FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:57 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 am 
Offline
Dyson Forest
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:18 am
Posts: 214
Here is another question to add to the discussion...
Some of these proposals are along the lines of "only use production from the N highest planets", with the idea of making PP grow slower than linear with the number of planets. Yes?

How should we handle a cut in supply lines?
One of the examples was top SQRT(N). So 16 planets -> use top 4, 25 planets -> use top 5, etc. Someone could micromanage the game, and have an empire with 16 + 9 planets (two separate supply regions), which would then use 4+3 = 7 planets for production. Or if the decision is to use the total number of planets, regardless of being supply connected, then what would be a fair way to split up the points between the two supply regions?

I agree with the idea the production effectiveness should tail off as the empire grows larger, but the possibility of distinct supply zones will need to be considered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:07 pm 
Offline
Space Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm
Posts: 407
Would be a good idea to change the flat bonuses to depend on the size of the planet?
The +2 could be +0.5, +1, +1.5, +2 and +2.5 (0.5*SIZE).
The +5 could be +1, +2, +3, +4 and +5 (1*SIZE).

Regarding the pop-dependant bonuses, mem359 raised a good point. Dividing your supply into two groups you could get twice the production than the single-group equivalent. Thus it would always be preferable the splitting (you can have two x5 robocruisers batches in each supply group instead of one x10 batch in the single one and produce way faster). I would say the ideal solution should avoid that, because that strategy would imply that two small supply chains always better than a single one. I'm not sure, maybe that could be a "better" way to play.
But, if not, then the capping of the pop-dependant production should be applied empire-wise, to the total sum. A possible idea:

The production of each planet is weighted depending on the distance (jumps) to the homeworld, something like this PRODUCTION * (1.0 - K*round_up(N_JUMPS/H)). For K=0.05 and H=3 it would be like this:
- 0-3 jumps: 100%.
- 4-6 jumps: 95%.
...
- 28-30 jumps: 50%
...
- 58-60 jumps: 0%
I assume the calculation of such distances wouldn't be a burden for the processor since they can be precalculated at start and recalculated when someone creates a new starlane. BTW, that could encourage the use of starlanes within your own lines to improve supply efficiency, by reducing the number of hops between systems and the homeworld.
The actual values of K and H should be studied a bit, if the whole idea is worth it, and they could depend on the size of the map (as using H=2 for maps with less than 100, 3 for 100-199, 4 for 200-299, etc. so that every star in the system could contribute (more than 0%) even in really huge maps.
This would call for a few more research techs that could affect the value of K (yeah, that would need a better name, something like decay factor or sth) and/or the value of H. And it could also become a species trait, so that some species are capable of better supply chains. Ideas, ideas.

Edit: maybe that H should follow a non-linear formula, to get something like this:
- 0: 100%
- 1-2: 95%
- 3-5: 90%
- 6-9: 85%
- 10-14: 80%
- 15-20: 75%
...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:04 pm 
Offline
Space Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm
Posts: 407
LGM-Doyle wrote:
Currently, colonizing everything continuously is the optimal strategy, because each colony nets you the fixed bonuses and automatic growth. The incremental gain [cost?] in colonizing is always outweighed by its benefit. The colony immediately makes a positive impact on the empire.
Not completely true, IMO.
If you keep colonising at full throttle when there is a military menace is a net loss, a present to your enemies.
If you choose to get first growth techs instead of production techs you colonise slower than possible (less wide) but get better pop-dep bonuses from the planets you already have. This decision should be based on how much production/research benefit you get from making current colonies bigger vs getting more colonies.

The main problem I see here (see underlined text) is that fixed bonus techs outperform pop-dep bonus techs in the early to mid game, which makes optimal (and nearly a no-brainer) the wide strategy vs tall strategy, with the caveats of the military menaces (but for that the alternative is not to go tall, with growth and pop-dep bonus techs, but to go military).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group