Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Everything Else Erfworld




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:51 am 
User avatar
Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Marbits Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins For when you need it most Diamonds Suit Pip
Offline
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:12 pm
Posts: 388
KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
3) Parson - Parson - struggled to figure out how this could have been possible.


Can I get a citation for that, please? I know he's struggled with keeping his own side sustainable, but I don't remember him ever contemplating Faq's sustainability, with its unique hidden situation.

KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
Ansom and Jillian remarked that it was completely impossible. ("There's no such thing." "I know! But King Bahammer liked to think it was.")


Jillian is a warlord, popped by Faq to be Banhammer's successor, in response to a prophecy that Faq would fall and Banhammer would die, a situation which one would need an army to rectify (by claiming a new capital site and defending it).

I can't say for certain that Faq didn't hire out as a mercenary side before Jillian was popped, but it's possible they didn't need to. That would be a time Jillian herself wouldn't be familiar with.

KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
Do you insist that a small enough kingdom can be easily self-sustainable without warfare, even still? If so, is three cities still too large? Do they need to be as small as two cities, or even one city?


Let's do some math here.

Parson's upkeep is 1000 Shm/turn. Stanley thinks this is a ludicrous amount.

When Jillian sacked Progrock, she gained 40,000 Shm by it, enough to sustain her side for a dozen turns.

Carport paid the same amount to have TV not sack their city, so that sounds pretty typical.

Faq's defense strategy needed a Predictamancer and a Foolamancer, but no actual fighting units.

Transylvito has been taking Carport and sacking or ransoming it every dozen turns for a while now.

So, let's assume:
- The amount of money needed to rebuild a city is equal to or greater than the money gained by sacking it.
- Most units, even commanders and casters, have an upkeep of much less than 1000 Shm.
- Keeping a city is better for your revenue stream than sacking it, except in the very short term.

So, Faq had three cities. They had, as far as we can tell, no expenses other than unit upkeep. They had a half-dozen or so casters, who, along with Banhammer, formed the Court.

The total force they needed to hold Faq is two warlords (to hold Otoh and Kibo), plus the Court.

Let's say that each of those nine units has the ridiculous upkeep of 1000 Shm. That requires that each city produce 3000 Shm a turn for upkeep. Saying that Faq is unsustainable without warfare caps the income from their cities as no higher than that.

If sacking one of those cities would give 40,000 Shm, that would mean that you would need to hold a city for more than thirteen turns in order for it to be profitable to rebuild.

So, either Carpool is stupid for rebuilding/ransoming Carport every dozen turns, or yes, Faq, stripped down to the bare minimum personnel needed to execute their "Predict and Hide" defense strategy, would be profitable, even in the ludicrous case that each of those units cost the same amount of upkeep as Parson.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:11 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:54 am
    Posts: 19
    Nimelennar wrote:
    KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
    3) Parson - Parson - struggled to figure out how this could have been possible.


    Can I get a citation for that, please? I know he's struggled with keeping his own side sustainable, but I don't remember him ever contemplating Faq's sustainability, with its unique hidden situation.

    http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%202/115 The final paragraph reads:

    Final Paragraph wrote:
    I'll have to look at the math of this but it seems like one more piece of the puzzle toward having a side with zero (or positive) upkeep. If you managed your cities (and maybe had a Dittomancer), couldn't you pop more heavies than you need to feed all your units and have a bubble side like Jack was talking about? But that could actually support itself without fighting? It might still have to fend off attacks, though. Or maybe it could act like an agribusiness for the neighbors and buy them off with tributes of cheap food or heavies that cost less than the (abruptly cuts off)


    "A bubble side like Jack was talking about" obviously refers to Old Faq. Note his choice of words: "I'll have to look at the math of this but it seems like one more piece of the puzzle toward having a side with zero (or positive) upkeep."

