Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 029

[drachefly]

Doooubtful. Artie spent over a thousand turns training and made it from level 5 to 6 or something like that.

[Lamech]

Doooubtful. Artie spent over a thousand turns training and made it from level 5 to 6 or something like that.

640 turns from 6 to 7, and a bunch of knights were trained up as well. Even if the growth rate of xp needed is 0% that means under 4000 turns needed to get too level 7. And under 4500 to get 8. Assuming something more reasonable say... 100% the only 2540 turns are needed to get too level 8. 200% is a bit under 2900 for 8, but 200% is pushing plausible because that means only 34 turns of training for level 4 all the way down from level 1. Now this does make the assumption the curve is exponential and training is per turn, but Rob has said its similar, and at the very least it won't go backwards, which still means that the 0% growth is a hard maximum of the time to get to 7. (And have trained up a dozen knights 6 times.)

[Karadan]

I love how you're talking about over 4k turns as if it was nothing. The warlike nature of Erfworld and comments by various individuals seem to indicate that is something closer to how long you measure the lifespan of a side not individual units. Jillian herself comments (in thought) that FAQ went into hiding a thousandish turns ago, and that most sides that existed before then were 'long since gone' and that Haffton was 'large and old' but still wouldn't know about them directly, but instead have contact with commanders who had memories of such distant times.

I don't think you can really consider training as an acceptable form of... training for most side. Compare those hundreds of turns required for a single level to the dozens that it takes in combat (Or indeed, single turns of actual combat, with dozens of positioning and preparing). Jetstone seems to be a rare exception in that it is large and powerful enough to have the luxury of punishing a high level warlord by not using her for hundreds of turns. I don't think your average side can afford to not have units out of battle for that long.

FAQ also seemed to be an exception, but their bubble side only lasted a thousand or so turns. Sure, it likely would have lasted longer than that if not for Wanda, but only the Titans can say for how long. Everyone seemed quite impressed that FAQ had the level of success it did, so such sides are likely quite rare (Or so successful that we don't know about them I suppose).


Also, as for Jillian being a boon or a drain on her side, well, that's fairly easy to factor out.
The fact that she maintained herself for more than a couple turns without the capital indicates that she does indeed make an overall profit from her mercenary work.
Also, the fact that FAQ allowed her to work at all indicates that she made more from mercenary work than she would have managing a city. Either that or Banhammer is so nice that he accepted a loss in income for an income strapped side and a huge security risk to his bubble kingdom so that Jillian could go play soldier. Now, it is totally possible that Banhammer is way nicer than Jillian makes him out to be. Wanda might have held her own father on a similar level based on their initial encounter, but he turned out to be a good guy in the end. Perhaps Jillian just never got to know Banhammer. Even so, it seems unlikely that he made such huge sacrifices (literally risking his entire side crumbling) for Jillian's happiness.


I also have to agree with Kreistor: There have been plenty of references to the fact that a completely peaceful side is impossible in erfworld, not just because someone else would try and attack them, but because it isn't economically possible. The exact reasoning isn't entirely spelled out, but it is likely that croaking enemy units (and certainly razing cities) generates income. It might be that killing a unit generates more income than it cost to make that unit in the first place (Hence why you might turn a profit from harvesting your own popped units as Parson considered). It might be that cities do not generate income, but instead represent a drain on resources, and that beyond a certain number they represent a significantly larger drain. Or a few cities might generate income, but so little that they can't sustain anything more than a token garrison, and certainly don't contribute to the side as a whole.

Similarly there has been mention of being able to do things like hunt to reduce upkeep costs, but it is just that, a reduction, not a nullification. It is also not a guaranteed success, ala Artemis. And while no disadvantages or limits have been stated for doing so, it might cost move to hunt, or reduce your stats if you're ambushed while doing so, or it might not be infinitely sustainable in a limited number of squares.

