Paths of Civilization

[bluefur87]

...Did you read the plan? I specified getting 2 new provinces... (and we do have 2 province locations now, Eastern Hills and Southern Shores)

We invest 6 actions in and get 2 actions of stats (Mysticism) and +1 action per turn. It pays off pretty quickly.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, bit slow today and I did not notice the southern shore.

I'm... of a strange mindset about this. On the one hand, it sounds good. On the other, the Southern Shore is likely to be raided heavily and I'd prefer to have other ducks in a row before we entered yet more 'fight off the barbarians' turns.

I would feel much better if we made our first goal to get metal working ASAP, before another problem shelves it again. The increase in productivity by using copper tools should help a lot with establishing the settlements, provinces, and our guys taking more effective actions.

 

[Powerofmind]

??? 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.

Click to shrink...

The problem exists. You literally can't deny that it exists, because that's not how corruption works. When you stamp down on it it doesn't magically vanish forevermore. That's not to say that their position is a good one based on it's own merit.

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.

Click to shrink...

Then maybe you should use something more realistic instead of comparing my point to an absolutely indefensible position. Because by comparing it to an indefensible position, you conflate it with that position. By using it as an example of something like my position, you call attention to the elements of it that people are most likely to associate with it, namely, that it's completely fucking indefensible by nature.

The problem has existed prior to the present. There have been more than one attempts to tamp down on the problem. The fact that people are still bitching about it implies it has not gone the fuck away. This has been my argument from the beginning, and your only argument against that was something that has no bearing on the point itself, because let's look at how incredibly shitty an example it was;

Inoculations as a means of propaganda or a trick to steal money has never existed prior to the present. There has never been an attempt to control inoculations as some sort of problem occurrence. The fact that the people bitching about it are typically relegated to social pariahs and pitiable people implies that it is a fringe issue with little merit. Quite frankly, there is not a single connecting element of your example that matches my argument.

As to the second part, all that does is present the possibility of me being wrong. In that case, my position is still more feasible than yours, because the simple fact that I can quote textual evidence that supports my position, all you can do is speculate using poor examples and supposition to attack my position rather than produce one yourself.

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.


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.

Click to shrink...

You showed that my evidence is not perfectly concrete. Fine. You can have that. You still have yet to provide a single quotable piece of text anywhere in this thread that gives your position a leg to stand on. Thus, until you can, I will be forced to automatically disregard any further 'discussion' coming from you, and treat my position as absolutely uncontested.

 

[notgreat]

I would feel much better if we made our first goal to get metal working ASAP, before another problem shelves it again. The increase in productivity by using copper tools should help a lot with establishing the settlements, provinces, and our guys taking more effective actions.

Click to shrink...

That's fair, but we're getting a significant upgrade to our metalworking actions in a few turns from the Kiln upgrade. We could do it manually by spending an econ and an action, but after the crisis is over I figure it won't be much longer before it automatically happens.
If we do get the Kiln upgrade by the time the crisis is over I'd definitely shuffle metalworking to the top.

edit: During that shuffle I'd also have to move boosting stats up as well, particularly Art since we'll be consuming that with our metalworking.

 

[Sivantic]

Any other opinions?

Click to shrink...

Science
We have 5 science projects and we've only touched upon a few of them and only in Secondary Capacity ;_;

 

[Umi-san]

Lawl what?
Many rich people in America didn't have rich ancestors, Bill Gates wasn't rich because of Daddy's money.
Also what do you have against heredity? Or do you not like having the stuff your parents worked for?
Communism doesn't work, capitalism demonstratively does, since most of the richest countries do it
Even China is converting to a more capitalistic society. Rather or not you dislike it doesn't mean it is not effective

Click to shrink...

True, Bill Gates wasn't rich because of Daddy's money. However, IIRC, he's also not giving his kids the biggest inheritance and is donating to worthy causes because he knows what it's like to be poor. (He does this because of ideals he grew up with, not because of capitalism's inherent self-correcting nature.)
When I was talking about "rich people in America who did have rich ancestors" I'm referring largely to people who are rich through their ability to invest in other people's enterprises and acquire businesses, stock, etc. as a result of an inherited and thus undeserved pool of money that allows them to do so. And also the political caste we have where people repeatedly get re-elected from particular families.

