Remove ads

Tales of History - A Civ-Builder Quest

Reader mode
Artemis1992 said:
Not so sure.

They are brittle. Using fanatical mobs who should be working instead in war is a quick way to kill you own economy (we have been warned of that when considering the Unyielding Identity), so a prolonged war might not be in their favor.
On the other hand they do have better morale and seemingly endless internal support for war, while the Bushcrestians might try to flee or surrender eventually.

It's really an uncertain case for me, and we don't have the numbers to say anything definitive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Also a good point. Best case scenario is that they killed each other to near mutual destruction and then the rivers flooded and finished them off.
 
Satar said:
Also a good point. Best case scenario is that they killed each other to near mutual destruction and then the rivers flooded and finished them off.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think my favorite would be to have the Makarites win, but taking so many losses they basically have to run their entire eco on non-assimilated slaves taken from an enemy.

That would be rather easy to topple with just a win or two in the field.
Loot for the tribe, honor for the ancestors!
 
Last edited:
Here's the current tally.
Adhoc vote count started by Satar on May 10, 2019 at 11:14 AM, finished with 267 posts and 25 votes.
  • [X] Plan We Need More Pops
    -[X] Send the hunters on a raid.
    --[X] scout the lowlands, find out what is going on and are there minor settlements like the one at Lakeford or outlying settlements near Bruchcrest. Avoid conflict.
    ---[X] 1 Light
    -[X] Improve the village by construction sturdy longhouses for the people. (2 of 3 Production paid)
    -[X] Send a diplomat to someone.
    --[X] To the White Clans
    ---[X] Find clans of appropriate size who believe in the Faith of Bones and persuade them to come to Greenvalley, swear oaths of allegiance to the Council of Three (as the Antler Clan chief did), and become part of the Valley People. The size of the clans should collectively number no more than three pops. Preferably we want two gatherers, 1 herder.
    -[X] (Optional) Change the focus of the Pilgrim Village.
    --[X] Encourage own culture. (+1 Valley People Culture in Greenvalley)
    -[X] Attempt to change a Pops culture to Valley People.
    --[X] If diplomatic attempt succeeds, convert one of the three White Clan pops to Valley People. Preferably the highest status pop of the three.
    [X] Plan Longhouses, Mountain Men, and Goats
    -[X] Send the hunters on a raid.
    --[X]Scout east where the High Herdsmen once lived for easy targets. Only scouting unless the Warleader is absolutely certain they can make easy loot without drawing a strong reaction on our home. If no such targets are found, explore the mountains east of Greenvalley and north of the Goat River. Bring clansmen scouts.
    --[X] 1 Regular, 1 Light, 1 Archer
    -[X] Reassign some of the workers to different tasks.
    --[X] Tell the artisans to focus on something else.
    ---[X] One Culture to Production
    -[X] Improve the village by construction sturdy longhouses for the people. (Cost: 3 Production)
    --[X] Start for 2 Production
    -[X] Attempt to change a Pops culture to Valley People.
    --[X] Sowing People Serfs
    --[X] 1 Culture
    -[X] High Council:
    --[X] Gain +1 Production to spend this turn.
    -[X] Send your Great Prophet Speaker somewhere:
    --[X] To the White Clans
    ---[X] Establish local shrines.
    -[X] (Optional) Change the focus of the Pilgrim Village.
    --[X] Bring Valley People Culture to the White Clans. (+1 Valley People Culture in the White Clans)
    [X] Plan Lakefort Expansion
    -[X] Make all the hunters hunt except one heavy to act as protection for the new Settlement
    -[X] Improve the village by construction sturdy longhouses for the people. (2 of 3 Production paid)
    -[X] Create a new village to claim more land for the Valley People. (Cost: 1 Production per Pop settled in the new village.)
    -[X] Write-In which Pops to settle there.
    --[X] Three Greenvalley Serfs
    -[X] Write-In where to build the village.
    --[X]At the confluence of the rivers Green and Goat (upon the ruins of Lakefort)
    -[X] Gain +1 Production to spend this turn.
    [X] Plan building up
    -[X] Send the hunters on a raid.
    --[X] scout the lowlands, find out what is going on and are there minor settlements like the one at Lakeford or outlying settlements near Bruchcrest
    --[X] 1 Light
    -[X] Improve the village by construction sturdy longhouses for the people. (2 of 3 Production paid)
    -[X] Send a diplomat to someone.
    --[X] To the White Clans
    --[X] convincing more clans to settle at Greenvalley
Click to expand...
 
Well, at least we aren't the Makar. We would have been closer to bonified evil if we went the cannibalism route earlier on.
 
looseanon said:
Well, at least we aren't the Makar. We would have been closer to bonified evil if we went the cannibalism route earlier on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hey guys, just as a general PSA: it seems that after the Rome thread, threads like these are coming under increasing scrutiny for rule 2 compliance.