Oh, and as to the wealth that GW has at the start of Book 1, consider that at the end of Book 1 Sizemore states that they had mined roughly a third of the wealth of the mountain, and that now that they had access to the other two thirds, they were likely the wealthiest side in all of erfworld. That indicates that even that first third represented an amazing amount of wealth. That mined wealth combined with a largely uncroaked force and the fact that cities might actually be a drain on resources as opposed to a benefit (Or at least if you include a reasonable defensive force) would easily explain GW having a huge treasury at the start of book 1.

Personally, I like Jillian as a character. I don't think I'd like her in person, but as a character I think she is amazing.

[Kreistor]

The exact reasoning isn't entirely spelled out, but it is likely that croaking enemy units (and certainly razing cities) generates income.

Oh, that's fairly simple to explain..

We know that when a side has X City Levels, X+1 City Level will generate less revenue than X. Prior to that, every City Level generates Y revenue per Turn.

Let's imagine Side A has X-1 City Levels. It needs only a Level 1 City to add Y its revenue. It Captures City Site M. The cost to build it to City Level 1 is C.

The number of Turns City M must survive to replace the cost of building it is C/Y. After that point, it is producing profit.

Transylvito wants to increase its income. It can Raze M for, say 80%xC.

It approaches Side A and says, "Give us Cx90% or we Raze M." Side A now has a decision. The cost to build M again is C, so this is 10% less. Transylvito is an old and powerful Side, so a straight up fight for M will only lose large numbers of Units. So Side A gives in to extortion. How often can they give in to Extortion and still see a profit from M? 1.9x(C/Y)+1 turns. If Transylvito extorts more often than that, M is a sink and needs to be Razed and abandoned.

If Transylvito actually Razes the City, Side A needs will still make a small profit if the City is rebuilt every C/Y+1 Turns.

I have not included the upkeep of the defensive units. You need to add that in to the equation, but we don't know the scale here, so I don't know if it can actually be ignored. (If it's much smaller, then it can.)

[0beron]

Not sure if anyone has said this yet, but I think this shows us that FAQ had at minimum 5 casters, since we now know:

• Predictamancer
• Lookamancer
• Croakamancer
• Foolamancer

And none of those are especially useful in combat (from a "DPS" perspective.) We know Predictamancers are deadly shots....but they need something to fire WITH, so I hypothesize that FAQ has a Shock, Weird, or Dirt.

[onlyme]

Orwell was Faq's Chief Lookamancer, and Marie was the Predictamancer. To enter or leave the kingdom undetected, it took the two of them to plot a safe route.

I wonder how those two casters work together. I guess it is not a link at that would need a thinkamancer and three-caster-link which is quite dangerous (unless one has learned enough thinkamancy which I think is quite unprobable, too).

We've seen hatomancy and stuffomancy work together by pulling magic things out of a hat and working with those parts, but how does a predictamancer and a lookamancer work together?

Perhaps the lookamancer creating a spell for looking what is at a given hex and the predictamancer reading that modifying it so that it sees what is in this hex in the next turn? Or could create the predictamancer creating a scroll enabling the lookamancer looking a bit in the future?

If each is using their own discipline only, how does the predictamancer help? We know general information about the future is only possible for fated events. If it is about events in the near future like testing "will they meet somone on this route in the next two turns", where is the lookamancer with that?

The lookamancer seeing what units are there and the predictamancer predicting where they move? (but wouldn't that require a rendevous point where no enemy unit can move in one turn from a place where the lookamancer can look at?

[MonteCristo]

Not sure if anyone has said this yet, but I think this shows us that FAQ had at minimum 5 casters, since we now know:

• Predictamancer
• Lookamancer
• Croakamancer
• Foolamancer

And none of those are especially useful in combat (from a "DPS" perspective.) We know Predictamancers are deadly shots....but they need something to fire WITH, so I hypothesize that FAQ has a Shock, Weird, or Dirt.