Capitalism demonstratively works to a degree, yes. Communism didn't work, at least in Russia because it wasn't communist, it was authoritarianism focused on Stalin and/or a rather bad approach to centralized planning (possibly because Stalin wanted to play games w/ eugenics). Our polity is avoiding a bad approach to central planning by having multiple levels of chiefs who only moderately oversee each other. It is avoiding an approach to authoritarianism through its humility trait, an increased emphasis on social harmony, and I guess vaguely the emphasis on the land and how it provides for people, rather than outright valorizing money and power.

Whether* or not I dislike it doesn't matter, yes, because I can agree that capitalism works and I don't particularly dislike it. I just don't agree that inheritance works, and somewhat dislike it. Considering that we are arguing over the benefits of nobility v equality, and inheritance v not-inheritance, the merits and downsides of capitalism v communism is null.

Considering the vote that's winning, we'll see whether a slightly more capitalist tax system - in the sense of an increased retention of productivity, which isn't really capitalist but is typically lauded as one of capitalism's main drivers - and continued lack of land inheritance makes for a decent system.

 

[DragonParadox]

Lawl what?
Many rich people in America didn't have rich ancestors, Bill Gates wasn't rich because of Daddy's money.
Also what do you have against heredity? Or do you not like having the stuff your parents worked for?
Communism doesn't work, capitalism demonstratively does, since most of the richest countries do it
Even China is converting to a more capitalistic society. Rather or not you dislike it doesn't mean it is not effective

Click to shrink...

The People are not in the modern age. At this stage in their development communal land management works demonstrably better than the alternative in the world they live in at the basic task of primitive societies which is feeding people.

 

[notgreat]

Science
We have 5 science projects and we've only touched upon a few of them and only in Secondary Capacity ;_;

Click to shrink...

I feel you, but math-wise I don't think I can support it. These are the available options:
[] Study Forests (better poisons? no tech out)
[] Study Health (temporary bonus -> unlocked megaproject)
[] Study Metal (we need to do this more)
[] Study Stars (Valleyhome loves this, we're doing it a bunch)
[] Survey Lands (we should be doing this more, it unlocks better settlement locations for the provinces to automatically take)

I don't think that Study Forests or Study Health actions are worthwhile unless there's some indication in the update that they're especially valuable for a temporary amount of time.
Also, we've done all 5 actions once already, unless there's a different science option I'm missing? (I suppose Main Art Patronage could count...)

So in summary, the ones we're not planning to take are prime actions for provinces(since they cost nothing) so if we don't have some sort of temporary bonus I don't see any reason to take them.

 

[Umi-san]

So, next turn is basically also locked in as "deal with the crisis". What are our plans once the crisis is over? Here's what I'm thinking:
1) Expansion: 2x [Main] New Settlement (provinces), 2x [Secondary] New Trails. This is econ neutral and gives +2 Mysticism and a secondary action every turn
2) Rebuild our stats: Art, Mysticism, and Econ to 5, Stability to 2 or 3 if we don't get that during the crisis.
3) Metal. We really should get back to that. Can be taken while doing the Expansion thanks to the Mysticism generated, though should probably wait for the Kilns to be automatically adopted.
4) Megaprojects and other opportunities.

Click to shrink...

1) I totally support Expansion as the first priority, but question what the benefit of a double main w/ New Trails is. Are you aiming to bring up our diplomacy so that provinces can resume independent trade missions? We could do walls or Survey Lands instead.
2) I feel that Mysticism might not be a concern because we have valleyhome doing Study Stars. Art is kind of important and I want to see what another Main Art Patronage does. If Baby Boom is still going we won't have to care about Econ. Stability is like... rn: 1 - 2 (midturn) -1 (kicker) + 2 (GS or GS+F) = 0. Free action gives a +1 if festival is chosen (plz pick it, it's just cool). So we'd need to do another GS, probably, to bump us to 3. So something like Main Expand + Main Trails/Trails & Survey Lands - Eastern Hills -> Main Art Patronage + Main GS.
3) After that is speculative. Main Study Metal + Other -> The Garden + Other -> Saltern + Other -> Star Chart + Other. Study Metal needs to be done after the kiln switchover, but before megaprojects.
4) I want The Garden because it's short but still provides a megaproject bonus. I want the saltern after that so that we have another trade good. Star Chart after that cus it's cool I guess. I'd be fine doing it before Saltern, actually.

