Valdoroth Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 The current game increases score per city linearly, despite the expenses being exponential. Therefore, I propose that cities also increase each as you have more, but not as steep of a curve as the cost. I've made a simple formula that separates the "low-high" gaps a bit more. Currently, there are only a handful of nations above 27 cities so most nations would either lower in score if below 20 cities, or increase if above that from ~100-500 score. I've included a chart to visually show it as well. [(Current city count - 2)^2]*3 Cities My Scoring Current Scoring 1 0 0 2 0 50 3 3 100 4 12 150 5 27 200 6 48 250 7 75 300 8 108 350 9 147 400 10 192 450 11 243 500 12 300 550 13 363 600 14 432 650 15 507 700 16 588 750 17 675 800 18 768 850 19 867 900 20 972 950 21 1083 1000 22 1200 1050 23 1323 1100 24 1452 1150 25 1587 1200 26 1728 1250 27 1875 1300 28 2028 1350 29 2187 1400 30 2352 1450 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 No because makes too easy downdeclares in the low range Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prezyan Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 This seems like it'd only make fighting at the upper tiers more difficult to achieve due to how the war mechanics work. Quote Psweet> pro-tip: don't listen to baronus if Prezyan disagrees with him 5:48 AM — +Eva-Beatrice sq**rts all over the walls Eva-Beatrice> I'd let Sintiya conquer me anyday x) 10:56 PM — +Eva-Beatrice m*st*rb*tes in front of Prezyan 12:13 AM — +Eva-Beatrice has no one to !@#$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valdoroth Posted November 15, 2017 Author Share Posted November 15, 2017 54 minutes ago, Micchan said: No because makes too easy downdeclares in the low range I thought about that too. I was trying to think of a way to make it more than one slope (like a cubic function) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Mann Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 A cubic function would work a lot better. I think having the function steep for the first few cities to prevent downdeclaring and then at around 15 cities have the trough so that although it goes down slightly, because less people are there, it will have less impact on the game. This means quick score change nearer the start and end, but a slower middle. *Let me pull up desmos and see what I can do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 12, 2018 Administrators Share Posted January 12, 2018 What about a function of decreasing returns to scale for cities? The extra military capability from 25 to 26 cities is arguably far less important than the extra military capability from 1 cities to 2 cities. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.