I just wanted to remind everyone to be careful of how we speak of Brushcrest and Makar in this thread. We may be angry about Brushcrest's betrayal and think that the Makarites are overly violent, but we should endeavor to express that frustration in ways that don't dehumanize either.

Let's try to stay on the right side of the rules as a playerbase, so we can enjoy Tales for a great many updates to come!
 
Last edited:
Warning: Please Take Care In How You Discuss Violence
  • Staff Post
    • please take care in how you discuss violence You are, under rule 2 and 6, allowed to play an "evil" civ quest. You are, however, required to discuss your actions regarding this in ways that line up with the rules of SV.

    As of now, the thread has largely met this responsibility. Reading through the most recent arc, I did not find anything alarming concerning the quest itself.

    There have, however, been a number of alarming posts during the Red Rivers arc.

    Satar said:
    This is going to become an epic legend or tale someday; it has all the makings of a legendary battle. But a legendary victory, the stern men of the mountains vanquishing rabid animals...or great sorrow, the world itself being plunged into chaos and anarchy?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Satar said:
    Not if we kill off all their pops.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Describing your enemies as "rabid animals" would usually be treated incredibly severely. As this is, specifically, in the context of how the battle will be described by in-universe storytellers, I am being more lenient. Nonetheless, your posting routinely toes the lines in joking on or advocating for genocide, and sometimes edges across that. No infraction has been levied at this time, and you have not received points or a threadban, but you have received a staff notice under rule 2.

    RandomDwarf said:
    not to mention the idea of a so-called coalition? yeah...we disperse their population, destroy their food, and kill their animals and take their goods for ourselves. let them try to run to their other villages and starve.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    This line of ITG behavior, going into detail about how you want to slowly starve your enemies to death is not acceptable. That this is one of several posts where you voiced such sentiments is unacceptable. Reacting emotionally to narratives is fine, wonderful even, but please confine yourself to expressions of emotion in line with the rules.

    You have not received an infraction or threadban for these posts, but a staff notice has been lodged against your account.


    official staff communication Additionally, in the interests of ensuring that the thread may proceed without interruption, I would like to emphasize prior staff posts regarding genocide in quests.

    This post has been linked in thread before, and does a good job at describing the ways in which you are allowed to discuss massacres and, even, genocide in thread. Use of the word genocide does not factor into this, and, euphemisms such as "killing pops" do nothing to shield you from rule 2 concerns re: advocating genocide. Please also see this post from Squishy with regards to how rule 2 applies to quests in general.

    When invested in a quest, it's easy to respond to in-game betrayals and existential threats very emotionally. However, nothing in the rules states that a strong emotional reaction to a story or game absolves you of the responsibility to discuss these topics in a mature and non-toxic fashion.

    Again, I believe the thread has been relatively self-regulating until now. Please make sure it stays that way.
     
  • Staff Post
    • I do have to say that returning to your quest when you have the time to write the next turn and seeing 400 words of staff post is rather discouraging.

    There is also a quite significant chilling effect, as there was apparently concern about the rules conformity of my writing itself, to say nothing about two posters getting staff notices.

    It has a significant feeling of "This thread is hereby marked ban-bait.", even though this was definitely not the intent behind the notice.
     
    Azel said:
    I do have to say that returning to your quest when you have the time to write the next turn and seeing 400 words of staff post is rather discouraging.

    There is also a quite significant chilling effect, as there was apparently concern about the rules conformity of my writing itself, to say nothing about two posters getting staff notices.

    It has a significant feeling of "This thread is hereby marked ban-bait.", even though this was definitely not the intent behind the notice.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Just have to be careful, I would recommend a foreword and afterword of any update that contains Subjugation Actions, denouncing Genocide and such,
    Especially any POV chapters to be sure that your real life position is clear even if the POV character is supportive of such actions.
    At least i think that would help...?
     
    We could keep the aggression limited to the settlement in question and focus on removing the settlement's ability to affect the world instead of removing their population while saying it is pest control. Acknowledge they too are people and proceed to exile them from their burning home.
     
    VoidZero said:
    We could keep the aggression limited to the settlement in question and focus on removing the settlement's ability to affect the world instead of removing their population while saying it is pest control. Acknowledge they too are people and proceed to exile them from their burning home.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    But that just wastes our trait, nothing worse than altering our people because of non-inworld reasons.
     
    Azel said:
    I do have to say that returning to your quest when you have the time to write the next turn and seeing 400 words of staff post is rather discouraging.
    There is also a quite significant chilling effect, as there was apparently concern about the rules conformity of my writing itself, to say nothing about two posters getting staff notices.
    It has a significant feeling of "This thread is hereby marked ban-bait.", even though this was definitely not the intent behind the notice.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Hi, @Azel, good to see you.

