YAAHOO! (Yet Another Article on Hospitals, Only Opinions!)
Day 790, 22:31
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Buck Roger
Everybody else (and their brother and his mom and her dog too) is throwing their hat in the ring, so I thought I would put my opinion in print now too. (Between all these links, surely there's a solution.)
Also, this isn't about Q5 vs lower Q but is only about the placement of Q5's in the USA. Mostly because I see lower Quality Hospitals in populous states as a dangerous invitation to players with regional loyalties to be obnoxious and hurt the USA. It's about where to put Q5 infrastructure in the USA.
(I'm feeling better already...)
I've broken it down into three measures of objective value: Border Control, High Resources, and Company Investment. I don't look at the number of citizens born there as anything but a secondary concern. If you think about it, wastelands actually make it easier to find real young citizens (clueless people, not multis). Be active in your outreach. Yes, you have to send messages; do it.
I'll pretend to be scientific and score out of 3 points for Border Control, out of 3 points for High Resources, and out of 4 for Company Investment. The tiebreaker is existing population. I'll also rate existing Q5 regions, just because.
(They'll be too distracted by our nurses to attack... it could happen!)
Border Control
Bordering nations of USA's original territory: Canada, Mexico, Russia, Japan, Ireland, United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, and former France. I use postal abbreviations.
Canada - The brolliance. 'Nuf said.
Mexico - Has been used as a backdoor. Borders CA, AZ, NM, and TX.
Russia - Sworn enemy. Bottleneck in Alaska.
Japan - Entry to Asia. Bottleneck in HI and CA, which is covered.
Ireland - Neutral, anemic.
United Kingdom - Borders ME, MS, RI, CT, NY, NJ.
Spain - Like Canada, tenacious allies.
Portugal - Borders FL and GA from Azores, crossroads of the Atlantic.
France - Occupied territories border VA, NC, MD, NJ.
Analysis:
No points to the border states of the UK. They are too numerous (six).
No points to the border states of France. They are fairly common (four) and currently occupied.
1/2 point to the border states of Mexico. While they are also fairly common (four), they have the benefit of two populous states (CA and T
1 point to the border states of Portugal. They are two in number, and one already is built up (FL).
2 1/2 points to the bottleneck of Alaska with Russia. Stop the bear in its tracks? Yes please.
Full points to California (total 3) for being on the road to Asia and part of Mexico's border.
While it is not a border region, Karnataka gets an honorary 2 points for being out in the middle of India and needing defense.
(You didn't know that she works at the Fort Katana hospital?)
High Resources
High Grain or High Oil scores as 1 point.
High Wood or High Diamonds scores as 2 points.
High Iron scores as 3 points.
1 point: Alaska, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington.
2 points: California (both Grain and Oil), Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Jharkhand.
3 points: Karnataka.
(Who's the patient here?)
Companies
Anyone who lived through WW3 knew the devastation wrought on the USA economy through loss of companies and inadequate employment. Points are awarded on a (roughly logarithmic) scale: 4 points for 800+, 3.5 points for 600+, 3 points for 400+, 2.5 points for 300+, 2 points for 200+, 1.5 points for 150+, 1 point for 100+, and 1/2 point for 50+.
4 Points: Florida (806).
3.5 Points: California (649), Karnataka (640).
2 Points: Tennessee (22
1.5 Points: Pennsylvania (189).
1 Point: Kansas (133), New York (113).
1/2 Point: Jharkand (85), Illinois (80), Alaska (74), Washington (73), Arizona (53).
(The famous General Hospital and photographic proof that a hospital in CA is always win.)
The YAAHOO! Regional Rankings
#1 Score 8.5 California brings down the pain with a 8.5 value on this scale. Did I tell you I live in CA? LOL.
#2 Score 8.5 Karnataka ties for first with California on this scale. It is in India and has less people.
#3 Score 5 Florida is an economic powerhouse with more companies than any other region in the USA.
#4 Score 4 Tennessee is the more economically invested of the Wood states by a small margin.
#5 Score 4 Alaska is the elephant in the room, with High Oil, a moderate number of companies, and the sole border with Russia.
#6 Score 3.5 Texas would obviously be part of any plan to make a wall with Mexico, but it also just has a lot of companies, people, and Oil.
#7 Score 3.5 Pennsylvania is a Wood state along with Tennessee.
#8 Score 2.5 Jharkand is a Wood region in USA-occupied territory.
#9 Score 2 New Jersey has lots of companies but little other value ingame; best not to build it up more.
#10 Score 2 Kansas has Grain and a substantial number of companies.
#11 Score 1.5 Washington has Grain and more people than IL.
#12 Score 1.5 Illinois has Oil and a few hundred people.
#13 Score 1 New York is underrated in this scale with its value being citizens (over 1000).
