Reasons I am aiming to become an engineer and not a scientist...

[@BBeast] Right mate, you're lucky you got me one and a half weeks after my statistical machine learning exam. Otherwise I would glaze over at that.

[quote=@BBeast]
For large [i]y[/i], this approaches 2, as for the repayment time of a new Holy Site.
[/quote]

I'm going to assume this is the crunch of what you're trying to demonstrate. 

And if I have interpreted it correctly, you have demonstrated that destroying and rebuilding holy sites gets close to being as beneficial as building new holy sites if the upgrade is big enough compared to the original cost. But it is capped at the benefit of a fresh holy site. Is that right?

If that's the case, recycling old, cheap, deflated holy sites might become a viable strategy if there's no turn restriction on rebuilding. I don't know if that's so good of a precedent to set. I mean, the existing system isn't the most robust thing in the world, but I don't want important places that may have story lore to be encouraged to be wrecked for the sake of might points.

Now, I have been travelling today, so I neither have the energy nor my own computer to better test out alternatives. I would like you, if you are willing, to experiment with the convergence you found. My immediate thought is to put a cap on how much you can rebuild a holy site into, proportional to its original cost (such as x2 original cost but that's a kinda stingy example) and also prevent a holy site from being rebuilt more than once every 1(?) turn(s?). 

Doing it that way could ensure that wrecking and rebuilding never gets close enough to the breaking-even of building a fresh holy site to be worth the trouble. Or at least something like that idea could. Have a brainstorm. The end goal ought to be that destroying your own holy sites should not be beneficial to you in terms of net might.

If anyone has any thoughts on this, speak up! I could be talking fatigue-enduced crap at this point. Give your opinions.

I'm going to sleep now.