Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby drachefly » Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:27 am

It really depends on barbarian pop rules. If Barbarians don't pop in hexes with other units in them, you just need to make sure a unit is in every hex. That can happen long before the 'long' timescales.

If on the other hand, this makes a pressure buildup of unpopped barbarians, then you just need to let that pressure release in a controlled way - carefully selected empty hexes, say.
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby 0beron » Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:17 pm

Thanks to the power of dwagon relays, and the absence of a juice cost on Decryption, Wanda COULD travel through the entire world every single turn to Decrypt freshly acquired Barbarians, and in fact would need to in order to financially stay afloat. Jillian made a comment about Haffaton's size that tells us the Diminishing Schmucker point isn't just a flat nerf, but a penalty that continues to worsen the further you go past it. Conquering the entire world would mean that perhaps even paying only Wanda's upkeep is a hard burden to carry. As I see it, this is the only possible known limit to Wanda World, as she continues to increase in level from all the Decryption, her upkeep alone may drive the side income into the red, eventually emptying the Treasury. Unless she is able to forage for enough of her upkeep without any detrimental effect on her body.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby ftl » Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:09 pm

Oh man! That's a limitation that's new and hadn't been thought of!

As Wanda keeps doing the decryption, her level will keep increasing and so will her upkeep, eventually reaching a point where there isn't enough resource production in her decrypted empire to support her!
ftl
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby 0beron » Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:16 pm

It's a POSSIBLE limitation. We don't know how much income actually suffers versus how much her upkeep would cost (or if Rulers even HAVE an upkeep), and we don't know if foraged rations can completely replace upkeep. So it's certainly possible this limit too can be circumvented, but based on rules as we know it, this seems like the only possible hurdle to Wanda-World once it has been established.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby Lilwik » Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:44 pm

0beron wrote:We don't know how much income actually suffers versus how much her upkeep would cost (or if Rulers even HAVE an upkeep), and we don't know if foraged rations can completely replace upkeep.
We know that Jillian was able to sustain herself while on the run from Haffaton, and Jillian was already a high level warlord in Book 0. I don't think we've ever heard anything about why shmuckers become a problem for large sides, but perhaps the invisible connections between the cities of a side need to be maintained by a shmucker cost. I'm going to assume that it's not possible for that cost to be so high that their cities produce negative shmuckers, because that would be a bit strange. If all of that is true (and I have no actual evidence that it is), then it could be that if a single side owned every city site in Erfworld then that side would get exactly zero shmuckers of income from their cities. For any normal side that would mean they were incapable of supporting an army even close to big enough to defend themselves from barbarians, since their only source of upkeep would be farms and any unit they send out foraging is not a unit that's defending a city. None of that applies to Wanda World, since it only has one unit that requires upkeep. A single farm should be more than enough to cover that, and if not then whole armies could be deployed to do nothing but forage for her.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby 0beron » Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:14 pm

However, Jillian was a Fugitive at that point, so different rules may apply than normal. I think she even specifically said she had to fulfill a certain portion of her upkeep, not the whole thing.

I agree the negative schmuckers of city production is probably not possible, by "negative income" I meant net income, so the change in treasury after Wanda's upkeep was paid.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby Lilwik » Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:43 pm

0beron wrote:However, Jillian was a Fugitive at that point, so different rules may apply than normal.
That's true, but it seems highly unlikely that there actually are different rules. Surely it would have been mentioned if Jillian had reduced upkeep requirements as a fugitive, and there's no one to pay her upkeep other than herself. If her captors had to pay some of it, then no one would ever escape; what chance do you have as a fugitive if you are still dependent on your captor for upkeep?

0beron wrote:I think she even specifically said she had to fulfill a certain portion of her upkeep, not the whole thing.
I looked for that. Instead I found Book 0, Episode 45: "For one thing, she was now on her own for upkeep. And she had no purse, like a barbarian would have. So besides escape and evasion, she had her mind on foraging. If she couldn’t hunt or forage enough for a meal, then her move would drop to zero, the chains would reappear, and she would become a captive again. Haffaton would again become responsible for her upkeep, and their Ruler (whoever that was) would know her exact location."
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby 0beron » Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:05 pm

Yeah, I interpreted it slightly differently. I found it interesting that she used the term meal rather than upkeep, so I took that to mean she didn't have to actually eat the full value of her upkeep in food. Meaning that while a fugitive, her "upkeep" was actually lower/irrelevant.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby Lamech » Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:08 pm

0beron wrote:Thanks to the power of dwagon relays, and the absence of a juice cost on Decryption, Wanda COULD travel through the entire world every single turn to Decrypt freshly acquired Barbarians, and in fact would need to in order to financially stay afloat. Jillian made a comment about Haffaton's size that tells us the Diminishing Schmucker point isn't just a flat nerf, but a penalty that continues to worsen the further you go past it. Conquering the entire world would mean that perhaps even paying only Wanda's upkeep is a hard burden to carry. As I see it, this is the only possible known limit to Wanda World, as she continues to increase in level from all the Decryption, her upkeep alone may drive the side income into the red, eventually emptying the Treasury. Unless she is able to forage for enough of her upkeep without any detrimental effect on her body.