#14 Score 1 Arizona is a border state with Mexico and has a modicum of industry.
#15 Score 1 Georgia gets its point solely for building the wall against Portugal.
#16-21 Score 1 Louisiana and Oklahoma have Oil. Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota have Grain.
and #22 Score 0.5 New Mexico gets a 1/2 point for the border with Mexico.
(The doctors of eRepublik look just as good as they do on TV, I promise!)
How Is This Helpful at All?
I think it should be obvious what this does not answer. It does not answer whether you want lower Q Hospitals, an entirely separate discussion. And while it does weigh some benefits of placing Q5 Hospitals to build up population in these regions, it does not tell you how many to build.
It does tell you that the current "Three Fortress" model, while not necessarily the "greatest and most optimal" option, is at least on some sound footing. The three fortresses are far and away the most valuable regions possessed by the USA, especially when measured by number of companies. The only reason that one will be de-activated (Karnataka) is its projected return to India.
It does tell you some regions to look at if building new Q5 "Forts" in the future. Based on the three major criteria, these potential bases looked the most interesting:
For Border Control: Alaska. By securing two states, California and Alaska, you can secure the entire western seaboard of North America.
For High RM's: Tennessee or Pennsylvania. If one gets it but not the other, I suggest using the Rylde method to decide. (Yes, that's flipping a coin.) This is because California already has the Oil and Grain, and of the three Wood is typically the most valuable.
For Companies: In addition to the aforementioned TN and PA, consider Texas. If desirous of a backup breadbasket to CA, consider Kansas or Washington.
What about the "New York question"? The question is not so much whether building there will help retention of players born in New York. It will. The question is, how many of those babies will never leave, for love of New York? How many would choose to relocate to New York instead of where their country needs them, such as Fort Katana? Building a Q5 in NY is opening a Pandora's Box. Companies will sprout up overnight, and we already have an otherwise resourceless region with a ton of companies built in it. It's Florida. We already had a similar region to the north in the USA; it was New Jersey.
(I didn't forget you, ladies!)
What do you mean, how many?
The more you build, the more you split your population among the Q5 centers. This makes them cheaper to attack and reduces their strategic value. They also cost resources to build. But the more serious concern is the irreversible placement of a Q5 that attracts people to live there.
The USA, after heavy campaigning, has been able to get about 2000 people into Karnataka so far, and that's despite the fact that there are only 3 Fortress states. If that number increased to five or six, one could easily see the number of immigrants being halved. And that would not be good.
Sound advice for US players, given the current layout of infrastructure, is set forth by Katherine "Astra" Gallagher in Living in a Fortress State and Why You Should, Too.
My opinion is to wait both for the return of Karnataka and v2 before doing any new construction. But, everybody has an opinion. What's yours? As always, I like votes and love comments!
In case you're wondering who I am... Congress in Greece, a PP, and ambassador to the USA.
I also do tl;dr like nobody's business, so if you like it then subscribe!
Also, this isn't about Q5 vs lower Q but is only about the placement of Q5's in the USA. Mostly because I see lower Quality Hospitals in populous states as a dangerous invitation to players with regional loyalties to be obnoxious and hurt the USA. It's about where to put Q5 infrastructure in the USA.
(I'm feeling better already...)
I've broken it down into three measures of objective value: Border Control, High Resources, and Company Investment. I don't look at the number of citizens born there as anything but a secondary concern. If you think about it, wastelands actually make it easier to find real young citizens (clueless people, not multis). Be active in your outreach. Yes, you have to send messages; do it.
I'll pretend to be scientific and score out of 3 points for Border Control, out of 3 points for High Resources, and out of 4 for Company Investment. The tiebreaker is existing population. I'll also rate existing Q5 regions, just because.
(They'll be too distracted by our nurses to attack... it could happen!)
Border Control
Bordering nations of USA's original territory: Canada, Mexico, Russia, Japan, Ireland, United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, and former France. I use postal abbreviations.
Canada - The brolliance. 'Nuf said.
Mexico - Has been used as a backdoor. Borders CA, AZ, NM, and TX.
Russia - Sworn enemy. Bottleneck in Alaska.
Japan - Entry to Asia. Bottleneck in HI and CA, which is covered.
Ireland - Neutral, anemic.
United Kingdom - Borders ME, MS, RI, CT, NY, NJ.
Spain - Like Canada, tenacious allies.
Portugal - Borders FL and GA from Azores, crossroads of the Atlantic.
France - Occupied territories border VA, NC, MD, NJ.
Analysis:
No points to the border states of the UK. They are too numerous (six).
No points to the border states of France. They are fairly common (four) and currently occupied.
1/2 point to the border states of Mexico. While they are also fairly common (four), they have the benefit of two populous states (CA and T
😵and are partly built up (in CA) already.
