I think 1 x heavy, 1 x light, 1 x archers should do, if we spend a dedicated action to entice clansmen into raiding with us and that produces 1-2 hunter pops.
Mmm, to be honest I'm leaning more towards dropping the archers from this raid, while they typically emerge unscathed my memories of their actual effectiveness is that they weren't actually that good. Also did you see my edit in that post about the silver workers plan?
 
The clansmen are occupied trying to be stubborn and build village mountains, pulling out their food options is bad.

I'd leave them be. Our pops are more than enough for some light raids.

I hope that we get some good tech out of this. Imagine if they already have pottery!
 
[X] Satar

I hope we find a decent settlement to raid.
Gathering allies for a raid that ultimatly only ends up hitting a few caravans would be an embarrasment we can't afford before the Clans.
 
Gathering allies for a raid that ultimatly only ends up hitting a few caravans would be an embarrasment we can't afford before the Clans.
If that's your thinking I've got to ask why your voting for the plan which explicitly encourages clan hunters to come along.

Although this has also shifted my thinking from dropping the archer pop to a heavy pop, lights find and harass them, archers delay them, heavy hits them.
 
If that's your thinking I've got to ask why your voting for the plan which explicitly encourages clan hunters to come along.

Although this has also shifted my thinking from dropping the archer pop to a heavy pop, lights find and harass them, archers delay them, heavy hits them.
We are working on a generational scaler here, so this will not be one or two raids, but years of harassment.
Sooner or later they'll propably find a village to fight, or the traders will band togather in a larger and well defended group, or one or both of the affected parties will send retaliatory forces.

THese troops will, in my opinion, most likely see combat worth calling that, if only because that's what almost always happens when bandits get bad enough to disrupt trade seriously.
 
The clansmen are occupied trying to be stubborn and build village mountains, pulling out their food options is bad.
I'd leave them be. Our pops are more than enough for some light raids.
I hope that we get some good tech out of this. Imagine if they already have pottery!

Some of them are. Explicitly three or so clans or small groups of clans decided to press forward on building villages. The rest? Still culturally influenced by us and amenable to a pitch. Fighting alongside the clansmen keeps us abreast of any military innovations they've developed, while also keeping relations close and sweet.

Mmm, to be honest I'm leaning more towards dropping the archers from this raid, while they typically emerge unscathed my memories of their actual effectiveness is that they weren't actually that good. Also did you see my edit in that post about the silver workers plan?

It's not a bad idea, and I think if you run with a three pop raid/ complete silver mine without clansmen diplo, that could be a very legit plan. The reason I include clansmen diplo is because with the antler clans absorbed, I'm not sure Azel will let us fiat clansmen auxillaries without a dedicated diplomacy action. So you have to accept the possibility that the three Valley People pops raiding is all you get. Furthermore, this means you're retraining a pop to silver miner instead of gathering, which is taking a more aggressive position on Food Futures.

But at that point we're into the thickets of opinion, where any head or heads of leaves are equally likely to be good or bad ideas depending on how our rolls for this turn go. Effectively I've taken a more conservative position on Military Futures and Food Futures, but if you want to adopt a more aggressive posture, I think it's perfectly natural and equally valid.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'm convinced. I hope that this brings enough culture and or production to make something meaningful next turn.
[X] Plan Feigned Friendship & Blood Murder
 
[x] Plan Feigned Friendship & Blood Murder
i prefer this plan of the two raid plans as this leaves us with 1 production to spend during the next turn.
 
Fortunately, taking a look at the mechanics it looks as if population loss only kicks in when we go under by 15/16 food, or rather we only produce an amount equal to less than half our pop. Needless to say a lack of food supply will end up causing a morale/stability hit, but there was no point in taking our order ideals if we never take a course of action which uses them except against Random event rolls. But if each Hunter pop produces 1.6 food as the multipliers imply, with 4 out we'll only loose 6.4 food production, 4.8 with 3 hunters out, considering we had a decent surplus of food production last turn? In short, we should be good pop wise unless we get a random famine turn, which is unlikely cause that's mountain valley climates thing, being stable.

But I'm not against swapping the hunter training out to a gatherer rather than a sliver mine worker, we don't need to exploit it right away and it will help mitigate the tight belts slightly this following turn.


TLDR, think we should be good to keep 4 hunters on the raid pop wise if not morale wise, switching new hunter to new gatherer to help mitigate food shortage/encourage growth and finishing the silver mine this turn via council action.
 
Since the thread seems in agreement over the current strategic issues of Greenvalley (being isolated, being surrounded by enemies) and about raiding caravans, I have to ask:
How do you think will raiding caravans improve the overall strategic situation of the Valley People?

The thread has developed quite a pattern of noticing some development in the lowlands, deciding to raid them once and the buggering back off to the mountains and ignoring them for multiple turns without having achieved any lasting victories.
 
