View Full Version : Change the 1 turn = 1 year rule to 1/2 year?


Chieftess
May 04, 2003, 07:51 PM
Here's a discussion poll that's spawned from the manager threads. Should we have it as 1/2 year?

Currently, it's 1 turn = 1 year. With a 20 year lifespan, that's 40 turns.


However, remember that once we have granaries and hospitals, it will be up to 80-100 years.

Your characters will be around for 160-100 turns. (and this is informational. ;))

Bootstoots
May 04, 2003, 09:09 PM
I voted yes. This is a good proposal.

Cyc
May 05, 2003, 12:04 AM
So we go from a 1 week life-span to a two week life span (with 10 turn chats).

We already have pottery, when does "when we have graneries" come into play? And what will granaries give us in terms of life-span? You say granaries and hospitals will give us potentially up to 80-100 years, what about just granaries?

I voted other.

Noldodan
May 05, 2003, 04:44 AM
Its truly nice to see someone taking a stand, even if I'm standing against him.

Stuck_as_a_Mac
May 05, 2003, 05:03 AM
what about another fraction? 1/2 makes it too long. how about 4/5. This way, we play 10, age 8. Or 3/5. Play 10, age 6. 3/5 is more towards the 1/2 proposal. Or, if you want to be a real nit picker, we could always go for friendly 7/10, Play 10, age 7. That last one may be good. It helps us now and dosent cripple us later on.
Of course, we would need to make up a chart for every other amount of years if we DONT play 10.

Chieftess
May 05, 2003, 09:48 AM
What if we play only 1 turn? Then it's a few months. It's best to keep it simple. I posted in the Character Manager thread about this issue and used the industrial ages as an example. To sum it up, under the current rules, it would be pretty realistic if we went 4 turns per tech. Extend it, and someone could be around for the entire US history.

Ehecatl Atzin
May 07, 2003, 12:42 AM
I say let's keep it as it is. Please remember that people during this time just didn't last long, heck! in the 1900's people were old at 40. During prehistoric times, people were ancient at age 30. It may seem a little bit of a hasle making characters just to see them die during the next couple of turn chats, but this also gives us more of a chance to roleplay, if you don't like a character, heck, he'll die off in a couple of turns :D and it makes it more real, more characters coming and going. As time and techs come, the life span will increase.
Alexander the Great died at age 33, and he conquered the known world. 28 is a good age to die if you don't even know iron working.

EA

Cheetah
May 07, 2003, 04:38 AM
Alexander the Great was at good health (I believe) and was leading his army against rebels. He died because of a sickness. Not old age.

Bootstoots
May 07, 2003, 05:42 AM
Few people died of old age in ancient times.

disorganizer
May 07, 2003, 08:17 AM
boot is right... that was the reason for the low life expectancy...

now a completely different idea:
what if we set a fixed live expectation of 80 years +- 20%? this could introduce methusalem like characters or people dieing at only 60 (without any illness influence that is!)

the only thing we would modify for the different ages would be the risk to die of sicknesses or other typical events.
this risk could also be influenced by living conditions and status (risk when living in city is higher than if living on the land, for nobles the risk is lower than for commons etc.)

this would not include plagues. for a plague it would make no difference if someone is noble or not. therefor plagues will be territorially limited in due to travel restriction until we have aircrafts.

we could define that a plague is triggered in a city if more than 10% of its population get ill :-)

we could also raise the "illness propability" with the age of the character, as old characters are more likely to catch an illness than young ones.

of course specific working conditions (working in a mine for example) could have an influence on the "expected lifespan" of a character.

example:
for a character, his "expected lifespan" was determined to be 70 years upon his birth.
due to him working in a coal mine, the lifespan will be reduced by 20% to 56. this is the MAXIMUM age the character can reach. when coming to that age he dies anyways.

now here is an example for ancient illness propabilities:
age : propability to get ill : propability for death of illness
-10yrs: 10% : 50%
-20yrs: 20% : 60%
-30yrs: 40% : 70%
-40yrs: 60% : 80%
-50yrs: 70% : 90%
-60yrs: 80% : 90%
70yrs+: 90%: 90%

so this chart reflects that in ancient times people got ill more often and the risk to die of this illnes war pretty high.

the chart could look the following way for the modern times:
-10yrs: 10% : 10%
-20yrs: 10% : 10%
-30yrs: 15% : 10%
-40yrs: 20% : 20%
-50yrs: 30% : 30%
-60yrs: 40% : 40%
70yrs+: 60%: 50%

now if our character working in the mine is 40 years old, he would theoretically still have 16 years to live.
but in ancient times he would have a 60% chance of getting ill each TC and a 80% chance of dying of his illness.
in modern times, he would only have a 20% chance to get ill and 20% to die of it.

