Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Camp impact on Pop

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Camp impact on Pop Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Camp impact on Pop - 8/18/2011 4:53:52 AM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		v.1.12.2 states (April 2009) "Camps in provinces that have zero Men provide half the normal level of reinforcements (replacements).." page 3

v.1.9.23 states "Reinforcement rate from camps is now 300+15*Men levels in Province. If the advanced population rules are on, then this will be the average of the current Men and maximum Men, otherwise it will just be the maximum Men for the province.." page 9

So how does the math work? If you have a city with 0 pop and a max level of 6, in 1.9.23 that would be 300+(15*AVG 3) so 345 men, which is not very bad. But with 1.12.2 it would be 172 Men?


Also, the new changes say a CAMP causes 5 chances of 10% to lose a pop? So 50% chance each year for each CAMP to cause you to lose 1 pop?

If my math and observations are correct, that makes CAMPS really really suck, even though you need them.

Thanks

< Message edited by balto -- 8/18/2011 4:54:39 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Camp impact on Pop - 8/20/2011 3:26:46 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		I think your math for camps is correct. You can check to see what are the actual numbers you're getting, to see if it matches the theoretical numbers. (This is done by one of the tabs, "Supply" I think.)

As for the other question, I'm not a math expert, but I am pretty sure that 5 chances of 10% does not mean a 50% chance. I can't ask Eric, since he's on a camping trip, but I believe that each 10% chance is a separate event, which makes the overall chance of losing population much smaller (15%? 20%?). Anyone out there remember his high school probabilities lessons better than I do?


< Message edited by Gil R. -- 8/20/2011 3:27:25 AM >

_____________________________

Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 2
RE: Camp impact on Pop - 8/20/2011 5:06:20 AM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Thanks Gil.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 3
RE: Camp impact on Pop - 9/2/2011 5:05:54 PM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		I have been playing around with FoF now for about a month. I am starting to understand the EVENTS logs and other things.

Per my comment above about the new rules for CAMPS causing "5 chance of 10% to lose a pop.,"

Something is VERY broken in the coding or whatever you call it.

I have 17 camps and it said the pop losses due to CAMPS to be 23 pop!!!!! Mathmatically, I was supposed to lose 8.5 (17*10%*5)..,

This is no small thing.., this makes CAMPS really really bad and my economy is forever weakened. And considering how important CAMPS are, this would require a complete re-think of strategy.

I am not asking to change that, I am asking what the real math is for that.

Thank you.





(in reply to balto)
Post #: 4
RE: Camp impact on Pop - 9/5/2011 9:13:45 AM   
Brynder

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/27/2011
Status: offline 		First post ever here.
Of an interesting subject too.

About the camp maths really.

I myself wondered at this first but then started doing the maths about camps and quite a few things happened into view.

First of all: the chances of pop being lowered due to camps is almost guaranteed.
First camp: chances of avoiding the pop effect is ~59% = 0.9^5 (chance being that five times in a row the result of pop lowering will be negative).
Enter second camp: now the chances of getting off scot-free are only 0.9^10 which is about - 35%.
I don't even bother to go any longer on that particular vein because it should be obvious what happens there next - which is nothing much really in any appreciable effect.

Secondly: It is easy to be fooled into thinking you stand to get very low reduction if you don't take into count that each check is individual one.
Since the number lowered per each camp can be anything from 0 to 5 the more camps you have in any one place the more pop you stand to lose.
First camp: 0-5
Second camp: 0-10
Third camp: 0-15
Fourth camp: 0-20
Even a child (in a liberal sense because even teenagers sometimes feel like children to me) can tell you what I just put there - but what I want to emphasize here is that with four camps - even in a very large city - you risk crippling that whole place. Bets anyone?

In that aforementioned large city with four camps your chances of not getting pop lowered are - until the 6th test above 50% but there still are 14 checks to go awry there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: balto

I have been playing around with FoF now for about a month. I am starting to understand the EVENTS logs and other things.

Per my comment above about the new rules for CAMPS causing "5 chance of 10% to lose a pop.,"

Something is VERY broken in the coding or whatever you call it.

I have 17 camps and it said the pop losses due to CAMPS to be 23 pop!!!!! Mathmatically, I was supposed to lose 8.5 (17*10%*5)..,

This is no small thing.., this makes CAMPS really really bad and my economy is forever weakened. And considering how important CAMPS are, this would require a complete re-think of strategy.

I am not asking to change that, I am asking what the real math is for that.

Thank you.



