Conceptual Balance Series (Mod)

[Alneyan]

The basic growth value was 0.2%, and so I believe the .02% and .03% were typos. It has been increased to make Growth more worthwhile and, above all, to make Death a less appealing choice.

[Ivan Pedroso]

atul said:

Indeed, it would appear a province with 30 000 pop and growth3 dominion has an increase of 270 pop per turn - so growth would raise pop by 0.3% per scale. From the comments above, I assume it was meant to be only 0.03% increase per scale?

Yeah I used 1,0003 because Zen stated above that the growth rate was .03% - If he meant .3% then it should be 1,003. And also I wasn't aware of the admin/growth issue, I just thought that other castle stuff would be identical in the two situations. As is(almost) always the case, actual experiments beat dry calculations

@Turin: Could you tell me the connection between admin and growth ? (Is it in Liga's addendum ? or ?). And even without the added benefits of growth that you pointed out, I agree, that growth over order seems to be a no-brainer.

[Graeme Dice]

Turin said:
and that makes growth a nobrainer compared to order with that mod.

Unlike Growth, Order still effects event frequency, so it's not quite as clearcut as you suggest.

[Huzurdaddi]

I like (the idea of) the scales in the faeron test mod used in some of Soapyfrogs games. I haven't played 3 turns with them yet, so I don't know how balanced they are, but they seem to keep the flavor of the scales more, rather than mostly smudging the lines in the income department.

The only one of those that I would change if I could go back in time would be

#deathsupply 30

the modifier is simply too high.

[Turin]

Ivan Pedroso said:
[
@Turin: Could you tell me the connection between admin and growth ? (Is it in Liga's addendum ? or ?). And even without the added benefits of growth that you pointed out, I agree, that growth over order seems to be a no-brainer.

Well my calculations suggest that it is admin value/2 added as a multiplier. So with growth 3 and a watchtower you get pop/200 *(1,12 (growth multiplicator) + 0,05(admin multiplicator) )

[Turin]

Graeme Dice said:

Unlike Growth, Order still effects event frequency, so it's not quite as clearcut as you suggest.

well with the changed luck scale that�s not necessarily a benefit and I even forgot the supply bonus growth gets you.

[Zen]

Growth is a no brainer over Order?

Hrm. Actually with the adjusted scales getting points feels a little harder to accomplish. So, with Order you can safely take Misfortune 2 without as much detriment. Taking Growth not only limits your points because you no longer take Death. If you are playing outrageously large maps with Turns in the 100+ (or you give up because the micromanagment kills you) Growth will look very appealing, while if you are playing anything under 50 turns, Death is not quite so appealing because of the Gold hit.

Also the choice between Growth and Production is significant unless you Subscribe to the "National Armies are crap at all times and I am making a bunch of clams and bloodstones and whatever to remain competitive" strategy, then of course you might want to always choose Growth over Production.

[Turin]

Ok if you factor in free misfortune 2 points, then it makes sense to take order, however growth is by far the best choice if you are looking for huge amounts of cash.

For example if you play with growth3 order3 productivity 3 and a watchtower, your income will be ~50% higher after 30 turns, than someone�s who chooses only order 3 productivity3 .

[Zen]

Turin said:
Ok if you factor in free misfortune 2 points, then it makes sense to take order, however growth is by far the best choice if you are looking for huge amounts of cash.

For example if you play with growth3 order3 productivity 3 and a watchtower, your income will be ~50% higher after 30 turns, than someone�s who chooses only order 3 productivity3 .

Unless those 120 Points you spent on Growth allowed you to expand ~50% faster or take Indeps of a greater caliber.

Growth only surpasses Order after turn 25 *if* there are no population damaging events or spells tossed into the mix. Even one population damaging event/spell in the first 20 turns will push that back quite a bit.

I have always felt that it's important that all points have an impact on both your strategy as well as the timeframe you are playing in. And as such, I can see where I would still take Death not only in timeframe (under 50 turn games) but also in strategy as well as Growth. Previously I (and only me) felt there was no need to take Growth for any of it's effects (Population/Gold/Supply). Now it may be possible to circumvent one scale with two others (Turmoil).

If it can be shown that Growth outperforms order on a variable slate of games/settings that exceeds it's points I would consider changing it. However, I have yet to see it because of the simple fact that Death is very attractive in *any* sort of game and it's not only spending points, but losing out on the points you could gain from Death.

[Ivan Pedroso]

UPDATE: Look below for a newer Version of the mentioned Excel-sheet.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Well back again with some dry math. This time I have used the right 0.3% value for the growth effect (and 6% for order, and 4% for growth). I have tried to take into account the reduction in bad events when taking order. So Order+2 vs. Growth+2, fueled by taking Luck-2, can be compared.

I've also used different values for the gold and growth boosts from taking growth and order in the different calculations. And the "reduction in bad events" bonus from taking order has also been fiddled with.

My conclusion is that "Growth+2, Luck-2" vs. "Order+2, Luck-2" accumulates the same amount of gold after about 50-80 turns, depending on how much of an influence you feel that order has on bad events.

All in all I get the feeling that the values of Order(6%) and Growth(4%, 0.3%) are about right. Maybe Growth(4%, 0.25%) would be better if it is a legal value.

I've attached the Excel-document used to make these comparisons (with comments). It should be usable as a testing template, when horsing around with different values of the scale parameters