Hi guys, I've made some mathcraft about late game FIDS on different planets, generally to see how 'adaptive industrial systems' really affects your planets. I was using MS exel to make a sheer mathcraft in a whole sheet, using formulas. My research was focuging on how all your upgrades and explorations work on fully populated and upgraded planets in the endgame. In general, I can say that AIS are so much ridiculously overpowered, that you can forget about industrial explorations at all.



The best industrial planet can invest in your system is 455 units of industry, its a jungle/ind exp planet with AIS conversion. This is opposed by a terran food-explored planet, wich gives out 564 units. And dont forget how much faction and hero bonuses you can accumulate to have Food production boosted in percents, that will multiply the difference.

Talking about Science - it is generally better to have an ocean science-explored planet, but if you turn on a 25% ind-sci convertion you'll have default values of 370 from science ocean vs 307 on food ocean (272 on food terran), so your food system still can generate a lot of science via ind-sci convertion. Without sci-ind conversion numbers are 283 vs 174.

The most intersting thing is dust. It is affected by tax rate, but ind-dust conversion is not. I used a 50% tax rate with 1.0 miltiplier in my formulas, just for convinience. I've got some intersting results.

The best 2 types of dust planets are arid, opposed by terran.

With no ind-dust convertion their numbers are:

Huge terran: 239

Huge arid: 240

Large terran: 202

large arid: 218

M/S/T terran: 165

M/S/T arid: 174



And this are dust stats for food-explored planets:

Huge terran: 179

Huge arid: 164

Large terran: 151

large arid: 149

M/S/T terran: 124

M/S/T arid: 119

This numbers are directly affected by taxes, but lets look what we can get from ind-dust convertion when we have AIS,

and this numbers will not be affected by taxes at all:



Huge terran with dust exp: 86

Huge arid with dust exp: 69

Huge terran with food exp: 141

Huge arid with food exp: 101



Here we see that we dont need arid planets for dust production, and the rest of FIDS are much higher for terrans.

The second intersting thing we see here is... 141? WOW! That's more, than a half dust production of dust-explored planet, so total stats on 50% tax rate will be:

Huge terran with dust exloration: 239+86=325 dust

Huge terran with food exloration: 179+141=320 dust

What the hell? If I have taxes below 50%, then I dont need dust explorations too! Go for Food+AIS and then just convert it to dust, unless you have a a powerfull boost to dust from a hero.



What's the point of all this 'AIS' thing? It makes a late game system development so casual that you dont even need to think how you should form your entire star system, you make it all-terran-food, or all-ocean-science. And as for horatio-like races with lots of food bonuses maybe its useless build anything else, than terran-food systems. In this case you'll get incredible flexibility: you have a powerfull forge system wich can in any moment transform into science or dust, just by clicking on conversion button, and you'll have no drawback compared to pure science systems, and maybe It'll surpass them. IMHO, 'AIS' upgrade have to be nerfed to some non-100% bonus of conversion, or totally removed, replaced by another food surplus-using mechanics.



I can share my xlsx if you want, but i doubt you'll handle this 'forest of numbers'.

DementiaMenace wrote:
Is it actually possible to build all the improvements? Each of them reduces -2 gold? (newb alert here)



But these charts are fantastic to look at, definitely helping giving me an idea what to plan more efficiently!

So far, every applicable improvement has justified its Dust cost to me, and most are along the lines of "-2 Dust for +8 Dust" - some just more directly than others.

Brains at work. Thanks for another interesting post on the subject.



Maybe someone who has the time and will to sum up the different posts about this could post "the truth", and we'll give him the title of "mind of the universe"

We'd celebrate his knowledge every year during a big space barbecue by roasting big hissho chikens, and hunting misshaps creatures from the horacio's cloning labs...

ok - so I did a bit more digging while preparing to make a "total for planet" by size/type, and noticed that the initial value for type of planet does NOT seem to be per population point, but a straight adder. I'm going to have to do alot more research to figure out the exact mechanics, I will then re-release my findings. Sorry if I've lead anyone astra, I'll try to get corrected data in asap. Also, I'm starting to better understand some of the postings made by others that apparently went completely over my head. New and improved data soon I hope.

Cheers for the heads up



It is still and interesting thread though.

So, does this basically mean that you want arid, ocean and jungle depending on what you want the system to do and any other planet types should be terraformed into one of these three?

Rhel wrote:
So, does this basically mean that you want arid, ocean and jungle depending on what you want the system to do and any other planet types should be terraformed into one of these three?

Sure, however, there are two hiccups to that:

First, you can only terraform up or down a single tier (as measured by happiness penalty divided by 5), from what I've seen, per terraform operation. So, to turn a Lava (T3 +production) into a Jungle (T0 +production) you have to terraform first into either Arctic or Desert, then into either Tundra or Arid, and finally into a Jungle.

Meanwhile, terraforming into a lava planet is available much earlier and doesn't require any fancy strategic resources from waay into the science tree. So, from a mid-game production perspective, it's a lot easier to terraform that barren planet into a lava one than to try to move it up the tree... although, turning it into an arctic and considering moving it up might not be such a bad idea.

Interesting. Seems the gas giants are statistically the best for close to everything - not surprising, considering they take the longest to be able to colonize. Although I assume their overall FIDS output is hindered by low population cap?