In your case balto - there was that bit about how many pop it was supposed to lower that turned out to be 8.5 - which is a sort of an average expected. There is - however - this tiny thing about randomness that we have to appreciate when dealing with random factors - that they are random. Eight camps have a 0.9^(8*5)=1.4% chance of nothing happening which is quite low and even if you manage to pull that off - with 17 camps there's still some 45 pop in the line for *getting it*. If you happen to get unlucky in say 40.95% of the cases - which is the average possibility for failure per camp - you are expected to lose ~18 pop (0.4095*45). In total you should expect actually to lose 0.4095*85=~34 pops according to my maths.

With that last figure, I could say that balto -- you got lucky. You lost 11 less pop than on an average you should have if my maths hold.

Now then after establishing that balto got lucky there I'm going to discuss what to do about rendering luck less of a factor. I believe in the strategy discussions around here there is an advice of putting one camp at each city not meant for troop production - starting with the most populous one. Yeah, I can do that, the chances are I'm not risking much. But then with the formula of calculating replacements that is not going very long way towards the 10K/turn most often mentioned.

So what to do to get the rest 6000K or so replacements? Well, two schools of thought have developed as far as I've seen. Start putting second camps in a) medium sized and smaller cities that you have non-essential resource production and no troop production plans for b) small cities in the west that you've forgotten otherwise - Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Minnesota come to mind as prospective winners for economically backward cities in that field. The benefit of the first option is you getting more replacements until (if at all) your pop starts to run out in the medium cities at which time you should already have camps in the smaller places in numbers as well to compensate. The merit of the second option is: it makes your game harder in having to conserve your troops until such a time that you are ready to fight while making the game easier by not risking to lower your resource base so much in case you get two camps to go "all in" for pop reduction.

Just my thoughts on the subject. Ideas anyone else?

< Message edited by Brynder -- 9/5/2011 4:29:02 PM >

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 5
RE: Camp impact on Pop - 9/5/2011 11:47:09 AM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline 		I will place my camps in a few major cities (5 or 6 of them). Yes, these cities are likely to be depleted and thus have a reduced income. However if I can bring out enough reinforcements I do not need to buy that many new brigades, and thus the reduced income is less serious.

About reaching that 10k reinforcement mark. I will never get that high untill I get the invalide corps upgrade, so I aim at some 5k reinforcements from camps and the rest from the upgrade.


Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to Brynder)
Post #: 6
RE: Camp impact on Pop - 9/6/2011 1:53:26 AM   
cobacoba98

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 2/28/2011
Status: offline 		I always just put one camp in each city, never more than one, and started with the biggest cities and went down the list.

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 7
RE: Camp impact on Pop - 9/6/2011 11:11:21 PM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Bynder,

Are you kidding me? You are right on with the 40.95% per camp.., I was rounding when I said 50%. So once again, 17 camps, you get average 8.5 pop loss or with your exact odds 6.9 pop ,,. I lost 23 pop. And in my present game, I just lost same thing.., more than triple the average. If the patch said 5 chances of 30%.., well, that would be almost exactly what I am experiencing.

No matter, the odds of my having 300% more loses through camps is not a coincidence.., the manual or the coding is not correct.

Like I said, I am not asking that the game be changed (which would be great because that makes Camps very dicey), I am just asking that what is really going on be revealed, as I stated before, I think the patch would be accurate if it said 5 chances of 30%.., not 5 chances of 10%. You sure you want CAMPS to be that devastating?

It really is a signficant impact on planning.


(in reply to cobacoba98)
Post #: 8
Population Loss Mitigation - 9/7/2011 8:03:19 PM   
bugwar


Posts: 91
Joined: 9/5/2011
Status: offline 		I suspect that I do not understand the concept of camps being a risky choice for construction.

As far as I know, there are two ways to add soldiers to an army:
1. Build new brigades.
2. Create one or more camps to funnel forces into under strength brigades.

Building an infantry brigade costs two Men from the population of the creating city. A newly created
brigade consists of 2500 soldiers. Therefore, each Man used in building a brigade consists of 1250 soldiers.
Assuming the city created the brigade in May; one year later the city replaces the missing Men. Averaged
over a year, the city produced 208 soldiers a month when they build a brigade from whole cloth. During the
year until the next population growth instance, the city suffers a reduction in production due to the lost Men.
You can reduce the production loss by building the unit in April, but the annual soldier creation rate
remains the same.

Contrast this with a camp built in a city with a population of one. Assuming the city builds the camp in May,
then next April there is a little over a forty percent chance that the city will lose a maximum of the one Man
in its population. The lost man reappears immediately, meaning that there is NO practical population loss,
and thereby maximum economic productivity.

