Resources and Monoliths

lwmweb · #1 February 2nd, 2001, 12:09 AM

I did a search and did not find anyone discussing the pros and cons of using Monoliths over standard resource facilities.

I am not a math wiz so I did an analysis in Excel.

Using the assumption that:

The resource numbers for a huge planet are 100 100 20.
I want to recap my original investment in the facilities.
It takes 5 turns to build a monolith
It takes 2 turns to build a normal facility (these are the most likely until you have a planet with high population)
The monolith III mines 900 of each resource (modified by the %'s)
The regular facility III mines 1,000 resources per turn.

It will take 44 turns before the Monolith's have repaid their costs and have a positive resource flow.

If I increase the numbers to 150, 150 and 100 it still takes 35 turns to break even. At 150 150 150 it takes 28 turns. Of course after that it rocks but it would take a very long game (to me) to be able to research and colonize enough planets to make Monoliths usable.

On another note I believed and had read on this forum that 150 was the max modifier. In my current game The AI (long ago) placed a Value Improvement Plant III on a planet and the Atmospheric Modification Plant placed on the, by me, completed its work. I happened to look at the modifiers and the radioactive modifier was at 157. Is this normal or only in the difficult games?

apache · #2 February 2nd, 2001, 12:17 AM

Um, well, regaining initial investments are irrelevant. Remember, whatever resources you do not spend are immediately lost. If you have a surplus of resources every turn, then payback is totally irrelevant since you are not spending anything.
Now, the 150% limit is for generated planets. For example, without modifications, that is the maximum limit of a planet you will find in the quadrant. You will never find a planet with greater percentage unless a value improvement plant has been operated on it, or if you have been using some sort of modification. I do not know if there is a maximum, but if there is, it may be something like 255. I have never reached that on any planet, simply because I have not played a game that long (though I have some saves that certainly could go that long).

lwmweb · #3 February 2nd, 2001, 12:32 AM

I do not always have the luxury of more resources than I can spend. At least not until I research resource converter. If you are filthy rich it still takes 22 turns to go positive. This is on your first planet if you are doing this on multiple planets they each will be drawing down that excess you have.

My question (not well stated) was are they really worth using? My feeling is that they are questionable except in special situations where the planet has high modifiers. I am a finance type and always look at return on investment whether it is time or money. So what is my financial analysis of SEIV. Hey some things you do just for fun. :-)

Thanks for the information on the max modifiers. I am going to watch this one to see how high it goes.

Markavian · #4 February 2nd, 2001, 12:51 AM

Those calculations are very interesting, but you'll find that well, for me normally - after building 4 of a facility - I then always build a Mineral Extraction, or Rad. Collider, or Eco Farm, or Robatoid Fact. etc. etc.

This is because at highest tech these produce more then building another resource prod. facility. Then anything built after that gets a further bonus.

I also destroy 6 of my starting facilities on large, or huge planets to make way for 1) a Robatoid Factory, 2) Urban Pacification 3) More Radioactive Refineries 4) Some other useful facility (Sys Robatoid, System Shielding, Resource Converter)

Okay, this may only be possible for high tech games, butit illustrates the point that it can be a lot quicker than 35 turns till you get ya money's worth back off these monoliths.

Maybe I'll do some excel calcs as well if it doesn't crash on me. . .

John Beech

Sinapus · #5 February 2nd, 2001, 12:54 AM

Since the amount of resources is limited by storage, the real value for a facility that generates resources isn't "paying for itself" it's value is in getting your resource production so it isn't negative anymore.

You use your stored resources for crash building of various items that takes up more resources per turn than you are generating. Like building brand new WPs for all of your planets, things like atmosphere converters, huge fleets of ships and units. Ring and sphereworlds.

A monolith is useful on worlds where you have pretty much equal values for all three resources. A Monolith III provides 900 in each resource while the resource-specific facilities' lvl III ones provide 1100. Use the mineral, organic and radioactive facilities for near-immediate gain on worlds with high-output in one or two resources. For long-term investment (since it takes a long time to build monoliths) build them on some worlds, and put in a value improvement plant or five as well, til the value reaches 250% in all three.

Keep the planets with all mineral miner facilities for most races and all organic and all radioactive extraction facilities for races w/organic and temporal. Oh, and build lots of storage on planets w/low value, along with research and intelligence centers. Or divide planet types among the low value planets towards what you need. Eg, some are all research or all intelligence, others are all storage and such.

Daynarr · #6 February 2nd, 2001, 01:56 AM

quote:
Originally posted by lwmweb:
My question (not well stated) was are they really worth using? My feeling is that they are questionable except in special situations where the planet has high modifiers. I am a finance type and always look at return on investment whether it is time or money. So what is my financial analysis of SEIV. Hey some things you do just for fun.

It is simple really, when a planet has at least two high resources (say, above 110%), it pays to build monoliths instead of standard extraction facilities. If however planet has only one high resource, build extractor for that resource - it is most cost effective. The only exception from this is when you build multiple value improvements on planet (yes, they are cumulative) - in that case go for monoliths, simply because all resources (except those that have 0% value) will rise and make your investment pay off.
Of course, if you were in an emergency for a specific resource, you would go for extractors for that resource because they are cheaper and faster to build.

Marty Ward · #7 February 2nd, 2001, 03:34 AM

I've found the best reason to build a monolith is you get production from all three resources from only one facility. While they may be expensive you gain a lot of extra space for other uses.

pathfinder · #8 February 2nd, 2001, 03:53 AM

or in small worlds, only 1 facility to get all 3 resources

Drake · #9 February 2nd, 2001, 06:01 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Daynarr:
... when you build multiple value improvements on planet ... all resources (except those that have 0% value) will rise and make your investment pay off.

Even those that have a 0% value will raise. Remember, the increase isn't a percentage based on the current value of the planet, but rather percentage point(s) added to the value of your planet.

-Drake