As I interperted the diminishing shmucker description from Haffaton it was extra city levels that produced less. There was never a point where more cities meant less cash. City levels 1-10 produce 1k shmuckers each. City levels 11-20 produce 500 shmuckers each. City levels 21-30 produce 250 shmuckers each. And so forth. You might have some theoretical maximum income with infinite city levels, but extra cities at least never hurt your bottom line.

Now the cost of defending those cities is a totally different story. As a side expands it needs more forces, which raises upkeep and that is why sides get to be poor. Of course, theoretically with good farms you could pay the whole upkeep via rations and still be damn rich.

For the Wanda uber-side she would be fine. Enough units can farm to eliminate her upkeep. As Wanda levels the amount of farmers she has goes up linearly, while her level goes up logarithmically. Unless upkeep goes up exponentially with regards to level she'll be fine. (Which would be silly. You would want to avoid gaining levels then!)
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby 0beron » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:42 am

There is absolutely no basis for the idea that diminishing schmuckers is dependent on the total combined levels of your cities, this is simply an old theory that someone may have suggested before sufficient evidence arose, and has persisted falsely. Jillian specifically reacted to the NUMBER of cities Haffaton had, without hearing anything about their levels. Moreover, the idea is also counter-intuitive because if that were true, sides would never want to upgrade cities.

Otherwise I agree with you, even if income drops to 0, there should be enough farms to sustain Wanda as the only upkeep-needed unit. Assuming of course that food can totally replace the cost of upkeep, which is an assumption we can probably make safely, but one for which there is not actually evidence.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby drachefly » Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:17 pm

ftl wrote:Oh man! That's a limitation that's new and hadn't been thought of!

As Wanda keeps doing the decryption, her level will keep increasing and so will her upkeep, eventually reaching a point where there isn't enough resource production in her decrypted empire to support her!


Your radical ideas about Wanda's upkeep have already occurred to others.
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby Lamech » Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:44 pm

0beron wrote:There is absolutely no basis for the idea that diminishing schmuckers is dependent on the total combined levels of your cities, this is simply an old theory that someone may have suggested before sufficient evidence arose, and has persisted falsely. Jillian specifically reacted to the NUMBER of cities Haffaton had, without hearing anything about their levels. Moreover, the idea is also counter-intuitive because if that were true, sides would never want to upgrade cities.

Otherwise I agree with you, even if income drops to 0, there should be enough farms to sustain Wanda as the only upkeep-needed unit. Assuming of course that food can totally replace the cost of upkeep, which is an assumption we can probably make safely, but one for which there is not actually evidence.

Actually... http://www.erfworld.com/2012/03/inner-p ... isode-028/
After a certain number of city levels per side, the Shmuckers each city produced would begin to decline.

However, I was wrong in thinking that income would not go down. The given statement by Jillian could mean that city income goes to 0, infinity or some "cap" as number of cities goes to infinity.

Hmm... actually you CAN pay for upkeep with nothing but rations if you are a fugitive. (And possibly when you are not, but we don't technically know.)
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby 0beron » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:15 pm

Whuuuuuu? I swear Rob must have made that as a minor edit within a few hours of it first being published because that is exactly the reference I was thinking of and I don't recall it saying anything of the kind. Interesting, I stand corrected on that point.

As for Wanda and rations, yes we have already observed that Fugitives can sustain themselves entirely on food. Whether the same remains true for standard units is technically unknown.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby Lilwik » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:36 am

0beron wrote:Moreover, the idea is also counter-intuitive because if that were true, sides would never want to upgrade cities.
Now that we've established that diminishing shmuckers really does result from the sum of the levels of the cities, we're left to figure out why sides would want to upgrade cities. I think the most obvious explanation is that the size and value of the city is not directly proportional to the level, so a single level 2 city is probably more than twice as big as a level 1 city, and produces more shmuckers and units than two level 1 cities. I think this also fits with the fact that there are only 5 levels of city to cover everything from the very smallest outposts to the very biggest cities, and I find it hard to believe that the very biggest cities are just five tiny outposts clustered together.

