Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
@bluefur87 Your suggestion seems to be to go over all of our actions with a fine-toothed comb and fill in any of the multitudes of unknowns with guesses in the process.

If you are suggesting what I think you are, that sounds like a terrible idea. Not only would it take an outrageous amount of work to create and maintain, but the results would be mired in subjectivity, to the point where I expect you could produce more or less whatever results you wanted by varying the assumptions used.

Given just how much noise is involved, a simulation at that level is just as pointless as trying to precisely plan a turn 10 turns in advance. In truth, the best we can do is vague heuristics in any case - so I really don't see a case for an even deeper analysis of things, especially since going deeper means we have to fill more gaps with assumptions.
 
[X] [Mystic] Get assistance from a temple (-1 Mystic)
[X] [Hero] The smiths working overtime produced a prodigy (Heroic to Genius level artisan)
[X] [Prov] Integrate Gulvalley (-4 Diplo, +3 Econ, +8 Econ Expansion, +2 Mysticism, +3 Culture, +1 Tech, new core province)
[X] [React] Build more aqueducts (-2 & -3 Econ to complete aqueducts in Redshore and Redhills)
[X] [Policy] Infrastructure (+1 Free Progress to an infrastructure project (Aqueduct, governor's palace, saltern, etc.)/turn) x1
[X] [Policy] Special: Forestry (+1 Sustainable Forest and -1 Econ Expansion/2 turns)
[X] [Bonus] Upgrade a random value
 
@Academia Nut

Trade chief: Do we need to send a trade mission to Swamp folk to open up regular trade?

Shaman chief: Does shamans/priests have any suggestions for soothing our population's grief from the recent wars?
 
But man I'm really looking forward to the Jesus equivalent being born. We'd be able to take all the good bits of that religion thanks to our values while avoiding the later corruption and badness thanks to how we set up our priests.
 
PrimalShadow said:
@bluefur87 Your suggestion seems to be to go over all of our actions with a fine-toothed comb and fill in any of the multitudes of unknowns with guesses in the process.

If you are suggesting what I think you are, that sounds like a terrible idea. Not only would it take an outrageous amount of work to create and maintain, but the results would be mired in subjectivity, to the point where I expect you could produce more or less whatever results you wanted by varying the assumptions used.

Given just how much noise is involved, a simulation at that level is just as pointless as trying to precisely plan a turn 10 turns in advance. In truth, the best we can do is vague heuristics in any case - so I really don't see a case for an even deeper analysis of things, especially since going deeper means we have to fill more gaps with assumptions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, that's what I'd do and despite the common belief of how unreliable non 100% accurate numbers can be, it's way more accurate than people give credit, but no, that is not what I'm suggesting, since it's quite apparent that people that want this want it for exact levels of measurement.

I'm suggesting separating action economy and stat economy. Pblur is already trying to measure the ramifications of various things, though I do not believe the current formula considers increasing LTE a cost, because that was a ludicrous idea until recently. After separating the two and updating the status of LTE to treat it more like centralization, things should balance out more and show efficiencies more accurately.

I mean, I could definitely start figuring out how to expand on that to a ridiculous level, there are probably several ways of measuring things to be much more accurate and efficient, but I haven't even started figuring out how to do that for the reasons you mentioned. Too much work, and no one can realistically be expected to do it.

I might work on a formula just for fun, though. It would never be completed, but eh...
 
LTE
There are two ways of dropping LTE:
  • Do nothing, and let the lack of true cities handle it. We just popped a true city to no fanfare at all. It's no biggie.
  • Take the most lucrative actions we have available. If we even figure LTE as free, poppies, hemp and vineyards become incredibly lucrative. If we actually VALUE dropping LTE, they'll be even more absurdly lucrative, beyond any other stat generation.
So the LTE return on creating a settlement is a positive for us (I haven't heard a coherent argument that LTE dropping is actually going to be an issue.)

Edit: Looks like you disagree with this based on your followup post; I'd like to hear why you think it should be modeled as a cost.

bluefur87 said:
Basically, yes, this would be a step up in measuring action analysis.

It's still not what I'd say as ideal, because we have a lot of things that this does not keep track of, that are fully possible to keep track of. However stats only exist once, stats refill every turn. Stats can be spent to make certain actions possible, but they can never really be spent to create more actions. They just can't be interchangeable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is only different from my current system via multiplying all the numbers by a constant (3, to be precise) There's an argument to be made for clarity of those numbers instead, and it's a good thought. But it's the same system.
If you're trying to deal with concrete issues (numbers can go beyond that! but I get the allure of what you're after), then I'd suggest two things. First, as I have said, I do not think actions and stats are truly interchangeable. I stick by this, and while we need to know which action gains the most stats for the least cost several times, the problem stems in when you start scaling it up.

