View topic - Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

 All times are UTC + 1 hour

 Page 1 of 1 [ 18 posts ]
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical ApproachPosted: 15 Jun 2012, 05:06

Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 11:26
 Freakers vs. Nanos: A Mathematical ApproachI see Nano Turrets in many games, but I often find myself wondering if this the optimal way to maximize build power. I looked at many units and found a potential contender to the throne of best unit for build power: the Freaker.A Nano Turret costs 197 M, 3021 E and gives you 200 build power. A Freaker costs 192 M 3583 E and gives you 150 build power. Let us convert the energy into metal to allow a simpler comparison. We will use the conversion rate of the T2 MM (Moho Energy Converter) for this analysis. 600 energy is worth 12 metal, so our new costs are 197 + ((3021 / 600) * 12) = 257.42 metal for the Nano Turret and 192 + ((3583 / 600) * 12) = 263.66 metal for the Freaker.It would seem that the Freaker doesn't even come close to the Nano Turret in terms of build power efficiency. But this is ignoring one crucial piece of information: the metal and energy generated by the Freaker. It creates 0.2 M and 15 E. We need to factor these into the calculation. This can be done by looking at how much metal it would cost to create 0.2 M 15 E.15 E is one two-hundredth of the output of an Adv. Fusion Reactor. The Core Adv. Fusion Reactor costs, when converting its energy price into metal as in the calculations earlier, 10,0001.6 M. Therefore the 15 E produced by the Freaker is worth 10,0001.6/200=50 M.0.2 M is one sixtieth of the output of a T2 MM (12/0.2=60) and an Adv. Fusion Reactor. The converted cost (turning the E cost into M) of a Core T2 MM is 729.56 M. So the 0.2 M produced by the Freaker is worth (10,0001.6+729.56)/60=178.852667 M.So therefore to get the same additional economy benefits when building a Nano Turret compared with building a Freaker, we need to invest and additional 50+178.852667=229 M. Since in every game we play we are aiming to increase our economy at all times we can assume we would build the additional economy anyway, allowing us to add this onto the cost of the Nano Turret when comparing it to the Freaker.Our new cost for the Nano Turret is 486 M in order for it to be generating the same economy as the Freaker. So our choice is now the following:486 M for 200 Build power and +0.2 M +15 E264 M for 150 build power and +0.2 M +15 EA nano costs 223 M to get 50 extra build power. This is clearly not worth it - it's 4.46 M per build power whereas from the Freaker we can get 150 more build power from the Freaker for 264 M which is 1.76 M per build power (and this doesn't include the economy benefits). I think the actual algorithm to compare the two fully is a recursive one but we don't need to take any further steps to see that the clear winner is the Freaker.Freakers also have 50% more health, are mobile (at a fast speed of 90), take up far less space (you can pack in 3x as much build power with Freakers in the same space - Nano Turrets take up a lot of space), when they die they don't kill all the other Freakers nearby and they can even build their own units.Edit: This analysis is wrong due to an incorrect calculation. But all is not lost. See my next post for details. Last edited by Zangeeph on 18 Jun 2012, 14:59, edited 1 time in total.

 Posted: 15 Jun 2012, 08:36
 Map Creator

Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 18:29
 I skimmed your text, but didn't find anything about build time.You miss one crucial point: You need to build freakers in a lab.Depends of a game and a map, but when you need to build units fast as possible, it's clearly nanos you want to do.

 Posted: 15 Jun 2012, 09:21

Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 12:19
 Although there are clearly limitations this is certainly worth considering when playing kbot core. Mobility of buildpower is worth a lot (I regularly build like 5 t2 veh cons to build eco with plenty of space in between). Thanks for the analysis.

 Posted: 15 Jun 2012, 10:10

Joined: 29 May 2010, 22:40
 Nice read - thank you.IMO at the point in time you can build lots of freakers the diff in metal cost to nanos is not that important anymore. Usage scenarios are more important at that point. Mobility being the biggest plus here for freakers.A plus for nanos is its very short open anim (0sec open + turning time) and its range. They result in a diff patrol behavior and thus in a major plus for 4 things:* if you want to spam small units* build from multiple labs* want to use the same BP for building units and eco* tightly packed basesI guess for a single T2 lab freakers win over nanos. Next time I'll try to not build any more nanos after going T2, as there are always some nanos prior to a T2 lab for the eco.A huge plus I see with this is, that if I can see a raid coming to my base I can make the freakers run away, and use them later to rebuild, while the nanos will be gone for sure. At T2 stage defeat comes regularly simply from loosing BP.

