanded so much but even then many resources and wealth falls into the hands of the few.
Powerofmind said:
I'll hold you to that. Though, at least you're realistic about the potential for the system to not work anyway even if we solve the crisis. More than can be said for anyone else...

Should probably drop that 'never give up' hyper-shonen attitude though. Getting into a rigid mindset where backing off of a problem for a while, especially one that you aren't guaranteed to surpass by trying real hard, is the kind of thing that leads to nihilistic 'fuck the quest, fuck the QM, we're going to have everything or we're going to kill this quest' shit I've seen more than once when things get hard in an AN quest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well your attitude leads to the opposite kind, 'Fuck the quest, fuck the qm AND the players, were not going to risk anything at all ever' and I have also seen this happen in quests, not just AN quests and its irritating to just throw you hands up, besides you were giving up and being salty before the first turn of the crisis was even over. As long as you accept the consequences of turning into a turtle without trying to risk it to win it than its fine.
 
It will boost stability back up though, which we'll likely need no matter what(though if we only take 1 stability hit, we might be able to get away with a secondary GS)
 
Academia Nut said:
Probably not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Figured it only extended the timer because it demonstrably resolved one of the issues with the reforms: that the chiefs are too distant from the people. So they burn all their crap to show humility, and people are willing to cut a little slack. It's tied to the Legitimacy/Stability requirements.

In this case I suspect completing The Law, if it doesn't solve the crisis entirely, might buy another 1 turn extension for proving that the challenges are not insurmountable, that we have progress(and then we have to play whack a mole on meeting whatever conditions remain).
 
huhYeahGoodPoint said:
[X] Elect Cwriid heir (+1 Stability, Crisis Ends on his terms)
[X] Stop trading with the Highlanders (-3 Diplomacy, small chance of the Highlanders declaring war)
[X] We will find land for you to settle (-1 Stability, +2 Econ)

This was a hard decision and I am pretty easily convinced right now one way or another on Cwriid.

If I am convinced, I will switch my vote to
[] Snub him (Small chance of -1 Stability)
[] Stop trading with both (-4 Diplomacy)

The LoO trigger is nonnegotiable for me because my expected utility for that option at least isn't negative.

What convinced me to make Cwriid king is that he is
A) The most competent military commander in three generationsTM ​while a war is likely to break out.
B) Not going to kill The Law megaproject

I haven't seen an equal counterargument, but I think that if someone can convince me that
A) His idea of heredity commune is poke the Ymrri stupid
B) Some other argument that I haven't seen
is stronger I will change my vote.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

1. Cwriid will probably die by the time the war's peak reach us (He'll die in 1 turns, 2 max. And an old guy is a bad fighter). So his stats are useless.
We'll be fighting war without him one way or another.
2. We'll probably get his heirs as the next king. And Young stallions faction are too aggressive.
Hello Nomad traditions.
3. Before everyone forgets, March is the minority. Watch as another crisis gets kicked off when he pushes March tradition over Ymrri.
At the very least, Stab drop over another tax reform. Effectively private ownership. Likely hereditary rule.
Wanna bet some of his heirs are meatheads?
4. The Law will be subverted. It's the start of the death of Ymrri values, and a Nomad hybrid is born.
 
@Academia Nut I'm not sure how in depth you go on the other civilizations, but if you track their crises, i'm curious, how many crises have the other civs youre tracking gone through at this point?
 
I'm thinking next turn we should do secondary Grand Sacrifice and secondary Festival. It costs the same amount as a primary Grand Sacrifice and gives the same amount of Stability, but it also benefits from the additional effects of Festival. Given the context, it will probably celebrate the law and help people understand it, just as the last festival did for taxes. (Yes, the People celebrate taxes. They are a very weird bunch.)
 
Andres110 said:
I'm thinking next turn we should do secondary Grand Sacrifice and secondary Festival. It costs the same amount as a primary Grand Sacrifice and gives the same amount of Stability, but it also benefits from Additional Effects of Festival. Given the context, it will probably celebrate the law and help people understand it, just as the last festival did for taxes. (Yes, the People celebrate taxes. They are a very weird bunch.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh, I'd just rather main GS again. In fact, I'm gonna push for it, though whether or not I also push for kicking the Law again so that it finishes next turn(so that we have a free main to deal with whatever other requirements that may pop up) depends on how big a stab hit we take
 
To throw a positive on the heroic leader becoming leader; is that if combined with continuing to trade with both polities it can make for an epic read if one of them attacks. We'd have a heroic warrior and general, we'd have our own significant military force buffed even further by the nomads that don't need supply, we'd have the initial defensive bonuses our terrain gives us and along with protective justice due to it being a defensive war.

At that point spend a main action (I could go with double main, but the Law project would still be locked in), then utilize the fact it's a defensive war so we can kick it adding another main action, and just go ham and surge into the lowlands. The heroic leader means we'd win the conflicts allowing us to conquer places, his diplomacy stat would allow us that to annex places that way, thus allowing us to very quickly advance in territory especially compared to the previous surges both the Dead Priests/Thunder Horses/Highland Kingdom have each respectively done.

People have expressed reluctance about engagement there in the past though. Well, they've claimed to not want to due to X. Then when X wasn't a concern, it became about Y. Then when Y wasn't a concern ... it would be very fun to read though.

A perfect scenario could actually take place if he's elected although it's exceedingly unlikely. Cwirid is elected heir thus giving us the stability from that, however we're attacked before he actually comes into power and starts his administrative goals. Then you can kind of use his own argument against him if he presses due to these ones being nearly complete and the disharmony from switching and wasting generations of work, if he hasn't been convinced otherwise due to actually interacting with our administration instead of the "corrupt leader" caricature he imagines. You can also quite easily distract him by having him be focused on the military aspects of the war, and the diplomatic in repeating what he did to the nomads in the north thus leaving our administration and bureaucrats to continue doing their previous work.

So an ideal turn would be:
[Y] [Main] The Law
-[Y] Kick to add another main action
[Y] [Secondary x2] War Mission
-[Y] Kick to add another main action

This would let us complete the Law with our previous administrations goals, while Cwirid is distracted using his heroic diplomacy and heroic martial in the Lowlands while relying our his administration advisers to rule back home. The kicks would leave us at -1 stability, although the perfect scenario would be Greater Good finally activating on either this turns stability loss options or that plan above.

It's greedy as fuck though, very much the definition of eat your cake and have it too. Particularly as Grand Sacrifice gives us another turn, to reacquire +1 stability or if one of the unknowns still isn't fulfilled.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top