News:

Welcome to World of Banished!

Main Menu

irrelevant: Gopher Prairie: extreme tenure, 10,000 years

Started by irrelevant, December 23, 2014, 06:52:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

irrelevant

@RedKetchup yeah, I didn't really think it was possible, or someone probly would have done it by now  ;)

Here's the image from year 350. Look at those lush managed forests; the reason they look like that is I hit the log limit. Going to need to bump it up or the gatherers' and herbalists' production will be impaired.

I also don't like the way the pop curve looks; the most recent bottom is way higher than the previous ones. If it goes corresponding higher at the top, food could get tight today  :P

RedKetchup

> > > Support Mods Creation developments with Donations by Paypal  < < <
Click here to Donate by PayPal .

irrelevant


irrelevant

Year 378

After running unattended for ten hours today. Big pop die-off back about 15 years ago again resulted in ~100 unfilled jobs. I was fortunate to come through that as well as I did.

irrelevant

Year 400 - another milestone. I guess I'm going for 500.

Nilla

Quote from: irrelevant on August 25, 2015, 05:14:13 AM
Year 400 - another milestone. I guess I'm going for 500.

You are crazy!  ;) ;D

One question: Did your population recover from that "almost (?) starvation by themselves or did it happen in the time you were there?

irrelevant

@Nilla, it happened while I was away.

One thing I really have begun to appreciate is that in addition to the food shown on the food graph, there normally is an average of 200-250 food in each house; in this case that means another ~120,000 food. So the food inventory hitting zero doesn't mean that folks automatically start to starve. You can see that the food bounced up and down at an extremely low level, but the fact that some food was available meant that the home stocks were enough to carry things along. Most importantly, the workers didn't panic and leave their jobs! For this reason, I now have new respect for fishers and gatherers and the steady food income they provide.

Actually, looking at the graphs again, there may have been some starvation. That would possibly account for the steeper and deeper than normal pop dip there. But if it happened, it was not widespread and lasted only for a short time.

irrelevant


RedKetchup

Quote from: irrelevant on August 25, 2015, 08:04:32 AM
Quote from: Nilla on August 25, 2015, 07:40:48 AM

You are crazy!  ;) ;D


;D You may be right.  ;)

he is !!! lol

but after 500 years.... they should be mining asteroids and they should be in space lol colonizing outer planets lol
> > > Support Mods Creation developments with Donations by Paypal  < < <
Click here to Donate by PayPal .

xyris

Not crazy!  I'm interested.  I plan to go to 500 years on my current map just to see what happens.   :P

irrelevant

Quote from: RedKetchup on August 25, 2015, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: irrelevant on August 25, 2015, 08:04:32 AM
Quote from: Nilla on August 25, 2015, 07:40:48 AM

You are crazy!  ;) ;D


;D You may be right.  ;)

he is !!! lol

but after 500 years.... they should be mining asteroids and they should be in space lol colonizing outer planets lol

I'm sorry, it is not possible to create such a mod  ;) ;D

irrelevant

Quote from: xyris on August 25, 2015, 03:56:58 PM
Not crazy!  I'm interested.  I plan to go to 500 years on my current map just to see what happens.   :P
@xyris Good luck! I'd be interested to see your progress. My top tip would be, don't try to do it without schools! ;)

If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask. I love answering questions. ;D

Nilla

Quote from: xyris on August 25, 2015, 03:56:58 PM
Not crazy!  I'm interested.  I plan to go to 500 years on my current map just to see what happens.   :P

As you might understand, I don't really mean @irrelevant is crazy or at least not (much  :-\) crazier than the rest of us Banished-geeks. And yes this experiment is VERY interesting. To me that food graph in pic 378 exactly shows the thing that fascinates me most by this game: It went well several cycles. There was a food surplus between 300 and 800k. Than, for some reason I don't quite understand (do you know why @irrelevant?) the lowest population wasn't as low as at the cycles before, so there wasn't quite as much food stored as at the years before. The population high was also a little bit higher than before and that huge food storage was within a few years gone.

