Knight/Region Density/Efficiency

[Buffalkill]

Why do you insist on repeating this, when we've demonstrated to you that it is factually incorrect?

Go find a new hypothesis, please

You haven't demonstrated anything. Your argument that more knights is economically beneficial is totally baseless, and the developers know this. 6 months after the glacier, it is still the low-density realms that are dominating. Look at Morek. Their economic strength is more than the next 2 realms combined, their military strength is 65% greater than the next biggest military, and they have consistently had the lowest density rate on Dwilight, not just recently, only now to the point of absurdity.

[Zakilevo]

Well Morek is a paper dragon. It does't matter how much gold you get when you can only recruit a limited number of men.

Maybe the Dev should tweak the numbers a bit to make it harder to commend too many men with too little honor maybe that should make gold even more abundant.

[Buffalkill]

Well Morek is a paper dragon. It does't matter how much gold you get when you can only recruit a limited number of men.

Maybe the Dev should tweak the numbers a bit to make it harder to commend too many men with too little honor maybe that should make gold even more abundant.

Gold is needed to to build workshops and recruitment centres, raise militia, to build and repair fortifications, and to bribe foreigners. The more knights you have receiving tax revenue, the less gold going into the leadership's coffers, and the less gold in the leadership's pockets, the less is their ability to do those things that create stability for a realm. Morek is but one example. The most stable realms on any island typically have around a 1:1 ratio, or slightly higher. Greater than 2:1 can survive but it's a struggle, more than 3:1 and the realm is probably facing an existential threat.

[De-Legro]

You haven't demonstrated anything. Your argument that more knights is economically beneficial is totally baseless, and the developers know this. 6 months after the glacier, it is still the low-density realms that are dominating. Look at Morek. Their economic strength is more than the next 2 realms combined, their military strength is 65% greater than the next biggest military, and they have consistently had the lowest density rate on Dwilight, not just recently, only now to the point of absurdity.

Obviously things are more complex then just mere density. High density in a tiny realm with average or sub average regions is hardly going to be a realm a economic powerhouse, nor a large military. In theory the economy taken as a whole is maximised with proper knight density, with each region producing its maximum output. There is room for discussion about if that truly occurs, if it is too much effort for too little effect etc, but to compare realms that have no commonality in terms of actual potential or historical factors and use that as a basis for realm density arguments is poor statistical analysis at best. Morek has had a long time of bugger all threat to ensure their regions are well maintained, with no war damage and to accumulate military forces without the expensive of refitting war worn troops after all.

A low density  realm should be economically weaker then a similar realm with a higher density, when all other factors are equal. Obviously that is not all ways the case, food shortages, player choices, war effects etc all play rather large part in the overall economy of a realm.

[Chenier]

You haven't demonstrated anything. Your argument that more knights is economically beneficial is totally baseless, and the developers know this. 6 months after the glacier, it is still the low-density realms that are dominating. Look at Morek. Their economic strength is more than the next 2 realms combined, their military strength is 65% greater than the next biggest military, and they have consistently had the lowest density rate on Dwilight, not just recently, only now to the point of absurdity.

Morek is large, not dominating. Nobody with a minimum of a backbone has EVER attempted to expand into them. Even when Springdale existed, pretty sure they didn't initiate any of the hostilities that occured. Some tiny realms tried their luck and got crushed, but that result was hardly of any surprise.

Morek is actually an example to the opposite of what you try to claim. First of all, economic strength found on the statistics page, as far as I'm aware, does not account for estate efficiency. Secondly, military strength is equally misleading, as it includes militia, of which Morek overflows. Any given militia unit rarely ever sees a battle, if ever. On Morek's scale, militia payments are outright crippling. There are too few nobles to patrol all of the land, and as such large resources are spent on what is essentially a stationary defense, thereby leaving the mobile forces with crumbs to finance itself. All of that militia, though, is really mostly for rogues, because human armies would easily be able to bypass them or, thanks to overwhelming numbers, crush each regions' forces with minimal casualties. All of that militia CS that shows on the statistics page is no indicator of strength. And there is another factor that neither statistics account for: delays. It can easily take two weeks to assemble an army just to move to a border of a the realm, let alone cross it. This is an incredible weakness.

[Constantine]

One thing that is certain is that realms do have a trend of decreasing noble density in time.
Invasion afaiu was introduced to rapidly increase noble density, but it has done nothing from what I can tell to break that trend and keep the realms from slowly drifting back to 1:1 ratio.
I don't think it's actually about tax optimization though. Being a lord is just way cooler and knights don't really have any solid incentive to stay as such.