 

[notgreat]

1) I totally support Expansion as the first priority, but question what the benefit of a double main w/ New Trails is. Are you aiming to bring up our diplomacy so that provinces can resume independent trade missions? We could do walls or Survey Lands instead.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, I'm not sure how to represent that clearly. It's 2 separate secondary trails to replace the lost centralization. In these plans I always refer to main actions as [main] even if we actually do them via 2x secondaries.

And for the stats, some of those may be fulfilled by province or automatic actions but I wanted to make my goals/priorities clear. Get those stats up before working on the later items.

 

[Umi-san]

Sorry, I'm not sure how to represent that clearly. It's 2 separate secondary trails to replace the lost centralization. In these plans I always refer to main actions as [main] even if we actually do them via 2x secondaries.

Click to shrink...

Oh my god I feel dumb. I ignored the whole "2x Province" part, sorry.

You realize that the Badlands is a settlement, not a province, right?

Edit: nvm

Special: Badlands settlement requires a Main action to work at all and only returns as a Secondary, but increases response time and decreases logistics for movement in and out of the badlands
Special: Main action for Eastern Hills or Southern Shores produces a new province

Click to shrink...

We can make a Southern Shores province and probably should. This means that we'll need to do a Main More Boats action at some point, though, in order to speed communication along our coastal settlements.

Edit 2: Does the march count as a province for the purpose of provincial actions?

 

[veekie]

I'm... of a strange mindset about this. On the one hand, it sounds good. On the other, the Southern Shore is likely to be raided heavily and I'd prefer to have other ducks in a row before we entered yet more 'fight off the barbarians' turns.

Click to shrink...

Given our current Martial I think we'd be in decent standing as long as we Wall the new province settlements on the same turn. Preferably both wall and tower, but actions...

 

[notgreat]

Edit 2: Does the march count as a province for the purpose of provincial actions?

Click to shrink...

I'm ~90% certain it doesn't since they have their own action spread (1 main 2 secondaries)

I'm guessing their stats are worth a lot less per point than ours though, since otherwise their one province is worth ~50% of everyone else added together.

(Also, do I need to make that province thing clearer somehow? bluefur87 made the same mistake just a few posts ago.)

 

[Neptune]

Sorry, I'm not sure how to represent that clearly. It's 2 separate secondary trails to replace the lost centralization. In these plans I always refer to main actions as [main] even if we actually do them via 2x secondaries.

Click to shrink...

It would be easier to @Academia Nut standardized on the formats, an example being below:

[Main x2] XYZ Action - You focus both main actions on the same thing, for example focusing it on building a stupidly large wall.

[Main] XYZ Action / [Main] XYZ Action x2 - You spend a main action on each thing, but they're separate or in different places. E.g, holy sites.

[Secondary x2] XYZ Action - this acts as a main action.

[Secondary] XYZ Action / [Secondary] XYZ Action x2 - This acts as two separate secondary actions, although there may not be much use of it given trade missions or war missions are already specified in where they go. As you mentioned the Trails may count for two centralization.

 

[Umi-san]

I'm ~90% certain it doesn't since they have their own action spread (1 main 2 secondaries)

I'm guessing their stats are worth a lot less per point than ours though, since otherwise their one province is worth ~50% of everyone else added together.

(Also, do I need to make that province thing clearer somehow? bluefur87 made the same mistake just a few posts ago.)

Click to shrink...

Do it like: [Main] New Settlement/Province - Eastern Hills + New Trails & [Main] New Settlement/Province - Southern Shore + New Trails.

I agree with that assessment, in which case we would indeed need to make 2 new Provinces.

I kind of want to do Southern Shores first, tbqh, because it will let us stay out of the lowlands for longer, but it would probably be better to do the lowlands first so that we own that area and won't lose it like we lost the lowland settlement. But tbh, before we do any province I want us to do a Main - Badlands + Main Build Wall - Badlands. I want that area safe and the ability to intervene against the HK if necessary. The lowland province in turn will allow us to intervene against the TH if necessary.

 

[maximillian]

True, Bill Gates wasn't rich because of Daddy's money. However, IIRC, he's also not giving his kids the biggest inheritance and is donating to worthy causes because he knows what it's like to be poor. (He does this because of ideals he grew up with, not because of capitalism's inherent self-correcting nature.)
When I was talking about "rich people in America who did have rich ancestors" I'm referring largely to people who are rich through their ability to invest in other people's enterprises and acquire businesses, stock, etc. as a result of an inherited and thus undeserved pool of money that allows them to do so. And also the political caste we have where people repeatedly get re-elected from particular families.

