Economics
General
Economics is usually divided into micro- and macroeconomics. By applying the behavioral probabilities of an individual (micro) to everyone (macro), useful conclusions can be drawn for effective play.
Player Types
In OGame-style games, there are three different types of players
Miner: The miner tries to build their mines as high as possible in order to get lots of resources. A miner is often also a defer and a trader.
Raider: A raider is the opposite of a defer and a miner, since raiders mainly build fleet and have very little to no defense.
Comber: A hybrid of miner and raider. The comber still invests the largest part of their resources in mines, but their income isn't mainly determined by the yield of their mines.
Behavior Types:
- Extensive decisions:
Anyone who wants to climb the ranking in OGame-style games has to think carefully with every attack about how to achieve maximum profit for the time/resources invested. This is the predominant approach of successful players.
- Limited (sporadic) behavior:
You attack purely to harm the other player (often during war or feuds). In most cases, the attacked player's own behavior determines whether someone attacks them for this reason alone. Whether and when you get attacked depends on the character and online time of the individual attacking player. Generalizations are therefore barely possible.
Scanning and Attack Behavior
To find rules for your own behavior, it's useful to look at the behavior of the different player types.
Everyone has surely noticed that they're only very rarely scanned by significantly weaker players. For most players, the main criterion for an attack isn't therefore the amount of resources to be captured, but the prospect of success.
Stronger players are superior to the attacker in at least one respect (defense, fleet). Whether the defense can be overcome can still be simulated fairly easily.
As a rule, you'll find that an attack on point-heavy miners is pointless anyway. With a fleet that's strong relative to your own points, you certainly have a better chance here, and are naturally more risk-tolerant anyway — but you don't always find a victim without a fleet.
Scanning a stronger raider can end worse. After all, you only scan if you also have a fleet to attack with. Since raiders are usually primarily on the lookout for fleets themselves, the scanner has thereby put themselves on the menu.
A scanned combo player will likewise check whether an unintended opportunity has presented itself and will at least counter-check the scanner. Without further time-consuming reconnaissance, scanning stronger players is therefore rarely advisable.
As long as miners have a fleet and also use it for raiding, they tend to focus on inactive players. Generally no danger threatens from these players.
Since combo players forgo a larger fleet in favor of rapid mine expansion, it can be assumed that their attacks follow strict economic considerations. A combo player will usually focus on targets that promise high yield at minimal risk. Danger from combo players therefore only threatens if a larger amount of resources is insufficiently protected.
A certain number of raiders, however, also tend toward sporadic attacks. Since such players quickly get their comeuppance for their reckless actions, they more often only pose a danger shortly after a universe starts, or temporarily during the early stage of your own development.
In general, it can therefore be assumed that stronger players only pose a danger if the effort of an attack pays off in terms of points, unless you've provoked them in some other way.
A detailed risk analysis accounting for sporadic attacks therefore only makes sense during the starting phase of a universe.
Conclusions
Anyone who gets scanned with insufficiently protected larger resource sources while offline shouldn't just expect to be raided on that planet. Rather, the attacker will search for nearby planets belonging to the same victim. If many planets are placed too close together, you can easily become a farm this way. Placing all colonies densely together has the advantage of fast internal transport routes during the early build-up phase, but for exactly this reason is strategically reckless.
If you assume that, as an average player, you get scanned about once an hour, and you can assume attack times of roughly 1h-1.5h in developed normal universes, you should never leave valuable resources unprotected for more than 2h.
Anyone who stays offline longer is forced to save their fleet. Anyone who permanently disregards this principle shouldn't be surprised if they get scanned and raided more often.
Likewise, a player who diligently saves their fleet can significantly reduce their rate of being scanned. So a diligently saving player might, with a bit of luck, keep their standing fleet or mine yields for 4 or more hours simply because they weren't scanned.
Especially those who raid themselves know the availability of income sources in their surroundings. As long as your own standing resource amounts stay below the easily reachable sources, you don't need to worry excessively. Nobody wastes a fleet slot on a target with less income when they can get more for the same effort.
The least effort is a cargo-ship raid. It costs almost no fuel and isn't painful even in case of loss. That's why every planet should generally be secured with a few light guns or a Small Shield Dome, to prevent such "opportunistic raids" by weak players. This also protects raiders from most sporadic attackers. Anyone who has to send more risks more, and also reveals a bit of their hand (fleet) in case of an attack.
