Resource Galaxy Statistics

[_K_]

EDIT2: _K_, I am assuming that in your model, Logisitics and Military knowledge costs are adjusted too, and will receive a similar progression of income increase relative to their Mk. I income?

No idea lol, i have been so focused on economy that never gave that any thought other than "well, theres opportunity cost, should not forget that".

Plus i have no first-hand experience with higher mark non-economy stations whatsoever, so i have no idea how much the MKIIs and MKIIIs are worth.

But, to answer your question, uh... probably yeah. Just for the sake of standardisation.

EDIT: Ha-ha, talking with edits is fun.

EDIT3: If I use the income ratios for econ stations and apply them to logistics and military
Mk. II / Mk. I = 90/32 = 2.8125
Mk. III/ Mk. I = 150/32 = 4.6875
Using these ratios on the other stations yields
Logisitics Station: 24/67.5/112.5;0/3000/6000
Military Station: 16/45/75;0/3000/6000

The problem is that is that right now the income ratios for logistics and military stations are different. They are at 2.00/4.00, while the eco stations are at 2.5/5.
The other problem is that eco and battle station dont offer such a huge jump in usefulness as the eco station. Eco gives exactly what its made for - more income. The battle station gives more shots, health, and a permanent decloaker as a bonus, so its probably worth it; you are not taking the battle stations for resources anyway. The logistics stations probably want some boosts in general, as their unique usefulness doesnt grow with mark, only the incomes and its health does. And you get an extremely situational bonus on a MKIII.


Also id like to note i havent actually compared the current (or the suggested) MKII and MKIII's to MKI's as i have been using the "bonus income" everywhere.

[TechSY730]

EDIT2: _K_, I am assuming that in your model, Logisitics and Military knowledge costs are adjusted too, and will receive a similar progression of income increase relative to their Mk. I income?

No idea lol, i have been so focused on economy that never gave that any thought other than "well, theres opportunity cost, should not forget that".

Plus i have no first-hand experience with higher mark non-economy stations whatsoever, so i have no idea how much the MKIIs and MKIIIs are worth.

But, to answer your question, uh... probably yeah. Just for the sake of standardisation.

I went ahead and added what logistics and military stations would be like under the same economic growth rate, but with the caveat that they don't need quite the same growth rate over mark to remain competitive due to their other effects.

EDIT 1: I also noticed that for harvesters, the growth rate is quite a bit less
Mk. II / Mk. I = 32/20 = 1.6
Mk. III / Mk. I = 44/20 = 2.2

I assume this is to make up for the fact that harvesters do not have a cap and higher mark econ stations do, right?

EDIT 2:
Nevermind, forgot to multiply by two. When I do so, harvester ratios * 2 are only slightly less than econ ratios. Currently, harvester ratios * 2 are the same as econ ratios.

[Nodor]

Due to every player having a homeworld you must build that into the model.
Average of 4.25 resource nodes/planet.

Eh, but why? We know that homeworlds contain 12 resource nodes on average. And since keith used a "1 homeworld" for his basic colculation, why not do the same and go with a "1 homeworld with 12 resources".

It doesnt make the math that much harder.

If you had downloaded the model you might have  noticed that I bothered to take into consideration the home command stations, and a 12.5 (12 or 13) node home planet.   In other words, part of the baseline - and yes it wasn't a lot of effort.

Baseline uses logistic stations.

Once again, why? Why not the econ stations? Since our research only considers maximising economical output, we always use highest available mark of an eco station. A possibility of setting logistics and combat stations are just some points to be considered later.

I play with mostly logistic stations, ergo, that's my baseline. 

Finally, i dont see your charts incorporate efficiecy per K spent. I mean sure, if you only compare MKIII harvesters vs MKIII stations its fine, but to really check how it goes with MKII's, you need study K cost efficiecy.

I am assuming 9K spent on harvesters as compared to 9K spent on Econ 3 stations.  I'm assuming a 1:1 ratio of K cost.

[Nodor]

Since this thread proves that the average is 4, ill go recalculate a little and post some graphs.

Of course, if the average available resources on any given planet is 4, then players considering resources as a reason to pick planet A over planet B, will end up with captured planet set greater that has an average that is greater than 4.

How much greater is a judgement about the average player.

[Nodor]

Here's some numbers to chew on. 

At an assumed 4.25 nodes per captured planet, a player has 72 nodes at 15 planets.