I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that the size of the city is exponential in its level, though. It could just as well explain the value of upgrading cities if city value went up quadratically, and that would make a lot of sense because then the level of a city would directly proportional to the distance between the tower and the outer wall. We would need images of cities with various levels in order to figure out how it actually works in detail, but as far as I'm aware that doesn't exist yet.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby Chit Rule Railroad » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:16 am

Lilwik wrote:Now that we've established that diminishing shmuckers really does result from the sum of the levels of the cities, we're left to figure out why sides would want to upgrade cities. I think the most obvious explanation is that the size and value of the city is not directly proportional to the level, so a single level 2 city is probably more than twice as big as a level 1 city, and produces more shmuckers and units than two level 1 cities.

Well, it's certainly true that a level 2 city produces more units than a level 1 city you have and a level 1 city you don't, and each Side's territory only has a limited number of city sites. We don't know if upgraded cities would be a feature of a competition-free Erfworld.
User avatar
Chit Rule Railroad
YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:44 pm

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby Lilwik » Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:36 am

Chit Rule Railroad wrote:Well, it's certainly true that a level 2 city produces more units than a level 1 city you have and a level 1 city you don't, and each Side's territory only has a limited number of city sites. We don't know if upgraded cities would be a feature of a competition-free Erfworld.
That's true, but consider Haffaton. That was a side that clearly had plentiful city levels, so much so that they weren't even defending many of their cities, like Diecast (Episode 36), Goodminton (Episode 47) and even Efbaum. Surely by the time Haffaton was destroyed it had long ago stopped expanding and level 2 cities still produce more shmuckers than level 1 cities so there would be little reason to downgrade the cities at that point, but why would they have any level 2 cities like Diecast and Goodminton? When they were still expanding they must have been aware of how they were pushing against diminishing shmuckers, so if two level 1s are just as good as one level 2, I would expect them to make a level 1 out of each city that they conquer before moving on to the next city. These cities were only defended by a handful of units, and that few units could surely live quite comfortably in a level 1 city, and then Haffaton could expand far further before running into shmucker problems. It seems like level 2 is somehow optimal for near-empty cities, even though it contributes twice as much to causing diminishing shmuckers.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby drachefly » Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:22 am

Their having L2 cities suggests that:
1) the income doesn't drop to exactly zero, so more is always better, and they were in the middle of a slow-paced upgrading scheme
2) they weren't thinking optimally
or
3) there are both potentially large resource multipliers on city cites, and site-based level caps
or
something I haven't thought of
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby Chit Rule Railroad » Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:32 pm

drachefly wrote:Their having L2 cities suggests that:
1) the income doesn't drop to exactly zero, so more is always better, and they were in the middle of a slow-paced upgrading scheme
2) they weren't thinking optimally
or
3) there are both potentially large resource multipliers on city cites, and site-based level caps
or
something I haven't thought of

4) Razing and rebuilding would have replaced the unit types produced by Diecast and Goodminton with the standard Haffaton unit types. If there is no way to recover shmuckers from a city except by razing it, and if Haffaton wanted those unit types, they may have seen keeping the cities at level 2 as a necessary evil.
5) There may not be any way to profit from downgrading a level 2 city, if razing a level 2 doesn't recover enough shmuckers to build a level 1.
6) Higher level cities can produce more powerful unit types than lower-level cities. This klog notes that "big cities" can produce warlords, and the Dwagon wiki page claims that only the GK cities that are level 3 or above can pop them.
User avatar
Chit Rule Railroad
YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:44 pm

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby Lilwik » Wed Dec 11, 2013 9:14 pm

Chit Rule Railroad wrote:4) Razing and rebuilding would have replaced the unit types produced by Diecast and Goodminton with the standard Haffaton unit types. If there is no way to recover shmuckers from a city except by razing it, and if Haffaton wanted those unit types, they may have seen keeping the cities at level 2 as a necessary evil.
It seems unlikely that those cities were producing units since they were practically deserted. It's possible that downgrading a city doesn't recover shmuckers, but it wouldn't require razing the city, so the units available to the city wouldn't change, except of course that the level 1 city couldn't produce everything that it could at level 2. If they're not actually producing units there, then all they could value is the potential to produce those units, and they would still have that because they could always upgrade the city.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Epilogue 24 - Tramennis and Charlie

Postby Werebiscuit » Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:24 am

There is a simple explanation to why Haffaton hadn't downgraded it's cities past level 2. There are 2 competing factors income & defence... from memory (not going to try to find the relevant quote but I'm sure it's out there) level 1 cities are open... no walls. Level 2 cities are the one with some sort of barrier to movement so although Haffaton wasn't actively defending it's cities it left them with enough static defence, that it could afford, to prevent rendomly popping barbarians walking in and taking over. Probably it's hope was that they would have to siege and that would give them time to either pop a defence force or get one on scene. Jillian negated this with her air move which ignored walls.
Werebiscuit
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:45 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Choff04, Daefaroth, Lipkin and 9 guests