Orbital Ring Buildings - Resources vs Trade. Trade one seems, terribad?

[DrFranknfurter]

ah... so you want the math .

ok .


lets try with something that you can totaly devote to energy production\TV

View attachment 832379View attachment 832382

2 planet size 15 , one with the right traits for being a full planet for energy production .

the comparison are (679:40)16.98 to (1058:113)9.36 that is worth 10.06 (with normal market price)

(damn me, i forgot to build the galatic stock exchange eeeh... it should have been 1168:113 = 10.34 that are worth 11.1 )


there the advantage of the engieneers are top noch, apart from the fact that you can specilize completly the planet to have energy districts , the bonus of the planet added to it make it perfect.

the TV planet is still quite good , as it produce energy AND CG , giving you the result of 2 planet specilization in one .

but i personaly prefer the habitats , as you can specilize them completly

It's nice to see some comparisons so I can see where the source of disagreement comes from.

I do think trade has a place and can be useful, especially if you don't have any better use for pops. Though I think you're mixing up too many variables to properly compare planets or situations. It'll take too long to go through all the problems here... so I'll just pick one.

e.g. Your above example
Comparing a full trade planet with 121 pops (extremely late game) with a half-used Energy world (9 free jobs out of 49), 7 unused slots, with 29% devastation (which lowers pop job output and lowers amenities) that isn't working enough entertainer jobs to have positive amenities (or has less amenities because of devastation) and lacks a governor (which boosts pop output but not trade, well +10% trade and +10% job output for a level 5 Trade Enclave leader, upto +10% trade and +20% job output for a level 10 leader).
So that's a lot of variables and it's going to be hard to compare things.

But mostly the problem comes from completely ignoring the upkeep costs when comparing outputs.

So let's look at the maths:

Spoiler: breakdown of inputs and outputs

Trade World:
+1229 TV
+53 unity
Energy -171
CG -112
Alloy -8
Rare -8
Converting to energy:
Buying missing resources on market at base costs with a 20% fee (-10% from insider trading):
+1229
-112 * 2.4 = -268.8
-8 * 4.8 = -38.4
-8 * 12 = -96

Trade World
Total income = +1229 - 268.8 -38.4 -96 = +825.8 Energy Equivalent output and +53 Unity
Per pop output = 825.8/121 = 6.82 Energy Equivalent output and 0.43 Unity per pop
Base Sprawl = 10+11+121 = 142 Empire Sprawl
Output per sprawl = 825.8/142 = 5.82 Energy Equivalent output per Sprawl

Now for the second planet

Spoiler: Breakdown of inputs and outputs

Energy +657
Unity +35
TV +22
CG -27
Alloy -4
Rare -1
Buying on the market (30% without insider trading)
-27 * 2.6 = -70.2
-4 * 5.2 = -20.8
-1 * 13 = -13

Note: It's 13.8 per pop if you add an extra 2 rare resources to the upkeep costs from the UI rounding down, I'm not sure

Energy World
Total Income = +657 +22 -70.2 -20.8 -13 = +575 Energy Equivalent and +35 Unity
Per pop output = 575/40 = 14.375 Energy Equivalent and 0.88 Unity per pop (on a 29% devastated world with low amenities!!!)
Base Sprawl = 10+15+40 = 65 Empire Sprawl
Output per sprawl = 575/65 = 8.84 Energy Equivalent output per Sprawl

The trade planet is more efficient in terms of max output per planet... although I'm sure that would change if you actually filled the building slots and employed all the pops on the second world (and didn't use a devastated world for comparisons).

Back on to the topic of this thread. We can use those two example planets to see what we would get after adding in bonuses from the new buildings.

So similar to the above but +5% TV for the trade planet and +2 base enegy per job for the energy planet. So it'd be +61 TV (if it was multiplicative, don't know what the base trade of the first planet is, so assume in reality less than that) and +64 base energy, with at least x1.6 (assuming 32 technicians, the minimum of 3 +20% technologies and nothing else) 64*1.6=102.4 but you'd also have the bonus from the planet modifier, repeatables and in a real game things like the governor level and event bonuses... and you wouldn't have devastation but we're ignoring all that for now.