 Posted: 15 Jun 2012, 22:08

Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20
 Freaker unba is meant to compensate arm engineer unba spaming fatboyAnd inside base, nano remain better cause of range: meaning they maximinze their efficiency between different factories while unit are going out from other factories, and this is why nano are much more efficient than freaker if you think about it dynamically.

 Posted: 15 Jun 2012, 23:17

Joined: 17 Sep 2008, 03:36
 Zangeeph wrote:0.2 M is one sixtieth of the output of a T2 MM (12/0.2=60) and an Adv. Fusion Reactor. The converted cost (turning the E cost into M) of a Core T2 MM is 729.56 M. So the 0.2 M produced by the Freaker is worth (10,0001.6+729.56)/60=178.852667 M.Math check:I think here you are assuming a full adv fusion to one moho MM, when it produces enough energy to fully power 5 moho MM. So your new calculation is (10,001.6/5 + 729.56)/60 = 45.498.Which feels more right of a value to me. A metal income of +0.2 is peanuts; you will be waiting minutes before you can build a single additional peewee with that. Your new values are:353 M for 200 Build power and +0.2 M +15 E264 M for 150 build power and +0.2 M +15 EIf you compare those you will see the nano is about 33% more bp for 33% more cost. So they might not be terribly far off after all.[/neonstorming]

 Posted: 16 Jun 2012, 00:46

Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 11:26

 Posted: 17 Jun 2012, 14:47

Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 14:49
 Nano turrets can properly assist more than 1 lab so they keep active even when the units are exiting the lab.Also they've got shorter buildtime, even more so when compared to their buildpower.But yeah, freakers are good in any case.

 Posted: 17 Jun 2012, 16:05

Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 11:26
 It's possible to do this analysis with t1 construction units to compare them to Nano Turrets. Lets look at the Core t1 Kbot. We will use t1 solars to compare the E created (since we assume that solar will be the source of E income) but for converting the kbot's M income we will use t2 MMs/Adv fusion because they are more realistic. People rarely build t1 MMs with solars becasue they cost too much so it's unfair to rate the M generation of the T1 con by this standard as it would give an exaggerated result.Cost: (113+1622/50)= 145.44 M (divded by 50 as this is the conversion rate of t2 MMs)Build Power: 90+7 E+0.1 M For 200 build power we need to multiply everything by (200/90) So we get:Cost: 145.44*(200/90)=323.2 M200 Build powerE 15.55555560.222222222 M. For the nano, it costs 257.42 M but we need to add on the costs of creating that much E.15.5555556 E costs (15.5555556/20)*141= 109.666667 M0.222222222 M costs (10,001.6/5+729.56)*(0.222222222/12) = 50.5533333 MWe can either get 200 build power from t1 construction units for 323.2 M or we can build Nano Turrets for 417.64 M. The downside is that, unlike freakers, t1 construction kbots are slow and get in the way of eachother easily because they are not small. They will therefore spend more of their live travelling. Once you factor in the amount of time it takes to move the kbots, it is likely to end with the nano being more efficient.

 Posted: 17 Jun 2012, 16:13

Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 20:05
 Biggest pro for nanos is that they are build and forget.Command time is a much more important resource lategame than a few % of efficiency.

 Posted: 18 Jun 2012, 00:21

Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 11:26
 Johannes wrote:Also they've got shorter buildtime, even more so when compared to their buildpower.I have left this statement unchallenged for too long. Lets see how the build times of the Nano Turret look once we include the build time for the economy they need to generate to match the Freaker.It generates 20 E, which is 2/300ths of a Adv Fusion Reactor which has a build time of 226272. So this part of the build time is 1508.48.It generates 0.2666 M. We need 1/5th of an Adv Fusion to power a MM which would be 45254.4 build time. We need to add this to the build time of a T2 MM which is 31253, so we get 45254.4+31253=76507.4. But our 1.3333 freakers make 0.2666 M, so we need to multiply 76 507.4 by (0.2666/12) giving us 1699.7394. So our total build time for a Nano Turret is its base build time plus the build time it takes to generate the E and generate the M which is5312+1508.48+1699.7394=8520.2194Our 1.333 Freakers which gives us the same build power and E and M income takes 1.333*6488=8648.504So you were correct to state that Freakers have a greater build time, but the difference is minimal once you factor in the build times of the economy. With a naive calculation that ignores economy, you would think that the Freaker takes (6488*1.333)/5312=1.62810693 or 62.8% longer to build for the same power. But with my calculations which include build times of economy, the difference is only 8648.504/8520.2194 = 1.01505649 or 1.5% longer to build for the same build power.

