LA Ermor's Dominion Change in 3.15...

[Zeldor]

OmikronWarrior:

But you need to control that province for so many turns. AND have your dominion [prbaobly at least str 3-5] all the time. So that 42 turns is for capitol only.

I wish growth effect was 2-5 times bigger but with no income boost. Just boost by population growth. It could maybe also make population destroying spells weaker.

[OmikronWarrior]

Zeldor said:
But you need to control that province for so many turns. AND have your dominion [prbaobly at least str 3-5] all the time. So that 42 turns is for capitol only.

42 turns is the length of time in which you need to hold a province (any province) for the money difference between order-3 and growth-3 to be a wash (not the actual turn number in which everything everywhere equals out), and after turn 42 growth looks a lot better (due to the nature of exponential growth). Your criticism is a bit misguided in that in order to benefit from Order-3 you need the same criteria, control of the province and a minimum dominion to move scales. Once this is achieved, 42 turns is a theoretical number in which money breaks even, with plenty of room for 'experimental deviation'. Obviously, not all provinces will be under you control for a full 40+ turns, and there is no easy way to calculate the exponential benefit of growth in the provinces you control for more than 40 turns (or 70 for that matter) averaged against those you'll hold much less. The bigger the game, the more advantageous growth becomes.

Of course, I pretty much went out and said if you need money for your early game than you want order-3, which may allow you to take more provinces and thus have more money over the course of the game (to say nothing of more magic gems). Yet, how often does pretender design end up as a 120 points to spend on either Order or Growth? Realistically certain nations require growth to keep their old age mages alive. My suggestion has always been to combine Order-3, Growth-3, and even temperature scales for maximum effect accross the board.

I wish growth effect was 2-5 times bigger but with no income boost. Just boost by population growth. It could maybe also make population destroying spells weaker.

A dangerous line of thought. Check out this graph on wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...xponential.png .

The green line represents exponential growth. It starts our relatively slow compared to other forms of growth, but towards the end skyrockets into the atmosphere. The danger with increasing the pop growth to much is it becomes simply overpowering. I set up another spread sheet on my PC to compare your suggestions: 2xs and 5xs the current population growth figures. Assumming Growth-3 (1.2% and 3%).

For 1.2%, the break even point (with out any income benefits) was turn 31. A population doubled after 58 turns, and tripled after 92. For 3%, the break even point was turn 13. Population doubled at turn 24, tripled at 38 turns, and after 100 turns, the population would be 20 times the original.

I do feel like growth should be strengthened, but playing with exponents can be dangerous. I'd like to see the income modifier changed to 3%/tick. That make positive scales strategies much more viable.

[Zeldor]

OmikronWarrior:

How many turns you need now to double population with growth 1,2 or 3?

You have admitted that it gets good later. So you need to control that provinces for at least 25-30 turns to see a real difference in income from growth. That's really a lot. It will affect provinces you got in early game but you won't benefit from new ones. And you will have Order bonus from newly acquired provinces when you spread your dominion there. Does order also increase income from gold mines etc?

[johan osterman]

Omikron warrior, by 22-23 turns a province held in growth 3 should have an income equal to that of a order 3 province with growth 0.

It should take about 100 turns to double population with growth 3.

[Xavier]

I did some fiddling with this earlier - direct tests on early expansion with and without growth 3. The difference I was paying for was an asleep versus imprisoned pretender (who was mostly just a 9/6 bless vehicle). The difference in early expansion was actually substantial - do not underestimate the value of that +6% income. I would say that on any nation that doesn't need the resources, take sloth 3 and growth 3, as growth will substantially improve your income (this assumes you don't have anything more pertinent to spent those 120 points from sloth on, and that you're already at order 3).

[OmikronWarrior]

johan osterman said:
Omikron warrior, by 22-23 turns a province held in growth 3 should have an income equal to that of a order 3 province with growth 0.

It should take about 100 turns to double population with growth 3.

My "break even" is a bit more comprehensive then that. Current income might be equal after so many turns, but I take into the "lost" income from not having +21% the whole time. Thats where I get my 42 turn figure from. At that point you have made just as much money as had you picked Order-3, Growth-0. Feel free to link I gave above and the spreadsheet to make sure my math is right.

As for when population doubles with growth-3, its an easy calculation to make. 1.006^x=2, or x=ln2/ln1.006, or x=115.9.

[B0rsuk]

Growth: +1 +2 +3 +4 = +10
Order: +2.5 +2.5 +2.5 +2.5 = +10

Total extra gold for growth and order may be the same up to the breaking point, but growth allows you to invest it early. Lies, damn lies, statistics ! Breaking point is the breaking point only for people who sit idle scratching their backs. Another advantage of Order is that it quickly covers your newly conquered provinces. Looking at it this way, Order may actually pay more in the long run than Growth does. Not only Growth benefits mostly your core provinces, but it also benefits your enemy if he captures your territory. Order, on the other hand, disappears from your provinces when your enemy conquers them (destruction of temples, prophets, pretenders, enemy builds his own temples etc) And I'm pretty sure it makes your territory easier to invade, because it provides supplies for enemy army ! (The fact that no one noticed this before is a testament to the pointlessness of supplies in Dom3)

[johan osterman]

OmikronWarrior said:

My "break even" is a bit more comprehensive then that. Current income might be equal after so many turns, but I take into the "lost" income from not having +21% the whole time. Thats where I get my 42 turn figure from. At that point you have made just as much money as had you picked Order-3, Growth-0. Feel free to link I gave above and the spreadsheet to make sure my math is right.

Ah ok.

OmikronWarrior said:
As for when population doubles with growth-3, its an easy calculation to make. 1.006^x=2, or x=ln2/ln1.006, or x=115.9.

�
There used to be, and still is as far as I know, a 1.001 base growth at growth scale 0. Which is where I got the 100 turns, as in (turns)=ln2/ln(1.007)

[hnchrist3]

I have been playing LA Ermor for over a year. I switched when my other test factions consistently ran into trouble against Ermor. (Of course the idea was to understand the enemy so he is more easily defeated.) My conclusion was that LA Ermor is an extremely subtle nation to play; that is, it is always on the edge, and one miscalculation can sink it.

The population change is just another variable in a game of hundreds of degrees of freedom. Apparently it was "traditional" and it has been restored. To we LA Ermor players, it only means we have to adjust our strategy.

Frankly, I am a hard ***, and I do not take crap from any other players. I take the Lord-of-the-Rings point of view and tell other players, "The dead do not suffer the living." [The Return of the King.] If you attack me early, you can be guaranteed that neither of us will survive. If you find support in your attack, others will grow stronger while you defeat me.

Frankly, Ermor is a conundrum: Damned if you attack, and damned if you wait.

For my part, the new population rules mean it will be harder for ME to keep up a blood pool.

In any event, you'll have to pry those 15 death gems from my cold tight hand.

[B0rsuk]

johan osterman said:
There used to be, and still is as far as I know, a 1.001 base growth at growth scale 0. Which is where I got the 100 turns, as in (turns)=ln2/ln(1.007)

There appears to be no base growth. I just tested it, it's suposed to happen every single turn, not every 2 turns or anything like that, right ? 30370 in Man capital. One turn later, 30370. I vaguely remember Kristoffer being surprised that there's no longer base growth, and later saying something along the lines that it's ok because it makes growth more useful, it's end times, not much time passes between turns so it's realistic, etc.