Lower income from labor mines?

On May 16, 6:14 am, Lord Owl <lord.... RemoveThis @gmx.de> wrote:
> One limited is the actual amount of minerals you are mining. Your race
> mining ability comes into play here. If 100 labormines are only
> sufficient to mine, say, 50 metals, you'll get 50*3 mc instead of
> 100*3. A surplus of metals in the ground isn't of advantage here (in a
> single turn perspective), since income is determined by what you're
> actually mining.

This mean Aczanny only get 35% ?
This seem too low for them (, and perhaps also for the bird).

Mining rates of race with Labor Mines
Aczanny 35
Birdmen 70
Drac 110
Stormer 120

How about using the mining rates of the prisoners you are holding.
Would add some value to hunting specific races, Lizard would give you
190, but good luck ground attacking them.
The lazy Priv mine at 25, the master miners are the IMT with 200.

This would let the Aczanny with a better income if they manage to get
any race beside the Solorian and priv.

P.S.
This would give the Solorian a new immunity since they have 0 mining
rate, they do not need it, they could mine at your own race rating
when in your labor mines.

Lord Lancelot
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

I just found out: Labor Mines will use the mining rate of the
prisoner's race instead of your own. It is still only half as
effective at mining as standard Mineral Mines. Prisoners will die
after they mine instead of before. (Host 212e)

Wiki has been updated.
http://planets4.hood-net.org/wiki/index.php/Labor_Mine

* Cyborg prisoners will not work in labor mines.
* Robots prisoners work in labor mines, but not labor camps.
* Solorian have 0 mining rates they will not work in Labor mines.
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

On 16 Mai, 12:51, Lord Lancelot <polan....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I just found out: Labor Mines will use the mining rate of the
> prisoner's race instead of your own. It is still only half as
> effective at mining as standard Mineral Mines. Prisoners will die
> after they mine instead of before. (Host 212e)

I interpreted that to mean that the mining rate of the prisoner race
determines to amount of minerals you get but not the amount of money.

The numbers from the game also won't go together with that
interpretation. I have Privateer Prisoners who have a mining rate of
25. MC output from the labor mines is double the output from the labor
camps. If the mining rate were used it should be exactly the same
amount of money.

Phaidros
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

My observation still applies. The labor mine code seems to check not
only whether there are unmined minerals (I have lots of all four
types), but also whether there is ore of all four types around (in my
case only for two types). The missing ore reduces the income from the
labor mines.

Is that intended?

Phaidros
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

On May 30, 4:19 pm, Phaidros <tiab....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My observation still applies. The labor mine code seems to check not
> only whether there are unmined minerals (I have lots of all four
> types), but also whether there is ore of all four types around (in my
> case only for two types). The missing ore reduces the income from the
> labor mines.
>
> Is that intended?
>
> Phaidros

Yes mining all 4 ore12mc, you miss 3mc per ore type missing. Intended.

Now what I think is happening.

The amount of metal extracted is not relevant for the income. LM
produce.
The mining rate is the one from the race working in your LM.
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

> Yes mining all 4 ore12mc, you miss 3mc per ore type missing. Intended.


That's very counter-intuitive. Labor mines don't produce ore like
normal mines do. Instead they transform only unmined minerals into
metals. Yet they care about whether ore is lying around or not.

Phaidros
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

On May 31, 2:47 pm, Phaidros <tiab... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes mining all 4 ore12mc, you miss 3mc per ore type missing. Intended.
>
> That's very counter-intuitive. Labor mines don't produce ore like
> normal mines do. Instead they transform only unmined minerals into
> metals. Yet they care about whether ore is lying around or not.
>
> Phaidros

People confuse the wording of ore, minerals, and unmined all the
time. In this case, if an unmined mineral is not present then you
won't ge the 3mc income for that. In addition, the amount of cash
generated is based on how much unmined minerals that you mines as
metals. For example, if you have 1000 Labor Mines and enough
prisoners to use them all then you have the potential of producing
3000 mc from one mineral type if you happen to mine out 1000 kt of
metals of that type of mineral. If you only mine out 432kt then
you'll only get 1296mc.

Magik
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

On 1 Jun., 00:58, Magik <rickglo... RemoveThis @paulhastings.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 2:47 pm, Phaidros <tiab... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes mining all 4 ore12mc, you miss 3mc per ore type missing. Intended.
>
> > That's very counter-intuitive. Labor mines don't produce ore like
> > normal mines do. Instead they transform only unmined minerals into
> > metals. Yet they care about whether ore is lying around or not.
>
> > Phaidros
>
> People confuse the wording of ore, minerals, and unmined all the
> time. In this case, if an unmined mineral is not present then you
> won't ge the 3mc income for that. In addition, the amount of cash
> generated is based on how much unmined minerals that you mines as
> metals. For example, if you have 1000 Labor Mines and enough
> prisoners to use them all then you have the potential of producing
> 3000 mc from one mineral type if you happen to mine out 1000 kt of
> metals of that type of mineral. If you only mine out 432kt then
> you'll only get 1296mc.
>
> Magik

I begin to understand the new rule, but I think nobody noticed the
drastic reduction in income from labor mines that comes with it.