And @xyris: I like very much to see your progress on that old town, too.

irrelevant

Year 433

@Nilla I'm fairly certain that the answer to your question lies in the demographic mix, specifically what are the ages of the female bannies who are forming new households as the curve moves down and houses become available. If lots of them are younger (young enough to have 2-3 children), the curve will flatten out sooner. If lots of them are older (will have only 1 child or possibly none), the trough will be deeper. And probably the most important factor that would have an effect on their ages would be the number of elderly singles who hang onto their homes for a long time. Are there large numbers of elderly widows living alone, or are there enough elderly widowers for them to move in with, leaving a vacant house sooner rather than later.

You can see on the image 1 pop curve, the shallow troughs were followed by higher than normal spikes in the number of children, which lead directly to the higher peaks on the pop sine wave. These seem inevitably to be followed by deeper troughs, as more houses stay occupied longer, delaying the formation of new households with females of childbearing age, who then will have fewer children.

Of course we have no visibility into any of this, but it feels completely random to me. It would be nice if we could access the bannie database and extract data on the population, but this is not possible unfortunately. To me, this would be the largest single improvement that could be made to the game at this point; not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.

Today begins a huge experiment; I left the game running on 5X when I left home this morning at 8am. I won't return to it until 6pm tomorrow. If it doesn't crash out, it will run for 34 hours. That would be the supreme test of Gopher Prairie's balance, and if it goes well, will surely run past year 500. Personally, I give it about a 25% chance of success, but if it does work that would be a very high note to go out on.

Or would it just encourage me to go for 1000?  ;) ;D

rkelly17

Quote from: irrelevant on August 26, 2015, 06:08:59 AM
@Nilla I'm fairly certain that the answer to your question lies in the demographic mix, specifically what are the ages of the female bannies who are forming new households as the curve moves down and houses become available. If lots of them are younger (young enough to have 2-3 children), the curve will flatten out sooner. If lots of them are older (will have only 1 child or possibly none), the trough will be deeper. And probably the most important factor that would have an effect on their ages would be the number of elderly singles who hang onto their homes for a long time. Are there large numbers of elderly widows living alone, or are there enough elderly widowers for them to move in with, leaving a vacant house sooner rather than later.

You can see on the image 1 pop curve, the shallow troughs were followed by higher than normal spikes in the number of children, which lead directly to the higher peaks on the pop sine wave. These seem inevitably to be followed by deeper troughs, as more houses stay occupied longer, delaying the formation of new households with females of childbearing age, who then will have fewer children.

Of course we have no visibility into any of this, but it feels completely random to me. It would be nice if we could access the bannie database and extract data on the population, but this is not possible unfortunately. To me, this would be the largest single improvement that could be made to the game at this point; not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.

The other factor is likely demographic: ratio of males to females in a particular age group. This is quite noticeable in the early game when there are so few citizens, but I'm beginning to think it may happen at random points throughout the game. I usually watch to see who moves into a new house as it's built and every so often I've been noticing that most of the men or most of the women moving in are 10 years older then their new partner. I don't think that the game picks the oldest unmarried citizen for the next new house (I've seen it do just the opposite too many times), but I'm assuming that a pool of older citizens who haven't yet found a suitable partner stands behind this observed phenomenon. In the town I'm working on just now (my first Colonial Charter settlement) I had to build a large number of farms and food production facilities quickly (got too involved setting up non-food production chains and lost track  ::) ) and put in many houses for workers. I noticed that 85-90% of the women were 30+ while the men were mostly 20-25. As you said, we can't see inside the demographics, but this sure looks like the result of an oversupply of females. Maybe they will produce fewer children, thus saving the town from the massive population explosion which often follows a mistake like this. I really should pay more attention.  :(