Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by thejeff

I finally had a chance to come back to this and run a few more tests:
Looking at the relationship between number of provinces and number of events

T3L3 Dom10 pretender over 30 turns
2 provinces:
Nation1: 39
Nation2: 39

30 provinces:
Nation1: 57
Nation2: 54

300 provinces:
Nation1: 66
Nation2: 62


That looks strongly to me like number of provinces matters, especially on the low end.

I don't see how you can say this. I wish you had done 50 turns, so we could directly compare with my results. However adding 2/3 the events (30 turns * 2/3 = 50 turns) gives you 62 events on your size two nations - which is *more* than my size 4 nations, by about 5.

Also how did you start with 300 province nations? (starting methodology matters)

Finally, you went from 30 provinces to 300 provinces a factor of 10 increase, and only got an 18% increase in the number of events.

This suggests pretty strongly to me that it *isn't* a matter of of f(#). It looks to me like it is merely that with more provinces, that you will run into more provinces with bigger province terrain masks.

Interesting test would be to dump 10 lady of fortunes in a province and see what happens.

[sector24]

Something I noticed. Chris, when you were determining whether number of provinces affected the number of events, you used a territory size of 4 vs 8.

ok; With 50 turns, 0 luck 0 luck -3 +3 4 territories
22, 27, 54, and 46 luck events

With 8 territories same scales
24 24 64 55 luck events.

This was clearly (to me) not a test of whether terrority size affects the number of events. Simply not enough provinces to provide any meaningful results. Then when a test comes along using larger number of provinces that actually might provide an accurate test of the hypothesis, you bash it. But you bash it by comparing it to your 4 vs 8 province test! Everyone else can make up their own minds, but I find a significant lack of objectivity here.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by sector24

Something I noticed. Chris, when you were determining whether number of provinces affected the number of events, you used a territory size of 4 vs 8.

This was clearly (to me) not a test of whether terrority size affects the number of events. Simply not enough provinces to provide any meaningful results. Then when a test comes along using larger number of provinces that actually might provide an accurate test of the hypothesis, you bash it. But you bash it by comparing it to your 4 vs 8 province test! Everyone else can make up their own minds, but I find a significant lack of objectivity here.

I certainly do not bash the test, and in fact welcome more tests.
And I wouldn't mind being proved wrong on it either.

I certainly don't *mind* if there is an alternate mechanism.

I certainly have no problem with the data,
However having a 1000% increase in the number of provinces yielding an 18% increase in the number of events does not qualify as support saying that events are a function of # of territories. IF we are going to get a valid model here, I think we have to poke holes in all theories.

For curiousity sake, I wonder why do you think that a 4 territory vs an 8 territory is insufficient to determine meaningful results? Especially over 50 turns?