Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Mind-bogglingly popular game series that you follow from early on and cannot stop, waiting for new installment like a drooling addict.

Long-runner soap opera you're too invested into to just stop watching it.

A fun little comic strip in the daily newspaper that's been around forever.

3/6

Who said it's fun? I didn't for sure.

I'm just waiting here for it to die horribly already so it will stop showing on my Unread Posts list.

[Blood_Librarian]

 Changing my vote to B

[mightymushroom]

Sure, C's better, but we don't have the votes,

Moving my vote away from C will not get more for the plan I desire. I have no interest in B; rereading the exact wording it may even be worse than A if it fails, because it would probably overwrite the excellent deal that is C. I also fear A may overwrite the current deal, but I'm less certain of it.

If there was ever a safe time to ask "what could possibly go wrong," this is it.

I'm also asking, "What could possibly go right?"

In the post I read, the nephew stated outright that he will refuse vassalage because his honor demands adherence to the King's orders. Yet the A contingent seems to believe that our military might can make him ignore that honor; the same military might that he and the Parsian soldiers actively fought for nearly a year after their leadership fled as cowards. This is not a man who gives in.

Thus I do not anticipate the great any gain by pushing hard for vassalization, other than it would look cooler on our map. I think the title of vassal and the importance of splitting Parsia's power is being too highly rated. The argument seems to be for smashing Parsia's power to oppose us, yet what stops our two vassals from joining forces in a rebellion and being equally large? (And having all our military tech, too!) There are always reasons to be careful, that's why we keep an army handy. I think we can benefit now and still have the army handy if needed later. With the extra income we can probably vote in a size increase. I'm not paranoid over future Parsia continuing to be "Parsia."

[helmacon]

In the post I read, the nephew stated outright that he will refuse vassalage because his honor demands adherence to the King's orders. Yet the A contingent seems to believe that our military might can make him ignore that honor; the same military might that he and the Parsian soldiers actively fought for nearly a year after their leadership fled as cowards. This is not a man who gives in.

Negotiating from a position of military superiority is only advantages if you are willing to use that military and the other guys know it. Even if we fail and go full execution on their nobility, (Which is highly unlikely) we will be setting a precedent for any future negotiations we enter into. That precedent is a very valuable thing. 

[mightymushroom]

Isn't a "my way or die" precedent at least as likely to lead people to fight harder and longer, since they expect no better accommodation from talks? We did use our military. We used it all the way to penetrating their strongest walls and capturing their royal chambers. Do you think Alalkan doesn't believe we are capable of a few more sword strokes after all we've done so far?


There is an example of the opposite effect: at the end of the third Eval war we carefully targeted only the leaders and spared the city. They were happier and more loyal on that account.

On the other hand, the dwarves tried bullying us to pay up or lose our artifact. We didn't like it one bit. We had to buy a truce twice, but we didn't relent on our cause no matter their military superiority. Their strategy proved counterproductive, the High King admitted the harm to his profits and offered an artifact replacement.

[VoidSlayer]

B

I am open to accepting the option C, but honestly them reorganizing under us has advantages to them as well, they can count on a much stronger alliance to back them if they are invaded and trade with everyone in the empire.  We are the only option among the empires nearby that will let them keep their state religion while still being a vassal.

[ANGRY_DEMON_NOISES]

B

[helmacon]

I honestly can't believe you people are about to throw away one of the biggest conquests we have ever managed to pull off for pocket change when we are getting a bonus to the negotiation roll because you don't want to take the small chance of us failing the roll, followed by the small chance of a native rebellion that would at best be vastly inferior to and easily overpowered by our military.

[Maximum Spin]

I honestly can't believe you people are about to throw away one of the biggest conquests we have ever managed to pull off for pocket change when we are getting a bonus to the negotiation roll because you don't want to take the small chance of us failing the roll, followed by the small chance of a native rebellion that would at best be vastly inferior to and easily overpowered by our military.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm planning to counteroffer annexation into the empire without a split, which seems to be their core sticking point.

(Also, none of your small chances are the core reason I don't want to pick A, but that's beside the point.)

[milo christiansen]

A split is one of our core requirements! It is the #1 thing we can do to reduce the chance of rebellion later. More importantly, it would simply be putting things back to the way they were a few years back, so no one (except a few nobles, who really don't count) will mind much at all.

[mightymushroom]

I honestly can't believe you people are about to throw away one of the biggest conquests we have ever managed to pull off for pocket change when we are getting a bonus to the negotiation roll because ...

(emphasis added to your emphasis)

I can't believe you think we've pulled it off until the ink is dry. Alalkan said no. We know he is willing to fight and die for the sake of his honor. It's so integral to his characterization that I think it is willful blindness to assume one roll can erase it.

I do not believe that this supposed bonus to the roll matters.

1) The negotiator came to the table. He told us what he was not willing to give, and then listed a whole range of concessions that he and his uncle, after watching Methiantese rulers for years (there's your precedents! they know all about our strongarm tactics) could yield. The bonus does not need to make vassalage possible. Rather, I believe the outcome table looks more like a pass/fail check. Any difference in positive outcomes is at most quibbling about the numbers and not the grand scheme. Meanwhile, that leaves 2/6 chance of, yes, getting worse. Those odds are enough that I can sincerely doubt the benefits of massaging good outcomes would outweigh the risks of losing.

2) The bonus is for "Good Terms" – treating Parsia well in spite of our military control, and we first saw it not when we opened our arguments but when we were given the negotiations for a compromise. You seem to think that continuing to ram our plan will always give that bonus. How long before Alalkan decides we're mad and impossible to reason with?

It is the #1 thing we can do to reduce the chance of rebellion later.

I've been thinking about this, and I call bogus.

Case A) The NPCs behave rationally, or at least motivationally according to their own simulated intents. Then the best way to prevent future conflict is to befriend them rather than to bully them.

Case B) The NPCs behave randomly, or at least according to narrative demand. (Haspen has many, many times referred to "rolling" for certain events to happen.) Then it is useless to bully them into [insert safeguards here] because they won't care when they are chosen to be agents of Fate.

I raised a parallel question over Tywynn and Leath. Everybody who wanted Tywynn dead was adamant that being a twin somehow increases the chance of rebellion, but the nearest thing to proof was something like "Well, it's more likely if Haspen thinks it's more likely." No one ever pointed me to an example(s) that Haspen in fact thinks like that.

In the realm of armies and nations, I have raised the example of Eval as evidence that Haspen rewards our kindnesses ("Good Terms", eh?) with simulated loyalty. Also Dogethe, whom we first met when Yoe I invaded her country. We negotiated faithfully and became friends; even her eventual betrayal – failing to stand at length against a dwarven army – was quickly followed by an apology and compensation, which we accepted. Said loyalty may not last forever, about a generation for non-empire NPCs. But imposing our will by force only seems to encourage resistance by force for the same generation.

[Baffler]

Changing go B.

[Arlos]

B

[Lucus Casius]

B

[Haspen]

You continue negotiating for some middle ground.

3*

You don't get anywhere in particular. Alalkan repeats his terms - Vizier position for a Methiantese nobleman, religious tolerance in Parsia and truce between the nations for two decades, although he adds something extra; instead of plain tribute of coinage from Parsia, he would ensure that gemstones mines in northeastern mountains would send their yearly output quota to Methiantese treasury for next ten years. This is far more reliable, as the mines are digging out stones steadily every year.

A) This won't do, I said it once already.
B) Alright, let's sign the papers.
C) Dungeon the kid and annex Parsia, yes?

[crazyabe]

B. Better in the long run that we don't suddenly absorb two other empires worth of land.