If the resources to be captured exceed the easily reachable targets nearby, defense should be sized so that the potential losses cut into the attacker's profit enough that they choose easier targets instead. Winning the battle isn't actually the point!
Of course, an attacker can minimize losses with a sufficient number of Bombers and Destroyers. But this consumes far more deuterium, sacrifices some of the surprise factor, and wastes considerably more time for that fleet slot. If the attacked player comes online, at least the deuterium is gone.
Conversely, an attacker would rather accept limited losses in order to reach the target faster. When sizing the minimum defense needed relative to the resources to be protected, you should therefore initially factor in Battleships or Battlecruisers as the heaviest attack caliber.
Economics of Attack & Defense
Effective Minimum Defense
At the start of a universe, sometimes just 3 Rocket Launchers are enough to minimize annoying visits. After a few weeks, a mix of Light Laser Cannons with Gauss Cannons should already provide protection, to deter the first Cruiser fleets. The following discussion looks a bit more closely at the situation at a somewhat more advanced stage.
An optimal defense (maximum defensive power for minimal investment) is always achieved with a good mix of cannon fodder and the heaviest guns. If, for example, a colony is protected by only 200 Light Laser Cannons and 10 Plasma Turrets, and it stores 400k metal, 200k crystal + 100k deuterium, it's relatively safe with a minimally sized standing fleet (a few Large Cargo Ships to transport away production).
An attacker could only get through with 250 Destroyers without significant losses (1 destroyer lost at 10% chance). But that already costs 104K deuterium on a flight over 10 systems, and already takes 1h 25min for a one-way trip — not to mention that you first need to have that many of these monsters nearby in sufficient numbers. In this case, the Destroyers can't be launched from more than 25 systems away if the yield isn't to be reduced by the fuel carried along. The following diagram illustrates the available payload in this example once more:
As a general rule, from about 63 systems away, Destroyers need roughly half their cargo hold just for fuel. Economical raiding at that distance without sufficient fleet destruction is therefore fundamentally no longer possible.
Theoretically, you can still attack with low losses by sending along several thousand Light Fighters. But hardly anyone will go to such effort for a "net profit" of only about 200k.
If, however, the attacked player has not just cargo ships but a double-digit number of Cruisers, or even stronger ships, standing by, the possible yield is no longer primarily determined by the produced resources. On top of that, the attacker's losses are partly offset without extra effort by the recyclers sent along anyway. In that case, this level of defense is no longer sufficient.
Minimum Protection of Small Fleets
A colony might, for example, own the following small farming fleet: 200 Small Cargo Ships, 30 Large Cargo Ships, 30 Cruisers, 10 Recyclers, 20 Espionage Probes, 20 Solar Satellites. If you invest double the fleet's value into defense to protect it, that would mean, for example, a defense of 1,000 Light Laser Cannons, 20 Gauss Cannons and 14 Plasma Turrets.
In this case, an attack with fast ships would incur higher or equal losses, without extreme effort, than the attacker earns via the debris field. In an attack with 500 Destroyers, on the other hand, a debris field of nearly 700K forms, with a 400K metal share. On average, one Destroyer is destroyed in the process. The net profit here would still be a bit over 300K metal and 150K crystal, when attacking from 10 systems away. At a distance of 30 systems, the profit from the "valuable" resources would be completely eaten up. Without resources to capture, this small fleet can therefore be considered reasonably safe.
However, the lasting damage from losing any fleet is significantly higher than when it's only against the defense. In addition, this fleet no longer poses any danger. Raid activity from this location is disabled for a limited time. The larger a fleet is, the more danger it radiates toward the competition. Eliminating that danger lets you graze more peacefully in this area for a while. So destroying a fleet can sometimes be worth it even with only a marginal profit.
Sometimes the attacker also has enough deuterium and urgently needs only crystal. The attacker's cargo capacity no longer matters, since the resources are transported away by the recyclers, which increases the sensible range for the Destroyers.
Finally, it should also be mentioned that the "glory value" of a fleet kill is considerably higher than a pure resource raid. For this reason, as your fleet grows, you should invest a certain "risk premium" into defense as well.
