Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 380

Thread: High homes = bad

  1. #31
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    At 1k acres, and say 60% homes (assuming all built), you're looking at...
    25000+4800=29800

    Without ANY homes, you're at 25k, so that's a 19% Pop increase. The only way you're getting a 30% pop bonus is with ~100% homes, which isn't feasible at all. It's already been shown how hard a simple semi-chain will hurt you with 50% homes, let alone 60%.

    Take into account the fact that homes provide no jobs, so your income sucks. Plus that you don't get an instant bonus from homes. You first have to fill the pop up, then draft the soldiers THEN train those solds (which you'll have trouble with given your gimped econ).

    I'm not saying it CAN'T be done. I'm saying it's not worth it, and there's better options.

    Also, relying on the idea that "you're safe" should never be done. No one is safe. If someone wants to break you, it's only a matter of time until you are broken.

  2. #32
    Enthusiast Minty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    444
    Palem. The main reason why homes helps your BE is because they provide no jobs. You already have excessive amounts of jobs, the less that remains unfilled the higher efficiency you'll have. Since you are basically increasing your drafttarget you will have roughly same amount of peasants. I could dig up the numbers for jobs per built acre and make some calculation but in the end I'm fairly sure the income will not be much worse at all... except for the higher wages. (using some of the extra population as peasants will easily balance that out.)

    *edit* I see, that's a fair point twitched. I admit I didn't think of that, numbers simply didn't match up at all
    Last edited by Minty; 31-07-2011 at 23:22.

  3. #33
    Enthusiast Minty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    444
    not saying you aren't making valid points palem, just that homes doesn't necessarily equal lesser income... atleast not until the extreme values

  4. #34
    Enthusiast Minty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    444
    Lets assume 8 peasants per acre. Looking at the facts, homes = 0 jobs per acre, other buildings = 25 jobs per acre. The amount of homes it takes for peasants to go unemployed (and start to generation less income) would therefore be the following:

    Unemployed jobs per acre / total jobs per acre or 17 / 25 = 0.68 (68%) It might not be textbook equations but am I wrong to think you need more then 68% homes to loose income purely because of the jobs?

  5. #35
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    486
    yeah, it took me a bit to realize what he was doing as well.

    re: jobs
    70% homes leaves you with 7.5 jobs/acre. 60% leaves you with 10/acre. if you are running that many homes just to have a bigger military, its a good guess you don't have 10 peasants/acre. and at 75% draft, you're looking at 7.45 peasants/wizards per acre. so the income argument of high homes + high draft is null. you can really support up to a 70-72% draft (depending on wpa, I just assumed 1 because these people are bad) before suffering from unemployed peasants.

  6. #36
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    Fair enough :)

    But the other points stand

  7. #37
    Regular Jeeps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Anfield
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonite View Post
    High homes = more population = more thieves = more tpa.

    Anything else?
    lol you think you'll stop proper thieves? And a few massacres will drop your tpa brosky
    LL THE BOBS!

  8. #38
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    486
    a valid argument would be the high military = high wages = less net income. but gimped daily income doesn't happen.

  9. #39
    Needs to get out more DHaran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    8,402
    I give up on these people, I really do. It's not worth your time guys, just let them continue being ****ty players if they don't want to accept the help you are offering.
    S E C R E T S

  10. #40
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    486
    but I enjoy telling people they're wrong. :(

  11. #41
    Enthusiast Minty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    444
    Well DHaran too many people has already made this whole argument a matter of personal preferences. If someone has run high homes a couple of ages in a lower-tier kingdom successfully it's worked for them. It doesn't really matter how many others say that it doesn't work or that it's worse because they can back their ideas up in their own minds based on own experiance. To prove to someone they are wrong you need facts and in a game like utopia math is way more persuasive then experiance. Atleast to me.

    There's no way to justify wasting 50% of your total built land when all you get is 16% pop and some BE, anyone could see that
    Last edited by Minty; 01-08-2011 at 00:29.

  12. #42
    I like to post KuhaN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    tracy, california
    Posts
    4,732
    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    This man is a very high level troll. Please join us on utonet!
    His power level is over 9000.
    "Go back to the gym because you f'king suck at utopia, noob." -Godly



    My classic black theme for Utopia - Updated 5/13/15

    Quote Originally Posted by darkl1ght View Post
    Unfortunately, no amount of razes will improve your war record
    Greatest strategy thread/question of all-time.

  13. #43
    Sir Postalot Ordray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South East, USA
    Posts
    3,170
    Dragonite, give me a strat with high homes and I can beat it. Give me a race, personality, build, science assumptions, draft rate, Goal TPA and WPA (either raw or mod doesn't matter which,) and I'll make a better build with the same race and personality and a different strat.
    Retired at one time but no longer retired.

  14. #44
    Post Fiend DjTeddySpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    169
    I was very excited to read Gojete's posts =(

    Btw i disagree on a particular post here that Mathematical Simulations > Experience. It actually takes both to do well. The fluidity of experience(to adapt to situation) and the foundation of a reliable strategy.
    Last edited by DjTeddySpin; 01-08-2011 at 03:26.

  15. #45
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,524
    Relating to the original point - I think this is a compounded result.

    I think it ought properly be that "high DR" => "easier chain". Doesn't matter if the DR is due to homes, or just compulsive overdrafting. Big military, low pes means a chain can overpop you easier.

    Now, the original point stands, since any high homes strat that *doesn't* draft higher than a normal strat will instead put out worse numbers, and thus be lame. But to be as clear as posible, my understanding is that it should read:

    High homes => High DR => Easy PK
    it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)

    Think Different

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •