| UR scrapping with colonisation |
Sat, 18 November 2006 22:55  |
|
|
|
hmmm looking into the effects of UR and noticed an anomaly...
When scrapping the year after colonising(eg immediately scapping the transport ships used to carry the additional pop) you get more resources recovered than the known formula says.
Scrapping a teamster should have netted 9 res not 16
Scrapping an armed probe later recoveres the expected 12 res
Also the number of resources spent that year does not add up when compared to the resources generated from planets+scrapping
standard JOAT w/UR+OBRM
2400:
send santa maria to colonise taco
send teamster with pop for taco
2401:
offload pop at taco and scrap teamster
scrap stalwart defender at HW
2402:
send armed probe to taco
2403:
scrap armed probe
Stalwart Defender scrapped at HW:
recovered: 74kt mins 46 resources
HW before(2401): 82 of 97
HW after(2402): 94 of 111
SD costs: 48/12/24/89 = 84/89
(97*89=8633)/(97+89=186)=46.4
Teamster scrapped at Taco:
recovered: 24kt mins 16 resources
Taco before(2401): 20 of 23
Taco after(2402): 20 of 24
Teamster costs: 34/0/22/62 = 56/62
(16*23=368)/(16+23=39)=9.4
Armed Probe scrapped at Taco:
recovered: 11kt mins 12 resources
Taco before(2403): 22 of 26
Taco after(2404): 24 of 28
Armed Probe costs: 12/8/7/24 = 27/24
(27*24=648)/(27+24=51)=12.7
Scorpius Taco
year pop res Iron Bor Ger pop res Iron Bor Ger res spent
2400 76500 86 766 1066 1071 0 0 0 0 0
2401 87900 97 776 1076 1081 23500 23 18 6 17 86
2402 101100 111 829 1096 1112 24900 24 33 6 26 182
2403 116300 126 839 1106 1122 26500 26 135
2404 133700 143 849 1116 1132 28200 28 38 9 29 164
[Updated on: Sat, 18 November 2006 23:16] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: UR scrapping with colonisation |
Sat, 18 November 2006 23:04  |
|
|
|
There's an error somewhere in the math
How is the resources spent column 517 in 2404 when there is only 171 resources from both planets?
Now, here's the description from the help file:
| Quote: |
Races with the Ultimate Recycling trait recover 90% of the minerals and 70% of the resources when scrapping at a starbase. Scrapping at a planet gives 45% of the minerals and 35% of the resources.
These resources are not strictly additive. The number a planet receives is determined by the formula:
(Current_production x Extra_resources) /
(Current_production + Extra_resources
|
Based on this, the calculation for how many resources will be gained from the scrapping should look something like this for the teamster at Taco in 2401:
(23 x (62 x .35)) / (23 + (62 x .35))
(23 x 21.7) / (23 + 21.7) = 11.165
So, I would have expected 11 resources but not 16
Additionally, 56 x .45 is 25.2 so, Taco should have received 25kt of minerals not 24kt. Most likely, the help file is incorrect.
All the recovered mineral counts are off by 1 or 2% 88-89% at HW and 43-44% at Taco.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Sat, 18 November 2006 23:48]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: UR scrapping with colonisation |
Sat, 18 November 2006 23:39 |
|
|
|
Has anybody ever used UR?
Possibly, the resource costs for the free ships supplied to a race at game start are not calculated correctly. I would build some ships, do the scrapping and see what happens.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Sat, 18 November 2006 23:55]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: UR scrapping with colonisation |
Mon, 27 November 2006 09:11 |
|
| Alter Ego |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 283
Registered: November 2002
Location: Germany | |
|
Hi!
| Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 19 November 2006 05:39 |
Has anybody ever used UR?
|
I think Robert played with that SRT...
Regards
AE
[Updated on: Mon, 27 November 2006 09:12]
War does not determine who is right. Just who is left.
Bertrand Russell
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: UR scrapping with colonisation |
Mon, 27 November 2006 23:32 |
|
|
|
You know what?...its all bollocks... the mistake is here:
Teamster scrapped at Taco:
recovered: 24kt mins 16 resources
Taco before(2401): 20 of 23
Taco after(2402): 20 of 24
Teamster costs: 34/0/22/62 = 56/62
(16*23=368)/(16+23=39)=9.4
this should read:
(62*23=1426)/(62+23=85)=16.8
However I'm still curious about the formulas for res recovered at a SB and mins recovered with and without at SB. I only recall the one formula floating around...possibly the res recovered with a SB is simply doubled...easily testable.
[Updated on: Mon, 27 November 2006 23:33] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: UR scrapping with colonisation |
Mon, 27 November 2006 23:46 |
|
|
|
Theoretically, the resources recovered at a starbase should be simply doubled.