So the net outputs would be:
Trade World + Orbital building
825.8+61= +886.8 Energy Equivalent
Per pop output = 886.8/121 = 7.33 Energy Equivalent per pop
Output per sprawl = 886.8/142 = 6.25 Energy per Sprawl

Energy World + Orbital Building
575+102.4= +677.4 Energy Equivalent
Per pop output = 677.4/40 = 16.93 Energy Equivalent per pop
Output per sprawl = 677.4/65 = 10.42 Energy per Sprawl


So the new orbital buildings would increase the output per pop by:
Trade World + Orbital Building
+0.51 Energy Equivalent per pop
+0.43 Output per Sprawl
For your massively sprawling Trade World

Energy World + Orbital Building
+2.55 Energy Equivalent per pop
+1.58 Output per Sprawl
For your devastated, underpopulated, low amenities Energy World

Summary:
Trade is really inefficient and will only get less efficient relative to other jobs with the next update, both in terms of output per pop and output per point of sprawl.
Your Trade World has +42% higher maximum planet output than a devastated, underpopulated, underutilized (7 empty slots) low amenities Energy World but uses 303% as many pops to do it... so if you can put those pops to work in any other job, on any other planet, I suggest you try doing that first.

 

[Verx90]

It's nice to see some comparisons so I can see where the source of disagreement comes from.

I do think trade has a place and can be useful, especially if you don't have any better use for pops. Though I think you're mixing up too many variables to properly compare planets or situations. It'll take too long to go through all the problems here... so I'll just pick one.

e.g. Your above example
Comparing a full trade planet with 121 pops (extremely late game) with a half-used Energy world (9 free jobs out of 49), 7 unused slots, with 29% devastation (which lowers pop job output and lowers amenities) that isn't working enough entertainer jobs to have positive amenities (or has less amenities because of devastation) and lacks a governor (which boosts pop output but not trade, well +10% trade and +10% job output for a level 5 Trade Enclave leader, upto +10% trade and +20% job output for a level 10 leader).
So that's a lot of variables and it's going to be hard to compare things.

But mostly the problem comes from completely ignoring the upkeep costs when comparing outputs.

So let's look at the maths:

Spoiler: breakdown of inputs and outputs

Trade World:
+1229 TV
+53 unity
Energy -171
CG -112
Alloy -8
Rare -8
Converting to energy:
Buying missing resources on market at base costs with a 20% fee (-10% from insider trading):
+1229
-112 * 2.4 = -268.8
-8 * 4.8 = -38.4
-8 * 12 = -96

Trade World
Total income = +1229 - 268.8 -38.4 -96 = +825.8 Energy Equivalent output and +53 Unity
Per pop output = 825.8/121 = 6.82 Energy Equivalent output and 0.43 Unity per pop
Base Sprawl = 10+11+121 = 142 Empire Sprawl
Output per sprawl = 825.8/142 = 5.82 Energy Equivalent output per Sprawl

Now for the second planet

Spoiler: Breakdown of inputs and outputs

Energy +657
Unity +35
TV +22
CG -27
Alloy -4
Rare -1
Buying on the market (30% without insider trading)
-27 * 2.6 = -70.2
-4 * 5.2 = -20.8
-1 * 13 = -13

Note: It's 13.8 per pop if you add an extra 2 rare resources to the upkeep costs from the UI rounding down, I'm not sure

Energy World
Total Income = +657 +22 -70.2 -20.8 -13 = +575 Energy Equivalent and +35 Unity
Per pop output = 575/40 = 14.375 Energy Equivalent and 0.88 Unity per pop (on a 29% devastated world with low amenities!!!)
Base Sprawl = 10+15+40 = 65 Empire Sprawl
Output per sprawl = 575/65 = 8.84 Energy Equivalent output per Sprawl

The trade planet is more efficient in terms of max output per planet... although I'm sure that would change if you actually filled the building slots and employed all the pops on the second world (and didn't use a devastated world for comparisons).

Back on to the topic of this thread. We can use those two example planets to see what we would get after adding in bonuses from the new buildings.

So similar to the above but +5% TV for the trade planet and +2 base enegy per job for the energy planet. So it'd be +61 TV (if it was multiplicative, don't know what the base trade of the first planet is, so assume in reality less than that) and +64 base energy, with at least x1.6 (assuming 32 technicians, the minimum of 3 +20% technologies and nothing else) 64*1.6=102.4 but you'd also have the bonus from the planet modifier, repeatables and in a real game things like the governor level and event bonuses... and you wouldn't have devastation but we're ignoring all that for now.

So the net outputs would be:
Trade World + Orbital building
825.8+61= +886.8 Energy Equivalent
Per pop output = 886.8/121 = 7.33 Energy Equivalent per pop
Output per sprawl = 886.8/142 = 6.25 Energy per Sprawl

Energy World + Orbital Building
575+102.4= +677.4 Energy Equivalent
Per pop output = 677.4/40 = 16.93 Energy Equivalent per pop
Output per sprawl = 677.4/65 = 10.42 Energy per Sprawl


So the new orbital buildings would increase the output per pop by:
Trade World + Orbital Building
+0.51 Energy Equivalent per pop
+0.43 Output per Sprawl
For your massively sprawling Trade World

Energy World + Orbital Building
+2.55 Energy Equivalent per pop
+1.58 Output per Sprawl
For your devastated, underpopulated, low amenities Energy World

Summary:
Trade is really inefficient and will only get less efficient relative to other jobs with the next update, both in terms of output per pop and output per point of sprawl.
Your Trade World has +42% higher maximum planet output than a devastated, underpopulated, underutilized (7 empty slots) low amenities Energy World but uses 303% as many pops to do it... so if you can put those pops to work in any other job, on any other planet, I suggest you try doing that first.

I already removed the upkeep. And I used the full pops to show they were still so efficend to stay on par with extremely efficient pops like ascended sinth with resource prod bonuses (+5%+15%).

If I used less pops, they would have been ALOT more efficient because instead of having 15 merchant on 100 pops, I would had 15 merchants on 30 pops.

And as I stated, the perfect for produce energy planet is simply too good for producing energy, so is surely worth more. It can be filled with technicians to the brick and have bonus production. I didn't notice the devastation, but that's an event of those planets so, it happens.(edit: the free jobs where clerk,edit2:i actually filled it, the event killed the pops wut)

The only upkeep worth considering is the rare Cristal, as it need its production. But I think you still need a chemical world anyway, so you just need some more focus on rare Cristal instead of using them for civilian industry and Gass for the energy production. The price is a bit higher, as for planet you use usually around 10 crystal for a TV planet against 4 crystal of the CG bonus, but the consume of minerals compare the 2. As producing around 200 CG make you consume around 200 minerals.

The upkeep of anything apart from energy is ignorable, because it compensate for another planet of CG that didn't need to be made. This is why you dont understand that you don't actually lose efficiency for pops, because you are gaining efficiency for space used.

 

[-Marauder-]

It's nice to see some comparisons so I can see where the source of disagreement comes from.

There are further modifiers that don't affect trade unless this was changed, such as the capital upgrade line. And both minerals/energy have a repeatable tech that can be stacked indefinitely. Further his entire Empire is "optimized" for trade, and it still doesn't really compete.

Trade has it's place, mostly as passive by product rather than as focus. Because it lacks both a repeatable and it's base values barely have any modifiers. But even his "you can safe on CG!" is faulty. Because you need a lot of TV to get to a basic Artisan's output. Meaning it's not really efficient in terms of pop useage.

 

[DrFranknfurter]

The upkeep of anything apart from energy is ignorable, because it compensate for another planet of CG that didn't need to be made. This is why you dont understand that you don't actually lose efficiency for pops, because you are gaining efficiency for space used.

I think you're forgetting just how many building slots and districts you're using. And if you build a building that costs rare resources but then don't actually work the jobs it generates because clerks are terrible then you still have to pay the upkeep on the building. So in that situation things may look better in terms of average output per pop but worse in terms of output per building slot and the total planet output (the only pure positive thing about trade) also goes down.

[Edit: also with 7 more buildings that are needed for the trade build to function it costs about (((360*7+480*7)/30)/12) = 5880 days or 16.3 years longer to build the planet and 7k minerals and 350 crystals for those buildings, before cost reductions so every 3 trade worlds you could have had 3 normal worlds like the one you created and upgraded one of them to be an Ecumenopolis.]

[Edit 2: Adding District costs:
Trade World costs 5500 minerals (11x500), 5280 days (11x480) or 14.6 years
Energy World costs 4700 minerals (14x300+1x500), and 3840 days (14x240+1x480) or 10.6 years

This is because housing districts cost a lot more... even if the Trade world actually has fewer districts it takes 20.3 years longer and costs 7.8k more minerals total]

e.g. using your examples since you already compared two similar sized planets and I've already done the maths.
Trade World
+886.8/12 = 73.9 Energy Equivalent production per Building slot used

Energy World
+677.4/5 = 135.48 Energy Equivalent production per Building slot used (and 7 slots unused, things could be even better if you use refineries in those slots)

Trade builds are inefficient in terms of:
Low output per pop
Low output per Sprawl
Low output per building slot
High mineral construction cost per planet
Low construction speed per planet
But they're good ok if you have more pops than you can employ in better jobs:
High output per planet

 

[Verx90]

There are further modifiers that don't affect trade unless this was changed, such as the capital upgrade line. And both minerals/energy have a repeatable tech that can be stacked indefinitely. Further his entire Empire is "optimized" for trade, and it still doesn't really compete.

did you even watch it before writing this? the trade focused empire has litteraly a better production for pops of TV than energy . if your empire is focused on TV there is not even a comparison to be made , making technicians is a waste of pops and space.

all that even without the commercial federation, that is something that you RUSH with TV build.

I think you're forgetting just how many building slots and districts you're using. And if you build a building that costs rare resources but then don't actually work the jobs it generates because clerks are terrible then you still have to pay the upkeep on the building. So in that situation things may look better in terms of average output per pop but worse in terms of output per building slot and the total planet output (the only pure positive thing about trade) also goes down.

[Edit: also with 7 more buildings that are needed for the trade build to function it costs about (((360*7+480*7)/30)/12) = 5880 days or 16.3 years longer to build the planet and 7k minerals and 350 crystals for those buildings, before cost reductions so every 3 trade worlds you could have had 3 normal worlds like the one you created and upgraded one of them to be an Ecumenopolis.]

[Edit 2: Adding District costs:
Trade World costs 5500 minerals (11x500), 5280 days (11x480) or 14.6 years
Energy World costs 4700 minerals (14x300+1x500), and 3840 days (14x240+1x480) or 10.6 years

This is because housing districts cost a lot more... even if the Trade world actually has fewer districts it takes 20.3 years longer and costs 7.8k more minerals total]

e.g. using your examples since you already compared two similar sized planets and I've already done the maths.
Trade World
+886.8/12 = 73.9 Energy Equivalent production per Building slot used

Energy World
+677.4/5 = 135.48 Energy Equivalent production per Building slot used (and 7 slots unused, things could be even better if you use refineries in those slots)

Trade builds are inefficient in terms of:
Low output per pop
Low output per Sprawl
Low output per building slot
High mineral construction cost per planet
Low construction speed per planet
But they're good ok if you have more pops than you can employ in better jobs:
High output per planet

i can see you dodge the problem with evrything you have got. and keep ignoring that those are still so close , even when i fill to the max the " useless job of clerks" .

btw , why "low output per sprawl"exatly? thats not realy that lower for something you can do with ANY planet , while you need a good planet to have the great energy production . thats not exatly "low output" and you can't make buildings that produce realy anything , apart from spamming research or chemical plants (chemical plants can do some worth with research and proper pops, as they consume 10 minerals so the more they produce the more they gain in worth i guess)
i guess i've to do evrything myself , but realy, if you want to prove something , TEST IT and show the result.

gota go make a TV planet with a number of pops, and have 1 planet produce the same quantity of energy and CG .