 Posted: 18 Jun 2012, 08:02

Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 12:19
 Jazcash wrote:Hurr durr numbars maek foar bestest stratageezOf course not. Yet the amount of units with different stats in BA makes it pretty hard to know what would be best to do. Looking at the numbers can be useful in determining this. A very simple example is the difference in winds between core and arm. Many players don't know there is a difference and thus don't consider it at all.For me this thread was useful (I look at the numbers only on rare occasions so I didn't get around to looking for the best mobile bp) because for me it made clear that mobility doesn't cost a ton when you go freakers.

 Posted: 15 Jul 2012, 11:51

Joined: 23 Mar 2010, 19:01
 Zangeeph wrote:I see Nano Turrets in many games, but I often find myself wondering if this the optimal way to maximize build power. I looked at many units and found a potential contender to the throne of best unit for build power:

 Posted: 16 Jul 2012, 20:30

Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23
 Jazcash wrote:Hurr durr numbars maek foar bestest stratageezIf you could keep track of all the variables connected to the game, and do all the math to get hard calculations of actions and their results, yeah, numbers would make for best strategies! However, no one can. Not even best strategy game AIs.I have to prefer nano turrets by far since their range allows them to work as repairers and even small time defense units. Even if they cost a small amount more than Freakers, I'd still want my base be populated by them rather than Freakers.

 Posted: 17 Jul 2012, 15:33

Joined: 02 May 2005, 02:56
 In the good old days (Total Annihilation) the most efficient build power was advanced air constructors... because the TA engine didn't bother having aircraft collide you could pack as many as you wanted around your factories and they could move from factory to factory without having to bother to navigate... sadly when Spring gave aircraft "volume" this strategy stopped working.edit: clearly I don't play BA... Spring can make aircraft collide but I guess BA chose the epic old-school option. Last edited by SinbadEV on 17 Jul 2012, 16:46, edited 1 time in total.

 Posted: 17 Jul 2012, 15:52

Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 20:05
 wha? air cons can still overlap (as can gunships and para drones), the reason not to use them is that they are expensive and frail (they can chain)

 Posted: 17 Jul 2012, 16:10

Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 12:19
 BaNa wrote:wha? air cons can still overlap (as can gunships and para drones), the reason not to use them is that they are expensive and frail (they can chain)Exactly. They do score high on mobility though, so people still use clumps of aircons if there is no AA threat (or an abundance of eco).

 Posted: 31 Jul 2012, 16:31

Joined: 29 Apr 2010, 21:46
 Freaker actually produces only 0.15 metal. In the unit info it is rounded up to a tenth. You can see it by selecting 2 or more freakers.

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 18 posts ]

 All times are UTC + 1 hour

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ Community    General Discussion    Help & Bugs    Ingame Community       Spring Clans       Tournaments    Linux    Mac OS X    Off Topic Discussion Content Development    Game Development       Game Development Tutorials & Resources       Game Releases    Map Creation       Map Tutorials & Resources       Map Releases    Lua Scripts    Art & Modelling       Modelling & Texturing Tutorials & Resources    Sound Effects & Music    Project Subforums       Balanced Annihilation       Conflict Terra       The Cursed       Evolution RTS       Journeywar       Kernel Panic       MechCommander: Legacy       NOTA       Spring: 1944       Spring Tanks       Star Wars: Imperial Winter       TA: Factions       XTA       Zero-K       Project Archive          Supreme Annihilation          Caydr's Projects          Argh's Projects          Damned          Engines Of War          Dune: Evolution          Progressive Annihilation Development    News    Engine       Dedicated Developer Discussion       New Developer Discussion       Meeting Minutes    AI    Lobby Clients & Server       Infrastructure Development       Lobby Meeting Minutes    Feature Requests       The Werewolf Game       Community News          News Submissions Site content    Site content       Banners       Welcome images       Videos       Videos - contributions       Screenshots       Screenshots - contributions