Take what it costs to create a new province. It gains us actions, loses centralization, gains us LTE, and gains us some econ and mysticism.

The action would translate to a .5 action, which is effectively a +1.5 Econ/Turn by your old system. This quickly starts inducing nightmares with said system, as it isn't able to handle income as far as I can figure. A simpler way of measuring it is saying that once we generate a new province, we gain .5 actions... which is still misleading, but I'll overlook that for now. I would probably try and figure out a way to further improve the system after it gets implemented, though.

However, actions must be spent to further support this province. We have to find ways to lower LTE so it doesn't pop any cities we don't want popped, raise centralization, and improve it's infrastructure. Now, while that last one is hard to measure how much it will cost, we do know that it will require at least one action. The cheapest, action wise, thing to do here would to be just to build a new trail, to cover both it and the centralization change.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So... the only thing in here I'm NOT compensating for is the +0.5 action. I do consider centralization, etc. As you said, I'm not handling income at all... and I'm not sure how to. How do you weight the int{0.5dt} against 0.5? They're orthogonal.

And... given how rarely we add provinces, I think it's OK to leave that unaccounted for? We can just say 'Actions are REALLY REALLY good'?

Or maybe I should say that settlements also provide settlements!per!province * 0.5 actions/turn * analysis period length, where analysis period length is an arbitrary time (say, 10 turns?)

So this is how we can start measuring the efficiency increase in something like a forest. It allows us to naturally reduce our LTE, so that we can raise it by doing something like creating a new province, which gives us more actions, which is much better of a way to gain LTE than boats, because actions represent a permanent bonus. The type of action also matters, in that it raises the actions that we can decide on ourselves, as opposed to extra actions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Neither of our forest actions use up LTE. They both generate LTE with sufficient true cities.

Also, again, LTE is a cost to raise, not lower...
Thus, while many of our actions can some what stand on there own, there are a few that benefit in an analysis of how many extra actions it would take to truly support them. Building roads and enforcing justice are nice, but we have to assume taking some time out to do something to lower the centralization cap. Aqueducts are nice, but we have to consider lowering the LTE gain for getting the benefit of creating a new true city from them (we'll have to see that a couple more times to gain some more complete knowledge on how that formula works), Temples are nice, but we have to consider making the aqueduct to support them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
  • I compensate for both centralization cap and centralization floor.
  • Lowering LTE gain is, again, not a problem.
  • Temples don't need aqueducts? I mean, they are an incentive to increase migration, but they don't guarantee a true city. I certainly wouldn't want to include that in my calculations with only one extended project temple to learn from.
So far, the only one I'm aware that would be truly wide reaching is forests, but there may be others. Depending on people's view on walls, they may be considered part of that also, but that's more into a more opinionated territory. I am glad we have at least one wall policy though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Can you tell me how/why you think forests are particularly wide-reaching?
 
Last edited:
Remove ads
Translation difficulties
  • Apocrypha
    • "So, before you go, about the woman commander?" you ask, feeling more than a little curious. The strange northerners' delegation had tactlessly danced around that particular question the entire time they were in your palace, and you wouldn't have them getting out of it again, now; at the moment of your final chance. "For someone to stymie my army so forcefully, I would even consider making her first among my brides, if your king would accept, following my generous gift to your own lords?"

    The translator of the tribute party gulped audibly, casting furtive glances at his companions and relaying your words to their leader. The man shook his head emphatically in the negative, but before their translator dared speak, you interrupted, your initial amusement and minor irritation ballooning to something close to actual anger. You knew the world was not your oyster, but surely they could at least give you her name? "I would be most displeased if you didn't tell me who she is."

    Now it was your translator's turn to pale, wrongly thinking you might take offense with his rough translation of your words. Nearly squeaking, the words traveled between different men until they reached the party's leader again, who stiffened, then sighed. Clearly they held some terrible fear, perhaps that you would demand her hand by force? If she was indeed the young woman off and to the side of the parley after the Great Battle, you could imagine there were no shortage of suitors among her own people, even with her small stature and unflattering form. Perhaps some lord, or the king of the Northerners, even, had already taken her hand?

    The passing of words between your translators was strange, this time. With reticence, their speaker told your speaker, who then turned to look you in the eye, and proceeded to drop to the earth to speak a desperate prayer. Quite fed up with the ridiculousness of the situation, you lost your temper. "Speak up, you bumbling fool!"

    "A-ah... M-m-most high Sun, ahh, Master of the F-flow, err... My God! They say they fear how the general will react if she sees the man she... failed to kill in battle, once again."

