Remove ads

Ymaryn Successor Quest (Paths of Civ AU)

Reader mode
The peacock whining doesn't really have any foundation in Ymaryn values, not even Life of Arete. Meanwhile a rebellion is decidedly against Lord's Loyalty and our Symphony value. Let's not forget that the Ymaryn are in general very low on militancy even when compared to IRL WEIRD.
 
Last edited:
People keep pointing out that the Peahens would win a hypothetical civil war. No one's questioning this.

Aranfan said rebellion is very unlikely. I'm going to interpret that as meaning attempted takeover--which was always more plausible than actual civil war--is also very unlikely. So we should be safe except for dice loss, maybe other effects.

But, if there's a more serious ruckus than usual, we might expect more than 1 Influence loss, which would then (assuming Revaunchist mechanics) downgrade our Authority dice and delay Math Reform.

Oshha said:
I'm pretty sure if it as a case of you being elected means that you are elected and you can't be replaced on a whim.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It was that way in PoC, where changes of heir were routine (and indeed, an intentional part of the system, to replace heirs who didn't take to the training). Maybe they changed it at some point.
 
Last edited:
noncannon said:
But, if there's a more serious ruckus than usual, we might expect more than 1 Influence loss, which could turn downgrade our Authority dice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Only if lose said ruckus. Since it is possible for the Peacocks to lose said rumpus and disintegrate as a result, I doubt it will just be us losing dice. More likely it will be a set of choices of how we respond. And honestly, I am willing to lose some dice and delays things we want to do if it means taking out the Peacocks. Better to do it now when we can afford to do so then risk it later when we might not be able to do so.

noncannon said:
It was that way in PoC, where changes of heir were routine (and indeed, an intentional part of the system). Maybe they changed it at some point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It doesn't seem to be working that way in this quest. We have kept the current heir until they become king or the heir dies. And if they didn't replace Brynn over the King submitting to the Khem a while back, I doubt they will do so over this.
 
Last edited:
noncannon said:
It was that way in PoC, where changes of heir were routine (and indeed, an intentional part of the system). Maybe they changed it at some point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Heirs getting fired for making incompetent decision is a thing, yes. But you can't fire a King's heir for the King making politically unpopular decision. That just doesn't make sense. Otherwise Brynn would be fired as soon as our King makes deeply unpopular choices. Moreover, that's more likely the King's prerogative.
 
Kiba said:
The peacock whining doesn't really have any foundation in Ymaryn values, not even Life of Arete.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It originally did...
And, technically, they still kind of are, just they are stretching the ideals of Personal Stewards of Nature to extremes, counting the top dog position as a position that is the Ymaryn's, and thus must be required and held onto just as fiercely as their lands are.
 
Themarineguy said:
It originally did...
And, technically, they still kind of are, just they are stretching the ideals of Personal Stewards of Nature to extremes, counting the top dog position as a position that is the Ymaryn's, and thus must be required and held onto just as fiercely as their lands are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Which has no basis since it's not even about land.

Oshha said:
It doesn't seem to be working that way in this quest. We have kept the current heir until they become king or the heir dies. And if they didn't replace Brynn over the King submitting to the Khem a while back, I doubt they will do so over this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Even if Parliament have the right to fire the heir, they need to have a cause for firing Brynn. They can't just fire her willy nilly.
 
Last edited:
Oshha said:
Since it is possible for the Peacocks to lose said rumpus and disintegrate as a result, I doubt it will just be us losing dice. More likely it will be a set of choices of how we respond.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's the other thing that confuses me, and made me think internal revolt: what kind of rumpus is there to "lose"?

If not an attempted takeover, and not the obvious "more Influence loss", next likely is passive resistance, i.e. putting the bureaucracy (or at least the projects we have assigned) on strike. Since they control the bureaucracy, they can presumably do this.

I'm curious as to how you think we would respond. I assume there would be some cost to "standing our ground", or else it wouldn't be a real choice. Do we allow Sacred Warding, Train Thunder Plateau Administrators, Calendar Reform to be put on hold? (They might finish before the event, or they might not.)

Alternatively, perhaps it would be better to wait until these things finish, so they can't be interrupted?

...

@Kiba: Parliament chose Desdydyn to replace a "sub-par" candidate; no other rationale was needed. Naturally, "sub-par" is subjective (or not even in this case, if it just means not carrying out the majority-Revaunchist parliament's will).
 
