Research and Development Question

[stokoss]

I had this question back from the original X-COM: EU. Is it worth to put ALL the scientists in one project or should I split them in 2 or 3...

Back in the days of the original X-Com, I used to turn one base into a R&D base with only labs and scientists working on one project at a time and had another base as a factory for building stuff....is this viable in Xenonauts?

Especially since I noticed that in Xenonauts, when you add scientists to a project, its state changes from Poor to Excellent. By the time it reaches the Excellent status, the extra scientists make any difference (time saving perhaps) or am I just spending money and manpower???

[Buzzles]

Research has the same logarithmic setup as manufacturing does according to Chris, so, yes, dimishing returns.

If you want to see how it functions with numbers, build something and just keep adding workers. Watch the decrease in time get smaller. The same thing happens with research, the figures are just hidden behind "Poor, Average, Good, Excellent".

FWIW, I don't think it's going to be worthwhile to have dedicated bases in Xenonauts, especially when manufacturing is not for profit like it was in XCOM and iirc, Chris has said that Research projects are global and not locked to a single base (aka, base #1 and #2 both apply 20 scientists to the project, game treats it as 40 scientists).

[Gorlom]

Research has the same logarithmic setup as manufacturing does according to Chris, so, yes, dimishing returns.

So for minmaxing it will be more effective spreading the scientists out on as many projects as possible to minimize the effects of the diminishing returns. However the effects are really so small that it isn't a must. It's likely that at times its more effective to just pump everything into a project and get it done so you can use the benefits from completing it.

It's a balance act basically.

[Gauddlike]

Yeah although you have a slight bonus to your efficiency for spreading your research out over lots of topics you also have to worry about not finishing anything.

Is it worth trying to finish everything slowly or do you need to get those laser weapons as soon as possible?

[StellarRat]

If you knew the formulas you could probably calculate an optimized research plan, but is it worth it? Probably not.

[sledge]

Research has the same logarithmic setup as manufacturing does according to Chris, so, yes, dimishing returns.

[...]

This DOES worry me. I can sure understand why 100 engineers won't take 1/100 the time to produce a laser rifle as one would. But I do hope that 10 engineers will take exactly as long to produce 10 rifles as one engineer would to produce 1 rifle ?!?! On the other hand in this case I'd have to wait the full production time until I can even deploy one of those rifles. T'is a tricky one..

It could have been covered by being able to start multiple build orders of the same thing. Just tried that and currently it's not possible. Well at least in one base.

If you knew the formulas you could probably calculate an optimized research plan, but is it worth it? Probably not.

It will be worth trying out different approaches over the course of several games. Each one posing different challenges. Learning from experience rather than "cheating"

Especially if some research topics rely on artifacts you can find in the first mission or in the twentyfirst mission.

Of course the most important things will have to be attainable in a relatively stable way. But it could be quite interesting having failed to research LASER WEAPONS in time you would have to take on bigger foes only with say ALENIUM GRENADES.

[Max_Caine]

sledge, I believe the way the game works out manhufacturing is ALL the engineers assigned work on ONE item, then the next, then the next. You could ask for multiple parallel engineering projects in the Suggestions thread.

[Gauddlike]

This DOES worry me. I can sure understand why 100 engineers won't take 1/100 the time to produce a laser rifle as one would. But I do hope that 10 engineers will take exactly as long to produce 10 rifles as one engineer would to produce 1 rifle ?!?! On the other hand in this case I'd have to wait the full production time until I can even deploy one of those rifles. T'is a tricky one..

That would depend a lot on the product.

A single person building a Mig would likely be less efficient than two or even ten.

He would get there in the end, assuming he knew enough to do every job himself and could use all of the equipment etc.

Most production jobs are actually more efficient with more pairs of hands (to an extent).

It would be more realistic if every production item had a minimum number of people who had to be assigned to it before you could make any real progress.

Then you might have a sweet spot where extra people would give a stable increase.

Adding extra people after that point would work as it does now.

For example (numbers for example only) the Laser Rifle might have an optimum production team of six, when you have six you build one rifle per day.

Less than six would incur significant production time increases.

Six to twelve engineers would have all engineers working at 100%.

After that every three engineers (half optimum team number) drop their efficiency by 1%.

That is all for a single rifle.

Each extra rifle you add would increase the range of the sweet spot by half of the optimum team size.

So with two rifles in the production queue you would be able to have fifteen engineers before starting to lose efficiency, three rifles would allow you eighteen and so on.

Bigger or more technical jobs would need more people to make up the optimum team size.

No idea if that would add much but thought I would throw it out there while people were talking about realistic production times

[sledge]

sledge, I believe the way the game works out manhufacturing is ALL the engineers assigned work on ONE item, then the next, then the next. You could ask for multiple parallel engineering projects in the Suggestions thread.

Yeah.. I remembered that while writing the little paragraph. After rereading I would concur that it doesn't really get clear. But That was the reason for requesting the ability to set up multiple build orders of the same item. That way one could decide if one wants 1 item very fast or optimize the production process.

[sledge]

That would depend a lot on the product.

[...very interesting thoughts about manufacturing model that takes item manufactured into account]

Yes I the type of product adds another dimension to the whole thing. I didn't take that into account at all. Modelling manufacturing processes is sure not easy and rather then implement a realistic model into a computer game one could probably make real money with that. Lots of money

So back to the game. Well as long as .. say the first new interceptor.. does not take 30day with 20engs and 25days with 40. I guess I could live with a diminishing returns model. It would just be somewhat disappointing to have paid hard earned money to set up a powerful manufacturing environment just to be stopped dead in the tracks by a dimret system that is implausible.

Above all it should be kept simple. There's no diminishing costs for large amounts of engineers either. And we all know you would get a discount on those if you bought the family pack!!

[Gauddlike]

Currently building a Mig:

1 engineer = 50 days build time.

10 engineers = 5 days build time.

20 engineers = 2 days 12 hours build time.

40 engineers = 1 day 6 hours build time.

Those completion times appear to be accurate to when the actual product was completed.

I would say that either diminishing returns on manufacturing are not working or they are not planned.