[X] [New] They can leave, or they can die.

[X] [Act] Raiding Parties - (South Farmers)s x2
[X] [Act] Train Hunters x2
[X] [Act] Train Hunters
[X] [Act] Hunting Expeditions
 
[X] [New] If they stay away from us, we'll stay away from them.
[X] [Act] Train Hunters x2

Better to spend a turn or two working out which of the new tribes we'll want to keep around as friends, which we'll want to keep around as tributaries... And which need to 'disappear'.
 
@OliWhail shouldn't this also give us a possible response? Or is that what the "warm ties where possible" entails?

[X] [New] They can leave, or they can die.

[X] [Act] Train Hunters x2
[X] [Act] Raiding Parties - (South Farmers)
[X] [Act] Train Hunters

I don't really have a preference between double training or singular raiding paired with singular training. As long as we train in preparation of punch.
This general vote is for general attitude, establishing specific relationships will be more on a per-group basis.

This needs to be changed, right?
I swear to god I fixed that...
 
[X] [New] If they stay away from us, we'll stay away from them.
[X] [Act] Expand Fishing
[X] [Act] Intensify Cultivation
 
[X] [New] They can leave, or they can die.

[X] [Act] Train Hunters x2
 
So then whenever we get the appropriate innovation type we're likely to unlock proper farming eventually regardless.
 
So it increases innovation in a different way than teleshamans? What are the mechanics for teleshamans again?
We actually know what's going on inside the people we have Teleshamans in. It's why we got so much mention of Hill and Lake and Mountain in our BOAT Quest updates. It also helps with diplomacy, makes it less likely to go down.

Here what will happen is that our innovations have a source of "flavoring" pushing them to be more like the farmer techs.
 
[X] [New] If they stay away from us, we'll stay away from them.
[X] [Act] Expand Fishing
[X] [Act] Intensify Cultivation
 
Damnit people, don't you realise if we just straight up kill everyone we meet, two things are going to happen.

1: Everyone's going to gang up and kill us off, permanently. No 'break up the tribe and rebuild', just GG, no RE
2. It means we can't bash peoples heads in and make them tributaries/vassals and force them to give us stuff, because we killed them.
 
Damnit people, don't you realise if we just straight up kill everyone we meet, two things are going to happen.

1: Everyone's going to gang up and kill us off, permanently. No 'break up the tribe and rebuild', just GG, no RE
2. It means we can't bash peoples heads in and make them tributaries/vassals and force them to give us stuff, because we killed them.

I'm hoping to tributary the lot of them, maybe drive the nomads away but definitely tributary the farmers that crop up. Taking the aggressive attitude here read to me less like the literal 'we will kill you on sight' isolationism-breed of violence and more a 'we will not ignore you or play nice', which neatly translates into 'this is our land and you must serve us if you wish to live on it' if we keep up the tributary concept.
 
After next round's raid, I want to turtle up and spam Cultivation until we get villages, so we can double our actions per turn. We need more actions if we're going to stay competitive, and more actions will make turns more interesting, quite frankly.
 
After next round's raid, I want to turtle up and spam Cultivation until we get villages, so we can double our actions per turn. We need more actions if we're going to stay competitive, and more actions will make turns more interesting, quite frankly.
Yeah I agree, though we do have to be wary of the whole "get more actions just so you can get more actions" paradox of civ games. Gotta use those actions for other things, obviously :V
 
Back
Top