With roughly triple the investment in defense compared to the standing fleet, you can already feel fairly safe. Beyond a certain fleet size (from about 100 Battleships onward), further parallel expansion of fleet and defense is no longer worthwhile, and effective, economically sensible protection of the fleet can only be ensured by creating moons.
With a debris field yield of 70% as in Uni70, however, protecting the fleet through defense is practically impossible, since even a total loss of the attacking fleet can still be profitable if the attacked player's fleet losses are of a similar magnitude. This also results in serious restrictions on building Solar Satellites.
Break-Even Point for the Attacker
The colony becomes more interesting for a potential attacker if it only had 4 Plasma Turrets alongside 200 Light Laser cannon fodder. Attacking with, say, 500 Battleships, you'd then expect to lose only about 4 ships.
Aside from the fact that you're more likely to have something nearby, the attack time at a distance of 10 systems is only 1h. With a possible haul of over 600K, ideally of the valuable resources, the attack can already be worthwhile despite the potential losses. This again corresponds to a range of 25 systems. Thanks to the fairly good ratio of payload to consumption, the maximum range can already be increased to 80 systems if you send 600 Battleships. In that case, double the cargo capacity relative to the amount of deuterium carried remains available, so an economical raid can just about still make sense.
Just for comparison: the same payload-to-fuel ratio is also achieved with double the number of Battlecruisers. What doesn't exactly minimize costs in this example can, in other cases, contribute to significantly more "decisive" successes.
Even more often, though, you'll have Cruisers and cargo ships available. With 500 Cruisers + 200 Small Cargo Ships and 300 Light Fighters, you only need to fly marginally longer, save half the fuel, and even have somewhat lower losses than with Battleships. The fuel savings become even more pronounced if there's more to collect: then, instead of Light Fighters, you can simply send more Small Cargo Ships along. The trick: they massively increase transport capacity while also serving as cannon fodder. The mixed fleet with Cruisers also has the advantage of being considerably cheaper, which makes a total loss more bearable in the worst case.
If the defender relies more on Gauss than Plasma, they're rid of the Cruiser threat, but the possible invasion of Battleships remains.
If, however, you have to send a fleet of 500 Battleships (30,000 points) to gain a few 100K, you should be very sure that the victim can no longer react in time. A target that promises only slightly less profit with a significantly smaller attack fleet is preferable to this example.
Attacks With Death Stars
All the considerations so far have assumed that defense only protects the resources or fleets for a few hours. Players who are only online once or twice a day and are too lazy to save their fleet in between, however, have far worse things to fear than Destroyers.
Even just a few Death Stars can punch through a multiple of the defense described above without loss and without fuel consumption. With an attack fleet of, say, 10 Death Stars, production is only just barely protected by 2,000 Rocket Launchers, 2,000 Light Laser Cannons, 50 Gauss Cannons, 30 Plasma Turrets including small+large Shield Domes. It's different with a fleet, though. To wreck it, the attacker doesn't need to win! At a distance of 26 systems, the Death Stars still need 12 hours; next door it's less than 9. Within your own system it's only a bit more than 5 hours — watch out for new colonies of top players!
Fundamentally, an arms race of defense against Death Stars is hopeless, since even for a single planet, an effective defense requires investing about as many resources as the attacker invests in Death Stars. Due to the long flight times, though, you really only need to start worrying once there's more than 1 billion worth to collect. After all, the long flight time also blocks one of the attacker's fleet slots for about a day.
Of course, there are a few "villains" who proudly "pick on" their neighbors with their first Death Stars. These guys won't enjoy their marbles for too long, though, since regularly grinding people down also leads to interception maneuvers or "successful defenses". Top players with a sufficient speed fleet are always happy to receive tips. After all, the marbles aren't indestructible and are very crystal-heavy. It's not uncommon for Death Stars to be intercepted by other Death Stars, either. So attacking active players carries considerable risk, even from a moon with a phalanx on the target possible.
That's why, despite the negligibly low deuterium cost, the attacker should only send as many marbles as absolutely necessary for a successful attack. Anyone who invests only a small part of their combat power doesn't need to worry much about their returning fleet.
Pros & Cons of Graviton Research
Simply owning marbles isn't the goose that lays the golden eggs just yet. And the road there costs, besides roughly 20 billion crystal and 5 billion deuterium, a considerable amount of nerves, since Solar Satellites are a popular raid target. That's why you should by no means tackle this goal too early. A minimum income of around 3 billion crystal+metal per day should already be in place; deuterium can be traded for if needed. Likewise, when building the Nanite Factory, you should aim for at least level 3. From level 5 onward, you can manage it in a day in a normal universe, provided you have enough resources together!