I've just had a brainwave. Would terran planets in fact come out on top of jungle for Ind if we take a hero into consideration because we can double dip on the labour skill with the food-ind improvement. I know its not strictly the question being asked but you could/should(?) have a hero on your dedicated forge system late game when this becomes possible?



Plus would terrans extra pop edge out the win overall even though it wouldn't be per head?

Connal wrote:
Plus would terrans extra pop edge out the win overall even though it wouldn't be per head?

All Class 1 planets (Terran, Jungle, Ocean) have the same population capacity.

Marthnn wrote:
All Class 1 planets (Terran, Jungle, Ocean) have the same population capacity.

Odd, I thought when I terraformed a jungle -> terran the pop cap increased. May have been another factor I wasn't aware of, but I was certain that at least at large/huge size terran had a higher cap by default. Regardless, the argument would still stand?

Wow guys this is great!...though I feel I just stepped into class, (have not had that feeling for 15yrs..ouch) oO'

Thanks for this, i had just started really getting my mind around the whole terraforming thing in my last game, i was using arids, arctics, and lavas... but realized late game i could get better performance with different things, and i terraformed my main production planet from all lavas to all jungles and had its production up to over 2800. Thanks for the insight on The Tundra vs Arctic worlds, i guess i was doing that wrong. Excellent post.

Is it actually possible to build all the improvements? Each of them reduces -2 gold? (newb alert here)



But these charts are fantastic to look at, definitely helping giving me an idea what to plan more efficiently!

Well done.



I would like to offer you some exceptions of note to your results caused by racial traits;



1. Tundra for Sowers - While pop is a little lower, +2 industry per pop from the Sower racial improvement, the extra tech, and less return from the additional food mean tundra comes out stronger.

2. Horatio Affinity / Crowded Planets - Extra pop throws all the numbers a little more towards type 2 worlds.

3. Entrepreneurs - Terran wins larger for dust with this.

4. Cloning - 2/3 and 3/3 have different effects; At 2/3, type 2 worlds gain vs type 1. At 3/3, Jungles take a relative loss to terrans and oceans.



If you would like some more "math-craft" to play with, add the differences in trade income based on planet sizes to the equation.

Yes, the racial bonuses may have a big impact on your FIDS. And about the trade routes, according to a thread in this subforum trade routes are only affected by population, so any planet with higher pop cap will benefit more.

The more people in a system the better.

That being sayed the Planets with the most pop are Terran/Jungle/Ocean (refered as T1 or T0 planet depending on the source)





-> Hydrosequenzing (+1 FIDS per population in the system)

-> Non-Baryonic Shells (+2 FIDS per population in the system)

-> Revenue Zen (+2 Dust per population in the system)

-> Adaptive taxation Systems (+2 Dust per population in the system)

-> Xenotourism (+1 Dust Arid/tundra/ocean/terran/jungle)



The more people on a planet with a moon the better



-> Intensive Cultivation Logistic (+3 Food per population on planet with an explored moon) (can be converted to +3 ind)

-> Careful Sweeping (+2 Dust per population on a planet with an explored moon)





The difference in "what is a good planet" depends on the phase of the game (and in case of the sowers even on the planet types)





At an early developement of a system or in midgame it is different.

There you do not search "good end game planets" but planets that benefits you in a short amount of time. And by that it means "maximum production", "maximum dust" and so on per population.



And in that cases the Lava planets, the methanplanets and also the desert planets shine.



or to put it in numbers:



lava: 5 prod + 4 (geo industrial plant) + 2 and 20% more (interplanetary transport network) = 13,2 prod per pop

dessert: 5 prod + 2 (geo industrial plant) + 20% (interplanetary transport network) = 8,4 (prod is allways rounded down!)

terran: 2 prod + 2 (geo industrial plant) + 20% (interplanetary transport network) = 4.8 (prod is allways rounded down!)



and if you go foodexploid instead of indu:



lava: 5 prod + 2 and 20% more (interplanetary transport network) = 8,4 prod per pop

dessert: 5 prod + 20% (interplanetary transport network) = 6 (prod is allways rounded down!)

terran: 2 prod + 20% (interplanetary transport network) = 2,4 (prod is allways rounded down!)







maximum population table (habitate, the +1 pop tech/planet, +2pop tech/planet, stable habitats, 2/2 horatio treat)

(execluding +1pop moon)

Planet	Tiny	Small	Medium	Large	Huge
Ocean, Jungle, Terran	11	11	11	12	14
Tundra, Arid	10	10	10	11	12
Arctic, Desert	8	8	8	8	9
Barren, Lava	7	7	7	7	7
Gas, Asteroid	8	8	8	7	8

Hope my 2 cents helped



Sincerly

Saranea wrote:
-> Intensive Cultivation Logistic (+3 Food per population on planet with an explored moon) (can be converted to +3 ind)

This is only +3 food per moon, not per population on the planet with the moon.

-> Careful Sweeping (+2 Dust per population on a planet with an explored moon)

It's not per population, just +2 dust per moon and costs 3 dust upkeep, so if the system only has one planet with a moon, you lose 1 dust per turn. This improvement is only good if the system has at least 2 moons.

No, it is PER POP, so even a single moon will grant a HUGE benefit.



Proof:

(From top to bottom: All improvements / deleted "Inorganic Cultivation (Sower Special, additional +2 prod per pop on moon with temple) / deleted IC + Careful Sweeping

I stand corrected. However, this means the description of those two improvements is incorrect as neither says it's per population.