Well remember, from what we know of you do not need a shockamancer to arm a tower with offensive spells and it seems that any caster can fire them.
However, Stanely did say that Faq had a "whole lot of casters" which might imply that there was more than just 4 which seems like the usual maximum that most sides pop on their own.

[onlyme]

Not sure if anyone has said this yet, but I think this shows us that FAQ had at minimum 5 casters, since we now know:

• Predictamancer
• Lookamancer
• Croakamancer
• Foolamancer

And none of those are especially useful in combat (from a "DPS" perspective.) We know Predictamancers are deadly shots....but they need something to fire WITH, so I hypothesize that FAQ has a Shock, Weird, or Dirt.

The shots we saw where from a tower filled by the predictamancer, too. (Remember: Wanda made the luckamancer made scrolls and the predictamancer fill the tower). So no special need for that.

The more interesting thing: The croakamancer was kept in FAQ. Why keep a croakamancer with that big bonus on undeads, which also has a history of staying with the forces (both in the site that popped her and in Haffaton) at home? Just to be able to suddenly create a large army once you are able to thward a first strike on the city (assuming an attacker will not suspect FAQ is there thus be under-armed when first attacking it)?

[onlyme]

However, Stanely did say that Faq had a "whole lot of casters" which might imply that there was more than just 4 which seems like the usual maximum that most sides pop on their own.

Have we actually seen a side that popped 4 casters? Jetstone perhaps. GK got some elsewhere, FAQ at least got Wanda elsewhere, ...

Remembering FAQ has three cities, I think 4 already counts as quite a lot. And remember it is Stanley speaking...

[Karadan]

The exact reasoning isn't entirely spelled out, but it is likely that croaking enemy units (and certainly razing cities) generates income.

Oh, that's fairly simple to explain..

We know that when a side has X City Levels, X+1 City Level will generate less revenue than X. Prior to that, every City Level generates Y revenue per Turn.

Let's imagine Side A has X-1 City Levels. It needs only a Level 1 City to add Y its revenue. It Captures City Site M. The cost to build it to City Level 1 is C.

The number of Turns City M must survive to replace the cost of building it is C/Y. After that point, it is producing profit.

Transylvito wants to increase its income. It can Raze M for, say 80%xC.

It approaches Side A and says, "Give us Cx90% or we Raze M." Side A now has a decision. The cost to build M again is C, so this is 10% less. Transylvito is an old and powerful Side, so a straight up fight for M will only lose large numbers of Units. So Side A gives in to extortion. How often can they give in to Extortion and still see a profit from M? 1.9x(C/Y)+1 turns. If Transylvito extorts more often than that, M is a sink and needs to be Razed and abandoned.

If Transylvito actually Razes the City, Side A needs will still make a small profit if the City is rebuilt every C/Y+1 Turns.

I have not included the upkeep of the defensive units. You need to add that in to the equation, but we don't know the scale here, so I don't know if it can actually be ignored. (If it's much smaller, then it can.)

I suppose that makes sense. Essentially Transylvito is at the point of diminishing returns, so makes more money ransoming the city back and forth than they do actually holding it. That explains why a side might go to war for profit, but it doesn't explain the constant references to war being essential to maintaining a side. In your example Side A is essentially a peaceful side since they aren't attacking to get their city back.

Parson indirectly states that FAQ could not have existed without Jillian. He mentions that farming your units for more than it cost to pop them being a 'hack' that would allow the maintenance of a bubble side like FAQ. This indicates that a bubbles side is unsustainable without a hack or some other form of income, which Jillian was providing in the form of mercenary work.

If it is true that a real bubble side cannot exist without a "hack" (FAQ was a pseudo bubble side since it relied on Jillian for income)
Then it must also be true that a bubble side's upkeep is greater than the revenue provided by its cities.
Since a bubble side could theoretically exist with virtually no units (If no one knows about it, there is no need for a major garrison to protect from attacks), cities must generate almost no revenue.