Since the thread seems in agreement over the current strategic issues of Greenvalley (being isolated, being surrounded by enemies) and about raiding caravans, I have to ask:
How do you think will raiding caravans improve the overall strategic situation of the Valley People?

The thread has developed quite a pattern of noticing some development in the lowlands, deciding to raid them once and the buggering back off to the mountains and ignoring them for multiple turns without having achieved any lasting victories.

I think we are deliberatly being warlike because being peaceful would be boring in these games?

I agree that it doesn't have much sense, but nobody wants to bend the knee and try to trade either.
 
Since the thread seems in agreement over the current strategic issues of Greenvalley (being isolated, being surrounded by enemies) and about raiding caravans, I have to ask:
How do you think will raiding caravans improve the overall strategic situation of the Valley People?

The thread has developed quite a pattern of noticing some development in the lowlands, deciding to raid them once and the buggering back off to the mountains and ignoring them for multiple turns without having achieved any lasting victories.
We probably need to be more ruthless in our wars. For example, we might have been better served attacking Brushcrest during their war with Makar, or settling Lakefort while they were distracted.
 
I think we are deliberatly being warlike because being peaceful would be boring in these games?

I agree that it doesn't have much sense, but nobody wants to bend the knee and try to trade either.
I'm decidedly not saying that you need to trade. Makar became great and powerful by nothing but war.

But the Valley People got into a lot of conflicts with the lowlands about, essentially, maintaining the status quo.
 
Since the thread seems in agreement over the current strategic issues of Greenvalley (being isolated, being surrounded by enemies) and about raiding caravans, I have to ask:
How do you think will raiding caravans improve the overall strategic situation of the Valley People?

The thread has developed quite a pattern of noticing some development in the lowlands, deciding to raid them once and the buggering back off to the mountains and ignoring them for multiple turns without having achieved any lasting victories.
For me it's hoping to drive the nomads away from the lowlands at least for awhile, so that when we rush to put in Menhirs it will actually be taken seriously by our neighbors rather than looking like the tribal civ equivalent of tantruming children claiming a bunch of stuff without having anything actually backing up said claims. This is in effect a show of military force to say, hey, this is our land, don't ignore our existence if your planning on using it like you have been doing previously. I wanted to start the Menhirs last turn but people voted for the silver mine instead, which means the nomads and lowlanders have had longer to go yeah this is our normal stuff not the valley people's stuff, we'll just ignore them when they claim it without backing up said claim.
 
I'm decidedly not saying that you need to trade. Makar became great and powerful by nothing but war.

But the Valley People got into a lot of conflicts with the lowlands about, essentially, maintaining the status quo.

So the idea would be to scout further and actually subjugate some polity instead of keeping this circle of stealing a bunch of stuff and becoming hermits?

Okay, this has more sense. Maybe we need to go and capture a minor village and press more.
 
Since the thread seems in agreement over the current strategic issues of Greenvalley (being isolated, being surrounded by enemies) and about raiding caravans, I have to ask:
How do you think will raiding caravans improve the overall strategic situation of the Valley People?

The thread has developed quite a pattern of noticing some development in the lowlands, deciding to raid them once and the buggering back off to the mountains and ignoring them for multiple turns without having achieved any lasting victories.

Basically we're counting on the idea that we can out-stubborn any lowlander attempts to use the area south of us. We're betting that the lowlanders won't have the appetite to dish and take the level of punishment we'll inflict to keep them out of our borderlands. It doesn't improve the strategic situation, but it keeps it from deteriorating, which is better than nothing.

I'm decidedly not saying that you need to trade. Makar became great and powerful by nothing but war.
But the Valley People got into a lot of conflicts with the lowlands about, essentially, maintaining the status quo.

But Azel, we kinda did the whole assemble a warhost to take land permanently thing, and we got tricked by Brushcrest and nearly were swindled of our lives in a futile struggle against Makar. The system change forced us to spend a few turns building up our food production. I guess you're right that we could do more than just raid the herdsmen, we could follow them back to their homes and inflict a more decisive blow there next tur--oh, oh my, you sly dog, Azel, I guess we could do that--
 
Last edited:
What do you guys think of following the herdsmen back to their homes and defeating the whole mass of them in one go? No more herdsmen polity, no more encroachment problems.
 
Last edited:
For me it's hoping to drive the nomads away from the lowlands at least for awhile, so that when we rush to put in Menhirs it will actually be taken seriously by our neighbors rather than looking like the tribal civ equivalent of tantruming children claiming a bunch of stuff without having anything actually backing up said claims. This is in effect a show of military force to say, hey, this is our land, don't ignore our existence if your planning on using it like you have been doing previously. I wanted to start the Menhirs last turn but people voted for the silver mine instead, which means the nomads and lowlanders have had longer to go yeah this is our normal stuff not the valley people's stuff, we'll just ignore them when they claim it without backing up said claim.
Menhirs honestly don't do all that much. If we want to make the kind of military statement you're hoping for we need to start being more committed in conflicts, rather than doing essentially minimal damage then retreating to our mountain holds.

