[Ivan Pedroso]

Great comments Atul. You are quite right about the early-game risk of an event hitting your capitol, and that would hurt ones income badly, and that should raise the parameter somewhat above the "naïve" 1/0.90 value.

I have made some graphs on the sheet - it's all quite a bit more informative now.

It is obvious from the graphs that the value chosen for the "Order-effect-on-bad-events"-parameter plays a more important role than the other (well-known) parameters. This means that any conclusions drawn from this method are sensitive to ones choice of this parameter. My estimate of 1/0.90=1.11... for Order+2 came from the observation that in an Order+2 domain event frequencies are reduced by 10%. If a value of 1.40 is chosen (corresponding to an "effective reduction" in event frequencies of 14.2% pr. Order pick - an extreme value in my opinion, even in light of Atul's analysis), then the accumulated income from Growth+2 overtakes that from Order+2 at around turn 120. That indicates that if you are especially scared of an early income hit due to a bad event hitting your capitol (i.e. your private estimate of the parameter is close to 1.40) then Order is what you want even in a long game (with Zen's choice of scales).

I've attached the new and improved sheet to this post (and removed it from the other one above).