 

[Verx90]

on a 29% devastated world with low amenities!!!

i loaded the game and that planet was fixed.

but i said nothing about that planet, the advantage is so big for a planet like that , there is no comparison for energy production .

its around 19.75 for pops and 12.15 energy for sprawl .

but realy, if you find a planet like that, you use technician . ever. the only way for that planet not to be worth is if you took 0 research for energy production .

 

[DeanTheDull]

I think you're forgetting just how many building slots and districts you're using. And if you build a building that costs rare resources but then don't actually work the jobs it generates because clerks are terrible then you still have to pay the upkeep on the building. So in that situation things may look better in terms of average output per pop but worse in terms of output per building slot and the total planet output (the only pure positive thing about trade) also goes down.

You're missing the point that the planetary comparison was for an illustrative purpose, not a as-you-would-implement purpose. They were demonstrating maximum capacities, which is relevant given the meta implications of both the slave market and nihilistic acquisition, which functionally break the natural limit of pops being tied to your own growth/assembly rates.

If you're going to maximize trade value for its sake, you do it with trade habitats (which can be in collection range of the homeworld), not gravity worlds (which require far greater costs in fleet patrols or gateways). Realistically you'd use your gravity world as the refineries for the trade buildings on trade habitats, with one planet's refinery output of, say, 9 2-crystal refineries producing 18 crystals, enough for 3 trade habitats of 6 upgraded commercial zones and 8 trade districts for 20 merchants a habitat, or 60 merchants from one planet's refineries. If you still think 1 crystal for 1 merchant is a bad idea, that 'just' reduces us to 40 merchants, while offering up the 29 merchants/refiners to other jobs available, and our comparison of technicians-to-trade has to reflect the number of jobs being employed. And if the opposition to that becomes the admin sprawl upkeep of those habitats, this leads us back to technician-vs-trade sprawl efficiency and how much that energy output a pop matters vis-a-vis the science/unity implications of avoiding sprawl.


Come the mid-late game, per-pop basic resource output efficiency relevancy drops sharply in favor of other metrics as you gain more basic resources via other methods, and can get more pops than you could ever hope to grow or assemble yourself. This turns towards other metrics of efficiency (such as admin sprawl, share-of-empire-as-miners, and industrial district allocation of CG and alloys) as more important.

Basic Resource jobs are, of course, going to get a lot less relevant in Overlord's later game, since the meta is going to revolve around using tributaries to empower your own 100% specialist economy. After a point, the value of technicians drops to 0 because you don't need any with your tributary network, and no degree of efficiency matters. This also effects the purpose of trade builds for the sake of trade... but trade builds aren't just for the sake of trade, but also for the secondary benefits of the implications of the CG and mineral economies, but also the amenity economies. A technician never makes a refinery planet better at being a refinery or a science world produce more science- come late game pop accumulation methods, clerks very easily do by building slot efficiency replacing entertainers. When you reach a point where planets and building slots- not pops or energy- are your limiting factor, trade builds still bring value.

 

[Verx90]

Trade builds are inefficient in terms of:
Low output per pop
Low output per Sprawl
Low output per building slot
High mineral construction cost per planet
Low construction speed per planet
But they're good ok if you have more pops than you can employ in better jobs:
High output per planet

btw, you should make those comparison with the 2 habitats, as they are more fair in theyr significance of " pop worth" as they are the 2 closer of pops used.

here the 2 , with the same number of pops.

 

[Verx90]

so..

remember, that this is ascended sinth pop with a +15% energy production that i don't think i ever saw .

that said, those planets produce around 326 energy and around 163 CG . with a nergative of 3 cristal ( there is 1 gass, but just considerate it null as the CG produced by the non-TV planet are a bit highter)
crap. i didn't build the robot building thing . AAA.... those are 2 more pops. lets just say that.

the TV world use 51 pops and 5 districts, the energy\CG planets use 41+2 pops and 11 districts .

thats 55 sprawl vs 54 sprawl ,

2700+1890 +450 (90 alloys) + 810(135 alloys) +360 +540 + 360 + 540 + 720 = 8370(225 alloy) minerals
2225+2880 +4320 + 540 + 540 = 10550 minerals

now, the upkeeps. considerate that i already removed CG and EC upkeep to make them produce the same amount of those. ignore the malus of 3 rare cristal and 1 gass . and the alloys is caused by the absent robot maker so we can ignore that.
we have an upkeep of -13 minerals on the TV world, against the -107 minerals of the CG planet .