    You find it most unsettling, that as you aligned the brilliant mind that arrayed the Northerners against you to the Sokbhet-possessed demon you fought for so many long minutes at the climax of the battle, you actually feel a thrill of exhilaration. Your following wince is mistaken for understanding of the situation, or maybe they think you are recalling the prominent scar upon your face. It is only natural, I suppose, that a God find the mind of another divine so intriguing, no matter how dangerous they are.

    It is only natural!

    You had a difficult time bedding your next few nights of concubines. You are ashamed as you realize... you would rather whisper with Sokbhet's champion than lay with mere women.


    AN, I WANT MORE INTERESTING PERSONALITIES TO WRITE! I RAN OUT SO YOU SHOULD GIVE ME MORE!
     
  • Apocrypha

    • The Ymaryn Democratic Socialists Party, the party of progress and community health.

    Economy: The party believes in the heavy control of Capitalistic ventures through the use of extensive government regulation and taxation of private industries. The government would enforce strict standards of health and safety, environmental protection, and workers benefits. We would also introduce a scaling system of Universal Basic Income in which the poorest population percentile would the receive the greatest amount in financial assistance. This assistance would level off to a constant minimum sum as recipients enter higher tax brackets. This would synergize well with existing capitalist ventures as people would always have disposable income on hand for basic amenities.

    Education: The party believes in a free and fair education for all. Education in Ymaryn would be paid for by the state at all levels. Likewise there would be an aggressive policy of social integration such that every school has a healthy mixture of high and low income families.

    Health and Social Care: The party believes in free and fair healthcare for all. Healthcare in Ymaryn would be paid for by the state. The combination of free healthcare and strict regulation of worker health would help us to maintain a healthy and happy society.

    Government: We believe that while there are many merits to capitalist economic aspects, the state should maintain responsibility for the health, education, and overall quality of life of its people. In order to encourage the continued quality of government provided services we propose a strong tradition of proportionally elected representative government at all levels. We would also impose highly inclusive laws as to who could vote and provide economic incentives for people to do so. Likewise there would also be strict oversight as to how the electoral system functions to prevent gerrymandering and over complicated candidate selection. And finally by officially tying political power to nation-wide approval ratings we can prevent corruption and ensure a smooth and prosperous government.

    Foreign Affairs and Defense: We believe in a mostly pacifistic policy in regards to our neighbors. When possible we would prefer to have trade and diplomatic relations with foreign powers rather than launching wars of conquest. However we also believe in defending ourselves if attacked or provoked. We believe that the best military is a well-equipped one, the cornerstone of our defense policy is to always be one step ahead of our enemies technologically through continuous innovation in strategy, tactics, and material arms.
     
    Last edited:
    Concho117 said:

    The Ymaryn Democratic Socialists Party, the party of progress and community health.

    Economy: The party believes in the heavy control of Capitalistic ventures through the use of extensive government regulation and taxation of private industries. The government would enforce strict standards of health and safety, environmental protection, and workers benefits. We would also introduce a scaling system of Universal Basic Income in which the poorest population percentile would the receive the greatest amount in financial assistance. This assistance would level off to a constant minimum sum as recipients enter higher tax brackets. This would synergize well with existing capitalist ventures as people would always have disposable income on hand for basic amenities.

    Education: The party believes in a free and fair education for all. Education in Ymaryn would be paid for by the state at all levels. Likewise there would be an aggressive policy of social integration such that every school has a healthy mixture of high and low income families.

    Health and Social Care: The party believes in free and fair healthcare for all. Healthcare in Ymaryn would be paid for by the state. The combination of free healthcare and strict regulation of worker health would help us to maintain a healthy and happy society.

    Government: We believe that while there are many merits to capitalist economic aspects, the state should maintain responsibility for the health, education, and overall quality of life of its people. In order to encourage the continued quality of government provided services we propose a strong tradition of proportionally elected representative government at all levels. We would also impose highly inclusive laws as to who could vote and provide economic incentives for people to do so. Likewise there would also be strict oversight as to how the electoral system functions to prevent gerrymandering and over complicated candidate selection. And finally by officially tying political power to nation-wide approval ratings we can prevent corruption and ensure a smooth and prosperous government.

