Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Factory and Mine compounding (How do you optimize resources over time?)
|
| Re: Factory and Mine compounding |
Wed, 06 November 2013 11:09   |
|
 XAPBob |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
Build factories until you have no more Germ, then build as many mines as possible that year.
Build as many factories as possible, and then as many mines as possible.
This can be done by autobuild orders, but you might waste a few resources on half building a factory, when you could have built a whole mine.
In general I *think* that half building a factory is better than building a mine UNTIL you are out of Germanium.
The reasoning is as follows:
Mines do not compound, Factories do.
You therefore want as many Factories as possible as fast as possible - mining can wait.
When you can't build any more factories you are out of Germanium, so build as many mines as possible.
Next year you will have some mined Germanium, which should be converted to Factories...
The tweaks come in 2 possible places:
- Whilst using your initial G you might end up being able to build n+0.5 Factories, Then you could instead build n Factories and 1 mine - I still think that the part factory is a better bet
- When you are G limited the above question might have a different answer, you might go for the additional mine in that year.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Factory and Mine compounding |
Wed, 06 November 2013 12:58 |
|
| XAPBob |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
The only better way is to tune your queies so you get a whole number of factories built each year, and I don't think that wins in terms of resoirce integral.
I'll pop a spreadsheet together some time...
if 10 facs give 12 res, then do 5 give 6?
if 10 give 12, then do 9 give 10?
[Updated on: Wed, 06 November 2013 13:07] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Factory and Mine compounding |
Wed, 06 November 2013 15:42 |
|
| skoormit |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
XAPBob wrote on Wed, 06 November 2013 11:58
if 10 facs give 12 res, then do 5 give 6?
if 10 give 12, then do 9 give 10?
Use 10 give 10 to make the math simpler. I'd prefer to solve the general case.
In my spreadsheets I use FLOOR(FLOOR(Factories,1)*ResourcesPerFactory,1).
In other words, truncate any partial factories, multiply by res/fac, then round down. Stars itself might round up or down, though; I'm not sure.
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Factory and Mine compounding |
Thu, 07 November 2013 04:57 |
|
| m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
skoormit wrote on Wed, 06 November 2013 18:01there's probably a better way to stay ahead of the germanium bottleneck.
Well, that would depend on what you want to optimize. 
If you want max Resources, definitely run, don't walk, towards G bottleneck. 
If you want to guarantee there's enough G available for ships, stations, et al, then things become more interesting, but that's Stars!. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme!  Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Factory and Mine compounding |
Fri, 08 November 2013 16:25 |
|
| skoormit |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
An interesting observation:
Given the parameters above (facs cost 10R and 3G and produce 1.2R, mines cost 3R and produce 1G, pop produces 500R and can operate 500 facs and 500 mines, 150G already on the surface), I have analyzed two different build paths:
Path A) Build as many complete facs as you can each year, starting with the 150kt of G on the surface. Each year, build mines only with leftover resources that can't be spent on facs.
Path B) Build 0 facs and 166+2/3 mines the first year. After that, follow the same guideline as in Path A (build facs until out of germ, leftover resources to mines).
In other words, the only real difference between the paths is what they do in year 1. Path A uses the 150kt of Germ to build 50 facs right away. Path B instead spends the first year building mines, then tries to catch up.
Both paths complete 500 facs and 500 mines in 9 years.
In year 9, path A has 111 resources leftover and 194kt germ to spare.
In year 9, path B has 69 resources leftover and 185kt germ to spare.
Path A is better in nearly every meaningful way, but the difference is much smaller than I would have guessed.
What about the middle way?
Path C) Build 25 facs and 83+1/3 mines in the first year. After that, follow the same guideline as in Path A (build facs until out of germ, leftover resources to mines).
Path C also completes 500f/500m in 9 years.
In year 9, path C has 106 resources leftover and 194kt germ to spare.
The difference between path A and path C is only 5 resources. Almost nothing.
