An honest discussion about the use of Homes

[Dragons Mate]

ladies and gentleman, Vine's protege!

[suggest]

percent needed mainly depend on the race,personalities and draft rate

[Ragnarok22788]

Here is why homes are good, regardless of science, which only strengthens it. I rambled a bit because this text box is constricting, so go to the end for a good summary.

Suppose you want to maintain 100% BE:

25% homes ---> 33*.25+25*.75 = 27 PPA
16.67 *0.75 = 12.5 Jobs per acre

Therefore, we get 14.5 Free citizens per acre and still have 100% BE. That is the equivalent of a 53.7% draft rate

Here are some generic builds

25% homes
10% farms
20% guilds + towers
10% stables + dungeons
35% free land

0% homes
10% farms
20% guilds + towers
10% stables + dungeons
60% free land


Here's the kicker:

27PPA * .54 = 14.58 other use people per acre
14.58 / 25 = 58.32% draft for 0% homes province

BE with 0% homes, 10.42 Peasants per acre

.5*(1+10.42/16.67) = 81.25 % BE


so, that 60% land @ 81.25% BE, is actually equal to 48.75 % at 100% BE

20% guilds and tower @ 100% = 24.6 % at 81.25% BE
10% farms @ 100% = 12.3% at 81.25 % BE, but there are 2PPA more so this is about the same result

Income for the 0% homes (81.25% BE province)

10.42*2.25 = 23.45 GC per Acre from peasants

Income for the 25% homes (100% BE province)

12.5 * 2.25 = 28.125

28.125 - 23.45 = 4.68 GC difference

This is equal to the raw gold output by 18.72% banks, but banks add income so let's get a better number

10% banks ~ 2.5GC extra + 7.38 % income at 81.25% BE

(2.5GC from Banks + 23.45 for peasants) *1.074 = 27.9 GC

So, the homes are better than 10% banks

60% free land @ 81.25% BE = 48.75% land @ 100% BE

48.75 - 10% for banks - 4.6% for guilds and towers = 34.15%

This is what the province with crappy BE is going to have, equivalently, with the province at 100% BE. The province with 25% homes and 100% BE has 35% land at 100% BE free.


Homes > no homes. Even a really large amount of homes. Note, that with science, ANY amount of science, homes become an even better option since Tools Science multiplies better with higher BE.

20% Tools

@ 81.25% BE ---> 16.9% gain, whereas with 100% BE, we have 20% gain, so 3.1% deficit with no homes. This doesn't even include the extra from housing science.


Homes win.

[Luc]

Ragnarok22788:
The problem with your calculations are:
1. They're unrealistic. Who actually runs 54% draft?
2. As we've already established, you can't do anything but to optimize a static province, and the problem with homes is that they suck as things change.

With homes you have no independent source of income, which means you're an obvious target for chastity, fireballs, storms, greed and riots. The moment you get fireballed, your caculations are no longer valid. The province running homes will soon have worse income than then prov not running them, and he will basically be sitting with 25% buildings that have almost no effect on the province. So basically you're trading 1% buildings and 0.2 gc per acre for bigger risks (at this stage, will differ a little more with sci as you said). Sometimes that's a fair trade, but often it won't be.

In short, you always have to consider what will happen when you're no longer in that static state that you calculated stuff for. In my experience, people running a large amount of homes are more vulnerable to the common tactics in this game, and so the small benefits of using them quickly disappear when you leave the static situation you optimized for. For t/m's running homes makes a lot of sense though.

[Ragnarok22788]

Let's bump up the draft (I wish you had just calculated this because this will only make it clearer). Also, instead of just talking, run some calculations.