note , that i made the planet a CG planet , so i could convert ALL jobs to CG and waste less space.

so, even when they produce the same amount of resources, and the TV planet cost 1 more sprawl and 2k minerals more, the upkeep of the CG planet is greater by 95 minerals. that will cost 2k minerals in 21 months.

edit: and this is NOT an empire that fosuses on TV , but on resource production .

now, do you understand the math ?

 

[hart30]

I feel like the debate "energy vs trade" reminds me on the topic of "food vs minerals" when catalytic processing was introduced. Like food, trade doesnt get as much bonus modifiers. And while the first is an argument for more Alloy, the latter is one for more CG.
Both can be initially strong, but fall behind in lategame.

 

[Verx90]

I feel like the debate "energy vs trade" reminds me on the topic of "food vs minerals" when catalytic processing was introduced. Like food, trade doesnt get as much bonus modifiers. And while the first is an argument for more Alloy, the latter is one for more CG.
Both can be initially strong, but fall behind in lategame.

too bad i just litteraly did the math and the test , and in lategame TV is simply better because it doesn't need mineral upkeep and do the same output.

 

[DrFranknfurter]

btw, you should make those comparison with the 2 habitats, as they are more fair in theyr significance of " pop worth" as they are the 2 closer of pops used.

View attachment 832599View attachment 832601


here the 2 , with the same number of pops.

Sure... will do.

Trade Habitat:
36 pops
602 TV
23 Unity
-81 Energy
-70 CG
-10 Alloys
-5 Crystal
8 Trade Districts
8 Building Slots used

vs
Energy Habitat
36 pops
18 TV
608 Energy
-25 CG
-10 Alloys
-1 Gas
8 Energy Districts
4 Building slots used

So...

Spoiler: Trade habitat total output

602 TV
23 Unity
-81 Energy
-70 CG
-10 Alloys
-5 Crystal
8 Trade Districts
8 Building Slots used

+602-81
-70*2.4= -168
-10*4.8= -48
-5*12= -60
602 - 81 - 168 - 48 - 60 = +245 Energy Equivalent output

Assuming 20% fee with insider trading.

Trade Habitat
245 Energy Equivalent output
30.625 Energy Equivalent output per building slot used
6.8 Energy Equivalent output point of Sprawl

Spoiler: Energy habitat total output

36 pops
18 TV
608 Energy
-25 CG
-10 Alloys
-1 Gas
8 Energy Districts
4 Building slots used

+608+18
-25*2.6= -65
-10*5.2= -52
-1*13= -13
= +496 Energy Equivalent output

Assuming 30% fee without insider trading

Energy Habitat
496 Energy Equivalent output
124 Energy Equivalent output per building slot used
13.78 Energy Equivalent output point of Sprawl

So the Energy habitat produces almost 2x as much energy after accounting for costs. Or if you only need say 2k energy income it can do that while producing only half the empire sprawl... and it does it while having 4 free building slots free per habitat for refineries or whatever else you want.

Trade is bad. Fun, extremely simple and easy to do, and bigger numbers goes brrr... but it's not efficient in any way.

 

[Verx90]

Sure... will do.

Trade Habitat:
36 pops
602 TV
23 Unity
-81 Energy
-70 CG
-10 Alloys
-5 Crystal
8 Trade Districts
8 Building Slots used

vs
Energy Habitat
36 pops
18 TV
608 Energy
-25 CG
-10 Alloys
-1 Gas
8 Energy Districts
4 Building slots used

So...

Spoiler: Trade habitat total output

602 TV
23 Unity
-81 Energy
-70 CG
-10 Alloys
-5 Crystal
8 Trade Districts
8 Building Slots used

+602-81
-70*2.4= -168
-10*4.8= -48
-5*12= -60
602 - 81 - 168 - 48 - 60 = +245 Energy Equivalent output

Assuming 20% fee with insider trading.

