On Infrastructure

Day 699, 20:38 • Published in USA USA • by system0101

There have been a lot of articles about infrastructure lately. Some better than others, to be sure. There are two main camps, to build or not to build. Each of these camps can be fairly split in half.

Some want to build due to real life sentiment, to bring new construction to their state, region, or flat out everywhere. Regardless of their disparite motives, this group is solidly pro-construction, and also fairly anti-mechanics. some are even non-mechanics, heh.

Some want to build in order to bolster our ability to heal, our damage potential, and our newb retention. This group is solidly pro-construction, and is also pro-mechanics. This is an interesting mindset, and many of the best pro-construction articles are from members of this ideological group. These guys have stats and figures to back their claims of the benefits of new construction.

Some want to wait to build new infrastructure either due to the cost, or due to the fact that we are still under occupation. They vary on their stances on construction, but they all agree on one thing. We have to wait until the war is over to rebuild, at the very least.

Some want to hold off on new infrastructure due to the idea that we don't have enough active population to seriously defend new infrastructure, or the fact that building new infrastructure would let players spread out, thus cancelling the fortress strategy. They are fairly anti-construction, and rabidly pro-mechanics. The best articles against building new infrastructure come from this ideological camp.

Now, some history. Before the great invasion we had 45 hospitals and 17 Defense Systems. Here is a list of what state had what:

STATE: HOSIPTAL/DS
Alabama: Q3/Q0
Alaska: Q3/Q3
Arizona: Q2/Q2
Arkansas: Q1/Q0
California: Q4/Q3
Colorado: Q4/Q0
Connecticut: Q1/Q0
Delaware: Q0/Q0
District of Columbia: Q4/Q1
Florida: Q5/Q4
Georgia: Q4/Q3
Hawai'i: Q3/Q3
Idaho: Q1/Q0
Illinois: Q4/Q0
Indiana: Q2/Q0
Iowa: Q1/Q0
Kansas: Q5/Q0
Kentucky: Q4/Q0
Louisiana: Q1/Q0
Maine: Q3/Q0
Marylan😛 Q4/Q3
Massachusetts: Q1/Q0
Michigan: Q3/Q0
Minnesota: Q1/Q0
Mississippi: Q0/Q0
Missouri: Q1/Q0
Montana: Q1/Q0
Nebraska: Q2/Q0
Nevada: Q0/Q0
New Hampshire: Q0/Q0
New Jersey: Q5/Q5
New Mexico: Q1/Q0
New York: Q3/Q2
North Carolina: Q1/Q3
North Dakota: Q0/Q0
Ohio: Q3/Q1
Oklahoma: Q1/Q0
Oregon: Q3/Q0
Pennsylvania: Q2/Q2
Rhode Islan😛 Q2/Q0
South Carolina: Q0/Q1
South Dakota: Q1/Q0
Tennessee: Q3/Q0
Texas: Q4/Q5
Utah: Q1/Q0
Vermont: Q1/Q0
Virginia: Q4/Q3
Washington: Q2/Q3
West Virginia: Q1/Q0
Wisconsin: Q1/Q0
Wyoming: Q1/Q0


Full-size pic


Full-size pic

These constructions were not placed with much precision, and Scrabman has been quoted saying the early country bought just about every piece of infrastructure that was offerred to the nation. I don't know what debates, if any, took place to decide where to put these units. I'd like to know more about this part of eAmerican history.

What I can say is that people were laying these pieces down and with the justification that we had never been invaded in the past. We hadn't been touched. We were invincible. We then lost 44 hospitals and 16 defense systems.

I haven't been able to get good average prices for the market value of each Q-level of infrastructure. But I'm going to use these numbers, and I assume that in many cases it will be an underestimation of market value. Q1 = 25g, Q2 = 50g, Q3 = 90g, Q4 = 190g, Q5 = 300g. Please correct me if I'm wrong on these basic figures. [Please note that I am talking about median market value, not any offers that use donated labor]

Using these figures, and taking into account the only infrastructure that remained intact was in Florida, I have calculated the gold value of lost hospitals to be 3895g, and the lost DSs totals 1545g, for a total of 5440g.

To put that in perspective, our enemies pay that much (or more) to tank major battles. Before the invasion, that was two weeks of American Government spending. And that is just over the amount that the Government was in debt at the end of the war, between war bonds and allied loans.

Now, before I delve further into these topics, I want to toss out a couple formulae. This is the cost to attack a region:

(50 + (population/4)) gold

And this is the formula to derive how much a DS will increase a regions' wall:

(population + ((Q / 10) * population)) * 100 {each Q of a defense system adds 10% to the wall}

Or more simply put:

100 * (1.Q * population)

HOSPITALS
Many will argue that hospitals are more important than Defense Systems. Hospitals allow players in the state to heal a certain amount of their health, regardless of where they work or fight. That last bit is important, and needs to be said loudly and clearly. There is no benefit to living in a region without a hospital, as you can work anywhere in the country from California or Florida, where our current hospitals are located. In addition, players in states without hospitals are not able to heal after battles, or regulate their wellness for employers. This leads to situations where new level 5 players fight in their first battle and never recover.

