Unit cost spreadsheet

General discussion for the game Anacreon
Post Reply
george moromisato
Developer
Developer
Posts: 2873
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:53 pm
Contact:

Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:54 pm

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

This spreadsheet has three columns:

Combat: This is an overall rating of how powerful the unit is. This is based on algorithmic computation of stats like damage, range, etc. It could be wildly off, because the algorithm might be over/under count certain features. Take it with a grain of salt.

Total Work: This is the total number of work units required to build 1 unit of this type. This includes work units required for any resources required. This is an accurate value.

Ratio: This is just a ratio of the combat rating over the total work. Higher numbers mean the unit could be overpowered. Lower numbers mean it is underpowered. Again, all this relies on an untested algorithm, so use this as a hint, not an accurate value.

User avatar
Watch TV, Do Nothing
Militia Captain
Militia Captain
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:22 am

Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:31 pm

Note that these appear to all be for minerals at "major" deposits. The ratios change somewhat if you are getting minerals from "abundant" deposits. The difference is more significant right now for high-TL ships than low-TL ships since minerals compose a larger fraction of their total cost. Also they don't factor in the cost of generating work in the first place (consumer goods, survival goods)

The new combat ratings aren't in the game as "space forces" or "ground forces" yet/

Image

This is from my Gameplay Guide and I believe it's still valid

george moromisato
Developer
Developer
Posts: 2873
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:53 pm
Contact:

Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:21 pm

Watch TV, Do Nothing wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:31 pm
Note that these appear to all be for minerals at "major" deposits. The ratios change somewhat if you are getting minerals from "abundant" deposits.
Yes, you're absolutely right. These are in absolute units that ignore productivity (and major deposits have a productivity coefficient of 1.0).

I think your charts are useful to understand the range of costs: units that require more resources, benefit more from abundant worlds (and suffer more from unproductive worlds).

User avatar
Watch TV, Do Nothing
Militia Captain
Militia Captain
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:22 am

Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:46 pm

Moreover, low-tech empires are less affected by having to make do with marginal worlds.

At some point I suggested that low-tech units should have minerals be a higher proportion of their total cost, but I am not sure that I still feel that way. A major disadvantage of having low-tech ships be more directly labor intensive and less distributed-labor intensive is that a committed low-tech empire must consolidate many small fleets of low-tech ships, compounded by the slower speed of low-tech ships. By contrast, in a large high-tech empire most of the worlds are resource worlds and don't require much player interaction once they're set up. Some sort of unit rallying system (eventually) would address that pretty well.

Post Reply