    I think that the gist of the mod statement said nothing about your writing and rightly so. It's more, I think, a concern that the playerbase wasn't just choosing to conduct massacres because they were mechanically a good choice, or in-character for the Valley People, but because of OOC adoption of IC attitudes-- especially in the Red Rivers arc? I'm as concerned as anyone that this thread is becoming ban-bait as I feared civ quests would come under increasing scrutiny-- perhaps unreasonable scrutiny-- following the flaming wreck that was the Rome thread, but that doesn't seem to have been the case. It sucks getting a staff notice, personally, but in the grand scheme of things it's rather light.

    The mod said that we've done a pretty good job just generally policing ourselves, which is absolutely true, and I don't think that you've got anything to worry about. We, the players, might have to digest and understand that, because of the increasing enforcement of Rule 2 in all its fullness, it's very advisable to conduct ourselves carefully. But as the GM, you've not glorified the courses of action we've undertaken or spared us from the consequences of those actions.

    I do hope that this doesn't stop you from continuing this quest, because honestly this is my favorite quest, and you're my favorite GM* and it would be incredibly sucky for a great quest like this to die right after it got resurrected from the dead in some wonderful act of necromancy none of us had seen coming. Still, I understand if you don't feel like continuing it. In that case, should you decide to migrate the quest to SB (forums.spacebattles.com) or continue it on anonkun (fiction.live) you've only to say the word and you'll have a ready-made playerbase for either, I'm sure.

    That's all I've really got to say, man, I hope things are good in Germany.


    *Tied with Talos and A Destiny of Strife because that's also really great.
     
    Last edited:
    We're fine, just keep in mind that even an 'evil' civ needs reasoning to do evil.
    Discuss it in terms of inflicting morale damage, or weakening potential counterattacks. The deaths are means not ends.
     
    ya when talking about reasons for large amounts of dead people, do keep in mind unless your arguing via entirely in character the word evil (or demonizing said subjects in general) shouldn't be applied to the people we are planning to kill/enslave/ect. Because if you are you propyl should take a step back. It frankly doesn't matter if its 1 or 100,000 thousand.
     
    Rule 2/5 - This is not an appropriate response to a staff post about hatefulness
    Shadell said:
    [warning=Please Take Care In How You Discuss Violence]You are, under rule 2 and 6, allowed to play an "evil" civ quest. You are, however, required to discuss your actions regarding this in ways that line up with the rules of SV.

    As of now, the thread has largely met this responsibility. Reading through the most recent arc, I did not find anything alarming concerning the quest itself.

    There have, however, been a number of alarming posts during the Red Rivers arc.


    Describing your enemies as "rabid animals" would usually be treated incredibly severely. As this is, specifically, in the context of how the battle will be described by in-universe storytellers, I am being more lenient. Nonetheless, your posting routinely toes the lines in joking on or advocating for genocide, and sometimes edges across that. No infraction has been levied at this time, and you have not received points or a threadbanned, but you have received a staff notice under rule 2.

    This line of ITG behavior, going into detail about how you want to slowly starve your enemies to death is not acceptable. That this is one of several posts where you voiced such similar sentiments is unacceptable. Reacting emotionally to narratives is fine, wonderful even, but please confine yourself to expressions of emotion in line with the rules.

    You have not received an infraction or threadban for these posts, but a staff notice has been lodged against your account.
    [/warning]

    [information=Official Staff Communication]Additionally, in the interests of ensuring that the thread may proceed without interruption, I would like to emphasize prior staff posts regarding genocide in quests.

    This post has been linked in thread before, and does a good job at describing the ways in which you are allowed to discuss massacres and, even, genocide in thread. Use of the word genocide does not factor into this, and, euphemisms such as "killing pops" do nothing to shield you from rule 2 concerns re: advocating genocide. Please also see this post from Squishy with regards to how rule 2 applies to quests in general.

    When invested in a quest, it's easy to respond to in-game betrayals and existential threats very emotionally. However, nothing in the rules states that a strong emotional reaction to a story or game absolves you of the responsibility to discuss these topics in a mature and non-toxic fashion.

    Again, I believe the thread has been relatively self-regulating until now. Please make sure it stays that way.[/information]
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    This is dumb. Jannies should go where from where they aren't wanted and their posts actively reduce thread value (through reduction of immersion) .
     
    Azel said:
    Well. Here I am, peeking into the thread to announce that there will be an update coming tomorrow...
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    It can't come early enough, @Azel, it really can't.

    Quick question: now that we might get 30 pops by the end of the turn, are we still just a large tribe? What's the next tier? A proto-Kingdom like the Makar?
     
    SpeckofStardust said:
    ya when talking about reasons for large amounts of dead people, do keep in mind unless your arguing via entirely in character the word evil (or demonizing said subjects in general) shouldn't be applied to the people we are planning to kill/enslave/ect. Because if you are you propyl should take a step back. It frankly doesn't matter if its 1 or 100,000 thousand.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Even in character. Nobody thinks of themselves as evil. Pragmatic yes. Brutal yes.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top