Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » IS » Resource integral hold for IS?
Resource integral hold for IS? Wed, 26 September 2012 10:53 Go to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
I know that the hold to maximise resource integral on filling to 100% with any other race is 48%, but has anyone worked out what it comes to for resource integral filling with IS, accounting for freighter growth?

I've got the feeling that unlike for a normal race, the result's going to depend on hab value (since ground growth vs. freighter growth changes with hab) but I'd like to get a feel for the ballpark.

(I wish my CAS calculator still worked. Then I could do all of this trivially by myself.)


[Updated on: Wed, 26 September 2012 11:01]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Sun, 30 September 2012 06:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neilhoward

 
Commander

Messages: 1110
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023
How do you come to 48%?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Sun, 30 September 2012 07:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
neilhoward wrote on Sun, 30 September 2012 20:01
How do you come to 48%?


Well, I didn't do that particular calculation myself.

The thing you need to minimise is resource loss, which is given by:

integral((max resources - current resources) over the time from 33% to given hold) + (max resources - hold resources)(time to fill at given hold).

The first-order approximation of (max resources - hold resources)(time to fill from 33% to 100%) gives an answer of exactly 1/2 (I have done that calculation), but that is an approximation.

(This doesn't work in the IS case because of freighter growth and the possibility of overpop.)


[Updated on: Sun, 30 September 2012 07:07]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Mon, 01 October 2012 13:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ccmaster is currently offline ccmaster

 
Lt. Commander
Dueling Club Administrator

Messages: 909
Registered: November 2002
Location: Germany

Hi ,

overpop is possible also for other races.

Also it would always depend on how many Planets you own and how big your univers is (with breeders).

If I play IS i normaly look how moch grow the Planets have if it is lesser then 50% of my grow i load them up to maximize popgrow. Some times I change this to build out some Planets a little bit faster for Resources for research. But i think it is different to say you should take 48% Kap as for a 40 % Planet the Freigthers would be better anyway ... so I would say you have to do it idividual for your empire/Planets.


ccmaster

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Mon, 01 October 2012 21:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
Well, I know that the way to maximise pop-growth is to always overflow to 1/4 until you've got only 100 left holding the planet, then let it overflow up to 1/3 from that 100pop, then create more space in the freighters so that it keeps overflowing to 1/3 until you have enough to fill it. But I don't know whether that maximises resource integral or not.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Tue, 02 October 2012 00:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
ccmaster wrote on Tue, 02 October 2012 03:43
Hi ,

overpop is possible also for other races.


Only a -f HE has enough growth to pull that off profitably, and even then, not to 300%.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Tue, 02 October 2012 18:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joseph is currently offline joseph

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol
If you look at the thread http://starsautohost.org/sahforum2/index.php?t=msg&th=35 73&start=0&rid=256
You will see I posted about the best resource integral for an -f IS
Most of the same applies to a factory one.

Its a lot more complicated than for a standard race.



Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Tue, 02 October 2012 21:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
joseph wrote on Wed, 03 October 2012 08:16
If you look at the thread http://starsautohost.org/sahforum2/index.php?t=msg&th=35 73&start=0&rid=256
You will see I posted about the best resource integral for an -f IS
Most of the same applies to a factory one.

Its a lot more complicated than for a standard race.


Yes, I realised that the optimum strategy is a moving hold rather than a static hold. I'm not sure that your calculations are sound, though. Since pop-growth is maximised when at 25% for an IS, shouldn't the moving hold start there and not at 33%?

Assuming you have OBRM, 20% growth, and 366700 pop:

Having it all on the ground (33.3%) would give a growth of (64/81)*20% = 57900 pop growth
Having it set to overflow to 25% (ie, 264800 on the ground and 101900 in orbit with the rest of the freighter filled with boranium) would give a growth of 10200 in orbit (overflowing onto the ground to give 275000) and then 55000 growth on the ground, for a total pop growth of 65200.

