Book 3 - Page 224

Facing hard Faqs

Book 3 - Page 224
Comic - Book 3 - Page 224
Recent posts... (See full thread)
No one in particular wrote:
Spruce wrote:
No. I meant getting (using your example's numbers) 950* every turn of the city by founding and razing it.

*cost of founding a city: 0
shmuckers from razing: 950
profit of single found/raze cycle: 950

It's like, uh... chopping down the same tree, every day. ;)

EDIT: by the way, discussion about diminishing returns is not very fruitfull as at this point there is absolutely nothing in the comic that supports or explains the diminishing returns, except Parson stating that it is a fact. I have the impression that the diminishing returns, with the tall and wide strategies have been lifted from Civilization video games, but as it has mechanisms that Erfworld doesn't (civil unrest, research speed) there currently is no real explanation why those would apply to Erfworld.

... and Jillian, laying it out. Explicitly.

IPtsf 28 wrote:
Despite the perils of the situation and the impossibility of working for Haffaton, Jillian couldn't help but be interested at the whiff of money. She had always assumed Haffaton was financially strapped. If they did have so many cities, then each one must only contribute the barest few Shmuckers to their treasury. After a certain number of city levels per side, the Shmuckers each city produced would begin to decline. Very large sides were hard to maintain, and had a habit of splitting off into new sides for the efficiency of it.


I'm at work, so I'll defend my tree analogy later.


I'll make this reply meanwhile, so you have more words to read when you get home. :)

I had three points:

1. Exploiting one's own city by repeatedly razing it and how there could/should be some rule to prevent it, as a support for DarianRedwin's message
I don't know how I can explain it in other words so I will link these two messages and hope they better at clarifying what I meant.
nnescio's message
ArkenSaw's message

2. Diminishing returns has nothing to do with point 1.

3. I feel that the comic has no proper explanation of the diminishing return in it's larger context: the so called economical inevitability of war in Erfworld. As that discussion has run it's course several times (in reaction threads and at least in two different dedicated threads, I don't want to burden this reaction thread with it. If you (or anybody else) want to continue discussing point 3, I hope we do it in this 9 months old thread that I will now uncroak.

Here it is! Why is war economically inevitable?
ArkenSaw wrote:
So, you're getting the city's per turn income, it's value from being razed and popping units faster than a level 1 ever could. There has to be a mechanism in place to keep this from happening!



Purse limit possibly? Constantly disbanding Units morality? And trying to trust other barbarian Warlords that once come from your Side to hold the extra Schmuckers likely not the safest option...
As to 3), it has been sort of explained. As sides grow larger, diminishing returns per city incentivises splitting off new sides. Whilst you can expect a new side ruled by a unit popped by the parent side to remain loyal for some time, eventually either the sides are no longer ruled by the original units, and any personal loyalty is lost and/or one side wants to do something the other doesn't and any loyalty is overridden by circumstance, and maybe even Duty. So long as new sides are constantly being spawned, conflict is inevitable in the long term.

As to 1) if you want to keep razing and rebuilding a city for free spawns, I don't see that we know of any rule to stop you. However, given what we know about cities and their mechanics, it would (could) only ever be worth it with a Level 1 city, because that's all you get back when you restore a razed site. GK rebuilt GK the city with a Maggie/Sizemore link, and specifically mentioned that doing so with a Dirtamancer present makes it much cheaper. I would suspect that razing a city produces less than it would take to rebuild it though (without a Dirtamancer, at least), so unless you have a spare Dirtamancer you can afford to have in an outlying Level 1 permanently it's not a hack. And even Stanley had better uses for a Dirtamancer than that, even when he had 16 cities, apparently.

You're then stuck with a permanently Level 1 city, that produces a few basic units per turn, and has a valuable Caster permanently stationed there in a nearly indefensible position. Not the path to ultimate victory, I would say
TallTroll wrote:
As to 3)


No. The reason can't be political as Parson counted that the total population of Erfworld should be decreased substantially even if a total peace would be made. (book 3, page 75) Please, if you want to continue this discussion, do it here: LINK

TallTroll wrote:


As to 1) if you want to keep razing and rebuilding a city for free spawns, I don't see that we know of any rule to stop you. However, given what we know about cities and their mechanics, it would (could) only ever be worth it with a Level 1 city, because that's all you get back when you restore a razed site. GK rebuilt GK the city with a Maggie/Sizemore link, and specifically mentioned that doing so with a Dirtamancer present makes it much cheaper. I would suspect that razing a city produces less than it would take to rebuild it though (without a Dirtamancer, at least), so unless you have a spare Dirtamancer you can afford to have in an outlying Level 1 permanently it's not a hack. And even Stanley had better uses for a Dirtamancer than that, even when he had 16 cities, apparently.

