Growth Rate |
Thu, 12 February 2004 05:26 |
|
Captain Zed | | Crewman 3rd Class | Messages: 6
Registered: February 2003 Location: bedfordshire | |
|
Hi all
Does anyone know what formula is used in the growth rate of planets, how is the slow down in growth calculated as it nears 100% capacity
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Growth Rate |
Thu, 12 February 2004 18:51 |
|
|
Through the magic of trial and error I've found (as an easy rule of thumb) the optimal population growth (yeilds to absolute most people while leaving the most people on the surface) is (for AR starbases or for non HE 100% worlds) 349,900 people for non OBRM and 369,500 for OBRM races.. The best pop is really much closer to 35% than it is to 33%.. But the other brake point of 25% is pretty much right.. I just use the 35% though.. (I did one for AR Deathstars but it's a moot point as you can't set waypoint to 1,039,500 [or there abouts])
Formula's good too though.
Rule 1: "Pillage, THEN burn!"Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Growth Rate |
Fri, 13 February 2004 08:27 |
|
|
mazda wrote on Fri, 13 February 2004 07:48 | Unless you are shipping the pop to another equally good, close planet then I'd be tempted to stick at 33%.
You'll get more pop and more resources than 25%.
What significance is there in holding at 50% ?
M
|
50% hold is a spot where the population generated is not that much less than what you get at 33%, but you get to operate more factories and mines. Basically trading off some population generation for better resources and mineral generation. And those resources are generally doing research mid-game to get ready for a major warship build using the accumulating minerals.
It's also a fairly easy ballpark pop figure to keep a planet at.
And, if I have a few operational breeders I take my HW to 50% hold once it has a "green queue" with 33% capacity of population.
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Growth Rate |
Fri, 13 February 2004 11:01 |
|
Kotk | | Commander | Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
mazda wrote on Fri, 13 February 2004 14:48 | Unless you are shipping the pop to another equally good, close planet then I'd be tempted to stick at 33%.
You'll get more pop and more resources than 25%
| The difference is more obvious if we divide the people on 1/3 filled world into two parts:
Lets say 1/3 of 100% value world is 369,000
The 275,000 from it is the 25% of max that grow at your pop growth rate
The rest of them the 94,000 grow like at 30% world.
So they are the bad guys and they are logically better to carry away while you have something to colonize. Expansion is usually more important than having 90 more resources at HW.
Quote: |
What significance is there in holding at 50% ?
| Its later... when you are filling worlds to 100% (lets say because of good mineral conc) you are actually stopping them from growing at all.
Say you got pop for 2 planets and have 4 planets then what is better:
1) Have 3 worlds held at 1/3 and one filled to full.
2) Have 4 worlds at 50%
Occurs that second option is better. However letting them to grow over 50% (say to 60%) is no good, best overall growth is when you keep breeders at 50%.
[Updated on: Fri, 13 February 2004 11:04] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Growth Rate |
Fri, 13 February 2004 12:13 |
|
|
I got my figure not through equations but through actually zeroing in on the highest pop yield to the 100 pop.. In other words, I measured it using the game itself. Rather than follow some formula. Try it! You can get more pop at those values than you can at the traditional. I also measured till I couldn't even get 100 more. So that's how I got that.
Rule 1: "Pillage, THEN burn!"Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Growth Rate |
Sat, 14 February 2004 03:01 |
|
|
Fair enough... Though you do get more RU with 33%..
16% planets? Really? Explain.. Also.. How is this detail useful?
Rule 1: "Pillage, THEN burn!"Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Growth Rate |
Mon, 16 February 2004 06:46 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1209
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Kotk wrote on Sun, 15 February 2004 13:12 |
Actually i did not want to go so deep in math initially. What i wanted initially to say was that 33% cap give nothing in practice.
... snip test ...
So what we did ... we simply lost 2 years of time on "all" our colonies and that somehow shows in 2450 result as 3-4K less econ.
|
At first I couldn't believe, so I opened my spreadsheet and did some work. I assumed all planets 60% habitable, germ conc 50, 2 years of travel time. Despite the 33%-held HW breeded 60k pop for new colonies (57k with 25% hold), produced 5k more resources and 3000kT more minerals, the overall pop, resource output and sum of produced resources at turn 32 (when the last colonizer fleet from 33%-held landed) were much better with 25% hold. Please check the following table:
turn 32 data 33%held 25%held
-------------+---------+---------
sum pop 5.34M 6.2M
res output 12.4k 14.4k
sum res 102M 133M
Because of so surprisingly big difference I've double checked all calculations and couldn't find any errors. I've thought of making a testbed, but to get so many green planets I assumed I'd need a HE. But with the HE I've already proven the best results are obtained with breeders held at 25%. So other races can't be any different.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Mon, 16 February 2004 09:26] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Growth Rate |
Wed, 18 February 2004 05:17 |
|
mazda | | Lieutenant | Messages: 655
Registered: April 2003 Location: Reading, UK | |
|
Yes, thanks Kotk.
I did a small test last night where I took the HW up to 25%.
Then I colonised a nearby (50% hab) planet, filled it up to 20% capacity, and then let the HW grow past 35%.
I also repeated the test but took the HW up to 33%, colonised the nearby planet and then grew the HW past 35%.
In the first case (25% hold) I ended with more pop on both planets (!) and had more total resources over the exercise.
So, all in all, no obvious reason for holding at 33%.
M
[Updated on: Wed, 18 February 2004 05:19] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|