Growth and Death by the Numbers

[mr_Logic]

(4) My numbers represent additional gold over the several turns. Not how much additional gold you recieve per turn at the end of X number of turns. Expect gold income to below my given percentage for most of the turns, and significantly higher by the later turns.

so if you ended the chart at, say, turn 30, then the actual additional amount per turn would be higher at the turns just before turn 30, then now as youv ended the chart at turn 102?

either i am misunderstanding you, or your math is off.

[OmikronWarrior]

Keep in mind that in order to get the benefit of Order/Turmoil, you still need to spread your domain as well. What these charts show me is less that Growth is an equal alternative to Order as a money maker, but a good money maker in its own right that compliments Production.

In joke format, people without Growth or Order
take the bus to work, people with just Order drive BMWs, people with just Growth take the bus but retire early, but people Growth and Order fund the Russian space program to get to work.

mr_Logic said:

so if you ended the chart at, say, turn 30, then the actual additional amount per turn would be higher at the turns just before turn 30, then now as youv ended the chart at turn 102?

either i am misunderstanding you, or your math is off.

OK, on a given turn (lets call it T(1)), a province will make X amount of money based on Y amount of population. Unless there are modifiers in play. Lets assume Growth 3. So, you make X*1.06 money. Now on T(2), your population has changed to Y*1.006, and since base money is directly proportional to population, you'll earn X*1.006*1.06. What my figures tell you is money made on T(1) and T(2) AVERAGED. Or they would if I bothered to do Turn 2.

[Wick]

One way to balance order might be to make it more vulnerable to unrest. Turmoil is like the Dukes of Hazard -- they don't pay taxes on their moonshine and sometimes raise a rumpus but the boys will be back helping Pa on the farm soon enough. Order has quiet, well maintained towns but they need to call the police (patrollers) when there's trouble.

I think having unrest go down by 3 - Order points per turn would be reasonable.

[quantum_mechani]

Order originally lowered unrest.

[Saint_Dude]

I thought it still did.

I definitely feel more confident raising the taxes in provinces with Order instead of Turmoil. It seems like I get less unrest and the unrest that I do get is easier to put down.

[CUnknown]

Yeah, I hear what you're saying OmikronWarrior. Growth does seem to be a good money-maker judging by your numbers. It's just, if you took Growth instead of Order intending to make money on it, it's like you're saying "I'm going to survive for 100 turns and then I'll really cash in!"

I don't think you can always assume you're going to survive that long.. It just seems worth it to take Order and get the money in the short run and use that money to buy troops to expand to get more money. But, maybe a Growth-3 defensive strategy, possibly combined with clamming or bloodstones, with the intent of being peaceful and just hoarding the wealth, could be viable.

[Endoperez]

Growth also protects your old mages from early death, saving you a lot every late winter. Growth also keeps your provinces from getting plagues, while Order keeps all events in check and enables the "tax collection went well" events.

[mr_Logic]

OmikronWarrior said:
OK, on a given turn (lets call it T(1)), a province will make X amount of money based on Y amount of population. Unless there are modifiers in play. Lets assume Growth 3. So, you make X*1.06 money. Now on T(2), your population has changed to Y*1.006, and since base money is directly proportional to population, you'll earn X*1.006*1.06. What my figures tell you is money made on T(1) and T(2) AVERAGED. Or they would if I bothered to do Turn 2.

ow, ok, i get it now, thanx. i thought you meant the figures given were cumulative.
but then actually, the money made on any turn will actually be higher then the perentage you give for that turn, instead of this only being so for the later turns. cause every figure given with a turn is an avarage of earlyer turns. but i see now that with later turns you didnt mean 'later turns on the chart', but 'the later turns up to the turn you are looking at'.

really nice chart btw, im deffinitely trying a growth scale next time. 'get and defend the rich provinces early' make a good stratagy with that..

[OmikronWarrior]

Since it was brough up... here are the figures adjusted by Order 3, or 1.21. Also, I've given up getting Open Office to look respectible, so I'm sticking with Excel. Sorry all you open sourcers out there. I'll be adding the zip to the original post shortly.

D 3 D 2 D 1 Neutral G 1 G 2 G 3
0 114% 116% 119% 121% 123% 126% 128%
6 112% 115% 118% 121% 124% 127% 131%
12 110% 113% 117% 121% 125% 129% 133%
18 108% 112% 116% 121% 126% 130% 135%
24 106% 111% 116% 121% 126% 132% 138%
30 104% 109% 115% 121% 127% 134% 141%
36 102% 108% 114% 121% 128% 135% 143%
42 101% 107% 114% 121% 129% 137% 146%
48 99% 106% 113% 121% 130% 139% 149%
54 97% 104% 112% 121% 130% 140% 151%
60 95% 103% 112% 121% 131% 142% 154%
66 94% 102% 111% 121% 132% 144% 157%
72 92% 101% 110% 121% 133% 146% 160%
78 91% 100% 110% 121% 134% 148% 163%
84 89% 99% 109% 121% 134% 150% 167%
90 88% 98% 109% 121% 135% 151% 170%
96 86% 96% 108% 121% 136% 153% 173%
102 85% 95% 107% 121% 137% 155% 177%

EDIT: On another note, taking and holding rich provinces is a good idea no matter what your scales, as is build forts on them since administration proves ANOTHER money multiplier and helps makes sure they don't fall into enemy hands.

[Sombre]

The money multiplier from building a fortress will rarely, in my opinion, pay for the cost of building it in the first place, given other things you could spend the money on and the probable length of the game.

And a fort under siege won't help you protect your income from the province that much.