Capitalism demonstratively works to a degree, yes. Communism didn't work, at least in Russia because it wasn't communist, it was authoritarianism focused on Stalin and/or a rather bad approach to centralized planning (possibly because Stalin wanted to play games w/ eugenics). Our polity is avoiding a bad approach to central planning by having multiple levels of chiefs who only moderately oversee each other. It is avoiding an approach to authoritarianism through its humility trait, an increased emphasis on social harmony, and I guess vaguely the emphasis on the land and how it provides for people, rather than outright valorizing money and power.

Whether* or not I dislike it doesn't matter, yes, because I can agree that capitalism works and I don't particularly dislike it. I just don't agree that inheritance works, and somewhat dislike it. Considering that we are arguing over the benefits of nobility v equality, and inheritance v not-inheritance, the merits and downsides of capitalism v communism is null.

Considering the vote that's winning, we'll see whether a slightly more capitalist tax system - in the sense of an increased retention of productivity, which isn't really capitalist but is typically lauded as one of capitalism's main drivers - and continued lack of land inheritance makes for a decent system.

Click to shrink...

Communism fanboys, for all their love of postmodern relativism and rationalism, truly love playing the no true sctotsman fallacy.
USSR not true communist, Khmer Rouge now t true communist, DKP not true communist, PRC not true communist, PDRY(South Yemen) not true communist....and so on and so on.


The point is it's not a compition between two equal systems
Communism is not just an economic model. It's a full fledged social-political-economical ideology.
And all those communist states where adherent of the ideology, and tried their damn best to put it in practice, unfortunately the ideology itself is (in my opinion at least ) the most inhuman and vile thing that human intelligence can come up with, and thus the communist states applied and interpreted it in various horrid and unjust ways, but they were all communists. Just like how Islamic states apply Islamic teachings differently and yet they are inarguably Islamic.

 

[maximillian]

And I apologize for going on a tangent.

 

[Umi-san]

Communism fanboys, for all their love of postmodern relativism and rationalism, are truly love playing the no true sctotsman fallacy.
USSR not true communist, Khmer Rouge now t true communist, DKP not true communist, PRC not true communist, PDRY(South Yemen) not true communist....and so on and so on.


The point is it's not a compition between two equal systems systems
Communism is not just an economic model. It's a full fledged social-political-economical ideology.
And all those communist states where adherent is f the ideology, and tried their damn best to put it in practice, unfortunately the ideology itself is (in my opinion at least ) the most inhuman and vile thing that human intelligence can come up with, and thus the communist states applied and interpreted it in various horrid and unjust ways, but they were all communists. Just like how Islamic states apply Islamic teachings differently and yet they are inarguably Islamic.

Click to shrink...

that's nice, have fun w/ your full fledged social-political-economical ideology of capitalism and its friends, nationalism and christianity.

Edit: More sincerely, while I support communism as an ideal, it does appear to not be working on a wide scope within the modern political world. I'd argue that this is possibly because of interference from other countries and a lack of a tabula rasa culture (i.e. all the people who are trying to make a communist state are from capitalist of feudalistic societies w/ associated traits) but that's a kind of BS-y, "never had a fair chance" argument. I support the ideology of communism because it sounds nice. I support the ideology of socialism because supporting workers is good. I support the ideology of capitalism because forging your own path is excellent.

Balance is nice; the trouble is keeping it balanced.

 

[veekie]

It would be easier to @Academia Nut standardized on the formats, an example being below:

[Main x2] XYZ Action - You focus both main actions on the same thing, for example focusing it on building a stupidly large wall.

[Main] XYZ Action / [Main] XYZ Action x2 - You spend a main action on each thing, but they're separate or in different places. E.g, holy sites.

[Secondary x2] XYZ Action - this acts as a main action.

[Secondary] XYZ Action / [Secondary] XYZ Action x2 - This acts as two separate secondary actions, although there may not be much use of it given trade missions or war missions are already specified in where they go. As you mentioned the Trails may count for two centralization.

Click to shrink...

Not quite.
Certain actions are location based. These will not double up when taken twice as secondary.
New Trails is not location based, so it will always double up.