Trade Habitat
245 Energy Equivalent output
30.625 Energy Equivalent output per building slot used
6.8 Energy Equivalent output point of Sprawl

Spoiler: Energy habitat total output

36 pops
18 TV
608 Energy
-25 CG
-10 Alloys
-1 Gas
8 Energy Districts
4 Building slots used

+608+18
-25*2.6= -65
-10*5.2= -52
-1*13= -13
= +496 Energy Equivalent output

Assuming 30% fee without insider trading

Energy Habitat
496 Energy Equivalent output
124 Energy Equivalent output per building slot used
13.78 Energy Equivalent output point of Sprawl

So the Energy habitat produces almost 2x as much energy after accounting for costs. Or if you only need say 2k energy income it can do that while producing only half the empire sprawl... and it does it while having 4 free building slots free per habitat for refineries or whatever else you want.

Trade is bad. Fun, extremely simple and easy to do, and bigger numbers goes brrr... but it's not efficient in any way.

yea, now tell me why for producing the same ammount of CG and EC you end up with 95 more minerals of upkeep and how technician are so much better ...

 

[DrFranknfurter]

yea, now tell me why for producing the same ammount of CG and EC you end up with 95 more minerals of upkeep and how technician are so much better ...

I will do, but give me a moment and please be a little bit less aggressive. I'm only showing you my maths here for why trade is bad... I'm not trying to cause you harm.

 

[Strangedane]

Now, do the comparisons on a 0 habitability planet.
Trade builds are awesome at taking advantage of low hab planets.

Ed: It's even better with zombies ofc. ^^

 

[DrFranknfurter]

so.. View attachment 832604View attachment 832605

remember, that this is ascended sinth pop with a +15% energy production that i don't think i ever saw .

that said, those planets produce around 326 energy and around 163 CG . with a nergative of 3 cristal ( there is 1 gass, but just considerate it null as the CG produced by the non-TV planet are a bit highter)
crap. i didn't build the robot building thing . AAA.... those are 2 more pops. lets just say that.

the TV world use 51 pops and 5 districts, the energy\CG planets use 41+2 pops and 11 districts .

thats 55 sprawl vs 54 sprawl ,

2700+1890 +450 (90 alloys) + 810(135 alloys) +360 +540 + 360 + 540 + 720 = 8370(225 alloy) minerals
2225+2880 +4320 + 540 + 540 = 10550 minerals

now, the upkeeps. considerate that i already removed CG and EC upkeep to make them produce the same amount of those. ignore the malus of 3 rare cristal and 1 gass . and the alloys is caused by the absent robot maker so we can ignore that.
we have an upkeep of -13 minerals on the TV world, against the -107 minerals of the CG planet .

note , that i made the planet a CG planet , so i could convert ALL jobs to CG and waste less space.

so, even when they produce the same amount of resources, and the TV planet cost 1 more sprawl and 2k minerals more, the upkeep of the CG planet is greater by 95 minerals. that will cost 2k minerals in 21 months.

edit: and this is NOT an empire that fosuses on TV , but on resource production .

now, do you understand the math ?

Ok so...

Trade World:

Spoiler: Trade World total output

59 pops
Sprawl = 10+59+5 = 74 sprawl
5 Housing Districts used (that's great)
12 Building slots used
+772 TV
+49 Unity
-111 Energy
-13 Minerals
-82 CG
-8 Alloy
-3 Crystals

Assuming conversion of inputs and outputs with 20% market fee (-10% from insider trading tradition)
+772
-111
-13*1.2 = -15.6
-82*2.4 = -196.8
-8*4.8 = -38.4
-3*12 = -36
= +374.2 Energy Equivalent output

374.2 Energy Equivalent output
31.18 Energy Equivalent per Building slot
6.34 Energy Equivalent output per Pop
5.06 Energy Equivalent output per Sprawl

vs
Mixed Factory and Energy World

Spoiler: Mixed World factory output

41 pops
Sprawl = 10 + 41 + 15 = 66
Overcrowding (small penalty), low amenities (small bonus)
7 energy districts
8 Industrial Districts
4 Building slots used (8 unused)
+331 Energy
+20 TV
+163 CG
+42 Unity
-112 Minerals
-4 Alloys
-4 rare resources