(the explicit numbers are just an example which must be calculated with some example cases and fine-tuned throughout the game to get the average live expectance we want)

Bootstoots
May 07, 2003, 02:11 PM
That's a good idea, and is more realistic than one where someone has a set amount of years +/- 10% to live. However, this may get too complicated to use in the game once variables such as nobility, working conditions, plagues, etc. are factored in.

BTW, is this poll in effect for the upcoming turnchat (scheduled to start in about three hours)?

disorganizer
May 07, 2003, 02:18 PM
boot: if we setup an excel spreadsheet for calculation it should be only a one-time work as we only have to change the parameters, but the formula is pretty steady. nobility could be worked into shrinking the death propability against commons... like 10% off for gentry, 25% for nobility and 50% for royalty.

example for ancient times:
ip=illness propability
dp=death propability if ill
age : ip :: dp common : dp gentry : dp noble : dp royalty
-10yrs: 10% :: 50% : 40% : 25% : 0% (!)
-20yrs: 20% :: 60% : 50% : 35% : 10%
-30yrs: 40% :: 70% : 60% : 45% : 20%
-40yrs: 60% :: 80% : 70% : 55% : 30%
-50yrs: 70% :: 90% : 80% : 65% : 40%
-60yrs: 80% :: 90% : 80% : 65% : 40%
70yrs+: 90% :: 90% : 80% : 65% : 40%

EDIT:
note also that those values would not effect any "special" illness, like genetic illnesses or the results of incest. they would be seperately handled for each defined illness for each character which "has it".

Sir John
May 16, 2003, 03:21 PM
Whe will this actually be put into play?

CivGeneral
May 16, 2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Sir John
Whe will this actually be put into play?

The Game Manager has posted a Manager's Vote, but only one Manager has voted.

Shaitan
May 19, 2003, 04:56 AM
Regarding overall life expectancy, this includes infant mortality. A better barometer would be to break things up by class and defactor infant mortality for adult characters.

To defactor infant mortality we'd need to take a SWAG. A 25% addition in the ancient age would probably be sufficient.

Be breaking into class I don't mean common/noble/etc. I mean what the character does for a living. A soldier has a lower life expectancy than a woodcutter, who has a lower life expectancy than a tailor, etc.

disorganizer
May 19, 2003, 05:44 AM
and we should reflect that women have a higher live expectancy than men :-)

Shaitan
May 19, 2003, 06:46 AM
Potential life expectancy groups (from worst to best):

Military
Hard/hazardous labor (mining, fishing, tanning, spying)
Moderate labor (farming, blacksmith)
Light labor (tailor, servant)
Administrative (nobles, castellan, government, religious)

Note that some characters would span categories and the worst category should be used. A noble who is a field general is in the military category. A shaman who goes out to spread the word to the barbarians is hazardous labor.

disorganizer
May 19, 2003, 07:05 AM
and in addition to that women should get a 10% bonus. like in rl :-)
so if le is 70, it would be 77 for women. if its 50, it would be 55 for women etc.


also note:
people who do not work at all or did not state their work in the index should be in the worst available category (they are payed on a daily basis, have to struggle to gain their living etc.)

Chieftess
May 19, 2003, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Shaitan
Regarding overall life expectancy, this includes infant mortality. A better barometer would be to break things up by class and defactor infant mortality for adult characters.

To defactor infant mortality we'd need to take a SWAG. A 25% addition in the ancient age would probably be sufficient.

Be breaking into class I don't mean common/noble/etc. I mean what the character does for a living. A soldier has a lower life expectancy than a woodcutter, who has a lower life expectancy than a tailor, etc.

Oh no! The organism is evolving! :eek: I have a hard enough time as it is getting everyone to give me stats rather than just saying "so and so had a baby" (with and without the spouse). :)

disorganizer
May 19, 2003, 08:10 AM
@ct: so get rid of the public stats ;-)
people should only define 3 key tendencies for their character, and the stats should be hidden and only accessible by the manager imho :-P

Bootstoots
May 19, 2003, 07:32 PM
I think that we should declare this issue dead. Commoners now have a life expectancy of 30 years, and the despot can live 65 years (or an incredible 130 turns in the game with this rule). This was a good idea when nobody lived past 30, but it is now obsolete.

disorganizer
May 20, 2003, 01:02 AM
thats why, if you follow the discussion, we already discuss other methods of aging out of this "fixed age" thing.

for example modulating life expectancy with work done and gender... the original proposal was long abandoned and not discusses any more... we got new ideas which we should continue to think about to get a realistic thus not disturbing lifespan calculation.


a good example for that is the age of the despot. it is unrealistic that it is impossible for a commoner with light work to reach 65. and even more unrealistic that the despot reaches double the age as a commoner.

of course it should be rare for a normal person to reach that age, but it should nevertheless be possible...

im strictly against a fixed upper age... it must be randomized and modulated.