|
| Re: Does it cost to change research field? |
Mon, 30 July 2007 23:11   |
|
|
|
Hi ,
to change the research cost nothing , the only think you have to look for is that your need moreResources for a tech field when you have more tech level .
What means that if you need at the moment 4000 and reach a tech in kon it will grow , and depend on the tech you have .
But the Kost will always be the same so if noone answere make a test where you research all the techs you have now and look how many resources you have to pay more when you reach 1 more level in kon .
Maybe this could also help :
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/craebild/hab_range_tool/habcalc.h tml
ccmaster
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does it cost to change research field? |
Tue, 31 July 2007 00:16 |
|
|
|
Yes, ccmaster is correct.
The cost of each level costs an amount depending on the tech level in that field (related to fibonacci sequence IIRC) plus a modifier according to the total number of levels you have (summed across *all* fields.) The modifier is 10 times the total number of levels.
The total is then modified by the field cost (cheap 0.5, normal 1.0, expensive 1.75)
So...
Supposing I am researching con, 100 resources to go to get the next level. Let's also suppose my next level of prop also shows as 100 resources to go. Let's say con is cheap, and prop is expensive. I decide to research con and choose 'switch to prop'.
To get my level of prop, I will need to invest 218 resources - 100 for the con, then 100+17.5 for the prop, since the cost of the prop will go up after I complete the con.
I can save resources, by doing my research the other way around. If I research prop with 'switch to con', then I'll only need to spend 205 resources - 100 for the prop, then 100+5 for the con, since the modifier there is less because I have the field cheap.
If I wanted to get two levels in the follow on field, I'd need to add the modifier twice - once for each level. For example, if grabbing 2 levels of prop had shown in the research dialog as costing 500 resources, then to grab these after grabbing con, you'd need to invest a total of 100+500+17.5+17.5 = 635. I'd actually invest 636 here, to be safe, since I haven't bothered to research when Stars! charges 17 and when it charges 18 for this...
An interesting corollary to this, is that if I have several non-urgent research fields I need to get, but I don't care the order I get them... Then it's better to research the expensive ones first and the cheap ones last, since the extra incremental cost is less on the cheap fields. Of course, if you don't need to worry what order your techs come in, you probably don't care about about trying to save such a small amount of resources 
[Updated on: Tue, 31 July 2007 00:26] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does it cost to change research field? |
Tue, 31 July 2007 10:03 |
|
|
|
Right.
The amount already spent in each field is a seperate total, and nothing can degrade it. It can just look that way, because of the above.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does it cost to change research field? |
Sat, 11 August 2007 20:01 |
|
|
|
As previously stated, there is no *direct* cost of switching research fields.
There is, however, the opportunity cost of resources invested in partially completed fields, that yield no return on the investment.
I always try to just complete my existing field, and then switch to the new field I want to complete. If possible, I try and do this in one turn, so I have no "non-working" resources.
Of course, emergencies, and possible late game expensive tech fields may require more than one turn per level, may result in non-working invested resources. Also, when completing multiple levels in a field, some resources may be invested in excess of *exactly* what is needed.
But the general theme of trying to end your turn with as many of your resources working as possible, can yield being ahead by a turn or so every 10 or 20 years.
Areas to apply this concept include:
1. research
2. ship building
3. terraforming.
4. facility building
for example, with 1030 resources:
A. Wrong way:
Turn 1: Complete a 700 resource ship, and partially complete the 2nd ship at 330 resources
Turn 2: Finish the 2nd ship at 370 resources, and do 6 units of terraforming. Start a 7th unit of terraforming.
B. Right way:
Turn 1: Complete a 700 resource ship, 3 units of terraforming and 10 mines.
Turn 2: Build a 700 resource ship, do 3 units of terraforming, and build another 10 mines
As you can see, the right way shifts 3 units of terraforming ahead, and builds a few mines (assuming they were needed)
This micromanagement is quite fun in the 1st few years where it pays the biggest dividends. But some macro parts of it, should be utilized throughout the game.
Economy wins wars.
edit: typos and minor number changes to make the example clearer.
naz
[Updated on: Sat, 11 August 2007 20:07] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does it cost to change research field? |
Sun, 12 August 2007 10:11 |
|
|
|
| bigcanuknaz wrote on Sun, 12 August 2007 02:01 |
Economy wins wars.
naz
|
Your Economy don't win wars your MINERALS do this .
ccmaster
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does it cost to change research field? |
Tue, 14 August 2007 23:44 |
|
|
|
Yup, minerals undersupplied with resource+technology are about as useless as resource+technology is when undersupplied with minerals.
They are codependent.
As MA pointed out, it's all just different parts of the economy. The economy makes ships. The ships fight wars.
I suspect the point that ccmaster was trying to highlight for us, is that it's easy to neglect your mineral supply when designing your race, or when playing it, in the fever to get the biggest resource count and the highest tech. That's why I feel the testbed style of getting X of a certain ship design by Y year has more value than just getting X resources by Y year. I'm too lazy to do either though >_>
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
)