Location based actions(can split up when taken for different locations, will be assigned to most appropriate site if unspecified):
-Build Wall
-Build Watchtowers
-Expand Forests
-Expand Holy Sites
-New Settlement
-Trade Mission
-War Mission

So for instance
[][Secondary] Build Wall - Stonepen
[][Secondary] Build Wall - Stonepen x2

Builds a Main wall in Stonepen

[][Secondary] Build Wall - Stonepen
[][Secondary] Build Wall - Northshore

Builds a Secondary wall in Stonepen and Northshore.

There's no confusion involved here.
If it's not a project for a site, double secondary action only gives you the Main result. You can't get extra Stability from a festival by making it bigger.

 

[DocMatoi]

Many rich people in America didn't have rich ancestors, Bill Gates wasn't rich because of Daddy's money.

Click to shrink...

The current president is, though.

 

[Umi-san]

The current president is, though.

Click to shrink...

*Donald Trump Voice* GIMME THAT SUGAR, DADDY

 

[maximillian]

that's nice, have fun w/ your full fledged social-political-economical ideology of capitalism and its friends, nationalism and christianity.

Click to shrink...

Nationalism is not an ideology neither is capitalism, they tend however to be central to many ideologies , as for Christianity, it heavily depends on the sect in question.

 

[Umi-san]

Nationalism is not an ideology neither is capitalism, they tend however to be central to many ideologies , as for Christianity, it heavily depends on the sect in question.

Click to shrink...

I edited in a less irritated, off-the-cuff response above.
Capitalism is an ideology when people start talking about "the invisible hand of the market," and how people are poor solely because they didn't work hard enough, forgetting that the person speaking had all the benefits and opportunities that their parents' wealth, knowledge, and connections provided to them.

Nationalism is an ideology when people's actions trend heavily toward it, when they espouse faith in their government/nation and its inherent good as a primary cure to all ills, and when they take violent action to defend and propagate their beliefs. It is, admittedly, more likely to be found accenting stronger ideologies like fascism and capitalism, however.

Christianity is as much an ideology as Islam, Buddhism, etc. All of these faiths can pull the "it heavily depends on the sect in question" card.

 

[maximillian]

Nationalism is simply a belief in the concept of nation. Capitalism is a belief in the virtue of capital . They are not ideologies because they do not give guidelines and rules and structures than people should follow. As for religion, or religions are ideologies in general, but some sects are so simplistic/primitive as to have barely any rules or an extremely narrow set. And thus cannot really be called ideologies. For example a Belief that there is god is just that, a belief, it only becomes ideology, when it has a massive, complex set of rules and ideals that are at its core and who's adherents must follow . So Catholicism qualifies, but many modern Calvinist and Lutheran sects do not due to the lack of such wide ranging rules and guidelines and ideals.

 

[bluefur87]

I don't think that Study Forests or Study Health actions are worthwhile unless there's some indication in the update that they're especially valuable for a temporary amount of time.

Click to shrink...

Oh, that reminds me. Ideally we study health at the same time as study metal.

Nationalism is not an ideology neither is capitalism, they tend however to be central to many ideologies , as for Christianity, it heavily depends on the sect in question.

Click to shrink...

I edited in a less irritated, off-the-cuff response above.
Capitalism is an ideology when people start talking about "the invisible hand of the market," and how people are poor solely because they didn't work hard enough, forgetting that the person speaking had all the benefits and opportunities that their parents' wealth, knowledge, and connections provided to them.

Nationalism is an ideology when people's actions trend heavily toward it, when they espouse faith in their government/nation and its inherent good as a primary cure to all ills, and when they take violent action to defend and propagate their beliefs. It is, admittedly, more likely to be found accenting stronger ideologies like fascism and capitalism, however.

Christianity is as much an ideology as Islam, Buddhism, etc. All of these faiths can pull the "it heavily depends on the sect in question" card.

Click to shrink...

Alright, while I understand the desire to discuss the pros and cons of political ideologies, and that this thread even has a very vested interest in it for the purposes of the game, both of you are shifting really heavily into real world politics over the concerns of politics and ideologies in the game. Please keep it focused on the game and how it would shape and evolve in our current environment so we don't get way off topic please.

 

[maximillian]

Ofcourse the sects that are not quite ideology are decried by everyone else as not really a religion.