So
+331+20
Assuming Selling at 30% market fee (no insider trading)
+163*1.4=228.2
Assuming Buying at 30% market fee (no insider trading)
-112*1.3= -145.6
-4*5.2= -20.8
-4*13= -52
Total = +331+20+228.2-145.6-20.8-52 = 360.8 Energy Equivalent output

360.8 Energy Equivalent output
90.2 Energy Equivalent output per building slot used
8.8 Energy Equivalent output per pop
5.47 Energy Equivalent output per sprawl

So the Trade World vs A mixed use planet with low amenities and overcrowding and 8 unused building slots:
Trade has Higher total planet output
Trade has Lower output per building Slot
Trade has Lower output per pop
Trade has Lower output per point of Sprawl

Trade is inefficient, as long as you can do anything else.

 

[Strangedane]

Honestly, all these lategame comparisons are irrelevant.
What really matters is what enables you to start annexing neighbors faster.

Trade builds do not use CG and as such uses much fewer minerals, you can then turn into new infrastructure and alloys.
When the technician build gets ahead, the trade build have already eaten 3-4 neighbors thereby blowing all "efficiency" comparison away.

What happens lategame is completely irrelevant compared to what happens the first 25-30 years.

Ed: As I said, do the comparisons on a 0 hab planet, you can happily settle year 2 as a trade build.

 

[DrFranknfurter]

Now, do the comparisons on a 0 habitability planet.
Trade builds are awesome at taking advantage of low hab planets.

Ed: It's even better with zombies ofc. ^^

I don't like being ordered around.

But feel free to do the maths yourself using the same template or to take some screenshots for others to have a go... but I'm not going to mock-up a weird situation where you move 100 zombie pops to a 0% habitability planet and don't bother to use the appropriate habitability living pops to live on the world or bother to research the habitability techs or bother to use robots or bother to terraform the planet into something useful. I'm sure it'll have great total planet output with the lower upkeep costs... but since tomb worlds are rare even if it's great it isn't going to be a relevant factor to most games.

Honestly, all these lategame comparisons are irrelevant.
What really matters is what enables you to start annexing neighbors faster.

Trade builds do not use CG and as such uses much fewer minerals, you can then turn into new infrastructure and alloys.
When the technician build gets ahead, the trade build have already eaten 3-4 neighbors thereby blowing all "efficiency" comparison away.

What happens lategame is completely irrelevant compared to what happens the first 25-30 years.

No, there's a reason why these comparisons are all mid-late game.

The thread is about the Orbital Ring building that boosts trade being extremely weak... so it's all about the situation at tier 3+ techs researched since that is the earliest you can build that new building. If trade is useless after the first 25-30 years (I agree with that) then the new building needs to be even better than it is to keep trade competitive into the mid to late game.

Trade is inefficient and doesn't scale into late game, especially on hitting repeatables.
I want Trade to be better.
I want Trade output to scale into the late game like every other resource

 

[Strangedane]

I want Trade output to scale into the late game like every other resource

Oh you get me wrong.

I want this too, but the fact is that tradebuilds can snowball so massively, that IF they scaled, nothing else would be viable to start with.

Ed: The ring looks like an option to stay trader instead of retooling economy mid to late.
Yes, it will be slightly less efficient, but you're probably busy snowballing so hard it won't matter.

 

[hart30]

Honestly, all these lategame comparisons are irrelevant.
What really matters is what enables you to start annexing neighbors faster.

Trade builds do not use CG and as such uses much fewer minerals, you can then turn into new infrastructure and alloys.
When the technician build gets ahead, the trade build have already eaten 3-4 neighbors thereby blowing all "efficiency" comparison away.

What happens lategame is completely irrelevant compared to what happens the first 25-30 years.

Ed: As I said, do the comparisons on a 0 hab planet, you can happily settle year 2 as a trade build.

Thats what i meant with the whole discussion being very similar to the catalytic processing one. Early game "food to alloy" like trade is more advantagous. Lategame they are worse, but at that time it doesnt matter so much anymore.