Later in the game, on the other hand, owning Death Stars is mandatory for a top player.
If, as a miner, you don't always want to rely on outside help, you should build Death Stars yourself as the most effective defense. Behind a strong defense, even a few marbles work wonders. At the latest once your mines exceed level 30, you should invest in such active defense. Thanks to their cargo capacity, they're also the perfect fleet-saving tool.
For a combo player, the defense also gains a means of attack. Since Death Stars barely consume deuterium, owning large numbers isn't a problem either.
Even for a typical raider, these things are indispensable, since their low speed drastically lowers the deuterium cost of saving the speed fleet.
Attacking Moons
An attack on a moon generally carries the risk of a total loss of the attacking fleet, especially if the moon has Jump Gates. This risk can only be minimized through a detailed analysis of the attacked player's behavior and statistics. A general cost-benefit analysis is therefore almost impossible.
An interesting question, however, is when moon destruction is worthwhile. Moon destruction is only economically justifiable if it lets you make a larger fleet subject to phalanx scanning and thus interception. The greatest possible effect at the lowest possible Death Star loss rate is achieved through attacks by individual Death Stars in multiple waves (see the moon destruction table in the moon article). The following overviews weigh the chance of moon destruction against the minimum Death Star loss.
For a small moon with a diameter of 4,500 km, you already achieve a 69.8% destruction chance with 3 Death Stars. Against that, you have to expect a loss of at least 2 Death Stars at 26.2% (at least 1 Death Star: 70.7%). The calculated minimum Death Star loss in this example is 2 Death Stars X 26.2 / 69.8 = 0.75 Death Stars. Without accounting for all other risks, the profit purely in valuable resources (crystal+deuterium) from intercepting the fleet launched from the moon on the planet, accounting for the defense there, should therefore exceed 4 billion. If the attacked player has multiple moons with gates, the required profit must be multiplied by the number of moons. For a large moon with a diameter of 8,500 km, 3 other existing moons, and 6 waves of 2 Death Stars each (50.4% moon loss at 85.0% x 2 x 2 lost Death Stars), the minimum required profit in valuable resources alone is already 135 billion.
Power Supply
A central point in resource production is the provision of energy. In OGame-style games, there are fundamentally three ways to generate energy: Solar Plants, Fusion Power Plants and Solar Satellites.
By comparing the additional energy yield against the build cost for the respective level, it can be clearly determined whether and from when a Fusion Power Plant makes sense. For the energy efficiency of a Solar Plant, you simply divide the energy gain by the level's build cost.
To get comparable values for a Fusion Power Plant, you first need to determine the effective energy gain by subtracting the energy needed to produce the deuterium consumed from the gross increase. This works out to roughly 2/3 of the gross energy increase.
When comparing both power plants, a Solar Plant clearly wins up to level 12. At higher levels, building a Fusion Power Plant remains cost-effective up to about level 8. Further expansion only makes sense with appropriate research in Energy Technology. Since, later in the game, Energy Technology up to level 12 is needed as a foundational research anyway, no additional cost arises up to that point. If someone has expanded their Fusion Power Plants to at least level 14 on all 9 planets (which can already be considered economically questionable), researching Energy Technology level 13 is just barely cost-neutral compared to Solar Plant level 27.