Also keep in mind that when Parson was talking about this, he wasn't simply referring to bubble kingdoms, he was referring to self sufficiency. A side that could continue to exist without the need for war. In other words every side requires war to exist. Which means that every single side in erfworld is constantly losing money unless they are at war or have extraordinary means of income (mining for example). So war must in some way generate revenue besides the simple extortion of a smaller side, because the smaller side could not continue to pay as they are losing money every turn even without the extortion. The only possible conclusion is that war itself generates profit -or- that erfworld is untenable (since a self-sufficient side is impossible) and eventually all sides will die off as the total wealth of erfworld approaches 0.

So why does Transylvito trade carpool back and forth? Because it generates profits for both sides, which is why neither side has put forth the effort to make a decisive claim on the city. Don requires a large investment to make it a full war because it means the raising of a large army combined with potential loss of revenue. This is also why Carpudlians hasn't stacked it up as a trap for Transylvito. They rely on the exchange just as much as Transylvito does. Either side could only afford to claim the city decisively if they could then continue the exchange elsewhere. Perhaps this is something only understood by Rulers and/or Royals. In the latter case it could well explain an added layer to why Royals dislike non-Royal sides so much. Non-Royals don't understand the need for those exchanges, and so make erfworld less stable.

Of course, some of these things might be being taken slightly out of context. Perhaps Parson meant a self-sufficient very large side, as opposed to a self-sufficient side at all. Though FAQ seems to demonstrate that no side is self-sufficient as they only had 3 cities, which is much less than the diminishing returns point of about 20 that Parson seems to be dealing with. But if you subscribe to the idea that Jillian wasn't really providing income for her side and was instead simply able to come out very slightly ahead (She survived as a merc, but her forces slowly dwindled due to inability to replace losses, as well as having to disband during hard times, though that may have been because she had fewer units and thus could take a smaller range of contracts), then perhaps FAQ could have been a bubble side without her. They did exist at some point without her, and seemed to already be in a bubble state at that point (though I don't it was made perfectly clear), but no mention is made of if they merced before her or not.

Alot really hinges on if Jillian was making as much income for her side as she thinks. Being chief warlord and everything though, I'd think she'd know if her income wasn't matching her upkeep.


As for Faq having alot of casters, 4 does seem like a large number. Transylvito has only shown proof of 3 casters (think, money, cloth). Jetstone, by all rights one of the most powerful sides in the immediate area of Erf, only seems to have 4. GW had 5 at one point, but has been reduced to 4. Unaroyal had 4. I suppose maybe 4 does seem like a fairly normalish number, but we're looking at notably larger sides than Faq, which only had 3 cities. Currently Faq only has 1 caster though. We have very little if any idea how many casters other sides have though. Goodminton had 2 before Wanda. Haffangton only showed signs of 1 before Wanda so far. Haggar has shown no signs of casters. I believe I recall there being mention of a side (possibly Haggar) that had no casters, despite wanting one, including a mention of 'the Titans provide what is needed, not what is wanted' or something along those lines. So 4 isn't alot in absolute terms, but it is alot for such a small side, especially as they were likely all in the same place at the same time, and their combined efforts led to some very powerful effects. Also, as onlyme said, Stanley is our reference for the 'whole lot of casters' info.

[MonteCristo]

The more interesting thing: The croakamancer was kept in FAQ. Why keep a croakamancer with that big bonus on undeads, which also has a history of staying with the forces (both in the site that popped her and in Haffaton) at home? Just to be able to suddenly create a large army once you are able to thward a first strike on the city (assuming an attacker will not suspect FAQ is there thus be under-armed when first attacking it)?

Well, the use of wanda's abilities would be limited. Jillian's mercenaries are able to do much because they travel by mounted flight which allows them to move quickly. The uncroaked the Wanda would make would not be able to travel about as they do as they would need extra gwiffens to support them; they would be better off using those gwiffens for living units who can level and would last longer. Granted, Wanda could still be of some use; When fighting for another side they could use Wanda to raise some temporary units to add to a side's ground support... and once Jillian and wanda are done serving the side, they can disband them and move on.

