Eagle of Fire wrote on Sun, 20 March 2011 08:05

Are you just bent on contradicting me for no reason? What I just said is like -F 101...

Nope. It would be better, once 25% is achieved, to grow to 48% while waiting to fill.

Having the same amount of pop grown per year as at 25% is not relevant to anything. It is merely a curiosity.

nmid wrote on Sun, 20 March 2011 08:36

my 2 most devious foes, on the forum, POPCORN !!! Btw, on a serious note, for non -f races, spreading the 42% as 25% + balance on another world, might be better.. but for a -f, 42% is a milestone to be achieved.

Us two, devious?

Well, Eagle may be, but I'm certainly not.

However...

25% hold is the point at which pop growth becomes suboptimal, so it's logical.

33% hold is the point at which differential pop growth becomes negative, so it's logical.

48% hold is the point at which the resource integral to fill to 100% is maximised, so it's logical.

What does 42% hold do that one of these doesn't do better?

Just don't mention IS. Trying to work anything out about that PRT makes my head hurt.

[Updated on: Sun, 20 March 2011 06:02]

Report message to a moderator

neilhoward wrote on Sun, 20 March 2011 11:42

Pop growth and percent pop growth are very different. A standard 20% MPGR race without OBRM on a 100% planet gets 50k new pop at 42% capacity. The same race gets 50k pop growth on that planet with 25% capacity, and the difference of 170k population on a second planet will grow up to an extra 34k colonists per year. Since -f rely entirely on population for resources, this is a much bigger matter for them. That is almost a 31% difference in annual resource growth for the initial 420,000 population. Eagle of Fire wrote on Sat, 19 March 2011 19:22 Why are we arguing about this again? Because you insisted.

But neil, you are talking mathematically.
In real game situations, what are the chances of getting a similar 100% second world?
It's better to get to 42% on the HW, simply because
A> The balance 170k would be on a 2-year-far world is 50%-70% green.
B> The time taken to get the 170k to the other world.

Maintaining a balance
I would maximise my current resources, while keeping my growth at it's "practically possible" maximum..
After I've taken all 2-year-far worlds to 25%, I would get my HW to 42% and then restart exporting my colonists further away.

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Sun, 20 March 2011 15:31

nmid wrote on Sun, 20 March 2011 08:36 my 2 most devious foes, on the forum, POPCORN !!! Us two, devious? Well, Eagle may be, but I'm certainly not. However... 25% hold is the point at which pop growth becomes suboptimal, so it's logical. 33% hold is the point at which differential pop growth becomes negative, so it's logical. 48% hold is the point at which the resource integral to fill to 100% is maximised, so it's logical. What does 42% hold do that one of these doesn't do better? Just don't mention IS. Trying to work anything out about that PRT makes my head hurt.

Indeed ... and indeed. I was holding my tongue .

However...
42% is just something that I would achieve, for reasons stated in my last.
Practical game scenario, for maximising growth and resource generation at the same time.
Does it work in-game? I think so.. but I'm sure you'll clarify if it works mathematically.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Sun, 20 March 2011 11:08

Devious?

It could be interpreted as artful or calculating.

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 00:35

Indeed ... and indeed. I was holding my tongue . However... 42% is just something that I would achieve, for reasons stated in my last. Practical game scenario, for maximising growth and resource generation at the same time. Does it work in-game? I think so.. but I'm sure you'll clarify if it works mathematically.

25% -> carry pop to greens of >33% hab

33% -> carry pop everywhere (technically the hold's somewhere in the middle for the <33% greens, but it's 33% for yellows/reds)

48% -> hold pop in orbit to fill faster (this maximises the total amount of resources you get, so it's strictly better than 42% for that purpose)

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 07:12

Eagle of Fire wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 05:08 Devious? Since when stating facts is being devious? It's not. He's calling you devious for other reasons. Quote: I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that but once I translate this word in French it turns out to be quite the insult... Quebecois? Well, it's not entirely an insult, but nor is it something most would like said about them. It's similar to "sly" or "cunning".

My attempt at light banter failed with Eagle.. so I didn't really know what to say after that.
Though, he really isn't as white as snow, as he feels...

gah... I just can't stop my fingers :@

ps - 2 days/10 days/1year/26 years.. and discussions still on hold, if you needed an indication of what I'm talking about

[Updated on: Sun, 20 March 2011 23:38]

Report message to a moderator

Nmid, you are getting annoying bringing in game subjects trying to force me to get back on you. Everything I had to say to you so far have been said and if you want to taunt me then please use the dedicated Fledging Admirals forum for that...

Quote:

Quebecois? Well, it's not entirely an insult, but nor is it something most would like said about them. It's similar to "sly" or "cunning".

Québéquois indeed.

But I still don't understand. Sly or cunning are compliments as far as I can tell while devious seem to have an immediate negative tone. Very negative.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator