Research Cost Efficiency
Posted: Jan 27 2006
I was playing the US in the World scenario when it dawned on me that I wasn't getting a very good research cost efficiency. I was only researching two items, augmented reality (more like depleted reality in boost) and advanced construction materials, when I realized that considering the $1.4 trillion I was spending on research at 33% for techs should have gotten the projects researched really quick rather than 60 and 105 days respectively. At $1.4 trillion times 33% that's $462 billion per year in money devoted solely to techs. At a combined cost of $12.5 that should mean the techs should have been researched in about 37 days total for both.
I then ran Southern California in the US California scenario and only researched augmented reality at a cost of $4,000M. On the second day I had $1,224,856M devoted to research and 33% for techs at 94% research efficiency. That's a whopping $404,202M per year or $1,107M per day. The augmented reality would take 44 more days to finish researching, or $90.91M per day of it's cost would be researched each day. That's a mere 8% of the $1,107 devoted to researching techs each day. Extremely cost inefficient.
So I thought that it must be that it's very cost inefficient to research just one item so I decided to further test that theory. I went back to my US California scenario and added 7 research projects to fill the queue expecting to see a better cost efficiency. So much for theory.
On day two I was spending $13,911 for research and 33% of that was devoted to techs for $4,590.63M per year or $12.58M per day. I researched water conservation at a cost of $450M. It showed it would take 114 more days to finish or $3.95M per day of it's cost. That yielded a cost efficiency of 31%.
I reran the same scenario with the same parameters except I added 7 projects to the list. Once again I had $13,911 at 33%, or $4,590.63 per year and $12.58M per day of investment. Here's a breakdown on the projects:
item...................cost......time.....days........progress/day
water cons........$450...3.1 yrs...1,132............. .4
dig soc serv........450...2.8 yrs...1,022............. .44
hydro plant.........500....568.........568............. .88
jet thrust vec....1,000...3.7 yrs...1,351............ .74
ERFB BB Ammo...450....3.1 yrs...1,132............ .4
Mil Bod Armor.....500....3.7 yrs...1,351............ .37
Nav Cat System..800....3.1 yrs...1,132............ .71
Research per day........................................$3.94M per day
Cost efficiency percentage is 31%
I had expected that there would be a better cost efficiency with more projects but was rather dismayed to see it stay statistically the same. What's even more interesting is that digital social services will get researched faster than water conservation or ERFB BB Ammo with the exact same costs. The Hydro Plant and Naval Catapult System had double or more better cost efficiency than the three others I mentioned and jet thrust vectoring was also up there. Military Body Armor fared poorer than any other project.
Why the differences in cost efficiency between items? Should they not all progress at the same rate? What's even more distressing is the poor cost efficiency in the World scenario, almost as if the more we get to spend the more the game somehow screws us. There's quite a difference between 8% and 31% cost efficiency between the two scenarios. I certainly hope BG fixes that so we can enjoy the World scenario's higher monetary scale and get the same results from our research regardless of scenario size or scale.
Thanks,
Eric Larsen
I then ran Southern California in the US California scenario and only researched augmented reality at a cost of $4,000M. On the second day I had $1,224,856M devoted to research and 33% for techs at 94% research efficiency. That's a whopping $404,202M per year or $1,107M per day. The augmented reality would take 44 more days to finish researching, or $90.91M per day of it's cost would be researched each day. That's a mere 8% of the $1,107 devoted to researching techs each day. Extremely cost inefficient.
So I thought that it must be that it's very cost inefficient to research just one item so I decided to further test that theory. I went back to my US California scenario and added 7 research projects to fill the queue expecting to see a better cost efficiency. So much for theory.
On day two I was spending $13,911 for research and 33% of that was devoted to techs for $4,590.63M per year or $12.58M per day. I researched water conservation at a cost of $450M. It showed it would take 114 more days to finish or $3.95M per day of it's cost. That yielded a cost efficiency of 31%.
I reran the same scenario with the same parameters except I added 7 projects to the list. Once again I had $13,911 at 33%, or $4,590.63 per year and $12.58M per day of investment. Here's a breakdown on the projects:
item...................cost......time.....days........progress/day
water cons........$450...3.1 yrs...1,132............. .4
dig soc serv........450...2.8 yrs...1,022............. .44
hydro plant.........500....568.........568............. .88
jet thrust vec....1,000...3.7 yrs...1,351............ .74
ERFB BB Ammo...450....3.1 yrs...1,132............ .4
Mil Bod Armor.....500....3.7 yrs...1,351............ .37
Nav Cat System..800....3.1 yrs...1,132............ .71
Research per day........................................$3.94M per day
Cost efficiency percentage is 31%
I had expected that there would be a better cost efficiency with more projects but was rather dismayed to see it stay statistically the same. What's even more interesting is that digital social services will get researched faster than water conservation or ERFB BB Ammo with the exact same costs. The Hydro Plant and Naval Catapult System had double or more better cost efficiency than the three others I mentioned and jet thrust vectoring was also up there. Military Body Armor fared poorer than any other project.
Why the differences in cost efficiency between items? Should they not all progress at the same rate? What's even more distressing is the poor cost efficiency in the World scenario, almost as if the more we get to spend the more the game somehow screws us. There's quite a difference between 8% and 31% cost efficiency between the two scenarios. I certainly hope BG fixes that so we can enjoy the World scenario's higher monetary scale and get the same results from our research regardless of scenario size or scale.
Thanks,
Eric Larsen