- There is a weak correlation between expedition size and the probability of the fort surviving, so we should choose 13 dwarves. - Farmers and brewers are crucial to the survival of the city. Specialising in one type seems more efficient than having both. 6 farmers or 6 brewers guarantee survivial, but if you have a mixture you need at least 10. Farmers seem slightly better than brewers. 3 farmers give > 99 percent survival, but 4 brewers are needed to do as well. Warriors marginally increase survival odds when there are fewer farmers and brewers, but nothing else seems to have a positive impact. - Miners seems to generate most of the value - Having one woodcutter offers a meaningfull boost, but there doesn’t seem to be much benefit in haveing more. The boost is biggest at low coal values - Forts with 2 warriors seems to do best, though the gap between 1 and 2 seems to be modest, and maybe due to them haveing fewer lower value types. - Haveing 1 smith provides a modest beenfit, though haveing more is counterproductive. - Crafters are similar to warriors, except the effect is much smaller. - When no smiths or craftsmen are present then the for value is significantly reduced. - Smiths and crafters do better when different resources are present.
Which suggests something like this is needed to maximise value, subject to the constraint of minimising the risk of loseing the fort: − 6 farmers − 1 warrior − 1 crafter − 1 smith − 4 miners
An alternative strategy which accepted a small risk of fort loss in exchange for makeing much more money would be: − 3 farmers − 1 warrior − 1 woodcutter − 1 crafter − 1 smith − 6 miners
- Having no farmers, brewers or warriors leads to 100 percent expedition failure. If there is a warrior present there is a small chance of success (Raiding for food?). - The chances of failure when there are >= 4 farmers present and no brewers/warriors is statistically indistinguishable from about 99.5 percent regardless of the number of farmers. 3 farmers with no warriors/brewers gives a much lower success rate. Adding warriors only makes a distinguishable difference when the number of farmers is small. − 4 brewers and no farmers/warriors do about as well as the farmers, but 3 brewers do better, but 1 or 2 do worse. Adding warriors only makes a difference when the numbers of brewers is small. - Looking at forts with 4 farmers the additional value of each additional miner decreases, so we shouldn’t go too miner heavy. In particular there is a sharp decrease after 5. − 3 miners and 1 smith is better on average than 4 miners. 2 miners and a smith is about as good as 3 miners when no crafters are present. A similar pattern holds for crafters. - Crafters do better than average when silver or hematite is present, a bit better than average when tin or copper are present, but don’t do well with magnetite or gold —Smiths do better than average when hematite is present , a bit better than average when tin and copper are present, average when magnetite is present, but worse than average when silver or gold is present. - Warriors do better than average when copper and hematite, about average when hematite, magnetite and silver is present and worse than average when gold is present - The average for smiths is better than for crafters which is in turn better than warriors.
Woodcutters are only valuable at low coal levels. At coal level 1 an extra miner is consistently more valuable than a woodsman
Brewers seem to be actively harmful to fort value.
There is a big fall in fort value when no warriors are present.
The previously observed drop off in the value of additional miners after 5 seem to occur because it makes it less likely for other valuable types to be present, not because it is intrinsically bad. 6 miners and 2 smiths/crafters seems to be much better than 5 miners and 3 smiths/crafters.
My final selection for the fort of Magh Loduhr is therefore:
“The previously observed drop off in the value of additional miners after 5 seem to occur because it makes it less likely for other valuable types to be present, not because it is intrinsically bad.”
My go-to check when there’s decent data is to compare P(something | N miners, M dwarves) to P(something | N-1 miners, M-1 dwarves).
A few observations:
- There is a weak correlation between expedition size and the probability of the fort surviving, so we should choose 13 dwarves.
- Farmers and brewers are crucial to the survival of the city. Specialising in one type seems more efficient than having both. 6 farmers or 6 brewers guarantee survivial, but if you have a mixture you need at least 10. Farmers seem slightly better than brewers. 3 farmers give > 99 percent survival, but 4 brewers are needed to do as well. Warriors marginally increase survival odds when there are fewer farmers and brewers, but nothing else seems to have a positive impact.
- Miners seems to generate most of the value
- Having one woodcutter offers a meaningfull boost, but there doesn’t seem to be much benefit in haveing more. The boost is biggest at low coal values
- Forts with 2 warriors seems to do best, though the gap between 1 and 2 seems to be modest, and maybe due to them haveing fewer lower value types.
- Haveing 1 smith provides a modest beenfit, though haveing more is counterproductive.
- Crafters are similar to warriors, except the effect is much smaller.
- When no smiths or craftsmen are present then the for value is significantly reduced.
- Smiths and crafters do better when different resources are present.
Which suggests something like this is needed to maximise value, subject to the constraint of minimising the risk of loseing the fort:
− 6 farmers
− 1 warrior
− 1 crafter
− 1 smith
− 4 miners
An alternative strategy which accepted a small risk of fort loss in exchange for makeing much more money would be:
− 3 farmers
− 1 warrior
− 1 woodcutter
− 1 crafter
− 1 smith
− 6 miners
Some more observations:
- Having no farmers, brewers or warriors leads to 100 percent expedition failure. If there is a warrior present there is a small chance of success (Raiding for food?).
- The chances of failure when there are >= 4 farmers present and no brewers/warriors is statistically indistinguishable from about 99.5 percent regardless of the number of farmers. 3 farmers with no warriors/brewers gives a much lower success rate. Adding warriors only makes a distinguishable difference when the number of farmers is small.
− 4 brewers and no farmers/warriors do about as well as the farmers, but 3 brewers do better, but 1 or 2 do worse. Adding warriors only makes a difference when the numbers of brewers is small.
- Looking at forts with 4 farmers the additional value of each additional miner decreases, so we shouldn’t go too miner heavy. In particular there is a sharp decrease after 5.
− 3 miners and 1 smith is better on average than 4 miners. 2 miners and a smith is about as good as 3 miners when no crafters are present. A similar pattern holds for crafters.
- Crafters do better than average when silver or hematite is present, a bit better than average when tin or copper are present, but don’t do well with magnetite or gold
—Smiths do better than average when hematite is present , a bit better than average when tin and copper are present, average when magnetite is present, but worse than average when silver or gold is present.
- Warriors do better than average when copper and hematite, about average when hematite, magnetite and silver is present and worse than average when gold is present
- The average for smiths is better than for crafters which is in turn better than warriors.
Which lead me to the following provisional roster
− 4 farmers
− 5 miners
− 2 smiths
− 1 crafter
− 1 warrior
-
After staring at the data a bit more:
Woodcutters are only valuable at low coal levels. At coal level 1 an extra miner is consistently more valuable than a woodsman
Brewers seem to be actively harmful to fort value.
There is a big fall in fort value when no warriors are present.
The previously observed drop off in the value of additional miners after 5 seem to occur because it makes it less likely for other valuable types to be present, not because it is intrinsically bad. 6 miners and 2 smiths/crafters seems to be much better than 5 miners and 3 smiths/crafters.
My final selection for the fort of Magh Loduhr is therefore:
4 farmers
6 miners
1 smith
1 crafter
1 warrior
“The previously observed drop off in the value of additional miners after 5 seem to occur because it makes it less likely for other valuable types to be present, not because it is intrinsically bad.”
My go-to check when there’s decent data is to compare P(something | N miners, M dwarves) to P(something | N-1 miners, M-1 dwarves).