[Nagot Gick Fel]

Peter Ebbesen said:

Whereas B/30 != 0 for B!=0 in my book, and is hence of consequence. Especially when considering costs over n turns, as the difference in price between a sacred unit with purchase price B1 and a non-sacred with purchase price B2 is B1+(n*B1/30) vs B2+(n*B2/15) and gets nastier the larger n is, rather than just B1 vs B2.

It never gets 'nastier'. Sure the absolute difference gets bigger and bigger as times goes on, but it doen't mean what you want it to mean - your accumulated income over the same amount of time will get bigger too. What is 10 gold to 100 gold? Only 10%. What is 100 gold to 1000 gold? Again, only 10%. These % numbers are the ones that really count, much more than the accumulated absolute upkeep difference.

Now of course, if you tell me in a typical turn with Mictlan, half of your income is spent to pay for your bloodhunters' upkeep (and I mean upkeep only - not recruiting new ones), I'll agree about these 'marginal' effects not being marginal in your case.

To take your Sanguine Acolyte example, it does not make much sense to me to state that they only cost 20% more (100 gold vs 80 gold) for their extra (admittedly good) effects, when even a mere 10 round life expectancy changes the relative costs to 107 vs 167, or a cost of 56% more.

Correct, if you assume the Acolyte loses all his usefulness as soon as the Mictlan priest reaches the end of his own life expectancy. Otherwise, it's pretty bad maths, and since living Acolytes are more useful to me than dead priests, I'd be glad to keep on paying the former's upkeep.

Anyway, what we are really comparing is the relative (blood output/gold investment) ratio for both nations, right? Then, assuming I agree with your 30-turns average life expectancy, and the Mictlan priests gets 10 less because of their lack of immunity, it just means you can expect to get as much blood from 2 Acolytes over 30 turns than from 3 Mictlan priests over the same amount of time. That's 480 gold paid on the priests, and 400 on the Acolytes. Fact is you'll get part of these bloodsdlaves earlier with Mictlan, which is an advantage. But then again, I never argued that Mictlan was worse than Abysia as long as it comes to blood harvesting.

I mean, you are discarding a 36% price difference because you choose not to count upkeep, considering it a marginal effect? I could understand discarding effects less than 5% (standard practise ) - but 36% is a heck of a lot more and not marginal.

That's bad math again. Assuming U is the upkeep/turn spend on bloodhunters, I is the total income/turn, and assuming this 36% figure is correct, we're comparing (U / I) to (U * 1.36 / I) here, which is definitely not the same thing, unless U is big enough when compared to I.

Hehe. Yes, I conveniently ignored this one, as I tend to build a lot of temples as Mictlan anyhow to be able to mass blood sacrifice, but it should be at least be partially included - IF that is, one assumes that DF will not likewise be setting up temples for dominion spread. E.g. one would have to consider the issue of surplus temples needed to ramp up priest production rather than just total temples.

Marignon spreads its dominion thru Inquisitors, not temples. Marignon doesn't need to push its dominion as hard as most other nations, BTW, and DF even less so.

In the not entirely hypothetical world described above, you end up with one Tribal King in each province and (in practise) way too many slaves.

The important word here are is the 'end' in 'you end up'. Guess I didn't put enough emphasis in my repeated 'it takes time to...'.

(OK, that's nitpicking...)

Oh, no, I did not forget any of that. The cost of the Fires from Afar part vs the damage inflicted is important, as it is the thing that shows that just scaling up (using more and more of them as gems become available) does not pay because it hurts your economy more than his.

Usually you can expect a decent player not to spend his fire gems aimlessly.

Ah, well. And since my best calculations still puts Mictlan at about a +40% blood advantage, I guess I will just have to disagree with you:

Except these 40% only exist in your calculations, and your calculations don't take into account many factors which drastically reduce it.

The most important of these by far is this blood advantage actually comes from a gold advantage, which comes from the lesser upkeep paid on Mictlan priests. Now, assume you have 30 Mictlan priests bloodhunters, thus spending 80 gold less than, say, DF on your hunters' upkeep. After 5 turns you have recruited 5 new hunters and send them to a new hunting ground (say, 8k province yielding 40 gold at 100% taxes, a reasonably average figure IMO). If, like most players, you decide to drop the taxes to 0% to avoid unrest coming in the way of your hunters' efficiency, your 'gold advantage' is cut in half. Repeat this after 10 more turns, and your 'gold advantage' is gone. And your 'blood advantage' amounts to only 2 more bloodhunted provinces, and this doesn't scale up.

Then there is the fact that pop isn't an unlimited resource, and your alleged 40% blood advantage will the same kind of wall pyramid schemes do.

Then there's the need for temples, which DF or Iron Woods don't need to recruit more cheap bloodhunters.

Then there's the fact that bloodhunters don't hunt 100% of the time. When unrest comes out of hand (and this may happen even in heavily patrolled provinces), it may be a good idea to have your hunters perform magic research for a turn or 2 if there's a lab in the place. The point here is that a 40% advantage over a degraded value isn't as impressive as a 40% advantage over an ideal value.

Then there's the fact that Mictlan has to divert some of its priests and slaves to push its dominion, a concern other nations ignore completely. Something that will eat up a significant part of this 40% blood advantage, I guess.

And I have a feeling I could add more to this list if I spent a few more minutes thinking about it.

A shame I did not manage to convince you, but then, it would not be fun if we all agreed on everything.

To your credit, I have to say you're probably the poster (or one of the few -) I feel most often in agreement with on this board. Except not this time - everything happens eventually.