35% homes
10% farms
20% guilds + towers
10% stables + dungeons
25% land free

35% homes --> 27.8 PPA minimum

10.84 Jobs per acre
10.84/27.8 = 0.39 so, we are at 61% draft with 100% BE

non-peasants per acre: 16.96

For the 0% homes guy with 25 PPA, this is the same as running

16.96/25 = 67.84 so 67.8% draft

35% homes income:

10.84 * 2.25 =24.4

0% homes income

8.04 * 2.25 = 18.09

Difference 24.4-18.09 = 6.31 gold coins

BE for the 0% homes guy:

.5*(1+8.04/16.67) = 74.12

35% homes has 100% BE

moving on,

To make up the income difference, 0% homes guy needs to run some banks

6.31 ~ 15% banks at 74.12% BE

3.75 GC produced, with +9.53% income

(3.75GC * .7412 BE from banks +18.09 GC from pez) * 1.0953 = 22.86, we had 24.4 GC with 35% homes

So, homes are clearly better than 15% banks @ 74.12 BE. The difference will be ~ 18% banks

20% towers + guilds @ 100% BE =27% @ 74.12 BE

So, we have 60% free land with 0% homes and 74.12% BE, this is the same as 44.472 % land at 100% BE

44.472 - 7% from towers and guild difference - 18% banks = 19.472 % land at 100% BE

We have 25% land at 100% BE with 35% homes. We now have a 5.5% advantage in land, which is only widened with science.

Homes win again.

"As we've already established, you can't do anything but to optimize a static province, and the problem with homes is that they suck as things change."

Where are some numbers? I just proved that homes win in the worst case scenario, that is with no science--they do a lot better with science.

"With homes you have no independent source of income, which means you're an obvious target for chastity, fireballs, storms, greed and riots. The moment you get fireballed, your caculations are no longer valid."

Sure, assume we both get fireballed, who will bounce back faster?

The homes guy, who has +91.43% birthrate, let's prove this beyond any doubt however.


0% homes guy has 8.04 Peasants per acre versus 10.84 from 35% homes guy.

Peasants Hourly Change = Current Peasants * Birth Rate - Drafted Soldiers - Wizards Trained

I don't know what the implicit birth rate is from Utopia Wiki, but let's assume something reasonable. 5% growth per day.

Fireball works by killing 3% of population. We each receive 10 Fireballs

1.03^10 = 1.344

8.04 / 1.344 =5.98 peasants left for 0% homes guy
10.84 / 1.344 = 8.066

Let's find income differences and BE

87.2% BE for 35% homes
68% BE for 0% homes

Incomes:
8.066 * 2.25 = 18.135 for 35% homes
5.98 * 2.25 = 13.455

Difference = 18.135 - 13.455 = 4.68

Builds have not changed because we just got fireballed.

35% homes
20% guilds + towers
10% farms
10% stables + dungeons
25% other @ 87% BE

0% homes 27% guilds + towers
10% farms
10% stables dungeons
16% banks
37% other @ 68% BE


.37* .68 / .87 = 28.92% other land @ 87% BE

This means that the 0% homes other land is actually being more effective than 35% homes other land by about 4%. The issue with this is that we did not adjust the towers, guilds or banks to make up for the lower BE.

0% homes guy has income

(13.455 from peasants + 4*.68 BE from banks ) * 1.1152 from banks @ 68% BE = 18.04
We have 18.135 GC from peasants with 35% homes. Homes are still better income wise after a 34% population drop

Peasants Hourly Change = Current Peasants * Birth Rate - Drafted Soldiers - Wizards Trained

Assume a 20% birthrate, this helps 0% homes guy more than 35% homes guy. The actual BR is lower than this by quite a bit.

5.96*1.2 = 7.152 for 0% homes guy

8.06*1.795 BR (homes @ 87% BE) = 14.47, which is greater than we can have, so we go back to 10.84

so, we now have 100% BE with 35% homes again, while 0% homes guy is sitting with

.5*(1+7.152/16.67) = 71.45 BE

35% homes won when 0% homes had 74% BE, they will surely win against 71.45% BE.


Point is, homes are better than no homes, in every situation, because of the better economy that says, my smaller portion in land outperforms your inefficient higher % of land.

[Ragnarok22788]

Let's assume a little science. 5% population and 10% tools

35% homes --->29.2 PPA
BE is at 110%

0% homes --> 26.25 PPA
Say we have 65% draft, to be realistic about this.
17.06 non peasant per acre, 9.2 peasant
BE = 85.4%

Guy with homes can actually get more military and still have 110% BE.

[Luc]

Not gonna quote your whole post.

You miss the point. Static optimizations are static. Homes strats are among the easiest builds to counter, because they build almost completely on large population, since it has to compensate for everything they can't have with all that space spent on homes.