The sum of the mineral DENSITIES of all 4 mineral types is now the new
additional key factor determining the income from labor mines. Before
the new rule income was 3mc x 4 x 100% of the number of working labor
mines x3.

Now in this specific example:
Density
N 62
Tri 40
Dur 19
Moly 49
Sum of densities: 163

With 100 labor mines and unmined minerals of all types present I got
100 x 4 x 3 mc = 1200 mc.
Comparing that same planet with the same densities and the same amount
of unmined minerals present, income from labor mines is now less than
half of the maximum of what was possible before.

The effects of the new rule don't end here.
As the income from labor mines depends on the number of METALS
EXTRACTED, the second factor involved is the AMOUNT of unmined
minerals.

That means the income of prisoner races varies with the mineral levels
setting of a game. In low minerals games prisoner races should think
twice about taking part as they won't earn anything significant from
labor mines no matter how successful they are in enslaving their
neighbours. The 3 mc per labor factory will then be their main income.

Prisoner races now should go out on their scouting tours with a
calculator and decide based on the amount of unmined minerals in
combination with the mineral densities whether it's worth setting up a
labor mines prison planet there or not. The optimal planet would be
one with 100K of a specific mineral x a 100% mineral density for that
mineral.

Now that is an interesting innovation that I don't criticize in
principle as it introduces a new factor of location importance (which
I appreciate) into the game for the prisoners races. Conquering and
defending an optimal prison planet adds strategic spice. However it is
also an additional burden for the prisoner races that has to be
acknowledged.

(Prison planets with labor factories are still location-independent,
but in the past they generated only a quarter of the income from labor
mines.)

Therefore I think the reduction in income that came with the new rule
is too large and I'd set a higher price of 5 mc per metal extraced
through labor mines or perhaps even better make the price per metal
extraced dependent on the mineral levels setting of a game.

Phaidros
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

> I begin to understand the new rule, but I think nobody noticed the
> drastic reduction in income from labor mines that comes with it.

You're joking, aren't you ? Of course we noticed!

But labormines are a difficult thing. The straight 12mc per labormine
thing was way too much income! Actually, I think they're fine now. On
the average planet they bring in only a low income. On metal rich (and
dense) planets you can go wild, at least until they're mined out,
getting lots and lots of money. I podded my prisoners through my
empire when I last had labormines, stripmining and devastating my
planets much like with swarms of locusts. It's a nice if
micromanagment heavy source of income. It's not steady though. For
this you need labor camps.

That's only a real problem for races which have labormines, but no
laborcamps. Well, meaning the Aczanny. When their planets are mined
out, that was it for their prisoners. One of the several reasons the
Aczanny are broken now.
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

On 2 Jun., 10:59, Lord Owl <lord.....TakeThisOut@gmx.de> wrote:
> > I begin to understand the new rule, but I think nobody noticed the
> > drastic reduction in income from labor mines that comes with it.
>
> You're joking, aren't you ? Of course we noticed!
>
> But labormines are a difficult thing. The straight 12mc per labormine
> thing was way too much income!

Maybe for some prisoners races, but definitely not for the Draconians
and probably also not for the Azcanny.

Actually, I think they're fine now. On
> the average planet they bring in only a low income. On metal rich (and
> dense) planets you can go wild, at least until they're mined out,
> getting lots and lots of money. I podded my prisoners through my
> empire when I last had labormines, stripmining and devastating my
> planets much like with swarms of locusts. It's a nice if
> micromanagment heavy source of income. It's not steady though. For
> this you need labor camps.

The stripmining technique you mention is now a like a golden dream of
the past. You're completely dependent on having that single good
minable planet in the territory that you control. If you don't happen
to have one: Bad luck, son! Game over.

>
> That's only a real problem for races which have labormines, but no
> laborcamps. Well, meaning the Aczanny. When their planets are mined
> out, that was it for their prisoners. One of the several reasons the
> Aczanny are broken now.

I consider the Draconians broken now, too, and will apply for Chapter
11 under the Galactic Rules of Conduct meaning that aggressive acts
against them are forbidden, because a honorable warrior doesn't take
the last pennies from a poor man's hut.

I'll also agitate for a Socialist Revolution in Planets4 through which
a Galactic surcharge tax of 5 percent of all incomes generated will be
levied on the three races with the highest per turn income and that
will be re-distributed via the Galactic bank to the three races
playing with the lowest per turn income. That mechanism should be in
place until the field of contenders reduces down to the last 6
players.

