Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

Post Reply
Zangeeph
Posts: 16
Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 12:26

Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by Zangeeph »

Freakers vs. Nanos: A Mathematical Approach
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: 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 E
264 M for 150 build power and +0.2 M +15 E

A 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, 15:59, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SirArtturi
Posts: 1164
Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 18:29

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by SirArtturi »

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.
klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by klapmongool »

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.
dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1203
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by dansan »

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 bases

I 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.
User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by albator »

Freaker unba is meant to compensate arm engineer unba spaming fatboy

And 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.
luckywaldo7
Posts: 1398
Joined: 17 Sep 2008, 04:36

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by luckywaldo7 »

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 E
264 M for 150 build power and +0.2 M +15 E

If 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]
Zangeeph
Posts: 16
Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 12:26

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by Zangeeph »

luckywaldo7 wrote:
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 E
264 M for 150 build power and +0.2 M +15 E

If 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]
Ah yes that looks correct. I knew something was wrong with that calculation but couldn't put my finger on it.

There's also a better way to compare the two. By making the same M and E per build power rather than per unit. Since the Nano Turret has 200 build power instead of 150, it needs to make 1/3 more economy which would be 0.2666 M +20 E. So our new calculations would be

(45.498+50)*(4/3)+257.42=385 M
So our Nano Turret would be
200 Build power 0.2666 M +20 E.
1.924 M per build power.

We can now multiply the costs of the Freaker by (4/3) to directly compare them
264*(4/3)=352 M
So our 1.333 Freakers gives us
200 Build power 0.2666 M +20 E.
1.76 M per build power

So the Freaker is still more efficient than the Nano Turret.

Note that these calculations are using the Adv Fusion Reactor costs for the economy. If we used the normal Fusion Reactor or Adv Solars, the efficiency of the Freaker would increase when compared to the Nano Turret.

An argument could be made that the Nano Turret spends more time building since its range is larger but I don't think it would be much difference. If the Nano Turret is next to a lab then it will be assisting just as much as a Freaker would. And if the Nano Turret isn't near a lab, it becomes worthless (dead metal) once the player stops building near it. The Freaker can move wherever it is needed. Mobile build power is important.

An example of this is when players want to build something like a Big Bertha or Catalyst at a key point of the map but they have no mobile build power (with almost all their build power in their Nano Turrets in their base) so they build a block of about 16 Nano Turrets at the location prior to building it. That's over 3k M and takes a lot of time to build them all. Those Nano Turrets are also very vulnerable to being destroyed - because of the nature of the position it's likely an attack will be made and Nano Turrets can't run. This player would also have an excessive amount of build power because they will still have Nano Turrets at their base. If the player had invested in Freakers much less time and resources would be wasted.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by Johannes »

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.
Zangeeph
Posts: 16
Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 12:26

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by Zangeeph »

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 M
200 Build power
E 15.5555556
0.222222222 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 M
0.222222222 M costs (10,001.6/5+729.56)*(0.222222222/12) = 50.5533333 M

We 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.
BaNa
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 21:05

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by BaNa »

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.
Zangeeph
Posts: 16
Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 12:26

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by Zangeeph »

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 is
5312+1508.48+1699.7394=8520.2194

Our 1.333 Freakers which gives us the same build power and E and M income takes 1.333*6488=8648.504

So 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.
klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by klapmongool »

Jazcash wrote:Hurr durr numbars maek foar bestest stratageez
Of 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.
Zonk
Posts: 18
Joined: 23 Mar 2010, 19:01

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by Zonk »

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:
Image

8)
tzaeru
Posts: 283
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by tzaeru »

Jazcash wrote:Hurr durr numbars maek foar bestest stratageez
If 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! :P

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.
User avatar
SinbadEV
Posts: 6475
Joined: 02 May 2005, 03:56

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by SinbadEV »

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, 17:46, edited 1 time in total.
BaNa
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 21:05

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by BaNa »

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)
klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by klapmongool »

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).
TeBe
Posts: 5
Joined: 29 Apr 2010, 22:46

Re: Freakers vs. Nano Turrets: A Mathematical Approach

Post by TeBe »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”