10 fireballs? Really? Try calculations where you're down to 3-4 peasants per acre, and kept at that level by MS and Chastity. That's what real players will do to you without much effort. You'll be way worse off with a homes strat in such a situation, because you're maxing your max pop for nothing, and your BR bonus is void. Your only source of income are your few peasants, and riots and greed will force you to lower your wages. As you calculated, being peasant starved hurts your BE more than it does mine, so even the buildings advantage disappears.

The opposite strategy is to chain and overpopulate you instead, and that strategy is also more effective against your type of build. Your strength comes from having more peasants than your no-homes counterparts. Peasants are the first thing you want to get rid of when you get chained, because they force your army to leave. You have lots of them, meaning you'll be losing more army as a result. Note that this wouldn't happen if you used the homes strat to maximize your army instead of economy/BE. Of course if you go down that road instead, your province becomes less sustainable, because you need to train more troops instead.

In summary, your province is an air castle. You're too easy to stop. Your calculations will never tell you that, so as long as you rely on them, you'll have a hard time against players who don't. People who run homes-builds almost always end up being turtling solo players, because that's the only way their build works as it's supposed to.

You assume that I haven't done any calcs, which is completely wrong. I've used math optimization software to do what you seem to be doing manually. Homes ARE good for static optimization, but not when used to max BE and income, but to maximize the army. But mixing in what happens in war is extremely hard to model. You don't know if you'll end up with no peasants, or if you're left alone economy wise (in which situation you really should've spent the extra population on army instead of maxing BE and income). You need to start living in the real world and stop thinking static optimization can give you the perfect province. It's just not that easy a problem to model.

As I've said before, I'm not dissing homes-builds completely. It's completely viable to run some homes oow. But you should not be building homes during the actual war, because they're mostly useless there.

edit:
Just threw some numbers into my spreadsheet, comparing 30% homes vs 0% homes for the Orc Warrior I'm playing this age. The end result was that i could get around 3% more effects from hospitals, as well as 1 extra opa. Considering how fragile the homes-build is, the 0% homes build is an easy pick. The gains from using the homes build are nowhere large enough to justify the downside.

[Ragnarok22788]

One thing I will say, however, is that if you use homes with the wrong draft percentage, you are worse off because you will have wasted peasants. Unemployed peasants are near useless.

[Ragnarok22788]

I don't understand why you say homes are only good in a static situation. The birthrate is ridiculously high so I can't be fireballed down that heavily, period--unless chastity is on me literally every hour. I can recover all of my peasants in 1 hour from being down 40%-50%, I think that is the epitome of durability. I assumed 10 fireballs because I expected to get 10 fireballs, let's say, within an hour, and then get another 10 the next hour, and another and so on.

Here is what I'm having trouble understanding:

"The opposite strategy is to chain and overpopulate you instead, and that strategy is also more effective against your type of build. Your strength comes from having more peasants than your no-homes counterparts."

I was emphasizing the fact that using homes to maintain BE at 100% is better than letting BE go down and not using homes because the effective land use is better with homes than without. I was essentially saying: having 30% land at 100% BE is better than 40% at 70% BE. I don't see this as wrong in any way.



Now, I haven't played since age 34 or so, but back then I ran an Elf A/M using some homes and was exceptionally successful--if you look at my strats at utopia temple back then, many agreed that my homes were a good idea. My honor ranking as Marquis that age also said that homes were effective. I was simply very durable due to good economy, despite getting massive ops and spells on me. Homes now have a birthrate bonus but slightly less housing capacity, but I still think my numbers say something simple and true; maintain a good economy using homes so your land is used more effectively.

[Palem]

I can recover all of my peasants in 1 hour from being down 40%-50%, I think that is the epitome of durability.

I don't think you understand how BR works... The amount of pezzies you get per tick depends on the amount of pezzies you have. In fact, I think the base BR is ~3% of your current pezzies. You would need a BR of +1666% to recover 50% of your pezzies back in an hour (I think I calced that right...)

I assumed 10 fireballs because I expected to get 10 fireballs, let's say, within an hour, and then get another 10 the next hour, and another and so on.