[Jens Namtrah]

You haven't demonstrated anything. Your argument that more knights is economically beneficial is totally baseless, and the developers know this. 6 months after the glacier, it is still the low-density realms that are dominating. Look at Morek. Their economic strength is more than the next 2 realms combined, their military strength is 65% greater than the next biggest military, and they have consistently had the lowest density rate on Dwilight, not just recently, only now to the point of absurdity.

That's because of the players, not the code. If the players are dead, you can code them an extra 500gold each & 1000cs unit and they won't win anything. The devs can't force the players to play.

The CODE is written to favor higher density.

[CyberGenesis]

The largest non-allied force to Morek has had a standing treaty of "Here's a splitting line, we'll ignore each other beyond this line" for gods know how long. "The Theocracies" have been playing House in the north while everyone else has pretty much been content to ignore their existence for quite some time. The ratio of Density:Income of Morek isn't an indication of anything beyond perhaps fat wallets and bored nobles.

[Buffalkill]

A low density  realm should be economically weaker then a similar realm with a higher density, when all other factors are equal.

Should be, but it's not because of the underlying economics of the game.

Morek is large, not dominating.

35 regions, 17,707 gold, 61,054 CS, all shared between 22 nobles, and, like you said, nobody dares to challenge them. If that's not dominant, nothing is.

First of all, economic strength found on the statistics page, as far as I'm aware, does not account for estate efficiency.

So what? They have 31% of all the gold on Dwilight.

Secondly, military strength is equally misleading, as it includes militia, of which Morek overflows. Any given militia unit rarely ever sees a battle, if ever.

I don't see it as misleading, since militia are part of the overall defense of the realm. If any realm decided to attack Morek, they'd have to overcome Morek's massive military, both mobile and stationary forces. If Morek didn't think militia units were important, they wouldn't have them, they would invest their barrels of gold in something else. But that's irrelevant. You may not agree with how they spend their gold, but you can't dispute that they have more gold than any other realm by a huge margin.

One thing that is certain is that realms do have a trend of decreasing noble density in time.
Invasion afaiu was introduced to rapidly increase noble density, but it has done nothing from what I can tell to break that trend and keep the realms from slowly drifting back to 1:1 ratio.
I don't think it's actually about tax optimization though. Being a lord is just way cooler and knights don't really have any solid incentive to stay as such.

You're right, but it's both. I've been saying the same thing since April. Being a knight is boring.


Look, I'm talking about economics that are built into the game. Given the choice between having a rural region with a lord and 2 knights, or having 3 rural regions each with a lord and no knights, all other things equal, it's more advantageous to take the latter because of the unmitigated upside of a 1:1 ratio. More land, more gold, more food, more infrastructure, fewer knights.

[Buffalkill]

That's because of the players, not the code. If the players are dead, you can code them an extra 500gold each & 1000cs unit and they won't win anything. The devs can't force the players to play.

The CODE is written to favor higher density.

If Morek was the only example of a low-density superpower then maybe you could chalk it up to an anomaly, but when it's consistent across time and islands, it's not a coincidence. I'm not the only one who understands this.

One perverse feature of the current game is that it's actually better for lords if they have no knights, because knights cut into their tax revenue. This shouldn't be the case. It should be in the lord's interest to attract knights to his region.

I completely agree with this. It's been on my list for some time, but I need to have time to work out the details of how it should work.


In the past couple of years it hasn't been a problem in practice, because realms have desperately needed to attract more nobles in general, but yes, there's definitely a perverse incentive there that needs to be eliminated (or, ideally, reversed).

[Anaris]

The largest non-allied force to Morek has had a standing treaty of "Here's a splitting line, we'll ignore each other beyond this line" for gods know how long.

I think it was about May 2008

I honestly can't remember for sure if it was Alanna who originally signed that treaty, or the ill-fated Kaennji Shenron, first King of Pian en Luries, which means it must have been either Spring (just before Kaennji went inactive) or early Summer (soon after he stepped down and Alanna was elected) 2008.

But yeah, that treaty/understanding has been in force pretty much since the beginning of Dwilight.

[De-Legro]

If Morek was the only example of a low-density superpower then maybe you could chalk it up to an anomaly, but when it's consistent across time and islands, it's not a coincidence. I'm not the only one who understands this.

That might be true, but you need to demonstrate a difference between correlation and causation and eliminate other factors. Does the low density you mention tend to happen in well established realm that go out of their way to avoid any risk and have basically been playing sim city for a good amount of time?

There is a definite problem in that knights in theory increase the productivity of a region and the benefits to a realm, but do nothing to provide much incentive to a Lord. I don't think fixing this is actually going to achieve much, since it assumes there is a supply of knights that aren't being utilised due to Lords actively trying not to gain them. A realm requires as many nobles as possible (active hopefully) to increase the total gold produced as well as for the theoretical advantages to the military aspect. A Lord character may or may not care about the "greater good" and thus further incentives would in a perfect game world provide more space for knights.

