Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2nd Cycle Incite/Usurp Bonuses
#1
I note the existence of +/- 15% swings based on the level of control the owner has (+15% for minor, -15% for control).

Is this percentage modifier effectively of the same class as the +/- 10% random variable? In other words, if you are trying to incite or usurp in a population center held by someone with minor in a region, is it basically the emissary's percentage plus a random amount between 5-25%?

And for someone with control, the emissary's percentage minus a random amount between 5-25%?

Thanks!
Reply
#2
(07-08-2013, 06:45 PM)HeadHoncho Wrote: I note the existence of +/- 15% swings based on the level of control the owner has (+15% for minor, -15% for control).

Is this percentage modifier effectively of the same class as the +/- 10% random variable? In other words, if you are trying to incite or usurp in a population center held by someone with minor in a region, is it basically the emissary's percentage plus a random amount between 5-25%?

And for someone with control, the emissary's percentage minus a random amount between 5-25%?

Thanks!

Start with these point values

Village
1.25, 2.5, 3.75, 5,
Friendly, Tolerant , Susp, Hostile

TOWN
2.5, 5, 7.5, 10
Friendly, Tolerant, Susp, Hostile

CITY
6.25, 12.5, 18.75, 25,
Friendly, Tolerant, Susp, Hostile


Modify them by the correct % to find the "target's" value.


Compare this value to your emmy % (+/-10%) * kings influence.

If greater than the target value, then you are successful.

To usurp a controlled PC, double the target value.


(
Reply
#3
Thanks for this answer, really appreciate it!
Reply
#4
Us the regional control modifier for ALL PCs or just cities?
Reply
#5
While these values do not match the ones in the program, the mechanics are helpful.
There is a resistance level for the PC tied to its type.
This resistance level is modified by regional reaction, the controlling kingdom factors, and any status quo effects.
A final value for the PC is then a threshold that the emmie's effective influence has to overcome.
This effective influence is based on the king's influence * Emmy %, then modified by a random factor, at worst -10%, at best +10%
There is also a threshold (if the effective influence is far enough below the resistance level) for the Emmy being incarcerated.
Reply
#6
(07-10-2013, 12:10 PM)Cipher Wrote: While these values do not match the ones in the program, the mechanics are helpful.
There is a resistance level for the PC tied to its type.
This resistance level is modified by regional reaction, the controlling kingdom factors, and any status quo effects.
A final value for the PC is then a threshold that the emmie's effective influence has to overcome.
This effective influence is based on the king's influence * Emmy %, then modified by a random factor, at worst -10%, at best +10%
There is also a threshold (if the effective influence is far enough below the resistance level) for the Emmy being incarcerated.

Hmm, that first line is a bit concerning, actually. I'd thought the values had been pretty well-established since the classic Oracle article written decades ago by one of our own forum posters?

Have the values changed? Is there any way to obtain this information? Many thanks.
Reply
#7
Well, I wrote that article when there was only the 1st cycle. The 2nd cycle changed the numbers for cities and then an additional factor related to how much control a kingdom had over a region before you could rebel/usurp a pc away from them was thrown in as well. I simply don't have any data to determine how that would affect things. I am fairly sure that the numbers remain the same for neutral pcs, but even with that, I can't be sure. Unless the gamemasters are more forthcoming Smile there will be some uncertainty. Either that, or after games, people could pool their data and we could start trying to uncork the new secrets.

To be honest, back when I sent that article in, I wasn't at all sure they would even publish it. I thought they might prefer to leave that sort of thing a secret.
Reply
#8
I don't believe any official numbers have ever been posted, although platforms have been provided (this forum, old Oracle quarterly) that allowed players to offer information/their take.
My guess is that players parsed the yes/no/maybe chart showing expected results to get numbers through extrapolation.
I certainly had a formula before I saw the code. It didn't match the numbers here or in the program.
Personally, I think the chart is sufficient and have always expressed my opinion that the game is better when not devolved into math.
I can definitely say that the values have not changed since I took over the code early in 2006.
Reply
#9
I think those numbers are a good guideline. I've only ever had one time where they let me down, and as Cipher can attest that turn I had also done some pretty boneheaded things in my order submission, including something that convinced the 'system' that I was ordering my troops to attack themselves.... so who knows how much that factored in. FYI, never order your troops to attack themselves. Bad things happen.

For me, I'll continue to use the "old" figures (my own are ever-so-slightly different than above - mine being slightly higher) but if it comes down to a matter of it looking close, I probably won't be as apt to count on success.

Finally, while I'm an accountant and EVERYTHING devolves into math eventually (I'm using an Excel workbook that says it was created in 2001 by John Moe to keep track of my orders, odds, etc.), I agree with Cipher that some times a little uncertainty is best. It also keeps us "veterans" from having too much of an edge.
-The Deliverer
Reply
#10
(07-10-2013, 02:53 PM)Cipher Wrote: I don't believe any official numbers have ever been posted, although platforms have been provided (this forum, old Oracle quarterly) that allowed players to offer information/their take.
My guess is that players parsed the yes/no/maybe chart showing expected results to get numbers through extrapolation.
I certainly had a formula before I saw the code. It didn't match the numbers here or in the program.
Personally, I think the chart is sufficient and have always expressed my opinion that the game is better when not devolved into math.
I can definitely say that the values have not changed since I took over the code early in 2006.

I got my number set in Alamaze game #15 from Mark Scotti. Like Cipher said, I think it was just a reverse engineer of the yes/no/maybe chart in the back of the rule book.

Later I just increased the city values by 25% to account for the second cycle change. (Cities used to start at 5).

The formula I displayed will match up extremely well with the yes/ no chart for towns and villages so it is a good place to start.

A couple of exceptions I have noted. There is a formula vs. chart issue with a hostile barron with 10 influence vs a hostile village. Another on 16 inf governor vs susp village.

additionally my interpretation of the formula is based on this statement under order 320:
(+-10%, ie: a Count might act as either a Baron or Duke).

This meant 20 influence would yield Count points of 10 to 14.

The formula Cipher just explained would yield Count points of 10.8 to 13.2 and if that is the way it works it would change things somewhat.

I guess the bottom line is this system should get you close but it is not 100% yet.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)