Not if you're facing an even relatively coordinated kd. Even 1 prov can get off more than 10 FBs on you, let alone 20+.

[Ragnarok22788]

Ok, I was a little confused about the equation on wiki because it seemed too good to be true.

Peasants Hourly Change = Current Peasants * Birth Rate - Drafted Soldiers - Wizards Trained


I guess I misinterpreted it to by

1 * (Homes bonus) * (normal which is 1.05)

versus

1 * homes bonus * 0.05

Is this correct?

[Luc]

I don't understand why you say homes are only good in a static situation. The birthrate is ridiculously high so I can't be fireballed down that heavily, period--unless chastity is on me literally every hour. I can recover all of my peasants in 1 hour from being down 40%-50%, I think that is the epitome of durability. I assumed 10 fireballs because I expected to get 10 fireballs, let's say, within an hour, and then get another 10 the next hour, and another and so on.

As Palem said, you misunderstood the birthrates. Your second formula is the accurate one (although 5% isn't the base growth, it's more like 2-3%, I forget). A decent kd will keep chastity on you for maybe 75% of the time, meaning you have 6 hours of potential peasant growth every day (and if you have ms on you too, all those 6 hours will do is maybe compensate for the peasants you've already lost). It'd take days for you to get all your peasants back that way, and if at any time you got ms or fireballed again, you'd be set back a lot.

Here is what I'm having trouble understanding:

"The opposite strategy is to chain and overpopulate you instead, and that strategy is also more effective against your type of build. Your strength comes from having more peasants than your no-homes counterparts."

I was emphasizing the fact that using homes to maintain BE at 100% is better than letting BE go down and not using homes because the effective land use is better with homes than without. I was essentially saying: having 30% land at 100% BE is better than 40% at 70% BE. I don't see this as wrong in any way.

You emphasize income and land utilization. Both of them depend on having peasants. As soon as someone uses a depopulation strat on you, all the advantages you had before they did it are gone. You no longer use your land more effectively, and your income is actually worse than it would've been if you'd used banks instead. Killing peasants in this game is too easy for a strat to be able to rely on them without being very risky.

Now, I haven't played since age 34 or so, but back then I ran an Elf A/M using some homes and was exceptionally successful--if you look at my strats at utopia temple back then, many agreed that my homes were a good idea. My honor ranking as Marquis that age also said that homes were effective. I was simply very durable due to good economy, despite getting massive ops and spells on me. Homes now have a birthrate bonus but slightly less housing capacity, but I still think my numbers say something simple and true; maintain a good economy using homes so your land is used more effectively.

Homes do not guarantee either good income or better land utilization, which is why I keep pointing out the flaw of only looking at static situations. Your strength quickly falls apart the moment someone actually does something to you, and it doesn't matter if it's a depopulation or overpopulation strat, because you're more vulnerable to both. You need to factor in the risks you're taking for your calculations to give you useful results, and that's very very hard to do.

To make it to Marquis today, you need to be an honor whore or solo player, and I'm less than interested in helping anyone do either :P

[Ethan]

Without wading though massive math (I've done it via good sim, but it takes a long time to write up) - homes look very good if you forget about NW. If you set a dpnw instead of a DPA, homes lose to TG/Forts. Even after you account for DBE, and the BE bonus, and constant income... TGs just beat homes for increasing offense.
Homes do have advantages (BR, fast convert from pump into war, etc.) But when war is eminent, it is almost always better to build TGs instead of homes. (Or rax, etc.) They are better than a lot of buildings in war (schools in a war?), but calcing OPNW shows they aren't the best, and as such should be a special purpose building, not a attacker mainstay.

[Dragons Mate]

I just got out of a war where the majority of our guys have chastity on them 24/7. As soon as the spell would end, a new one would be cast.

If you are facing ghettos that aren't organized enough to keep your pezzies down, then yes, Homes are probably better.

BUT as soon as you start warring half-way decent kingdoms, you'll quickly realize that your pezzies aren't going to stick around because the enemy kingdom will target them! As soon as your pezzies are dead, you're dead. When warring any half-competent kingdom, Homes loose their most of their value. When warring a kingdom with gnomes, they are completely worthless because you won't have a BR, or pezzies!

[Bishop]

you can MV chastity off you know.