Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.