You're then stuck with a permanently Level 1 city, that produces a few basic units per turn, and has a valuable Caster permanently stationed there in a nearly indefensible position. Not the path to ultimate victory, I would say


Yes, and if the amount of shmuckers that is got from razing a level 1 city is higher than the amount it produces, and it doesn't cost anything to found it, it would be profitable to keep razing it and use the shmuckers to upgrading other cities. Only cost would be the loss of unit production in one city. That's the whole point: not upgrading it and doing nothing else with it except raze and found, raze and found.
>> That's the whole point: not upgrading it and doing nothing else with it except raze and found, raze and found.

Even if it were economically viable (and everything we've seen suggests that without a Dirtamancer present, it can't be), you're still stuck with a Level 1 city, that produces a few Schmuckers and basic infantry per turn - strategically pretty unattractive. It will also require the permanent stationing of a Commander unit (to perform the raze-and-claim cycle) who will be forever unavailable for any other task, unless you abandon the cycle.

That city will never be able to be upgraded and produce more Schmuckers (recall the limit of diminishing returns is based on city numbers, not total cash output), so you suffer the opportunity costs of not getting the extra income from the Lv 2+ version, nor can it improve its' unit spawns. Whilst you may be getting free troops, you'd still have to pay their upkeep, so they aren't that free after all, nor would you get the benefits of the more potentially effective and efficient higher level units, nor the benefit of the not-that-cheap Commander you are obliged to keep in the city.

When you tally it all up, unless you have a very specific need to produce basic units quickly for low initial cost, I doubt raze-and-claim can ever be worth it in the long run. From a game design POV, it would make sense for razing cities to only produce some fraction of the cities' value to replace, because that tends to make razing something you do to an enemy city you don't need / want to keep, or a desperate short term fix to get you through a sticky patch, not an actual viable strategy
Anomynous 167 wrote:
I'm just saying, I've never heard of a slammer being referred to as "The Can"

You call it the slammer when you are extra angry at crimes.
Spruce wrote:
Nightseraph wrote:
If the Chief Warlord can claim a city site, then I don't know why an overlord couldn't. Ansom reclaims the city he himself raized in the campaign against Unaroyal.

That is at least circumstantial evidence to contradict the circumstantial evidence from the whole Jetstone/Spacerock cluster.


I think the point was that Stanley could not claim a capital site that he himself had razed without spending shmuckers. If founding cities doesn't cost anything and razing cities produces shmuckers and there is no rule to prevent it, then sides would just be repeatedly razing and founding their cities instead of going through all the trouble of trying to capture them from other sides.

The first or second summer update right after Book 1 says as much. They needed to debit the treasury to build the new GK.
DVL wrote:
The first or second summer update right after Book 1 says as much. They needed to debit the treasury to build the new GK.
But GK wasn't razed, it was just downgraded to a level 1 city. If it had been razed, then GK wouldn't have had a capital and the side would have fallen. Even taking into account that all plot-important characters were either stacked with Stanley or sitting in the Magic Kingdom at the time, there would have been some mentioning of them rejoining GK if the MK characters had gone barbarian in-between.

They didn't need the treasury to rebuild a razed city, they needed it to re-upgrade a downgraded city.
Sigh. First it's Jillian.
Then it's The Contract.
Now it's The Rules.
You guys will argue and debate anything, won't you? Please tell me why I'm wrong here.
keybounce wrote:
Sigh. First it's Jillian.
Then it's The Contract.
Now it's The Rules.
You guys will argue and debate anything, won't you? Please tell me why I'm wrong here.
You're wrong because that implies that we only argue each of these things once, when we actually argue them multiple times in turn. In fact, sometimes we argue multiple things simultaneously!

Does that help?