    Evidently, Parson considers it a thoroughly complicated affair, to have a side with zero or positive upkeep, yes?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:36 pm 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Marbits Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins For when you need it most Diamonds Suit Pip
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:12 pm
    Posts: 388
    Quote:
    If you managed your cities (and maybe had a Dittomancer), couldn't you pop more heavies than you need to feed all your units and have a bubble side like Jack was talking about?


    Parson is making some assumption that we aren't seeing, about the need for the side to have a certain minimum number of units. Maybe that's the thing you were referring to "not seeing" earlier.

    My assumption is that "all your units" are going to be soldiers, in one form or another. Charlie's menial tasks are done by Archons, Stanley's are done by Twolls. I can't see these tasks being done by war-capable units unless all units are fighting units of some sort. The only reason I can see for assuming a side needs a minimum number of fighting units is for that side's defense.

    If you reject that theory, I suggest trying to figure out why else Parson might think that there is a minimum number of units he needs to feed, and why that minimum is more than can be supported by the cities alone.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:47 pm 
    User avatar
    Armored Dwagon Monthly Winner This user has been published! Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:14 pm
    Posts: 462
    Having food cuts down upkeep by as much as half

    “Stews” were a popular activity in the Carnyvale. Depending on the type of food, eating extra rations would reduce a unit’s upkeep by a substantial amount. A good solid meal in addition to your popped rations generally meant cutting your next turn’s upkeep in half, for barbarian and sided units alike. And prepared meals gave you more upkeep relief than just eating raw forage or produce.
    http://archives.erfworld.com/Kickstarter%20Stories/26


    It sounds like parson is looking at this particular mechanic in order to have the bubble kingdom. Basically, he wants to find a way to feed all the troops without relying solely on popping rations. This also fits in with the So Be It treaty.

    Thus was the So-be-it Union founded. It limited the number of units each side could pop, and forbade them from attacking one another. They no longer needed to maximize their forces and look over their shoulders all the time.

    But it also set minimum unit numbers and pledged them to one another‘s defense, so they would not be left weak to outside threats. Each of their four sides had half an army, but they could respond to attacks from non-Union sides with two armies‘ worth of strength.
    http://archives.erfworld.com/Kickstarter%20Stories/1


    Having a half strength army is affordable, but a full strength army is not, apparently. If you can halve the cost of the army, then you can bring their numbers up to full strength, and be counted as a proper bubble kingdom.

    From this point forth, a bubble kingdom is defined as a kingdom that does not need to pop rations in order to feed it's army, or, at least, is able to also give unpopped food along with popped rations? This allows a kingdom to have a full strength army (whatever that means), while still being upkeep positive.

    Hurray, we figured out what is missing. Are we done with this now? I mean, on the scale of things to worry about when designing an erfworld game, I'd rank this one as being pretty low.

    _________________
    The Imperfect Warlord
    Summery: Somehow I ended up being summoned to Erfworld instead of Parson Gotti. See how the events of book 1 change from my actions. Focus on Erf-game mechanics.
    http://www.erfworld.com/blog/view/46631 ... -chapter-1

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 7:59 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Mined 4 Erf Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:27 am
    Posts: 834
    KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
    Last time I'm gonna say this: the money spent on upkeep vanishes. The world economy is leaking. There must be a major source of income replacing the money being lost, or else the economy is going to dry up.

    We know that cities produce shmuckers. That's perhaps the only sustainable source.

    Then there's gems, underground, which you can mine. I'm assuming they're a non-renewable resource, like oil in Stupidworld. Once they're gone, they're gone. There's a lot of 'em down there, but it's a finite number.

    Far as I can see from the comic, that's all there is. Cities and gems, and the gems run out. People mined a lot of gems to build up treasuries, which put a lot of shmuckers into the economy up front. Then the gem supplies dwindled, and now we're running with something closer to the sustainable cities-only input, in most places.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 1:51 am 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Mined 4 Erf This user is a Tool! Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:17 pm
    Posts: 774
    I'm thinking part of your issue, krenko, is that you're missing all the sides that do get conquered. At some point, after so much sacking, tributes, city building, and contract work, some poor ruler loses to the side that won out. That's what balances the books.

