Resource Growth - Building priority |
Mon, 04 February 2008 17:25 |
|
maxfra | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 32
Registered: February 2007 | |
|
To anchieve the maximum resources output is it better:
1) to build first as many facts (and mines needed to get germ) as possible and terraform the planet only when facts present are the facts usable for current pop present on planet
2) to terraform as much as possible first and then build facts (and mines).
What would be a better strategy?
Thanks.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Resource Growth - Building priority |
Tue, 05 February 2008 11:55 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Another reason not to:
- A border world with risk of being invaded by an enemy with different habs. Terra 1st so you get most benefits and invaders have to terra in a different direction and get as little of your infrastructure as possible.
You should testbed your races on this kind of thing anyway. Different PGR, hab schemes (such as 1-i, 2-narrow) factory and mine costs, and Terra costs, will make some production Qs achieve better RoI than others, while most tweaks to the prodQ will result in negligible differences in results.
Also, in some (but not all) cases, logistics (pop and/or extra Germ) will matter, so playstyle makes a difference too.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Resource Growth - Building priority |
Tue, 05 February 2008 22:03 |
|
|
If you have no narrow habs you will be better off, in most cases, building factories first until you have developed about 300 resources & then placing 1% Max. terra at the top of your queue + when you reach 500 res put all your res into terra except the first 300.
If you have TT then you may want to start terraforming earlier.
If you have a narrow band then, depending on your overall hab settings, you could get 4+% better planet value per click when terraforming the narrow band so you may be better off terraforming that band a lot earlier (generally that's what will be terraformed first tho not always).
This applies only to (eventually) big greens.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Resource Growth - Building priority |
Thu, 07 February 2008 12:32 |
|
Soobie | | Officer Cadet 3rd Year | Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007 Location: Australia | |
|
I'm probably wrong, but as I read those last few posts, keep in mind that the projected RoI given was on a -f/pop-only basis and was apart from any 'factory' returns.
I'd suggest that, depending on fac settings (particularly eff) and # of facs already in production, RoI for terra would be better than 7~10 years, particularly where we are talking about offtake to a backfilled, fully industrialised non-breeder that is increasing capacity.
Cheers
S.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Resource Growth - Building priority |
Wed, 13 February 2008 18:05 |
|
|
Also... 1020 fac -> 1020 mine -> 10 terra is almost always not optimal. It doesn't take into account that your worlds is NOT isolated - it's part of an empire.
Better is 1020 fac -> 10 terra -> 1020 mine... You should be importing your germanium while a world is ramping up. And as mentioned, sometimes doing terra is more profitable that factories.
[Updated on: Wed, 13 February 2008 18:06] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|