Most arguments against new hospitals conclude that our best bet is to consolidate our efforts, infrastructure, and population into areas nicknamed "fortresses". During the war, our two fortresses were New Jersey and Florida, each having 3-4k population. eRussia rolled through New Jersey in one of the most epic battles of the time, barely winning, and aided by some server hiccups. This was a setback for the eUS, but more importantly it proved part of the work-in-process fortress strategy to be incorrect. The wall would have to be much larger for the fortress strategy to be effective. the ~650,000 point wall of NJ just wasn't enough. Not for a well-funded enemy on a rampage.

Thus, the great exodus to Florida. The population reached over 9000. The wall was around 1.5 million points. And despite the fact that Parter sold his parents' house to come up with the over 2000 gold he needed to start the battle for Florida, the attack never came.

This by no means is an indication that the superfortress would have saved us. I'm also disappointed that we didn't have a chance to 404 the eRep servers in the what-would-have-been-great Battle of Florida. But it does say that the battle cost AND the wall level gave our enemies enough doubt for us to turn the tide of the war, with the help of our dear allies.

So what does that have to do with right now? Everything. Remember we are still at war, we are still occupied. We need gold to start battles and resistance wars. We need gold to tank and distribute weapons. And we need to keep in mind the war debt we carry.

Right now, the hospital question for me is: Does the cost of a hospital warrant keeping those funds out of the hands of our military? And the clear answer is no. Completely out of the question.

But this war will not last forever. Even if we retain some hostile borders, we will eventually come to a point where we have cleared the invaders out of North America. At that point, the nature of the debate should change. Does the addition of a hospital to a region offer a significant benefit to the region for the price, and does that benefit the nation as a whole?

A hospital offers many benefits. It allows players to moderate their wellness. It is literally a lifesaver for new players who don't know much of anything about this more-complicated-than-it-seems simulation. It will also get a fair amount of players to move to that region eventually. I want to touch on those three issues briefly.

Fighting, training, and working reduce wellness, and the best way to regenerate is to fight and heal. Those who live in non-hospital regions can't do this, and are either doomed to die or are forced to relocate. Regardless of the fact that regions in this sim mean absolutely nothing, players aren't so quick to shed their reality bias for or against certain regions. So we have many players that are born and quickly die in non-hospital regions without ever knowing about the hospital system. A higher-than-average number of eRepublik players are born in regions that have higher natural populations (naturally), so it makes sense that any new hospitals should be put into regions of high r/l populations. That will also allow a decent amount of natural players to move back to their native regions eventually.

But we have several regions with high natural populations and no current infrastructure. New York, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, and cases can be made for a few more, most notably Pennsylvania. Regardless of where your feelings lie on the infrastructure spectrum, we need to make a set of criteria that most people agree upon for placement of new units. This will be a challenge.


DEFENSE SYSTEMS
These units deserve to be talked about separately from hospitals, even though a good defense ties them together. A defense system increases the defensive wall of the region it is placed in. It does not add any static bonuses, it is entirely dependent on population.

For those not in the know, each player in a region adds 100 points to the defensive wall of the region. Defensive systems add bonuses to the amount each player adds. In a region that has a Q5 DS, each player in that region adds 150 points to the wall instead of 100. These units serve this limited purpose, and offer no other active or passive benefits to the region.

So, in order to get the most benefit from a Defense System it needs to be placed in a region with high population, that is why it is usually tied with Hospital placement. Defense Systems should only be placed in regions we do not intend to give away during future invasions. There is a tactical necessity to retreat regions during an invasion under specific circumstances. So DSs should be placed sparingly, in regions that we intend to fight for during invasions, and ones that have high populations, either from hospital placement or from reality bias.


DISCUSSION
Many people want to see new infrastructure in specific states. In order to justify taking money out of the hands of the Military at this time, criteria need to be met. Does the addition benefit our national defense? Does the addition assist in retaining new players?

Then again, before the great invasion, we had 47 hospitals, and legions of dead and dying players. At that point, our new player retention was abysmal. Frankly, it still is. But we can't force people to play, so we have to resign ourselves to saving the savable.

All of these issues are woven into an issue with no clear answer, and very little hard evidence for any angle of the debate.

I can give you my personal views. I think all new placement of infrastructure should be on hold until we kick out the Huns. Construction projects should continue, as long as they can secure their own funding. I think all of this bluster around this debate would be put to better use trying to move new players to California. I would like to see the American government pay back all our allies, and also redeem the war bonds, before paying market price for new infrastructure. But we shouldn't pass up opportunities to buy Q5 infrastructure for next to nothing. Any new hospitals should be Q5's and placed in high population regions. Defense Systems have a minimal impact on regional defense unless it has the population of what we call a 'fortress'.

And I'm gonna apologize here for the length of this article. To be honest I cut it short, and most of the material that I left out was advanced analysis. I had a revelation today, that no matter how many numbers and figures are thrown around, this is a hearts and minds debate. I'll likely publish an addendum in the future.