The help file states:
| Quote: |
Races with the Ultimate Recycling trait recover 90% of the minerals and 70% of the resources when scrapping at a starbase. Scrapping at a planet gives 45% of the minerals and 35% of the resources.
|
However, the reference to the formula used in calculating how many resources a scrapped fleet provides is not changed for planets with starbases in the help file. The formula may remain a constant regardless of whether there is a starbase or not.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Another UR Queston |
Mon, 06 August 2007 19:19 |
|
|
|
The help file states:
| Quote: |
Races with the Ultimate Recycling trait recover 90% of the minerals and 70% of the resources when scrapping at a starbase. Scrapping at a planet gives 45% of the minerals and 35% of the resources.
|
In a game in which I had UR I scrapped same ships in the same turn at two different planets. One at a Space Dock and the other at Space Station. Both scrapped ships yielded the same minerals but different resources.
The Space dock returned 77% of the resources and the starbase 92% of the resources.
I don't normally play with UR but this was a big surprise. This is not at all like the formula. Any comments?
The Universe is usually not fair.
That would be too easy.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another UR Queston |
Mon, 06 August 2007 22:29 |
|
|
|
| DenHam wrote on Tue, 07 August 2007 09:19 |
I don't normally play with UR but this was a big surprise. This is not at all like the formula. Any comments?
|
The information you quoted, didn't actually include the formula itself.
| Quote: |
These resources are not strictly additive. The number a planet receives is determined by the formula:
(Current_production x Extra_resources) /
(Current_production + Extra_resources
|
Do your results make sense with this in mind? If one world has a starbase, the other a space dock, then I'm guessing the first planet has more base resources than the other. This could explain the discrepancy very easily. Also if you scrapped different amounts of ships at each.
[Updated on: Mon, 06 August 2007 22:31] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another UR Queston |
Tue, 07 August 2007 00:09 |
|
|
|
OK ... My mistake was to assume the 70% was to be used in the formula, but you have to completely discard the 70%. If you take 100% of the resources to produce as the extra resources and plug it in the formula, then it works.
Also, the formula is a bit mislabelled which is confusing. More correct is the following for one scrapped ship:
Incremental_Resources = (Current_Production x Resource_Cost) / (Current_Production + Resource_Cost)
Where Resource Cost is 100% of the current resource cost of the ship being scrapped.
Interesting, this is the same formula you use for determining the total resistance when putting two resistors in parellel in a circuit. I learned it as
1/Rt = 1/Ra + 1/Rb
which can be reduced to be:
Rt = Ra * Rb / (Ra + Rb)
The Universe is usually not fair.
That would be too easy.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| UR with BET |
Tue, 20 November 2012 22:39 |
|
 Marduk |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
This is the newest related thread I could find... with the Homeless game starting people off with a lot of ships, I wondered if UR would be worthwhile. I then wondered if UR with BET would be twice as worthwhile. After a lot of looking, I found a reference to transferred ships counting for only 30% of the usual resources with UR - but I didn't find anything about combining BET with UR so I did some testing.
BET does not affect the resources gained from scrapping, no matter if the ship is a gift, another race is scraping it at your system, or you are scraping one of your own ships. Well, that's not entirely true. The improved miniaturization reduces the amount of resources you get from scraping by reducing costs. But the double-cost for bleeding edge isn't counted. So if you build a BET ship and then scrap it (while it is still bleeding edge), you are losing a lot more than normal.
I also found that the 30% figure for transferred ships isn't quite right. Instead of the formula using 30% of the ship cost, it uses the full normal cost and you get 30% of the value the formula comes up with (which is slightly worse).
One out of five dentists recommends occasional random executions to keep the peasants cowed and servile.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: UR scrapping with colonisation |
Wed, 21 November 2012 15:11 |
|
|
|
Kotk wrote on Mon, 27 November 2006 07:28I have also used UR sometimes. UR has quite large RW cost but i often use odd race designs anyway.
Good side of UR is the possibility to use temporarily efficent designs without worrying too lot that you got to scrap them back soon. [img=images/smiley_icons/icon_wink.gif]Wink[/img] 16 designs maximum limits such strategy however. [img=images/smiley_icons/icon_confused.gif]Confused[/img]
I think UR is quite nice for a HP race with nice starting ships (IT, JoaT, +ARM) because you can scrap them to get a nice boost to your factory curve. It's not as efficient immediately as leaving the points over for factories, but gives more long-term benefit.
[Updated on: Wed, 21 November 2012 15:11] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
16 designs maximum limits such strategy however. 