For example, with Brushcrest, every time we fight them, we manage to beat them somehow, then we turn around and give them room to recover and grow. As opposed to Makar:
I'm decidedly not saying that you need to trade. Makar became great and powerful by nothing but war.

But the Valley People got into a lot of conflicts with the lowlands about, essentially, maintaining the status quo.
They did nothing but war, but they slammed everyone around them so that nobody had the room to grow to challenge them.
Basically we're counting on the idea that we can out-stubborn any lowlander attempts to use the area south of us. We're betting that the lowlanders won't have the appetite to dish and take the level of punishment we'll inflict to keep them out of our borderlands. It doesn't improve the strategic situation, but it keeps it from deteriorating, which is better than nothing.



But Azel, we kinda did the whole assemble a warhost to take land permanently thing, and we got tricked by Brushcrest and nearly were swindled of our lives in a futile struggle against Makar. The system change forced us to spend a few turns building up our food production. I guess you're right that we could do more than just raid the herdsmen, we could follow them back to their homes and inflict a more decisive blow there. Oh, I see what you're getting at!
A lack of expansion is going to bite us in the ass, especially since the lowlanders have much more room to grow, and they've been having trade with multiple other factions for decades if not centuries. Merely keeping the lowlanders from settling Lakefort isn't good enough in the overall view of things.
What do you guys think of following the herdsmen back to their homes and defeating the whole mass of them in one go? No more herdsmen polity, no more encroachment problems.
I think we will seriously want to consider who to approach about an end to hostilities. Azel just warned us about isolationism, and we all know how that ends.
 
I think we will seriously want to consider who to approach about an end to hostilities. Azel just warned us about isolationism, and we all know how that ends.

I don't follow your point. If we subjugate the herdsmen village and relocate all their pops to Greenvalley, then the question of ending hostilities doesn't matter because we've destroyed the only parties we were hostile with?
 
If they don't have palisades? Might be good if we bring out the entire army for it. If they do courtesy of Brushcrest trade causing innovation spread? Then probably no.

Also, that feels too much like it leans into taking the vote hostage, as people have voted for us to be aggressive this turn, not wait another and go out then. I can add a line about trying to drag out the information of where the herdsmen live out from captives however, but I won't delay my plan's raid unless voters agree to it.
 
I don't follow your point. If we subjugate the herdsmen village and relocate all their pops to Greenvalley, then the question of ending hostilities doesn't matter because we've destroyed the only parties we were hostile with?
You are not aware of any villages up in the mountains. As far as you know, the Hersmen / Goat People are entirely nomadic ever since you destroyed Soft Hills.
 
If they don't have palisades? Might be good if we bring out the entire army for it. If they do courtesy of Brushcrest trade causing innovation spread? Then probably no.

Also, that feels too much like it leans into taking the vote hostage, as people have voted for us to be aggressive this turn, not wait another and go out then. I can add a line about trying to drag out the information of where the herdsmen live out from captives however, but I won't delay my plan's raid unless voters agree to it.

No, no, we don't raid this turn and then attack their settlements next turn. We hit them hard with as much of our military as we can manage this turn and settle the problem permanently.

You are not aware of any villages up in the mountains. As far as you know, the Hersmen / Goat People are entirely nomadic ever since you destroyed Soft Hills.

But the whole tribe has got to gather sometime somewhere, right?
 
Last edited:
I don't follow your point. If we subjugate the herdsmen village and relocate all their pops to Greenvalley, then the question of ending hostilities doesn't matter because we've destroyed the only parties we were hostile with?
That doesn't address the problem that we're definitely becoming isolationist. We don't have positive interactions with anyone outside the mountains, we just raid them. This stifles trade and tech development, and it makes our cultural dominance which we were so excited about basically worthless in regards to converting anyone but the White Clans, etc.

We just got a QM warning about it, we probably shouldn't ignore it. Just raiding the goat people doesn't do anything to change our current path.
 
That doesn't address the problem that we're definitely becoming isolationist. We don't have positive interactions with anyone outside the mountains, we just raid them. This stifles trade and tech development, and it makes our cultural dominance which we were so excited about basically worthless in regards to converting anyone but the White Clans, etc.
We just got a QM warning about it, we probably shouldn't ignore it. Just raiding the goat people doesn't do anything to change our current path.

But if we do nothing, we risk Lakefort V. II. Even if raiding the Goat People just maintains the status quo, it's not a bad status quo to not have any settlements in marching distance of the valley. We don't have the military strength to sack Brushcrest. Not raiding this turn will make our military worse than elite, and anger our hunters something fierce. Maintaining the status quo seems not that bad to me.

What do you suggest then? Trading?
 
Back
Top