Since the general idea of resource integral for IS is to start out by favouring pop and move to favouring resources once the orgy's going, shouldn't you hence start putting pop in orbit at 25%?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Fri, 05 October 2012 01:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joseph is currently offline joseph

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol
See this graph of total resources gained over time 25% Vs 33% hold
[img] https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B639-f4MLsHEeFppZ1QtWjJMc3c[/img]
As you can see the total resources are virtually the same at the end of the time period.
What is better about the 33% is that (prior to filling to 100% when it has sufficient pop in orbit) it gets more resources earlier.

Please note this is not the complete picture because it assumes you treat each world as an individual and dont move pop around (more on this later)



Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Fri, 05 October 2012 02:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
joseph wrote on Fri, 05 October 2012 15:29
See this graph of total resources gained over time 25% Vs 33% hold
[img][url=[url= https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B639-f4MLsHEeFppZ1QtWjJMc3c] https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B639-f4MLsHEeFppZ1QtWjJMc3c[/url]] [url= https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B639-f4MLsHEeFppZ1QtWjJMc3c] https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B639-f4MLsHEeFppZ1QtWjJMc3c[/url][/url][/img]
As you can see the total resources are virtually the same at the end of the time period.
What is better about the 33% is that (prior to filling to 100% when it has sufficient pop in orbit) it gets more resources earlier.

Please note this is not the complete picture because it assumes you treat each world as an individual and dont move pop around (more on this later)


But both of those are static holds. Didn't we just agree that moving holds are better for IS? I meant that the moving hold should start at 25%.


[Updated on: Fri, 05 October 2012 02:14]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Sat, 06 October 2012 16:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joseph is currently offline joseph

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol
Quote:
not the complete picture

If you want a brief summary in 3 lines

When at 25% on all decent greens, putting pop in orbit will ensure maximum growth of pop
From this point on putting any additional pop on planets will be gaining resources at the cost of growth
As the percentage of your pop in orbit gets larger it becomes increasingly beneficial to sacrifice growth for resources


The reason I posted the graph was to illustrate that in the growth Vs resources trade off it is worth starting your moving hold higher than 25% pop on good worlds
and that the start of the moving hold varies based on the % hab of the world



Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Sat, 13 October 2012 20:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Braindead is currently offline Braindead

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 186
Registered: April 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Maximizing cumulative resources over N turns is not a trivial calculation. The following factors have major contribution to this:
* planet value
* -f vs +f race
* for a +f race, concentration of G, cost of factories and efficiency of mines/factories/pop. Oftentimes, you can get way more resources by dumping a freighter of G on the planet than by optimizing pop growth.
* ships available at the planet (if you have 500k pop and only one privateer, you can't do much. Same if you have a super freighter and 400k pop.)
* overall minerals and resources that you have - can you afford to build more freighters for colonization/distribution of minerals or do you need to use all of your existing ships for this?
* how far into the future are you looking
* number of neighboring planets (it's not practical to only focus on one planet since in a game you would want to optimize your total resources)

In my opinion, optimizing for maximum resources over time is a theoretical exercise, which doesn't have too much application in real games. I've played IS a lot and my rule of thumb these days is to put enough people on the ground to keep up with tech/building and react to what's happening in the game (is anyone sending a huge fleet after you?). The rest is focusing on maximizing population growth. Having hordes of pop available at your disposal will enable you to colonize more planets faster, use your colonists instead of bombers and overall will give you way more benefits than having optimum resource growth. Plus, it will save you a lot of time since you don't need to do silly calculations.

-braindead

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Sun, 14 October 2012 15:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joseph is currently offline joseph

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol
If you look at this spreadsheet (apologies its a bit of a mess https:// docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq39-f4MLsHEdGg4UlZnVU9 4dmhCbHFabHBQZ1l1NEE)
You will see on the sheet1 the bottom right is "Growth lost Vs resources gained"
As we all know best growth is 25% hold and anything else in orbit
This shows you (for -f) where you get the best return in resources when sacrificing growth.
It turns out the best plan is to fill to 30% hold from the best hab (ie 100%) down.
When you are reaching the stage where all your worlds are at 30% hold then start filling to 33% (again down from the top).

