# Civ Problems

Jay Gischer (gischer@puget.mti.sgi.com)
Wed, 28 Sep 94 15:27:03 -0700

aegis@elm.circa.ufl.edu ( ) writes:
> What is the problem with provences that have high civ levels? I thought
> that the open-ended-ness of Olympia would allow for a noble to build as
> big an empire as he could - both in quantity of provences controlled as
> well as quality of provences controlled. If he is putting in the money
> and time to build structures (occupied directly by him or not) he should
> be able to benefit from the taxes and other revenue it brings him.
>

I see two problems. It's too easy, and it's way too easy :-)

Actually the second problem is that current techniques subvert what

The point is this every temple built in the same province as your
castle adds 50/turn to the income of the castle permanently. And if
you're organized you only have to have 1 noble and 50 workers in the
province to haul down this bonanza. That's ignoring the "ripple
effect". So let's think about spending a year (8 turns) doing this:
which works out to an average of 225gp/turn.

Aside to the mathematically inclined: If you set the discount rate at
10%, then the present value of the 50g/turn stream is about 500g.
A simple way of looking that is like it's putting 500g in the bank at
10%.

However you calculate it, it's completely out
of proportion with other ways of earning money with one noble. And it
gets even bigger the longer you go on. There is no law of diminishing
returns in effect here

What's also disturbing about it is that by building a castle, a temple
and a tower and an inn, you have created an area that is twice as
"civilized" as the areas with major cities, such as IC.

I think that castle income should be more strongly tied to how many
provinces you garrison, not how much building you can do in one spot.
This naturally creates conflict, which is generally held to be a good
thing.

Finally, the current rules lead to the absurdity of a mountaintop with
a castle and 50 temples on it, with no one inside. I don't think
that's what Rich intended. It's much less absurd if each of those
temples had a priest inside, since 50 nobles in one place is a LOT.

I have several friends and acquaintances who have planned to build
their civ level. I apologize if I seem disloyal
I'm not opposed to allowing some civ building in the
current game. But I submit that a civ cap of 16 or 32 probably does
less damage to peoples long term plans, than a change of rules that
only counts occupied structures in the civ level, even though it is a
less appealing rule.

BTW, I would argue that if no structure of a particular type is occupied,
you should still get the benefit of one structure.

-j

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links