1 point to the border states of Portugal. They are two in number, and one already is built up (FL).
2 1/2 points to the bottleneck of Alaska with Russia. Stop the bear in its tracks? Yes please.
Full points to California (total 3) for being on the road to Asia and part of Mexico's border.
While it is not a border region, Karnataka gets an honorary 2 points for being out in the middle of India and needing defense.
(You didn't know that she works at the Fort Katana hospital?)
High Resources
High Grain or High Oil scores as 1 point.
High Wood or High Diamonds scores as 2 points.
High Iron scores as 3 points.
1 point: Alaska, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington.
2 points: California (both Grain and Oil), Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Jharkhand.
3 points: Karnataka.
(Who's the patient here?)
Companies
Anyone who lived through WW3 knew the devastation wrought on the USA economy through loss of companies and inadequate employment. Points are awarded on a (roughly logarithmic) scale: 4 points for 800+, 3.5 points for 600+, 3 points for 400+, 2.5 points for 300+, 2 points for 200+, 1.5 points for 150+, 1 point for 100+, and 1/2 point for 50+.
4 Points: Florida (806).
3.5 Points: California (649), Karnataka (640).
2 Points: Tennessee (22
😎, New Jersey (209), Texas (203).
1.5 Points: Pennsylvania (189).
1 Point: Kansas (133), New York (113).
1/2 Point: Jharkand (85), Illinois (80), Alaska (74), Washington (73), Arizona (53).
(The famous General Hospital and photographic proof that a hospital in CA is always win.)
The YAAHOO! Regional Rankings
#1 Score 8.5 California brings down the pain with a 8.5 value on this scale. Did I tell you I live in CA? LOL.
#2 Score 8.5 Karnataka ties for first with California on this scale. It is in India and has less people.
#3 Score 5 Florida is an economic powerhouse with more companies than any other region in the USA.
#4 Score 4 Tennessee is the more economically invested of the Wood states by a small margin.
#5 Score 4 Alaska is the elephant in the room, with High Oil, a moderate number of companies, and the sole border with Russia.
#6 Score 3.5 Texas would obviously be part of any plan to make a wall with Mexico, but it also just has a lot of companies, people, and Oil.
#7 Score 3.5 Pennsylvania is a Wood state along with Tennessee.
#8 Score 2.5 Jharkand is a Wood region in USA-occupied territory.
#9 Score 2 New Jersey has lots of companies but little other value ingame; best not to build it up more.
#10 Score 2 Kansas has Grain and a substantial number of companies.
#11 Score 1.5 Washington has Grain and more people than IL.
#12 Score 1.5 Illinois has Oil and a few hundred people.
#13 Score 1 New York is underrated in this scale with its value being citizens (over 1000).
#14 Score 1 Arizona is a border state with Mexico and has a modicum of industry.
#15 Score 1 Georgia gets its point solely for building the wall against Portugal.
#16-21 Score 1 Louisiana and Oklahoma have Oil. Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota have Grain.
and #22 Score 0.5 New Mexico gets a 1/2 point for the border with Mexico.
(The doctors of eRepublik look just as good as they do on TV, I promise!)
How Is This Helpful at All?
I think it should be obvious what this does not answer. It does not answer whether you want lower Q Hospitals, an entirely separate discussion. And while it does weigh some benefits of placing Q5 Hospitals to build up population in these regions, it does not tell you how many to build.
It does tell you that the current "Three Fortress" model, while not necessarily the "greatest and most optimal" option, is at least on some sound footing. The three fortresses are far and away the most valuable regions possessed by the USA, especially when measured by number of companies. The only reason that one will be de-activated (Karnataka) is its projected return to India.
It does tell you some regions to look at if building new Q5 "Forts" in the future. Based on the three major criteria, these potential bases looked the most interesting:
For Border Control: Alaska. By securing two states, California and Alaska, you can secure the entire western seaboard of North America.
For High RM's: Tennessee or Pennsylvania. If one gets it but not the other, I suggest using the Rylde method to decide. (Yes, that's flipping a coin.) This is because California already has the Oil and Grain, and of the three Wood is typically the most valuable.
For Companies: In addition to the aforementioned TN and PA, consider Texas. If desirous of a backup breadbasket to CA, consider Kansas or Washington.
What about the "New York question"? The question is not so much whether building there will help retention of players born in New York. It will. The question is, how many of those babies will never leave, for love of New York? How many would choose to relocate to New York instead of where their country needs them, such as Fort Katana? Building a Q5 in NY is opening a Pandora's Box. Companies will sprout up overnight, and we already have an otherwise resourceless region with a ton of companies built in it. It's Florida. We already had a similar region to the north in the USA; it was New Jersey.
(I didn't forget you, ladies!)
What do you mean, how many?