At this point it flips and if you want the best return of resources for lost growth - you start filling to 50% from the bottom up!
Also you dont fill up to 50% hold all the way up
Once all your worlds that are 50% hab or lower are at 50% hold then it is a better return to fill the below 50% hab worlds all the way up to 100% hold (again starting at the bottom)

So in conclusion
Best growth = 25% hold
Best resources over time = 33% hold (possibly putting a bit in orbit while moving from 25-33%)
IF you need resources earlier = hold at 33% on your best worlds and fill your smallest

If you add factories into the mix it gets a bit more complicated (should aim to fill the worst Hab world that has green production queues)

And obviously in a real game you wont get anywhere near managing this level of perfect pop/resource control, but the theory should help you make informed decisions and so you will only deviate from optimal decisions when it is strategically necessary



Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Mon, 07 August 2017 04:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
Update: I solved for the optimal holds as a function of planet habitability, pop efficiency, factory settings, population growth rate, and pop available (yes, all of them are relevant). I got working formulae for the case where the optimal hold is between 0 and 25% of capacity, and for the case where the optimal hold is between 100% and 300%.

The case where the hold is between 25% and 100% is much, much harder; it's a casus irreducibilis cubic over most of the practical cases, with three real solutions of which only one is the desired hold (the others, TTBOMK, represent a local worst-case and a local best-case that's worse than the actual best-case). As such, I do not believe a general algebraic formula is very useful in this case; your best bet if you really want to wring out the absolute max is to graph (growth)/(resources lost) vs. hold for specific values of all those parameters and find the maximum numerically. Assuming, of course, that I didn't bugger up the arithmetic somewhere, which is unfortunately a distinct possibility when trying to wrestle with cubics.

So much for my vaunted aptitude with algebra and calculus. Rolling Eyes

The one exact solution I've found that's practically useful (i.e. doesn't require adjusting holds every turn to use) is the first case, between 0 and 25%. It turns out that it's always better to have either a "zero hold" (100 colonists kept on the planet as a flagpost + setting the overflow) or a 25% hold (setting the overflow such that the colonists on planet + overflow = 25%) than anywhere in-between (of course, these holds converge when the overflow becomes large). The changeover point is when

pop = (1 - hab * (2 - PGR)) * (2 * PE + FE)/(PE + FE)

where

pop = the amount of population you have at the world (in freighters and on the ground), expressed as a multiple of the world's maxpop (so 550,000 pop on/around a 50% planet with OBRM = 1)

hab = the planet's habitability, expressed as a fraction (so 25% hab = 0.25)

PGR = your growth rate, expressed as a frac
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: Resource integral hold for IS? Wed, 09 August 2017 08:11 Go to previous message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
Okay, after spreadsheeting it I've got a fairly good idea of what the solution looks like on greens.

Phase 1: 0% hold (100 colonists on the planet, but overflowing as normal)
Phase 2: 25% hold (i.e. colonists on planet + overflow growth = 25%)
Phase 3: gradually creeping up from 25% to 50%
Phase 4: 100% hold (yes, there's another discontinuity)
Phase 5: gradually creeping up from 100% to 300%, ending at the final 300% hold

Phase 1 only takes place on low-hab planets (1-55% for the usual 19-20% growth), as the formula from my last post implies. High hab also extends phase 3 substantially in both directions, which is somewhat intuitive as this is the phase where planetary growth is highest.

Having factories accelerates the progression through to phase 4, since 300% hold doesn't boost factories and as such 100% hold is prioritised. For factoryless races the holds are surprisingly low - it's well past 200% population available before a -f goes to phase 4, and on low-hab planets even the 25% hold might be delayed until there's 100%+ available.

Phase 5 is controlled entirely by growth rate; factory settings and hab are irrelevant, as the planet is already 100% full. Phase 5 starts when:

pop = 2.92 + 0.16/PGR

and of course finishes at:

pop = 2.76 + 0.48/PGR (this being the amount of pop needed to sustain 300% hold)

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: How big?
Next Topic: Croby FF vs Wolv CC
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Dec 18 09:42:47 EST 2017