[Chenier]

35 regions, 17,707 gold, 61,054 CS, all shared between 22 nobles, and, like you said, nobody dares to challenge them. If that's not dominant, nothing is.

If that's dominant, everyone is dominant. Nobody's challenging D'Hara over Port Raviel, I guess D'Hara is dominant. Nobody's challenging Astrum, I guess they are dominant. Nobody seems to be challenging Swordfell, I guess they are dominant. It's not that no one "dares" to challenge Morek, but rather, that no one cares to. Astrum is a fellow theocracy, everyone else is ages apart and has a ton of reasons not to raise a fuss with them.

Dominance is not about being able to stand tall, it's about asserting dominance over others. Morek dominates no one.

So what? They have 31% of all the gold on Dwilight.

No. They have 31% of the raw "economy" of Dwilight. They do not collect 31% of the tax income of Dwilight.

I don't see it as misleading, since militia are part of the overall defense of the realm. If any realm decided to attack Morek, they'd have to overcome Morek's massive military, both mobile and stationary forces. If Morek didn't think militia units were important, they wouldn't have them, they would invest their barrels of gold in something else. But that's irrelevant. You may not agree with how they spend their gold, but you can't dispute that they have more gold than any other realm by a huge margin.

Wrong on so many levels. Militia is scattered. If a 20000CS army fights 2000 CS of militia in one turn, then 2000 CS on the next, then 2000CS on the next, and so on for five turns, it will not end up with just 10000CS surviving. That militia is there to protect the realm from rogues, which scarcely ever spawn in forces greater than 2000 CS, and probably a few coastal cities because of the ridiculous potential of surprise sea attacks. When fighting human realms, militia is rarely worth much.

And no, I don't agree that they have so much more gold than anyone else. Militia is not a luxury, it's a requirement, without which rogues would devastate the regions. And estate efficiency is certain to be, on average, much worse than anywhere else. Morek's available income is not known (Morekians could share), but it is not the figure you suggest.

Look, I'm talking about economics that are built into the game. Given the choice between having a rural region with a lord and 2 knights, or having 3 rural regions each with a lord and no knights, all other things equal, it's more advantageous to take the latter because of the unmitigated upside of a 1:1 ratio. More land, more gold, more food, more infrastructure, fewer knights.

No.

Let's simplify: Realm Tinystan, 5 nobes, a city producing 2000 gold as capital and sole region. Estates split 5-way, 100% efficiency. Realm income: 2000 gold.
Tinystan expands, takes a rural and a badland. Rural produces 300 gold, badland produces 150 gold. Two city knights get promoted to lordships, all else remains the same. Total income potential: 2450 (+450). However, 40% of the city's income is now at 50% efficiency. Both new regions are at 50% efficiency. Capital thus collects 1600 gold. Rural collects 150 gold. Badland collects 75 gold. Realm income: 1825 gold (-175). Net result: realm Tinystan is poorer.

And this doesn't count the fact that tax tolerance decreases with size. Running 18% taxes in a one-city realm is fine. Add in three rurals, it isn't any more, not if you want to do other things than maintain region stats.

Expanding, under our new mechanics, makes realms poorer rather than wealthier in almost every case. People expand anyways, because people like being lords or looking big, or sometimes because they need more food sources. But in general, expanding makes realms weaker. I've felt the effects of this brutally when Enweil was in its final days: we got a few more nobles and decided to expand despite knowing we'd soon be dead... it threw the economy down the gutter. The three new depopulated rurals couldn't produce a penny and the capital could no longer afford interesting tax rates and no longer had good tax efficiency. We starved ourselves financially.

[CyberGenesis]

The problem is you keep calling it a superpower - Power by virtue of people ignoring you is not power.

I'm assuming that 61k CS includes Militia. If it does, that's a rather LARGELY skewed statistic. Given i've seen the scout report for the Morek force sitting north of  Luria from maybe a week or so ago that consisted of roughly half to 2/3 their noble count, there's no way that 60k is mobile. Gold income means nothing when you're blowing it all on militia and infrastructure expenses.

[Indirik]

Who cares if they have 22 nobles and 17,000 gold? Give me 44 nobles and 7,000 gold and I'll kick their ass.

Density is great for driving conflict, and we need that. But anyone who tries to increase their stability and personal income by driving their density down to 1:1 is an idiot. That's a sure death from boredom. Morek is the perfect example of the end result. As someone said, they are a paper tiger. 22 nobles can't protect that much land. Hell, if two 12 noble realms attacked them from opposite directions, they'd implode.