RulingNations@aol.com wrote:
> Thank you. I haven't had a chance to read your post in detail, but I
> will and will respond when I have the time. However, there is something
> I would like to clear up since I was hoping to post my actions this
> weekend.
Sorry; I seem to have a lot of trouble keeping up with you guys.
Hopefully I manage to pick up some speed now that the holiday
season is mostly over. Anyway...
> I'd prefer to work with the existing membership. However, I'm not clear
> on what will happen with the 10% yearly expansion (without requiring
> actions) that I got last year. Since the main reason I set up that
> action was to get the 10% natural expansion, I'd be unhappy if it was
> replaced with a bonus that I had to use expansion actions to get.
In some earlier version of the growth rules I had this taken into
account. If the society's modifiers (Expansion mod + Conversion mod -
Suppression) were > 0, then the society would have natural growth
each year. Using an action for it would just decrease the chance
of failure (loosing members) and might increase the natural growth.
Using this, and using the 7500 members figure, a=30, and the +3 mod, the
yearly natural growth rate would be:
sqrt(7500) * a * (+3) / 7500 = 30 * 3 / 87 =~ 100%
Of course, this would decrease rather quickly, e.g. on the next year
it would be 73%, and the year after that 56%, etc.
An additional rule would be that whenever the society scope
determinant changes, an action would be required to determine
the new conversion mod (and also perhaps suppression).
> The following options are based on some thoughts I've had.
>
> If Exquaestio should be larger, perhaps the current 10% expansion should
> be raised. I wouldn't be comfortable with raising it above 15% though.
On the other hand, as we discussed, the 7500 is quite small
for Exquestio, and there is that big success from last year.
Of course, Exquestio can freely limit its membership intake...
> Speaking of cycles I'd sort of been assuming that the 10% growth would
> fall to 5% when Exquaestio reached a membership of 20,000 and to 0% when
> they reached 200,000. Is this appropriate? Perhaps I should have been
> thinking in years (12 seems about right to me).
Hmmm... continuing from the figures above:
year 0: 7500 + 100%
year 1: 15000 + 73% (here a recalibration of Conv mod would be needed,
let's assume that it would drop to +2)
year 2: 26000 + 37%
year 3: 36000 + 31%
year 4: 47000 + 27%
etc.
year 12: 200000 + 13% (here a calibration, again)
(Note that the scope figures above are from the 'nation' column in the
IH rules: meaning that the figure above include both active and
passive members of the society.)
Hmmm... this does sound a bit high. But that could be easily
remedied by decreasing the value of a. That would also allow
for higher variation in the modifiers, without generating
ridiculously high growth ratios. With a=20, this would be
year 0: 7500 + 70%
year 1: 13000 + 53%
...
year 12: 110000 + 12%
And of course, when a society is growing that fast, its neighbors
will act in response, either decreasing the relative Conversion mod,
or increasing Suppression.
> Conversion actions add to the automatic growth, they don't substitute
> for it.
Right.
juuso
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
