I'm pretty sure I'm the only one allowed to be salty here, doubly so since I was also attempting to get people to raise Mysticism and we had this fun tidbit:
I also supported that, too. Really, this turn's event justified
massive amounts of smug on my part.
@veekie @Powerofmind
I'm reasonably sure we've done a loop here. Power's original vote was more or less identical to this.
[X] [Sacrifice] Large (-3 Econ, +1 Stability, ???)
[X] [Harmony] No, they could cause further panic
[X] [Ward] No, it is sacred magic (Small chance of stability loss)
[X] [King] Remain home (Chance of stability gain)
[X] [Refugee] Those with preexisting ties can come in (-1 Stability, +2 Econ, small chance of further stability loss)
Just curious
@Powerofmind how are you getting those probabilities? I only roughly approximated the chances of each result when I did some of the stability math.
Yes, there was a loop. I didn't want to change my vote in the first place.
Assumed small chance was 25-30%, assumed 'chance' was 50%. Based the Admin Ordering Roll on basic dependent probabilities (so the more non-immediate stability affecting events, the more 'cards' could be drawn from the deck, making the overall chance of death smaller).
Worst Case Scenario: Temporary -4
...
Which of course kills us thanks to our harmony trait.
...
I'm not even going to bother doing further calculations. I'll just leave this here and hope people sort out this nonsense by tomorrow morning.
The chance of hitting -4 is extremely slim, actually. It requires that of the 4 stability-affecting events, that both of the negative ones occur first, and the small chance roll passes to our detriment. By itself, that is a 1 in 36 or 1 in 48. It is
slightly increased when adding in 'chance of gain' between the two (and assuming that fails to our detriment), but that particular addition basically only adds another 1% to the pre-existing 2%, a grand total of 3%, or 1 in 33, sufficiently low.
Ok everyone, I made a quick Python 2 monte-carlo simulation so that we can see the probabilities of the various failure states. Most of the probabilities are self-explanatory except for the admin roll. This simulation assumes that if the admin roll passes all +stability actions are done first, and if it fails then the order is completely random (and thus still has a chance of coming out perfectly).
Admin Order rolls are closer to dependent probabilities.
Why is this winning? Mechanically it has a very high chance of leaving us at -2 stability, a much smaller but still reasonable chance of leaving us at -1 stability, and a small but real chance of breaking us! (If we roll for the small chance of stability loss before the King vote comes in and lose, or if the King vote doesn't help and the Ward rolls badly-remember, we fracture the moment we hit -3 stability, not at the end of the turn like other civs.)
And narratively it makes no sense! This is against everything our people have ever stood for-Charity and Justice!
Edit: Seriously, even if the stars align and everything goes perfectly, we get...2 econ.
It's winning because it's very specifically not a risky decision, at a time where, for once, picking the risky option has a not-insignificant chance of
instantly Game-Overing the civ.
Ultimately, with my plan we will gain anywhere from 2-7 Stability before refugees, and I'm not even going to argue over what to do with them.
1-6, counted properly, and only 2 of that is
guaranteed to occur before you eat 5 stability, instantly reducing us to -4 and killing us if the cards are drawn badly.
As-written, there are 4 potential Admin Order draws. If 'refugees' is drawn first, a
one in four chance, we instantly go from +1 to -4 and die. If any other is drawn first and fails (50%), with refugees drawn second, we die. That's an additional 3 in 24,
almost 1 in 6. If two others are drawn first and fail, we die. That's an additional 1 in 16. Even if
all three of the chance gains go first and fail, we still die. That's an additional 1 in 32.
Overall, when added together, your vote has a
roughly 50% chance of instantly collapsing the country.
Did you actually read what I wrote there? I purposely set off the Refugee vote because I know some people won't like taking the risk (Even if I consider that incredibly foolish considering that it was risk-aversion over many turns that doomed the ST), and the Many option has literally zero chance of going into -3 Stability at any point because two of our Stability gains are immediate. And AN has already stated that in order to get better traits and such, we need to take risks and do things that may seem less than perfectly optimal.
Doesn't work that way. An administration roll determines Order of Action, so there is
strong potential that the refugee hit could occur as early as immediately after we reach +1 stability (reducing it to -4 and killing us instantly).
There is a difference between risk-taking and suicide-by-extreme sports. You've crossed that line.