Last edited:
noncannon said:
I'm curious as to how you think we would respond. I assume there would be some cost to "standing our ground", or else it wouldn't be a real choice. Do we allow Sacred Warding, Train Thunder Plateau Administrators, Calendar Reform to be put on hold? (They might finish before the event, or they might not.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I suspect the sacred warding and such would be something that couldn't be put at risk due to the Peacocks simply not being able to sway the priests, since if I remember correctly, they did not have much, if any foothold on the priests...
 
noncannon said:
That's the other thing that confuses me, and made me think internal revolt: what kind of rumpus is there to "lose"?

If not an attempted takeover, and not the obvious "more Influence loss", next likely is passive resistance, i.e. putting the bureaucracy (or at least the projects we have assigned) on strike. Since they control the bureaucracy, they can presumably do this.

I'm curious as to how you think we would respond. I assume there would be some cost to "standing our ground", or else it wouldn't be a real choice. Do we allow Sacred Warding, Train Thunder Plateau Administrators, Calendar Reform to be put on hold? (They might finish before the event, or they might not.)

Alternatively, perhaps it would be better to wait until these things finish, so they can't be interrupted?

...

@Kiba: Parliament chose Desdydyn to replace a "sub-par" candidate; no other rationale was needed; Parliament just "wanted to" make the change. Naturally, "sub-par" is subjective (or not even in this case, if it just means not carrying out the majority-Revaunchist parliament's will).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Is the Parlement even majority Peacock? Because not everyone is a peacock or peahen. Most people likely are not ether, or are not to a strong degree.

And the Melek has a lot of say.
 
The patricians are mostly Peacock Faction.

The internal report said, as the exception to the above, that "the Peahens have controlled both the Stylus and the Advisory Chiefdoms", but made no mention of Parliament. Maybe you can take the elections as evidence *shrug*

Themarineguy said:
I suspect the sacred warding and such would be something that couldn't be put at risk due to the Peacocks simply not being able to sway the priests, since if I remember correctly, they did not have much, if any foothold on the priests...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Plausible, assuming that no extra supplies/help is needed (at the very least it'll progress with reduced rolls, and might just progress normally).
 
It should probably wait for math reform, but we need another census. There have been a lot of changes to the kingdom since the last one.
 
noliar said:
It should probably wait for math reform, but we need another census. There have been a lot of changes to the kingdom since the last one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can do the census once per a king's reign. At least we can take the action only once per a king and get gameplay benefits. I'm not sure how often it is done in the background.
 
Oshha said:
We can do the census once per a king's reign. At least we can take the action only once per a king and get gameplay benefits. I'm not sure how often it is done in the background.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Likely not consistently, but rather periodically through things like status reports from nobles and priests. You don't need to get a headcount of every individual. You ask each noble administrator how many people live in the area they administer and don't worry about small over or undercounts.

Then you pay attention to tax records to keep things up to date. The generational census calibrates the system and keeps everything reflective of reality.
 
A while ago some were mentioning benefits if Balthasar passes away.

If the Peacocks control the parliament, or even are a major power there, (because the patricians are a huge part of that) we may get ... difficult choices for Heir.

Keeping Balthazar around until the Peacocks are gone would be ideal. ( Though it might not be realistic at all unless we get them to make their move prematurely)
 
Is the wagonway a single line that stretches out from the core to txolla and into TP? Or are we talking about a series of lines?
 
I'd certainly prefer to avoid poking the Peacocks until the math reform is complete. On the other hand if we don't do it now, if Balthazar dies parliament is likely to appoint a Peacock heir.
 
Kiba said:
Not possible. We choose the heir and control every King's action.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Parliament gives us their choices of heir. We choose from there. They could possibly present only Peacock candidates.
Also we might take penalties for defying what our king wants, like how Balthazar would have given us a penalty to all actions if we didn't address Txollan concerns on a given turn.
 
Last edited:
noliar said:
Did Balthazar do a census?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes.
Aranfan said:
A Census
Needed: 6+. 53-5 = 48. Success.

The census has come in. Melek Balthazar has approximately 30 Million bodies under his command. The actual number of people living in the kingdom is probably as much as half again larger, but 30 Million is how many obey his commands and pay their taxes.

Humbling, to have less than a third of the pre-Collapse numbers at ones disposal.

(+1 Influence)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top