Though still, i might say that it would probably have more to do with Banhammer's philosophy that would result in keeping wanda at home

However, Stanely did say that Faq had a "whole lot of casters" which might imply that there was more than just 4 which seems like the usual maximum that most sides pop on their own.

Have we actually seen a side that popped 4 casters? Jetstone perhaps. GK got some elsewhere, FAQ at least got Wanda elsewhere, ...

Remembering FAQ has three cities, I think 4 already counts as quite a lot. And remember it is Stanley speaking...

3-4 casters seems to be the norm for sides that we have gotten details about...
Both Jetstone and Unaroryal had 4 casters; in fact it was only when jestone lost a caster that they ended up popping a new one. Goodmitten had 3 casters of their own, and if we assume that Faq was the only place that Gobwinknob got captured casters, then they two would have had 3 casters. Transylvito has 2 casters, but only that we know of... I've suspected they have a dollamancer as well based on Ace Hardware's comments and the presence of Dolls, Molls and Scarecrows; units that are products of dollamancy.

Also the number of cities has no bearing on how many a casters are popped... Casters are popped randomly whenever you pop a warlord and it is said that the chances of popping a caster is up to fate. In jillians case, she has had no louck popping casters of her own, but banhammer might have been luckier

[Swodaems]

You realise of course that, for example, Faq's Courtiers will be bringing in schmuckers by managing his Cities, yes?

Only when Jillian is out merc'ing. While in town, she's as capable of managing a city as any courtier, and with her levels, probably better at the job. While she's merc'ing, that function only makes profit for funding upkeep in FAQ if Jillian and her army are making more schmuckers than their own upkeep. So, no, at NO time are the courtiers funding Jillian, unless Banhammer chooses to let her rest and take in lesser revenue.

That the courtiers with such duties have likely brought in more wealth relative to their upkeep than any other Unit in the Side?

Prove Jillian does not do the job better when at FAQ.

Don King apparently thinks Warlords managing cities is "a risky extravagance."

[Lamech]

I love how you're talking about over 4k turns as if it was nothing. The warlike nature of Erfworld and comments by various individuals seem to indicate that is something closer to how long you measure the lifespan of a side not individual units. Jillian herself comments (in thought) that FAQ went into hiding a thousandish turns ago, and that most sides that existed before then were 'long since gone' and that Haffton was 'large and old' but still wouldn't know about them directly, but instead have contact with commanders who had memories of such distant times.

A thousand or more. That seems to me that somehow she isn't exactly certain of the time frame. Somehow. A thousandish would be something like "more than a thousand". Also note that even a thousand with a tiny growth rate for levels (30% specifically) means 1067 turns to get to 5. A far cry from level 1.

I don't think you can really consider training as an acceptable form of... training for most side. Compare those hundreds of turns required for a single level to the dozens that it takes in combat (Or indeed, single turns of actual combat, with dozens of positioning and preparing). Jetstone seems to be a rare exception in that it is large and powerful enough to have the luxury of punishing a high level warlord by not using her for hundreds of turns. I don't think your average side can afford to not have units out of battle for that long.

The advantage to training, is it takes no risk. In all honesty it should be mandatory for casters. And all warlords managing cities. And all courtiers managing cities. I do note that from the Artemis pages it seems that the assumptions is that city stewards don't train very strictly though.

FAQ also seemed to be an exception, but their bubble side only lasted a thousand or so turns. Sure, it likely would have lasted longer than that if not for Wanda, but only the Titans can say for how long. Everyone seemed quite impressed that FAQ had the level of success it did, so such sides are likely quite rare (Or so successful that we don't know about them I suppose).

There are no hidden sides, I haven't seen one! All though FAQ is probably fairly unique.