    It's possible to hole up in a capital with an income neutral army and hope to survive. But that's the NPC route. Frozen in time like a decapitated kingdom. It's also what makes your army weak. Strong armies have to be supported by sprawling support networks of interconnected cities, farms, and mines. These aren't even hard to sustain, if your neighbors aren't competing for the same resources you need. And within a few turns, that well funded army is going to knock on your door.

    That's the perpetual warfare mechanic functioning. There is no gaping hole in the economy, just a series of difficult to protect investments you have to take before anybody else.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 7:49 pm 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:27 pm
    Posts: 43
    I think Krenko has a real point here.

    The fact is that if it is possible to have an Shmucker neutral or positive side, then FAQ would have been the ideal candidate. Three cities, so we can assume inefficiencies from having a large side shouldn't be a major factor: however the prequel story seems to indicate that they still aren't running at a profit because they have to resort to mercenary work to make upkeep. We know that Banhammer and the court despise Jillian's mercenary work but see it as a necessary evil. So without the mercenary work, they have to disband people. Thus, either they deliberately popped more people than they can afford, despite not having a need for a real standing army as far as we can see and knowing that they would have to resort to "evil" means to sustain them, or it simply isn't practical to support more than a very, very small amount of people by farming and city income alone.

    But if FAQ can't make it then it seems like nobody can! These people had the strongest incentive to be Shmucker neutral and they couldn't figure out a way to do it just with Cities and farms. So the difference between upkeep and "renewable" Shmucker sources must be fairly wide. Which is a major problem for a game economy if you actually want to model it: how can outputs so outweigh inputs without the economy going kaput?

    The only explanations I have is that sacking an enemy city gives you several times more Shmucker's than razing your own. However that doesn't seem to match up very well with the behavior we've seen in comic. Honestly, I think the impossibility of bubble kingdoms is more of a story convention than something that makes sense when sit down and try to actually model it with numbers. On the other hand, maybe the economy is also unsustainable in game. Perhaps that is why CharlesComm is stockpiling as much cash a possible? Because economically the game is unsustainable? Beats me. But I think if you want to model it as a game then sustainable bubble kingdoms will have to be far more possible in your game than they are in the comic.

    _________________
    Mr. H
    Adept Archive Findamancer

    Halloween Contest 2018 Entry: The Rotten Vault of Hallowee

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:58 pm 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Marbits Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins For when you need it most Diamonds Suit Pip
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:12 pm
    Posts: 388
    MrH wrote:
    I think Krenko has a real point here.

    The fact is that if it is possible to have an Shmucker neutral or positive side, then FAQ would have been the ideal candidate. Three cities, so we can assume inefficiencies from having a large side shouldn't be a major factor: however the prequel story seems to indicate that they still aren't running at a profit because they have to resort to mercenary work to make upkeep. We know that Banhammer and the court despise Jillian's mercenary work but see it as a necessary evil. So without the mercenary work, they have to disband people. Thus, either they deliberately popped more people than they can afford, despite not having a need for a real standing army as far as we can see and knowing that they would have to resort to "evil" means to sustain them, or it simply isn't practical to support more than a very, very small amount of people by farming and city income alone.

    But if FAQ can't make it then it seems like nobody can! These people had the strongest incentive to be Shmucker neutral and they couldn't figure out a way to do it just with Cities and farms. So the difference between upkeep and "renewable" Shmucker sources must be fairly wide. Which is a major problem for a game economy if you actually want to model it: how can outputs so outweigh inputs without the economy going kaput?

