Output of partially manned building groups

[Gowron]

...and the last one

Now just the BoP thread, and even Annorax would be proud ^^

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ever wondered how unused farms/factories etc. can decrease the output of the buildings (of the same type) which you actually use?

Well, here's why:
The manning ratio of a building group can only assume values that are whole-number multiples of 0.01. The ratio is rounded down to the next multiple of 0.01 if necessary.

More exactly, it can only assume values that are whole-number multiples of the reciprocal of the value that is stored at position 0x1766a4 in trek.exe. That value is 100 by default, thus its reciprocal value is 0.01.


Example #1:
You have 7 farms in your system, each with an output of 100 food. 6 of the are manned. The manning ration is 6/7 (obviously). Normally you would expect a total output of 600 food.
But since 6/7 is not a multiple of 0.01, it's rounded down to 0.85, resulting in a food output of 595.


Example #2:
You have 7 power plants with an output of 50 energy each (350 energy in total). Your energy-consuming structures need exactly 350 energy.
If you were to build another power plant, you'd have 8 in total, but you'd only get
0.87 * 400 = 348 energy
with 7 of them being manned.
That would not be wise.

On the other hand, you can sometimes increase your output by scrapping unused buildings. It's not much, but in some cases it means that you need one less food/energy worker.


-------------------------------------------


Note: You might be considering increasing the value at 0x1766a4, but that would cause significant changes to the game, because that value is an important multiplier:
http://armadafleetcommand.com/onscreen/ ... topic&t=10

[toroca]

Ah, so there is a point to scrapping extra structures in membered/conquered systems, assuming you scrap the right number?

I've done some quick figuring here, and here is the list of "safe" numbers of buildings.

1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 100.

In other words, any number that goes into 100 an even number of times is a safe number of total buildings to have. If your total number of a certain type of building is one of the above, any number of them can be manned without losing production. Right?

[Gowron]

Update: step-by-step output calculation


According to this topic, there are two relevant multipliers for each building group:

First, the global multiplier at 0x1766a4 (100.0 by default), which will be called M in this context.

And second, the output specific multiplier at 0x17674c (food) resp. 0x17677c (industry) resp. 0x1766e4 (energy) resp. 0x17679c (information) resp. 0x176794 (research), which is always 0.01 by default and will be called m in this context.

This is how the output is calculated:

1. Divide the number of manned buildings by the total number of buildings. Multiply the product by M. Then, cut the result at the decimal point.

2. Multiply the total bonus factors (in percent, i.e. as whole numbers) by m. Then add 1.

3. Multiply the result from step 1 by the result of step 2. Then, multiply by the total number of buildings, by the basic output per building, and by m.

4. The result from step 3 is then rounded up or down, depending on the output type: food, industry and energy outputs are rouded up; information and research outputs are rounded down.

Ah, so there is a point to scrapping extra structures in membered/conquered systems, assuming you scrap the right number?

I've done some quick figuring here, and here is the list of "safe" numbers of buildings.

1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 100.

In other words, any number that goes into 100 an even number of times is a safe number of total buildings to have. If your total number of a certain type of building is one of the above, any number of them can be manned without losing production. Right?

Yep, that would be safe

[jonboylondon]

Who's a clever Klingon!!!

Thats such a cool post - so this presumably goes for all mods so far and probably will be for the future as well (cause of the changing issue you mentioned.)

So in laymens terms would it be sensible to build up systems in these numerical value's and if so:

Does this mean it is a good idea to focus your planets say one for intel, one for building? I say this as i have always tried to keep them versatile to prevent one area being to affected by an invasion......

@ Siggi - Also if the above is true do we need to get rid of FEDS info bars in UDMIII as we have to be precise now!?

[toroca]

So in laymens terms would it be sensible to build up systems in these numerical value's and if so:

This is what I do now. In my current game, I've simply built or scrapped the requisite number of each building type so that all types in all systems are at one of the "safe" numbers I posted above. This provides good flexibility while not losing production.

Does this mean it is a good idea to focus your planets say one for intel, one for building? I say this as i have always tried to keep them versatile to prevent one area being to affected by an invasion......

I keep mine versatile, and see no need to do otherwise. I only specialize in a few systems where I want especially high production for shipyards, perhaps, things like that. For the most part, I tend to have about the same percentage output of research and intel for most of my systems.

[Gowron]

Does this mean it is a good idea to focus your planets say one for intel, one for building?

Yes, specialising your systems is beneficial for several reasons:

1. You have less upgrades to do per systems.

2. Small systems can be devoted to intel, so you don't need any expensive/limited morale-boosting structures there. This will save you a lot of money.

3. Turning your strongest systems into ship construction sites will give you the maximum fleet output, considering the limited number of dilithium sources.

4. Using big systems for industry and research and equipping them with morale-boosters makes these morale-increasing buildings as effective as they can be (remember they increase cash outputs as well).

5. Building and upgrading industry structures takes a lot of time and money, so the more systems can do without industry, the less money will be wasted, and your intel/research structures can be manned earlier.

[Malvoisin]

at 5.: what about industry being necessary to upgrade your intel and research buildings fast enough? Buying every upgrade might be very inefficient over time..

[Gowron]

If you build industry structures, you're already spending money and/or workers on them. These resources yould already be used for eomsthing else. Industry structures are not very effective if they're built in a system where they won't be used for a long time, eventually.

Plus, you don't have to do all upgrades in every systems. Small systems can just build a bunch of level 1 intel structures (in vanilla, the level 1 food/energy/intel structures are cheap enough to be built with just the basic 5 industry points). These structures will already be generating an output very soon, and you can upgrade them as money allows.

However, in some medium/big systems, it can be useful to build both industry and research structures, either because the system will be used to build ships while other systems upgrade their factories, or because you're short on money and can't afford to buy the research buildings.

[Malvoisin]

I think that's exactly why they made credits production much less than IP production, to level out that imbalance when those IP facilities are not used for a long time because the other buildings are manned..

[ISS_Voyager]

Dude - awesome post!

I would have never discovered any of this on my own. This makes system micromanagement a whole lot easier.