During the year, each month the camp produces 1000 soldiers, almost five times the production rate of the
city that created a new brigade.

From what I can see, camps are the way to go. Yes, there is a potential risk of extended population loss from
camps in larger cities, but the smaller the city used for a camp, the less the chance of extreme population loss.

Please let me know what I am failing to understand.

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 9
RE: Population Loss Mitigation - 9/7/2011 10:06:11 PM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Bugwar,

You are correct. But the problem is, the manual is wrong. You in fact lose 3 times more than the average.., So putting it in perspective of what you said, you would more likely lose two men (rounding up). You also are looking at the pre-patch manual that has CAMPS at 500 men. The new formula is 300+(15*average men), so you would need a city of 13 to get ~500 men.

To summarize, you actually lose at least 2 men for each camp, and you get less than 500 men if you have a camp at a city smaller then 13 pop.

So as you can see, the decision on CAMPS is a difficult decision.

(in reply to bugwar)
Post #: 10
RE: Population Loss Mitigation - 9/12/2011 11:44:18 PM   
Brynder

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/27/2011
Status: offline 		Balto:

Yea, I'm pretty certain that probability maths work as I calculated. Now I might not be a professor in maths or anything of the sort at all, but I'm quite certain I got my formula correct there. Triple checked it from various sources. Something about diminishing returns - or added danger - I guess. As I can tell if I have one camp in each city I'm hardly noticing the pop effect. But once I put up a larger number of them into one place it starts to show there since there are more chances of the 90/10 test to not go my way. And yes - your way of calculating the average pop loss is one way to do it but doesn't seem to address the random results of the tests to see if the pop goes lower or not - that's why I spent about four hours with the numbers before posting the first time. Having test five times to see if a value goes over 90% is not a guarantee that only every 10th check will be a hit during any particular game or any game at all. Especially with pseudo-random numbers such as the game uses.

Now I know you were saying there is something wrong with the randomness and I know I was calculating the numbers (as I perceived you were as well) with the ideal world in mind. Ideal world being in this case where the test would be truly random. We both have strong arguments in favor of our own way of calculating the average pop loss - no doubt about that. But I believe the real issue is the pseudo-randomness of the check. Therefore I of course support the idea of being able to see the code used for the camps. Also: I'd like to know where is the official source that says that even though the test is 5x10% that at any one time it wouldn't fire more than once in ten tests.

And for those pondering can it be significant - it can - until we players learn to spread the camps out - or change other parts of our building strategies it seems. Even if the governor of the state likes you so much he would gladly drown you in gold and your national will is high the few extra chances of getting pops back in the spring - versus a lot of camped pops in one place - is quite hollow.

Alright - hopefully that answered something for you people out there and not in too aggressive way. It's 2AM and I'm not sure I'm exactly "present" anymore.

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 11
Social Engineering - 9/13/2011 1:27:50 AM   
bugwar


Posts: 91
Joined: 9/5/2011
Status: offline 		Balto and Brynder,

I thank both of you for the information about camp management; I find it illuminating to say the least.

Based on the information provided, I will spread my use of camps over the breadth of the nation, starting
with the smallest cities and moving upwards from there. In addition, where they are not already present,
I will construct telegraphs in provinces with one or more camps.

My reasoning is that if a camp fails multiple checks, the smaller the initial population of a city, the less
damage it can do. A town of with two citizens can only lose two individuals, even if the camp fails all five
tests. In addition, if the town has a telegraph, then even at the worst, the camp puts out 300 x 2 or 600
soldiers every turn. Since the cap is 500, then even in the smallest towns I get maximum production.

Actually, I wonder if placing all my camps in a single two-population city would be best? If I had twenty
camps in the town, yes, I would lose the two pop, but that is all. The bulk of my nation would prosper.
Who knows, I might even grow the people back immediately if lucky.

I also wonder if a town with zero population would still have its camps producing soldiers? I should test it
out, but right now I am too lazy.




(in reply to Brynder)
Post #: 12
RE: Social Engineering - 9/13/2011 9:16:37 AM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bugwar

I also wonder if a town with zero population would still have its camps producing soldiers? I should test it
out, but right now I am too lazy.





Yup it does :)

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to bugwar)
Post #: 13
Illumination - 9/13/2011 2:57:44 PM   
bugwar


Posts: 91
Joined: 9/5/2011
Status: offline 		Thanks Terje.

I finally read the 'Read Me' for the patches. I noted (among a few other things), that while zero pop towns
produce troops, they do so at half the base, or just 150 troops/turn. So a camp in a depleted city would
need a telegraph to just put out 300 men/turn.


(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Camp impact on Pop Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.109