The more you build, the more you split your population among the Q5 centers. This makes them cheaper to attack and reduces their strategic value. They also cost resources to build. But the more serious concern is the irreversible placement of a Q5 that attracts people to live there.
The USA, after heavy campaigning, has been able to get about 2000 people into Karnataka so far, and that's despite the fact that there are only 3 Fortress states. If that number increased to five or six, one could easily see the number of immigrants being halved. And that would not be good.
Sound advice for US players, given the current layout of infrastructure, is set forth by Katherine "Astra" Gallagher in Living in a Fortress State and Why You Should, Too.
My opinion is to wait both for the return of Karnataka and v2 before doing any new construction. But, everybody has an opinion. What's yours? As always, I like votes and love comments!
In case you're wondering who I am... Congress in Greece, a PP, and ambassador to the USA.
I also do tl;dr like nobody's business, so if you like it then subscribe!
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
first
What the first pic has to do with anything ? ;P
Great article, voted!
>What the first pic has to do with anything ? ;P
Those stripes had me seeing stars, so that was obviously a reference to the flag of the eUS.
The first pic has to do with everything 😛. v 😉
system0101 gets it. 🙂
first page still! new comment.
Yawn the hospital. just put them everywhere!
voted
ok the first picture ../sigh
Voted! (I'll take the redhead nurse 😛 )
As always, BR, awesome work!
Excellent pics accompanying a very interesting article.
When the Hospital Question has been answered, thing of starting off a photography competition 🙂
always good articles from you! well done!(for one more time) 🙂
very nice, all the way round
Nice nurses, I want to go to those hospitals!!!
Very well thought-out... just two things
1. I still toe the line of building in New York, because it's the one region which accounts for ALL of the UK's attack options. Either the UK would need to go through New England and fight NY before going any further, or attacking NJ would allow Canada to counter from Delaware.
2. Alaska is a major bottleneck, which for the same reason as Canada having Delaware, I would suggest Canada get Alaska as well. We would be given Yukon as an additional chain reaction plan.
Anyways, keep writing. Hopefully amidst all the hospital articles, we actually choose one course of action 😛
I like Alaska myself because I like the idea of building a Fort Juneau (which we know will be spelled Fort Juno or something else) that will make it costly to start the battle and activate all of the USA's alliances as soon as Russia strikes. No alliances would be activated for the battle when Russia attacks a Canadian Alaska (I think?). On top of its bottleneck value, it doesn't hurt that it has Oil. And we can see Russia from there right from Sarah Palin's house, a great source of intel. 😉
About New York, if it does have a real strategic value, that certainly changes things. It wouldn't have RM's, but the combination of strategic value along with its inherent population and existing companies might tilt the scale for it.
Thanks for your own analysis and comments as well!
I will add ... perhaps we should consider Brazil a greater threat than the United Kingdom? With a bit of land swapping, Brazil could be breathing down the neck of the south through the Azores islands by way of Portugal. That would be the argument for Georgia.
Overall, though, the borders with Latin America (via Mexico and Portugal) and with Western Europe (via the UK and former France) seem to be at once involving too many regions and too little gains, until and unless the USA increases its population. Of course, with summer getting closer every month, the USA just might do that.
The border with Russia in Alaska (and with East Asia through California) just seems so evident a strategic value, however. I'd consider Russia the second most powerful force in Phoenix behind Hungary. To be able to defend against attacks from Asia with just two regions is a fantastically obvious tactic, drawn straight from the Risk board that the map was in some ways modeled after.
This is a great method of determination from a managerial, cost/benefit point of view.
voted 😛
Thank you for writing this! There is some really good stuff in here! The written part isn't bad either! 😃 [Seriously, this was very informative. Glad you weighed in on the subject.]
I think the placement of Q5 would be the problem. what we're doing here is NOT trying to make a place where people want to stay. We're just trying to get them out of those states faster, and with possibly a fight under their belt. The added placement of anything more than a Q2-3 is foolish.
voted and subscribed! im diggin your paper dude
People have been known to live in sub-Q5 (even sub-Q4) regions out of brute stubbornness. You need only a Q2 hospital in order to fight once, buy some food, and make money at any Quality job under the sun. At a Q5 you'd fight at least four times instead.
I like how frank you were in your evaluations... in my past deliberations in the Infrastructure Committee, I could see the value of Alaska but generally wanted to ignore the elephant in the room due to the massive investment it would take to move the requisite number of people there, lol.
I love how you broke it down.
I think the fortress strategy is important. Too many citizens ignore this (my RL friend didn't move to Karnataka until I made him, and he reads DoD orders.
Getting players involved early is key.
voted 🙂feel a bit sick, need to go to plainsboro hospital 😁
Great article!
I will never leave Katana as long as that nurse is there!
Voted but tl;dr