[Updated on: Fri, 08 November 2013 16:25]
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Factory and Mine compounding |
Mon, 11 November 2013 04:47 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
skoormit wrote on Fri, 08 November 2013 22:25In year 9, path A has 111 resources leftover...
In year 9, path B has 69 resources leftover...
In other words, almost 38% less Resources. 
And don't forget the "resource integral", that is, the sum total of all available Resources for the time period considered. 
Quote:The difference between path A and path C is only 5 resources. Almost nothing.
Very interesting!  Still, this is Stars! where every little bit counts and even just 5 Res (4.5%) might be a significant handicap. 
Also, yours might be considered an extreme case, with Mines much cheaper than Facts. What happens when costs vary?
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Factory and Mine compounding |
Mon, 11 November 2013 07:39 |
|
| skoormit |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 11 November 2013 03:47And don't forget the "resource integral", that is, the sum total of all available Resources for the time period considered.
The resource integral is irrelevant in this case, since all resources are being used each year to build factories and mines. The only thing that matters is how much is leftover in the last year.
[Updated on: Mon, 11 November 2013 07:39]
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
| Re: Factory and Mine compounding |
Wed, 13 November 2013 04:55 |
|
| XAPBob |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
neilhoward wrote on Wed, 13 November 2013 08:54XAPBob wrote on Tue, 12 November 2013 10:52I'm putting together a quick and dirty, but surprisingly detailed, spreadsheet. Taking into account pop growth, mines and factories - with racial settings defined in a seperate sheet...
Then I can push a few algorithms for factory/mine/TF building...
Sweet. My mod of the old Posey pages is pretty lacking. I can't wait to testdrive a new spreadsheet. This is exactly the kind of gogetitness the community needs.
First Draft:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApuHYsdv1Z79dFk 3OFBiRXFYWVBFX2h1UTBtV1ZBQlE&usp=sharing
NOTES:
- Minerals do not deplete (yet), and there is no "Is Homeworld" setting.
- Partial factories and mines can be built, they will not be used in calculations regarding mining or resource generation
- Partial kT mined and resources generated are rounded down
- Pop growth is always rounded down to the nearest 100 (which seems to mean that at 18% growth on a 100% world you'll never actually fill it)
Targets:
- Mineral depletion
- TF (really hard to work out, so a way down the road)
Features:
Different sheets will hold different planetary queue algorithms (e.g. save 5 mines worth of resources from the factory queue when that many mines can be built) or build mines first (clearly not a good plan) or -F or whatever...
Existing sheet is the "standard" "Up to ... Factories, Up to ... Mines" (I've not specified the numbers, so it's unlimited at the moment)
[Updated on: Wed, 13 November 2013 05:01] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Factory and Mine compounding |
Thu, 14 November 2013 14:45 |
|
| skoormit |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
XAPBob wrote on Wed, 13 November 2013 03:55
First Draft:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApuHYsdv1Z79dFk 3OFBiRXFYWVBFX2h1UTBtV1ZBQlE&usp=sharing
Promising work.
I have a similar spreadsheet that I use for managing my empires. It's not perfect, but it does this stuff.
The logic in my worksheet template assumes the building priority is the construction queue, then terraforming, then factories, then mines, but it is easy to override that logic in any given year. And of course I often zero out the terraforming for a while on a newly colonized planet.
I'm not sure the mineral concentration depletion will be easily solvable in google. You have to keep track of how many kt have been mined of each mineral since the last time the concentration dropped for that mineral. It gets tricky to handle the case when the mining rate is high enough to drop the concentration more than one point in a year. I solved it by adding a sheet with a chart of how many minerals are available at each concentration. My planet sheet uses a lookup on that chart, and also uses array formulas to calculate the sums. I don't know if a Google spreadsheet can do those things, but you can probably use index(match()) to perform a lookup, and you can acheive the result of an array formula just by adding a column that performs whatever aggregation function you are using.
Oh, a minor note: pop growth happens after production, so you need to point your pop growth formula to the following year's planet value, to benefit from any terraforming you perform in the current year.
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 03 17:12:04 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