At this point, the current M&C gross value per second is:

Logistics Stations; 2,774.
Econ 1's: 3,030   (9% Increase)
Econ 3: 5,169  (86% Increase over Logistics, 70% increase over Econ 1)
Harvester 3: 6,846  (146% Increase over Logistics, 125% Increase over Econ 1)
Econ 3 & Harvester 3: 8,985 (223% Increase over Logistics)

Ok, so if the Econ 3's are currently "balanced" and if the goal is to get parity at around planet 15, then the Harvester 3's produce an excess 1,677 M&C over 72 Harvesters - or 23.29 per harvester.

73 - 23 = 50.


At an assumed 4 nodes per planet, You get 68.5 nodes. (12.5 for the Homeworld)

.. repeat Math process, end up with a 1,492 gap/68.5 Nodes and a calculation of 73-22 = 51.


At an assumed 4.5 nodes per captured planet, you get 75.5 nodes.

.. repeat Math Process, end up with a gap of 1863/75.5 nodes and a calculation of 73-25=48.   


To get to a 44 value you need to assume 5.5 nodes per captured planet.

[_K_]

Ok, so if the Econ 3's are currently "balanced" and if the goal is to get parity at around planet 15

Yeah, 15 without any of the additional things factored in. Like the opportunity cost; once again, not having to use 12 systems for eco stations is kind of a big deal, the possibility of multi-HW, etc. So for a thing that has practically no significant drawbacks, it should be pushed way further. 44, or maybe 46 would be fine. Going above would probably convince me to stay with the MKIII's for any game where i intend to take more than 16 planets (which is every game).

[Nodor]

AI War is a game about acting and reacting - and if you are surrounded by 5 or more resource planets I want Harvesters to be better than Econ 3's.   If you are surrounded by 3 or less resource planets I want Econ 3's to be a viable way forward. 

In other words, I would like the optimal choice to vary from game to game based on your conquest plans.

If the issue is multi-homeworld, a homeworld harvester with a fixed value of 20 could be added to the game and then all the other harvesters could get the "non-homeworld" tag from Fallen Spire hubs. If you did this, the harvester number would be higher than 50.

[Eternaly_Lost]

AI War is a game about acting and reacting - and if you are surrounded by 5 or more resource planets I want Harvesters to be better than Econ 3's.   If you are surrounded by 3 or less resource planets I want Econ 3's to be a viable way forward. 

In other words, I would like the optimal choice to vary from game to game based on your conquest plans.

If the issue is multi-homeworld, a homeworld harvester with a fixed value of 20 could be added to the game and then all the other harvesters could get the "non-homeworld" tag from Fallen Spire hubs. If you did this, the harvester number would be higher than 50.

I really doubt that Multi-homeworld is much of an issue as people think, and such a drop as you are suggesting would really kill it. Sure, there is a lot of resources on your homeworlds when you have multi-homeworld. But you are forgetting three other facts. A) you Unit caps are increased by a lot, almost x the number of homeworlds, B) If you lose a single Homeworld you lose the game, and C) The AI gets reinforced as if there is that many players in the game. Meaning that if you play 8 homeworld games you get like x7.6 or so more AI units to deal with. I don't know the exact number other then it is less then a flat out multiplier.

Sure, building the same amount of ships as you do in 1 homeworld game take a lot less time as you have a lot more resources, but you are forgetting the fact that each of those ships has to fight almost 8x more AI ships, meaning you will need almost 8x the number of them in the most basic of math. Granted you could likely do with 2x in some battles and the same in others, but the point is you need the resources. My normal 4 homeworld games, even after the harvester patch I have to stop building everything but spire fleet and raid starships around the 2 or 3 city. Because they take so much resources even running Mk3 Harvesters and Mk3 Eco stations. More so when you throw in the cost of cities and the defenses to hold the AI back.

[Bognor]

The numbers I'd really be interested in are:

- At the mid-game (gotta pick an arbitrary time... say, when you've found an AI HW and are beginning the plan to take it down, something like that), how many planets do you have?  How many metal spots?  How many crystal spots?

- At the end-game (about to actually assault a HW; in theory that could be the halfway mark but double-kill seems pretty popular nowadays), how many planets, metal spots, and crystal spots?

On one hand, sometimes you've got to take planets with really low resource counts.  On the other, there does seem to be a correlation between ARS/AdvFact/etc planets and higher spot counts.

I did a count after the first game I won.  It was an 80 planet galaxy, single player, 9/9, simple map type, version 5.020.  The game ended just after 8 hours and I had 23 planets and a total of 110 resource nodes, including 13 from an AI HW.  I happened to have a save I could check from 4 hours 11 minutes in (~52% of final time), at which time I had 12 planets (52% of final number) and 66 resource nodes (60% of final number).