    Foreign Affairs and Defense: We believe in a mostly pacifistic policy in regards to our neighbors. When possible we would prefer to have trade and diplomatic relations with foreign powers rather than launching wars of conquest. However we also believe in defending ourselves if attacked or provoked. We believe that the best military is a well-equipped one, the cornerstone of our defense policy is to always be one step ahead of our enemies technologically through continuous innovation in strategy, tactics, and material arms.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Hmm.
     
    bluefur87 said:
    Well, that's what I'd do and despite the common belief of how unreliable non 100% accurate numbers can be, it's way more accurate than people give credit
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    You would have to evaluate stuff like the benefit of various innovation rolls, the narrative cost of having extra free cities around, and so on. Nobody is asking for 100% accurate numbers - but I'd like our numbers to be in the right order of magnitude and have the right sign at least, and I find it highly doubtful that an attempt to fill in all the blanks such a plan would require could meet even that low bar. Especially given the fact that the cost/benefit of certain components is extremely dynamic, so even if you did get something mostly right today it could very well be mostly wrong tomorrow.

    bluefur87 said:
    I'm suggesting separating action economy and stat economy. Pblur is already trying to measure the ramifications of various things, though I do not believe the current formula considers increasing LTE a cost, because that was a ludicrous idea until recently. After separating the two and updating the status of LTE to treat it more like centralization, things should balance out more and show efficiencies more accurately.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Sure, I could get behind that; it might be reasonable to talk in terms of Stat-units and actions instead of just actions. Given that the exchange rate between the two kinda floats around (at times we really need actions; other times, we really need stats), it is a reasonable thing to do in general - and in fact, I pretty much do this in my head when evaluating actions anyways.
     
    Now? A mere five threadmarks. But soon? Soon I will have MORE THREADMARKS THAN AN HIMSELF!

    ...

    As soon as the muses hit me over the head with their harps, again.
     
    pblur said:
    So... the only thing in here I'm NOT compensating for is the +0.5 action. I do consider centralization, etc. As you said, I'm not handling income at all... and I'm not sure how to. How do you weight the int{0.5dt} against 0.5? They're orthogonal.

    And... given how rarely we add provinces, I think it's OK to leave that unaccounted for? We can just say 'Actions are REALLY REALLY good'?

    Or maybe I should say that settlements also provide settlements!per!province * 0.5 actions/turn * analysis period length, where analysis period length is an arbitrary time (say, 10 turns?)
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    You'd have to change something fundamental in your system. I admit, it's not pretty, and I don't have a good answer for it off of the top of my head. However, I would basically put the creation of actions as it's own stat... I may have rambled way too much in my post there and not made things clear. Simply seperating actions from economy will give us a much more honest idea of how much things cost, because time is a very different value then stats.

    It would give a more honest interpretation on how efficient an action is, since we never spend both action and stats as if they are the same thing, and we can see how many stats something costs. This will get messy with centralization, though, as much of it's cost is in time to fix.

    I would probably just create a new division for that, but that's me. You could try to account for things that we can't easily gain such as centralization sink and LTE sink, the cost of keeping stats that are best kept within a range, but altered by the action, back to the starting point. It wouldn't as easy to punch into a spread sheet and let it take care of the problem, but it's not hard to actually calculate.
    pblur said:
    Neither of our forest actions use up LTE. They both generate LTE with sufficient true cities.

    Also, again, LTE is a cost to raise, not lower...
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    pblur said:
    Can you tell me how/why you think forests are particularly wide-reaching?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Forests as a passive policy do lower our LTE. In fact that is one of the reasons we don't pick them now that I think about it, though not the biggest one. They often gain LTE and we want to do that less and less now, as it becomes more of a problem than something we seek out.

    From a numerical standpoint, having a permanent increase in forests and decrease in LTE punches into a lot of our calculations, such as means of lowering centralization more efficiently via wildcat prospecting, which seems to generate both more stats and strategic advantageous than distribute land (though we have not really explored it to be sure of the latter).

    From a non numerical standpoint it increases the defensibility of our terrain, expands upon one of our core values as it gets more people interacting with trees, and gives us a vital resource that we find ourselves in constant need of for one reason or another.
    pblur said:
    • I compensate for both centralization cap and centralization floor.
    • Lowering LTE gain is, again, not a problem.
    • Temples don't need aqueducts? I mean, they are an incentive to increase migration, but they don't guarantee a true city. I certainly wouldn't want to include that in my calculations with only one extended project temple to learn from.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Temples can easily start a city, which people will want aqueducts for.
    pblur said:
    Do nothing, and let the lack of true cities handle it. We just popped a true city to no fanfare at all. It's no biggie.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Well, if you're willing to pop multiple true cities, this is okay. After 2, this time frame will continue to increase more and more, and that's time without a passive policy. It's not even close to ideal, or something we should be okay with handling on it's own. It's also massively inefficient when we could just cut off the problem ahead of time by making something we want anyways.

    I forget, though, do free cities not have to worry about the LTE or are they fully independent surviving cities? Because oh boy, that would make things easier, which no one seems to want to do. :( Okay, not no one, but not nearly enough of the thread is willing to start up a free city for various reasons.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top