Phaidros
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

The densities have always been a factor. That hasn't changed. The
only changes are the limit of income from the LMs based on how much
metals were extracted and the prisoners mining rate. We cannot have
10k LMs get full income from extracting 1kt of metal...30k mc from 1kt
of metal...no.

Labor mines still generate more income than labor camps in most
situations since they only need 1 unmined mineral to be present to
match the income.

Any races with SWD or SWA can have infinite metals. If you don't have
one then trade.

Magik
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

On Jun 2, 11:00 am, Magik <rickglo....TakeThisOut@paulhastings.com> wrote:
> The densities have always been a factor. That hasn't changed. The
> only changes are the limit of income from the LMs based on how much
> metals were extracted and the prisoners mining rate. We cannot have
> 10k LMs get full income from extracting 1kt of metal...30k mc from 1kt
> of metal...no.
>
> Labor mines still generate more income than labor camps in most
> situations since they only need 1 unmined mineral to be present to
> match the income.
>
> Any races with SWD or SWA can have infinite metals. If you don't have
> one then trade.
>
> Magik

Not really directly tied to labor camp and mine but you might also
check for the lizard prisonners. In one turn they get around 30k with
1 million prisonner, no structure involved. Their prisoner income
rules should be blanced with your above changes in my opinion.
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines? 

On 2 Jun., 17:00, Magik <rickglo... DeleteThis @paulhastings.com> wrote:
> The densities have always been a factor. That hasn't changed. The
> only changes are the limit of income from the LMs based on how much
> metals were extracted and the prisoners mining rate. We cannot have
> 10k LMs get full income from extracting 1kt of metal...30k mc from 1kt
> of metal...no.
>
> Labor mines still generate more income than labor camps in most
> situations since they only need 1 unmined mineral to be present to
> match the income.
>
> Any races with SWD or SWA can have infinite metals. If you don't have
> one then trade.
>
> Magik

I politely disagree, but the more I consider the havoc this rule
change has done to the Dracs the more agitated I get. So wait I
moment ... I have re-booted my emotion chip and this should take me
safely through the next minutes.

Before you had to have a single unit of a mineral type mined and you
got the full 3 mc per labor mine. The density was a very minor factor
because already with a small number of labor mines it was practically
guaranteed that you would extract one unit, no matter how low the
density. The scenario you paint did not apply. 10k labor mines
extracted much more minerals that just 1 kt, in fact they rapidly
depleted the stock of unmined minerals. Well, the situation was the
reverse of now. Unless you were not in urgent need of a type of
mineral a very low density worked in your favour because it took more
turns to deplete the planet's stock.

Now to the really important stuff:
The reform has lowered the income of Dracs that they can make through
good playing by more than 50%. That is a very big blow to a race that
has always been considered to be on the economically weak side
compared with other races.

The Evil Empire in contrast retained a bonus of 10 mc per labor
factory. That's quite a reduction from the 4x income they had before,
but they weren't as economically troubled as the Dracs are to begin
with. Where do the Evil Empire players earn their money with the labor
factories? At their homeworld right in the middle of their empire, at
their shipyard, protected by distance and easy re-supply of defensive
forces.

What did it do the Dracs? It gave them a weak money-earning mechanism
that is coupled with a logistic nightmare, something the Dracs know
already from the income derived from the government centers. If you
don't believe in the force of logistics, ask the Evil Empire whether
they would like to move the 10 mc bonus to the labor mines instead of
the labor factories. Think of the hyperjumpers burning their fuel to
get the money back to their shipyard. Distance is not a problem for
them per se. It's the constant moving back and forth to get the
resources to where they are useful.

In my current game I have less than 100 minerals newly generated per
turn through high stress. Raising it to a stress level of 900 stress
would probably give 200-300. And my shipyard should live of that
money? Only 20% of the earnable money from prisoners can be directly
generated at your homeworld through the labor factories. The rest has
to be earned out there - a long way from home in a dangerous world.

Stripmining under the earlier rule was somewhat of a compromise
considered from the point of views of logistics and safety. You
established a prison center, secured it, did fast-track mining that
yielded an amount of money that was big enough to warrant a transport
by ship to a shipyard and quickly moved on to the next planet. In the
face of danger you were flexible enough to retreat and choose another
planet.

Now you have to hunker down at the best planet you can find for mining
and any decent player knows he can swipe you off the game with a
single successful raid on that base. The remaining small trickles of
money that will continue to come in from the other suboptimal planets
and the government centers pose no threat.

Unless the Dracs are compensated I will continue to agitate for a
Socialist Revolution that takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

Phaidros
 >> Stay informed about: Lower income from labor mines?