Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687
Here is the relevant text:
"Reinforcing the fort seems the safest option, but is hardly the opportunity to right wrongs that you joined the military for. Rescuing the children appeals in theory, but in practice escorting non-combatants for any distance could be fraught with unforeseen challenges. Sabotaging enemy resources sounds exciting but very high risk…"
Aries, if we are worried about villagers dying, shouldn't we pick the low risk option--which would be re-enforcing the garrison? I am not sure how to interpret the risk/reward profile of rescuing the children.
No, I am saying a ()rand kill, which I am assuming anyone killed in the attack will be, has a better chance of hitting on a non-villa than a typical d1 execution. Therefore, embrace the variance, accept that some villas are in fact likely to die, but that on average, the village will be better off because we will have an above-average chance at ending up with a dead wolf.
This only really makes sense in the first part of the game, as the village is at a severe informational disadvantage right now, and it is likely not as much fun for the people who want to actually play, cuz they will kick it sooner, but from a game theory perspective, I believe it is the best. I am willing to be convinced I am wrong though.