Also, as for Jillian being a boon or a drain on her side, well, that's fairly easy to factor out.

Oh she certainly makes a profit, maybe not more than she would from managing a city, but more than kicking out a manager of a city and slotting in her would make.

I also have to agree with Kreistor: There have been plenty of references to the fact that a completely peaceful side is impossible in erfworld, not just because someone else would try and attack them, but because it isn't economically possible. The exact reasoning isn't entirely spelled out, but it is likely that croaking enemy units (and certainly razing cities) generates income. It might be that killing a unit generates more income than it cost to make that unit in the first place (Hence why you might turn a profit from harvesting your own popped units as Parson considered). It might be that cities do not generate income, but instead represent a drain on resources, and that beyond a certain number they represent a significantly larger drain. Or a few cities might generate income, but so little that they can't sustain anything more than a token garrison, and certainly don't contribute to the side as a whole.

We have plenty of people saying that, but we have counter examples. Haffaton outright prefers to not fight. Yes, they get other people to do their dirty work, but they aren't fighting. Charlie makes the majority of his income from telecommunications. The entirety of the MK. And our good friends the natural sides, can survive on mining, farming, hunting and the like. And cities definitely generate income. Indeed just recently it was stated Haffaton's cities were producing a (small) cash flow.

Similarly there has been mention of being able to do things like hunt to reduce upkeep costs, but it is just that, a reduction, not a nullification. It is also not a guaranteed success, ala Artemis. And while no disadvantages or limits have been stated for doing so, it might cost move to hunt, or reduce your stats if you're ambushed while doing so, or it might not be infinitely sustainable in a limited number of squares.

Hunting was stated to be a money making activity, as was farming, as was mining. Indeed some natural sides survive that way. Do I really need to dredge up that WoT again?

Though still, i might say that it would probably have more to do with Banhammer's philosophy that would result in keeping wanda at home

I would suspect its because Wanda, the omni-caster can do all sorts of wonderful things. Say making scrolls of croakamancy, hats or suggestion dust, sell them in the MK and make a much bigger profit that way.

[Swodaems]

Though still, i might say that it would probably have more to do with Banhammer's philosophy that would result in keeping wanda at home

I would suspect its because Wanda, the omni-caster can do all sorts of wonderful things. Say making scrolls of croakamancy, hats or suggestion dust, sell them in the MK and make a much bigger profit that way.

Or Banhammer was hammering her.

[CNagy]

We have plenty of people saying that, but we have counter examples. Haffaton outright prefers to not fight. Yes, they get other people to do their dirty work, but they aren't fighting. Charlie makes the majority of his income from telecommunications. The entirety of the MK. And our good friends the natural sides, can survive on mining, farming, hunting and the like. And cities definitely generate income. Indeed just recently it was stated Haffaton's cities were producing a (small) cash flow.

We don't know enough about Haffaton to examine their finances, but I suspect if they make a majority of their income without fighting it is by contracting to sides that are fighting. Charlie may make the majority of his income from telecommunications, but the people he makes his money off of make their money primarily off of war. Without war and conflict, Charlie's operation likely wouldn't work. The MK is an example of a seller's market, I'd think. Casters are said to be quite rare, so a caster selling their services (or scrolls) should not typically want for work. Still, the sides they sell their services too are predominantly sides engaged in warfare. Even if individual sides or factions have carved out a niche for themselves that largely ignores war, they can only do so by providing needed services to sides that engage in war (FAQ notwithstanding); or, in other words, Charlie has a pretty sweet setup, but if everyone could do it then he wouldn't be able to sustain his side doing it and neither would anyone else.

[ftl]

I wonder how those two casters work together. I guess it is not a link at that would need a thinkamancer and three-caster-link which is quite dangerous (unless one has learned enough thinkamancy which I think is quite unprobable, too).

Well, there IS a potential very simple answer to this, that doesn't involve fancy magical working-together, just simple ordinary working together.