    The only explanations I have is that sacking an enemy city gives you several times more Shmucker's than razing your own. However that doesn't seem to match up very well with the behavior we've seen in comic. Honestly, I think the impossibility of bubble kingdoms is more of a story convention than something that makes sense when sit down and try to actually model it with numbers. On the other hand, maybe the economy is also unsustainable in game. Perhaps that is why CharlesComm is stockpiling as much cash a possible? Because economically the game is unsustainable? Beats me. But I think if you want to model it as a game then sustainable bubble kingdoms will have to be far more possible in your game than they are in the comic.


    I can think of three possibilities for why Faq ended up needing mercenary work, each of which works with the "Cities are the only renewable source of Shmuckers" idea.

    First: You cannot stop Cities from popping units: you can only specify which ones you want.

    Remember, the Turn after TBfGK, a Dwagon popped in the sky, seemingly unbidden. Unless you disband your troops or order them to Turn to another side (or barbarian), the only way to rid yourself of their upkeep is to send them into combat. Banhammer might have been unwilling to disband innocent soldiers, so he sent some of them off to do mercenary work to pay for the rest. That way, those who died would have a chance to end up in the City of Heroes. Remember, they achieved close to parity, and sometimes they didn't even need mercenary work, because mining and farming was enough to pay for all the upkeep.

    Second: It's all Jillian's fault.

    From Book Zero, Episode 033:

    Quote:
    At Marie‘s words, all of the Court members did place their palms together and nod to her, except the King. But she knew there were dissenters among them. Jack had told her that some of them felt strongly that she should never have been popped. He wouldn‘t say which ones, but several of them didn‘t think that Faq could stand the “moral burden” of being a mercenary side, instead of a true bubble kingdom. They were just that lofty.

    [...]

    Jillian looked at the King. Brave? There were lots of words she might use to describe him, but that wasn‘t exactly first among them. “Why is that?”

    “Because he knows his Fate,” said Marie. “He will fall, and this coppital will fall. I so Predict it.

    The words felt like one of those times Jillian hadn‘t moved her head out of the way fast enough. She was still looking at King Banhammer, who nodded to her with great poise. A moment ago, she had been imagining leaving Faq as an adventure. But something about the way the old man met her eyes brought home the weight of it. They were serious. Faq would fall, and father would be gone.

    “Oh, no,” was all she could manage to say.

    “Hod truth,” nodded Marie. “But old news here. I made this Prediction before you were evah popped. It‘s the reason you wah popped. Your King ordered an heir to carry on the side, because he is the kind of man who can face a hod truth and still do the right thing,” said Marie. “Thot is bravery of a different and higher ordah. Now you must face that same hod truth, and you must find the spiritual bravery to do your part in it. So. Will you?”


    One possible reading of that is that Faq had the choice of remaining a bubble side and staying income-neutral, but once they knew the side would fail, they needed an Heir who could lead a non-bubble Faq, which meant someone familiar with warfare. Since they didn't want to expand beyond three cities, that meant mercenary work, and popping combat units past the upkeep threshold of the cities (who would then be paid for by the same mercenary work).

    Third: The Court (Faq's Ruler plus its Casters) grew too large.

    Most of the Sides we've seen have only had a few casters. GK had five (Croak, Dirt, Look, Think, Fool), TV had three (Doll, Think, Money), Jetstone had four (Doll, Ditto, Hat, Heal), and even the massive side of Haffaton only had six at its height (Predict, Doll, Dirt, Think, Flower, Croak).

    Faq, the tiny little bubble kingdom, had eight: Money, Math, Predict, Look, Shock, Heal, Sign, Fool. We don't know how upkeep works, but I'd think that casters need a decent amount of upkeep to pay for the Juice they're using. It's possible that a three-city side just couldn't support eight casters (plus a King, and the servants needed to indulge Royal sensibilities, and farmers, and miners, and and and).

    So, those are three ideas of how Faq might have been able to sustain itself as a bubble kingdom, but were unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices in order to (those being: disbanding innocent troops, letting the Side cease to exist, and shrinking the Court of Faq to a more manageable level, respectively).

    My personal theory is mostly #2, with a dash of #3.

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Everything Else Erfworld


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: