Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 43

Thread: Homes to max BE formula

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    34

    Homes to max BE formula

    I was doing this little project for my own use but thought I would share. I know a lot of people out there dont like the homes topic so just read no farther and dont post replys. I'm not interested in your flames.

    As I was working with the 'homes are good or bad' forums a few ages ago, I started to build an excel file to see what happens as I change building, races, personalities, and draft rates. It worked for me like the old utopia prophet program. But as I continued to work with it, I found the biggest effect of homes came into play with draft % and not so much with race or personalities. So I wanted to find a formula for calculating number of homes necesary to countact the loss in BE from higher drafts. Then I wanted to see if it was worth building homes vs not building homes. In almost all cases, its worth it UNLESS your running lots of building that dont need BE (ie libraries, dungeons or stables).

    Anyways, the formula is: H=(A+.06W+.6VP+.6VPD+1.5APD-1.5AP-.45dBE) / (1.48-.48D)

    or

    Number of homes=(Acres+.06*Wizards+.6*number of vacant acres*population+.6*vacant acres*pop*draft%+1.5*acres*pop*draft%-.45*number of dungeons*BE) / (1.48-.48*draft%)

    I also placed the excel file on goggledocs for community review or personal use.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...8203;QtcC1DMEE
    or to download as a excel sheet:
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3W...U9NMkhpaVV1VEU

    I tryed to make the document as accurate as possible but income is usually within by +/-1% and NW is more like +/-10%. But the homes and BE (what I really wanted) are almost dead on. There is also a small calculater to see if homes are for you. Just read the first page first and then play with the numbers.
    Last edited by ittlecas; 20-08-2012 at 22:17.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    20
    I cant dl the excel file... maybe u forgot on sharing mode?

  3. #3
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,524
    Quote Originally Posted by ittlecas View Post
    So I wanted to find a formula for calculating number of homes necesary [sic] to countact [sic] the loss in BE from higher drafts. Then I wanted to see if it was worth building homes vs not building homes. In almost all cases, its worth it UNLESS your running lots of building that dont [sic] need BE (ie libraries, dungeons or stables).
    I think you have a few problems in how you are approaching this - even with a static optimizer. Lots of people will yell about static being worthless, but, IMO, it is *a part* of the information you need to tune your province. It can't replace experience, but it can add to it.

    Within a static structure, it sounds like you are fixing BE at 100%, then raising homes to raise DR. In this case, homes will clearly be required - because otherwise you only draft to 40%! What you will actually have shown is that *drafting higher* makes a stronger province.
    Best is if you pick a set net income for your province, and reverse engineer the DR needed. This is *really* hard, surprisingly, so a better bet is to fix DR at a constant %, which over small ranges is basically just as good. If need be add an (understated) correction function to the DR.

    The second problem I think I see, which is more arguable, is that you are using OPA/DPA instead of OPNW/DPNW (or MPNW, as I name the combined). Homes add NW, and it is thus possible to grow your size (NW) more than your military, all on the same acres. If your NW/A is all over the place, it clearly can't be used to find MPNW, so I think you need to get a better NW figure as well.

    I've done a lot of this work before, in a weird backsolver sim setup. Let me find sci ratios, and my famous(ish) sage libs formula [x*100 bpa = x% libs, when 5<=x<=15], and check homes etc. 'Tis many ages old now, but last time I broke it down carefully, homes were not worth it most of the time. Even with a pure static approach, my A/T always wanted TGs/Forts instead of homes.

    New this age, stables are a very strong offense building... meaning there is likely to be even less room for homes. So I would revise my guess to say, for military power in a static build, that homes are distinctly not recommended this age. As such, we never even need to look at those dynamic concerns everyone claims make homes useless - cause we don't use them.

    All that said, they "convert" nicely from econ into war build, so I usually use 5-10%. Especially as a faery this age, which has a hidden bonus to them since the -5% doesn't impact them. But I know I'm not getting max military at war start from them - I'm using them differently.
    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

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    34
    Ok first, sorry about the download problem. Not totally sure why it wasnt allowed but I changed the setting, try again. If not I'll post it somewhere else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethan View Post
    Within a static structure, it sounds like you are fixing BE at 100%, then raising homes to raise DR.
    It was designed to maintain BE at the highest max BE. Like for example a dwarf with decent sci, it would work to keep BE around 125%. Although it could also be used to keep 100% if one wished to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethan View Post
    Best is if you pick a set net income for your province, and reverse engineer the DR needed. This is *really* hard, surprisingly, so a better bet is to fix DR at a constant %, which over small ranges is basically just as good. If need be add an (understated) correction function to the DR.
    I had built something like that for income although I dropped it from this worksheet as I dont use it anymore. It could be added back in .... but as you say its hard to do because some people will want to raise income with homes, others with banks, others with dungeons, others with the draft%. Thats the hard part to code.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethan View Post
    The second problem I think I see, which is more arguable, is that you are using OPA/DPA instead of OPNW/DPNW (or MPNW, as I name the combined). Homes add NW, and it is thus possible to grow your size (NW) more than your military, all on the same acres.
    This was an issue that many told me about last time we were talking about homes and this worksheet DOES deal more with MPNW (if you like that) than per acre. In the workbook, I named it APkNW (attackers per 1k NW). The numbers that I see also show that homes add more military power than NW. At least in the scenarios that I put into it. In my case I get 2 extra military units per kNW with homes on the same acres. (homes added only about 3kNW [+2.2%] but 480 [+4.8%] more attackers [480 units * 4.5nw + 1300 more pezzies = 3400nw). This is also hard to calculate because some may want to train their military units as D.specs, others as O.specs, or elites. All of those have different NW so I just multiply military units by an arbitrary 4.5nw which I considered as median NW.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethan View Post
    I've done a lot of this work before, in a weird backsolver sim setup. Let me find sci ratios, and my famous(ish) sage libs formula [x*100 bpa = x% libs, when 5<=x<=15], and check homes etc. 'Tis many ages old now, but last time I broke it down carefully, homes were not worth it most of the time. Even with a pure static approach, my A/T always wanted TGs/Forts instead of homes.

    New this age, stables are a very strong offense building... meaning there is likely to be even less room for homes. So I would revise my guess to say, for military power in a static build, that homes are distinctly not recommended this age.
    As I said, stables and libraries would nullify the desire to maintain a high BE as they (mostly) arnt affected by BE. But if your running TGs/Forts, you can build lots of homes AND still have MORE TGs/Forts benifits with the higher BE than without the homes.

    I'm also playing fairy this age and I dont use dungeons, stables or libraries (though libraries could be nice). My acres are mostly invested in Banks/Forts/Guilds/Towers. With a 37% draft and 16% homes, I can build less of those building, maintain the same effectiveness of those buildings as if I didnt run homes PLUS I have about an additional 57 acres to use due to my homes. Just an example.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    34
    On the issue of homes add too much NW, I would also have this to say: If, with homes, I make 100 acres produce more military units and pezzies, then all I add is the nw of the new units. However, without homes, I need to have more acres to produce the same amount of military and pezzies. This means I also add more nw for the value of the acres and buildings (+70nw/built acre) for the same military as 100 acres with homes. I cant imagine any way that making fewer acres more productive, could raise nw more than the alternative. It WILL increase nw/a, for better or worse, but not military per NW.

  6. #6
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by ittlecas View Post
    It was designed to maintain BE at the highest max BE. (...)
    Maintaining max BE doesn't give you the best static numbers (let alone that in a real war, worrying about BE at all is pretty much pointless, as your acres and peasants will be flying all over the place), so I don't think this approach will work.

  7. #7
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    noobtopia
    Posts
    1,836
    Homes are useful for the extra population capacity first, the birthrates second, and the BE third. You should be using every aspect if you want homes to be good for you.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    34
    Interesting, and why is birth rate second nooblet? As far as I know, birth rate is really only useful to help against chains, FBs (although in my experience, FBs were accompanied by chastity), or those times when you have tons of acres coming in. Am I missing anything?

  9. #9
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Susie D. View Post
    Maintaining max BE doesn't give you the best static numbers (let alone that in a real war, worrying about BE at all is pretty much pointless, as your acres and peasants will be flying all over the place), so I don't think this approach will work.
    This, BE is an irrelevant number when considering the initial draft rate you need to hit.

    Quote Originally Posted by ittlecas View Post
    Interesting, and why is birth rate second nooblet? As far as I know, birth rate is really only useful to help against chains, FBs (although in my experience, FBs were accompanied by chastity), or those times when you have tons of acres coming in. Am I missing anything?
    What is your birth rate when u have 500-600 peasants, calculate how long it'll take to get 3000 peasants from 500 peasants (with and without homes). It takes a long time, enough that your more likely to use peasants gained in TM than you are to just let peasants have babies.


    Concept on homes is
    1. Boost raw population, useful for t/m but dangerous for attacker due to faster overpop.
    If you want to argue #1, fine, i'd say its not viable on an attacker due to dangerous-ness and non-static arguments.

    2. If 100 % untouched you get a bit of extra peasants, and if chained heavily and left along u get a bit of extra pop....not enough to fully matter in either case
    If you want to argue #2, i'd say cool, i agree, it can be usefull if u can trick the enemy into ignoring you. (i've done this, its not as good as just running a higher tpa and kidnaping, but when your 75% drafted and 4.5 raw wpa sometimes u have to try)

    3. BE boost. This is 100% irrelevant/bad on homes as you FIRST must draft up to an army size, once you hit your target army size then you have to compare does more homes=>more peasants=>better BE enough to be a viable replacement for other buildings. The answer to this one is no.
    If you want to argue the BE perspective, take an attacker, put 1.5 wpa on them and 75% draft, show me how homes=>BE=> higher effective BE ie homes are usefull (you shouldnt be able to thats y BE is the lest important)

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    20
    still cant get the excel file.. Sry to trouble you but can you upload 1 on other website?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Persain View Post
    3. BE boost. This is 100% irrelevant/bad on homes as you FIRST must draft up to an army size, once you hit your target army size then you have to compare does more homes=>more peasants=>better BE enough to be a viable replacement for other buildings. The answer to this one is no.
    If you want to argue the BE perspective, take an attacker, put 1.5 wpa on them and 75% draft, show me how homes=>BE=> higher effective BE ie homes are usefull (you shouldnt be able to thats y BE is the lest important)
    Actually persain, I already did prove it with the formula and the excel sheet. Did you test the formula or just commented based on experience? And NO, you don't have to draft up first. That is why I built the formula so you can calculate the homes before you draft the army.

    Let me try another example with your argument: An undead warrior with 75% draft, 1.5wpa, 1.5tpa and 2000 acres. (I'll use calculated figures but anybody who has real numbers can correct me):
    1). Without homes. I'll give a bit of sci bonus to the BE but your BE will be drifting towards 30.4% (* 2000acres = 608 effective acres of buildings) and only 28kgc income (minus sci, draft and military costs) not including banks. I dont know what building you would have for such a prov. But for me, with such a low BE and income, I expect the majority of your acres will have to be used in arms/banks and a few in guilds and towers. What little is left could be changed around during pumps and wars.
    2). With homes. Since utopia isnt as static as the excel file, you might build homes so your BE is always gravitating around 90% (* 2000acres = 1800 effective acres of buildings), lets say. So you'll have to build about 1160 homes and your income will now be 35kgc without banks. You still dont have much income but the good news is that you now have 940 acres (* 90% BE = 846 effective building) to build fewer but more effective banks/arms and other buildings.
    Result: homes=>BE=> higher effective BE by about 238 effective acres. (12% of total acres but more than +33% to the effective acres without homes)

    I do understand the overpop danger and I ignored it. Ghettos dont see that kind of action and the major kds do things to mitigate it (like have your kd mates FB you). This is about BE. But if your more concerned about overpop in a war, I can understand that.

    Honestly, I still dont see why homes arn't a major factor to just about any prov in utopia but I argue the point because I seriously want to understand why some people dont like them. Thats why I like scenarios, real life numbers, or solid reasons with proof.

    alt location for the excel file: www.hibshman.us/home estimater.xlsx
    Last edited by ittlecas; 20-08-2012 at 17:26. Reason: added info

  12. #12
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,201
    Quote Originally Posted by ittlecas View Post
    Actually persain, I already did prove it with the formula and the excel sheet. Did you test the formula or just commented based on experience? And NO, you don't have to draft up first. That is why I built the formula so you can calculate the homes before you draft the army.

    Let me try another example with your argument: An undead warrior with 75% draft, 1.5wpa, 1.5tpa and 2000 acres. (I'll use calculated figures but anybody who has real numbers can correct me):
    1). Without homes. I'll give a bit of sci bonus to the BE but your BE will be drifting towards 30.4% (* 2000acres = 608 effective acres of buildings)
    I admit i cant download your excel file so i cant validate your numbers, however let me stop you at this point in you post. First off, 2 ages ago i sat at 73% drafted and 5 raw wpa, still had 68% BE. Your error is

    75% draft 1.5 wpa =/= 30 % BE.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Building Efficiency
    Available Workers = Peasants + ROUNDDOWN ( Prisoners / 2 )
    Optimal Workers = ROUNDDOWN ( Total Jobs * 0.67 )
    % Jobs Performed = MIN ( Available Workers / Optimal Workers , 1 )
    Building Efficiency = [ (0.5 * (1 + % Jobs Performed)+ Race) * Stance * Science * Dragon ] + Personality
    Lets assume u draft down to 1 peasent/acre (far below 75% draft and 1.5 raw wpa) on 2000 acres with no homes, no pop science no BE science

    Available workers =2000
    Optimal works = 50000*.67=33,500
    % Jobs Performed = 2000/33500=0.0597
    Building Efficiency =[ (0.5 * (1 + 0.0597)+ 0) * 0* 0* 0] + 0=~53%

    Note even if you have ZERO peasants you still have 50% BE.


    Normally i draft down to around 3-6 peasents/acre the more science i have the closer i go to 3...my be ends up being 68-72%......i'll look at your spreadsheet now and comment on the rest of your post

  13. #13
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    135
    I hadn't properly looked at your excel sheet before, but your example now shows me where things go wrong for your static numbers (again, ignoring that in a dynamic province in a proper war, these things become far less relevant). The formula you use for BE is incorrect. 30.4% BE is impossible, even with a Gold Dragon, no bonusses and 100% draft. You can find the correct formula in the guide: http://wiki.utopia-game.com/index.ph...ing_Efficiency

    In your example, the BE without any homes would be closer to 70%.


    Edit: Persain was quicker

  14. #14
    Post Demon lastunicorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,458
    30% BE is impossible. Try again.

    EDIT: got beat by two posters? I shouldn't leave tabs open for so long I guess.

  15. #15
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2
    30.4% BE?!? Last age i played orc. At eoa I went with about a 71% draft, had 130 opa with about 35dpa...something like that. 2+ rwpa and rtpa at 65+% BE. I highly doubt that 4% draft will halve BE and if it does I don't think its worth it.

    Maybe, not the best stats...but my BE was definitely not under 50%.

    EDIT: I got beaten by 3 lol

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
  •