A lookamancer can answer the question of "Where are the enemy units". This lets the incoming party not run into any enemy units while taking their turn heading back to FAQ.
A predictamancer can answer the question of "Where WILL those enemy units go". This lets the incoming party end turn in a hex that won't be traveled by enemy units during the next turn.


Together, those make even a multi-turn expedition 100% safe; if either one is missing, you might be discovered either on your turn or on the enemy turn.

[ftl]

We don't know enough about Haffaton to examine their finances, but I suspect if they make a majority of their income without fighting it is by contracting to sides that are fighting.

I would suspect that, rather than contracting to sides that are fighting, Haffaton is using some exploit with a Hippiemancer and a Croakamancer to maintain a large army at low upkeep.

Eh, Haffaton's just as military a side as any other, anyway. They expand, capture and raze cities, and so on. They just have deceptively peaceful-looking tactics.

[Kreistor]

Parson indirectly states that FAQ could not have existed without Jillian. He mentions that farming your units for more than it cost to pop them being a 'hack' that would allow the maintenance of a bubble side like FAQ. This indicates that a bubbles side is unsustainable without a hack or some other form of income, which Jillian was providing in the form of mercenary work.

If it is true that a real bubble side cannot exist without a "hack" (FAQ was a pseudo bubble side since it relied on Jillian for income)
Then it must also be true that a bubble side's upkeep is greater than the revenue provided by its cities.
Since a bubble side could theoretically exist with virtually no units (If no one knows about it, there is no need for a major garrison to protect from attacks), cities must generate almost no revenue.

Upkeep increases with level, shich explains the need for higher revenue, but that cannot be solved with temporary merc work. FAQ loses no units from home territory, so its upkeep rises and rises, until someone must be disbanded. But that doesn't make the side "unsustainable", so we are not yet given all of the rules on this subject.

And, frankly, I don't think Rob has solved the issue. We know he only created the barebones rules he needed for Book 1, so he may have simply ssumed he could create the required rules if he everneeded to, not fully understanding our insatiable desire for rules. And he may have written himself into a corner. If we never get the answer, then we know that's what happened.

[Swodaems]

Parson indirectly states that FAQ could not have existed without Jillian. He mentions that farming your units for more than it cost to pop them being a 'hack' that would allow the maintenance of a bubble side like FAQ. This indicates that a bubbles side is unsustainable without a hack or some other form of income, which Jillian was providing in the form of mercenary work.

If it is true that a real bubble side cannot exist without a "hack" (FAQ was a pseudo bubble side since it relied on Jillian for income)
Then it must also be true that a bubble side's upkeep is greater than the revenue provided by its cities.
Since a bubble side could theoretically exist with virtually no units (If no one knows about it, there is no need for a major garrison to protect from attacks), cities must generate almost no revenue.

Upkeep increases with level, shich explains the need for higher revenue, but that cannot be solved with temporary merc work. FAQ loses no units from home territory, so its upkeep rises and rises, until someone must be disbanded. But that doesn't make the side "unsustainable", so we are not yet given all of the rules on this subject.

Jillian's greatest contribution to Faq may be her ability to lose high level gwiffons, allowing them to be replaced with lower level ones.

And, frankly, I don't think Rob has solved the issue. We know he only created the barebones rules he needed for Book 1, so he may have simply ssumed he could create the required rules if he everneeded to, not fully understanding our insatiable desire for rules. And he may have written himself into a corner. If we never get the answer, then we know that's what happened.

It's no secret that Erfworld is a game of Calvinball.

[Karadan]

We have plenty of people saying that, but we have counter examples. Haffaton outright prefers to not fight. Yes, they get other people to do their dirty work, but they aren't fighting. Charlie makes the majority of his income from telecommunications. The entirety of the MK. And our good friends the natural sides, can survive on mining, farming, hunting and the like. And cities definitely generate income. Indeed just recently it was stated Haffaton's cities were producing a (small) cash flow.

