Here, we make an estimation of points made by feeding and not feeding in a four people game.
In a typical four people game, 10 rounds are played. Let's say a community of 5+x people would make 18+3x points per round (without considering the food). So, a player who feed their people would make 18*10=180 pts, and a player who bears children and do not feed would make 18+21+24+27+30+33*5=285 pts. But since this player have to bear children in the first 5 rounds, the player would get a negative 6*5=30 pts by this. Hence, this player would get 285-30=255 pts.
Here comes the feeding part. A player who do not feed would get 10 pts penalty in round 3 to round 10. So, non-feeding players will score about 255-10*8=175 pts in the end. A player who feed their people will averagely get a farmland every 2 rounds. Let's say the player get farmlands in the 1,4,5,8,9 rounds. A unit of food is worth about 2 pts. So, the food burden for this player is about 8+8+8+6+4+4+4+2=44 pts. Another burden for this kind of players is some ways of getting farmlands cost resources, and some give away things (resources,tools,farmlands) to your opponents. Let's say this kind of burden is worth 15 points. Now, note that we have 12 units of foods starting from the game, giving a positive 24 points to the player. So, feeding players will get about 180-44-15+24=145 pts in the end.
Non-feeding players have about 30 pts advantage in this game(or at least for a 4-people game). This is typically true due to my experience. So, in conclusion, by punishing the player with 10+30/8=14 pts for not feeding per round will make the game balanced. I suggest that the site gives us 2 different choices to the game, with one being traditional, and the other being balance.
Disclaimer: I do not dislike the starving strategy, but rather, I won too much game by just using this strategy. That's why I think this should be fixed. Maybe my model is somehow oversimplified, but it makes sense and actually correspond to real game.
In a typical four people game, 10 rounds are played. Let's say a community of 5+x people would make 18+3x points per round (without considering the food). So, a player who feed their people would make 18*10=180 pts, and a player who bears children and do not feed would make 18+21+24+27+30+33*5=285 pts. But since this player have to bear children in the first 5 rounds, the player would get a negative 6*5=30 pts by this. Hence, this player would get 285-30=255 pts.
Here comes the feeding part. A player who do not feed would get 10 pts penalty in round 3 to round 10. So, non-feeding players will score about 255-10*8=175 pts in the end. A player who feed their people will averagely get a farmland every 2 rounds. Let's say the player get farmlands in the 1,4,5,8,9 rounds. A unit of food is worth about 2 pts. So, the food burden for this player is about 8+8+8+6+4+4+4+2=44 pts. Another burden for this kind of players is some ways of getting farmlands cost resources, and some give away things (resources,tools,farmlands) to your opponents. Let's say this kind of burden is worth 15 points. Now, note that we have 12 units of foods starting from the game, giving a positive 24 points to the player. So, feeding players will get about 180-44-15+24=145 pts in the end.
Non-feeding players have about 30 pts advantage in this game(or at least for a 4-people game). This is typically true due to my experience. So, in conclusion, by punishing the player with 10+30/8=14 pts for not feeding per round will make the game balanced. I suggest that the site gives us 2 different choices to the game, with one being traditional, and the other being balance.
Disclaimer: I do not dislike the starving strategy, but rather, I won too much game by just using this strategy. That's why I think this should be fixed. Maybe my model is somehow oversimplified, but it makes sense and actually correspond to real game.
