- 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).
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).