Haffaton my not prefer to fight, but that doesn't mean they don't go to war. It doesn't mean they don't conqure. The reason they have an (unverified) large treasury even when their side is large likely has alot to do with it costing them nothing to go to war (uncroaked units are free and do not require upkeep). Thus it costs them nothing to build an army, nothing to attack a city, and nothing when a unit is lost. They can also likely get away with quite small defensive forces thanks to Flora, basically sacrificing empty cities till they can pull in Flora to lock up the enemy for reenforcements and recapture.

MK is not a side, it is a place. It has no cities to maintain, and all the units there can provide highly valuable services to sides (who of course make their money in turn from war). Natural allies fall into a similar place. They don't have to maintain cities and mostly survive by mining, but mining is a limited source, thus prompting them to join with a side (who hires them for war) to support them.

And while Charlscom doesn't go to war directly, they do merc work and intelligence work... and thus gain income from sides that go to war. They couldn't sustain themselves if there was no war, because no one would need their services.

The advantage to training, is it takes no risk. In all honesty it should be mandatory for casters. And all warlords managing cities. And all courtiers managing cities. I do note that from the Artemis pages it seems that the assumptions is that city stewards don't train very strictly though.

It is done for casters, but is exceedingly slow. Sizemore talks about how he gained more experience (or some huge amount of experience) in the battle for gobwin's knob than he did in all of his turns before that (Casters gain xp for casting spells, in addition to killing units and such). So yeah, it isn't like you can never get anywhere by training (Also consider that Artemis might have had some kind of training related hidden special, thus why she was mentioned as being so unique), it is just that it takes far too long to be useful in most cases.

Hunting was stated to be a money making activity, as was farming, as was mining. Indeed some natural sides survive that way. Do I really need to dredge up that WoT again?

True, but mining at least is not infinitely sustainable. And as I mentioned earlier, natural allies may have different upkeep rules since they aren't actual sides.

Eh, Haffaton's just as military a side as any other, anyway. They expand, capture and raze cities, and so on. They just have deceptively peaceful-looking tactics.

Yep

Upkeep increases with level, shich explains the need for higher revenue, but that cannot be solved with temporary merc work. FAQ loses no units from home territory, so its upkeep rises and rises, until someone must be disbanded. But that doesn't make the side "unsustainable", so we are not yet given all of the rules on this subject.

Nothing says they have to pop more units, so there is no reason for their upkeep to rise. If a their side was truly sustainable, it would be just that. Jillian going out and doing merc work shows that FAQ isn't sustainable without war.

And, frankly, I don't think Rob has solved the issue. We know he only created the barebones rules he needed for Book 1, so he may have simply ssumed he could create the required rules if he everneeded to, not fully understanding our insatiable desire for rules. And he may have written himself into a corner. If we never get the answer, then we know that's what happened.

I considered saying this several times myself It is very possible that Rob hasn't considered all the possible rules implications of some of the things he's set up.

In fact, he has set up a bit of a contradiction in that it is generally stated that a side must go to war to sustain itself, but also that going to war costs shmuckers. My previous suggestion that the act of warring itself generates income seems to be the only real answer to the paradox. It costs shmuckers to go to war to build up units, but then the war will generate profit. Conquering costs more shmuckers because you must build the units, but then the war will end and stop generating profit.

Jetstone is very likely broke because they went to war and conquered GK, then sat on their hands for too long waiting on the royal coalition to take out Stanley, meaning they burned up a ton of shmuckers on units, gained back a fair bit from the fights that took place, but then got bled of those profits as they extended past the point of diminishing returns holding the cities they had taken. GK had a bunch of money at the start of book 1 because they were actually gaining money back from having their units killed off (by virtue of killing enemy units in the process) combined with the fact that they had access to significant mining. They also had a master Croakamancer and huge compliments of uncroaked troops with no cost or upkeep. Now they have access to decrypted, which keeps them at virtually no upkeep.