| Solarkraftwerk | Fusionskraftwerk | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | Energy Gain | Cost in T | E. / C. | Level | Eff. Energy Gain | Cost in T | E. / C. | ||||||||
| old | ET3 | ET8 | ET12 | ET15 | old | ET3 | ET8 | ET12 | ET15 | ||||||
| 10 | 94 | 5,2 | 18,1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 11 | 109 | 7,8 | 14,0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 12 | 126 | 11,7 | 10,8 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 13 | 144 | 17,5 | 8,22 | 1 | 37 | 32 | 33 | 35 | 36 | 1,98 | 18,8 | 16,2 | 16,7 | 17,7 | 18,2 |
| 14 | 166 | 26,2 | 6,32 | 2 | 43 | 37 | 43 | 47 | 50 | 3,56 | 12,2 | 10,4 | 12,1 | 13,2 | 14,0 |
| 15 | 190 | 39,4 | 4,82 | 3 | 54 | 44 | 53 | 62 | 69 | 6,4 | 8,4 | 6,9 | 8,3 | 9,7 | 10,8 |
| 16 | 217 | 59,1 | 3,67 | 4 | 62 | 50 | 66 | 80 | 93 | 11,5 | 5,4 | 4,3 | 5,7 | 6,9 | 8,1 |
| 17 | 248 | 88,7 | 2,80 | 5 | 75 | 57 | 81 | 104 | 125 | 20,8 | 3,6 | 2,7 | 3,9 | 5,0 | 6,0 |
| 18 | 283 | 133 | 2,13 | 6 | 87 | 65 | 98 | 133 | 164 | 37,4 | 2,3 | 1,7 | 2,6 | 3,6 | 4,4 |
| 19 | 323 | 200 | 1,62 | 7 | 103 | 74 | 120 | 169 | 215 | 67,3 | 1,52 | 1,1 | 1,8 | 2,5 | 3,2 |
| 20 | 366 | 299 | 1,22 | 8 | 119 | 85 | 144 | 212 | 279 | 121 | 0,98 | 0,7 | 1,2 | 1,7 | 2,3 |
| 21 | 418 | 448 | 0,93 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 22 | 473 | 673 | 0,70 | 9 | 138 | 95 | 173 | 267 | 362 | 218 | 0,63 | 0,44 | 0,79 | 1,2 | 1,7 |
| 23 | 537 | 1,01K | 0,53 | 10 | 159 | 108 | 207 | 333 | 464 | 392 | 0,41 | 0,27 | 0,53 | 0,85 | 1,2 |
| 24 | 609 | 1,52K | 0,40 | 11 | 186 | 122 | 247 | 413 | 594 | 707 | 0,26 | 0,17 | 0,35 | 0,58 | 0,84 |
| 25 | 690 | 2,27K | 0,30 | 12 | 212 | 137 | 295 | 513 | 758 | 1,3k | 0,17 | 0,11 | 0,23 | 0,40 | 0,60 |
| 26 | 780 | 3,41K | 0,23 | 13 | 244 | 154 | 350 | 634 | 963 | 2,3K | 0,11 | 0,07 | 0,15 | 0,28 | 0,42 |
| 27 | 882 | 5,11K | 0,17 | 14 | 281 | 173 | 414 | 781 | 1220 | 4,12K | 0,07 | 0,04 | 0,10 | 0,19 | 0,30 |
| 28 | 996 | 7,7K | 0,13 | 15 | - | 194 | 490 | 959 | 1541 | 7,4K | - | 0,03 | 0,07 | 0,13 | 0,21 |
| 29 | 1125 | 11,5K | <0,1 | 16 | - | 217 | 578 | 1176 | 1941 | 13,4K | - | 0,02 | 0,04 | 0,09 | 0,15 |
The comparable efficiency values are highlighted in color here. Total build costs are converted into (thousands of) standard metal units. The now-common conversion ratio of M:C:D = 2:1:1 was used as the basis for this calculation. For deuterium production, a planet with a maximum temperature of 20° was assumed. On colder planets, the yield of Fusion Power Plants is marginally better due to somewhat higher deuterium productivity.
The pure energy efficiency of Solar Satellites at, say, 20° (yield 25) is, by comparison, constantly at a value of 5. This value, however, is considerably reduced by their destructibility. If you count Solar Satellites as part of your regular fleet, you should invest triple that again in defense to protect them. Considering that this "fleet" has no combat value of its own and, despite protection, needs to be rebuilt at least once during an account's "lifetime", you should further increase the "build value" by 1-2 times the net value. With these considerations, the efficiency of Solar Satellites is reduced by a factor of 5-6, to values between 0.8 and 1, at an energy output of 25 per satellite.
As a rule, it's therefore worthwhile to start using Solar Satellites as an energy source from around the point of building a Solar Plant level 21. The reason you shouldn't start with them immediately is the possibility of attacks in the early phase of the game.
In practice, though, once you stop building Solar Plants beyond level 27 and rely on satellites instead, that's quite advisable. Later in the game, following the precautions mentioned above, you can safely send several hundred satellites into orbit without concern. This amount, together with the power plants, is enough to cover even the largest energy needs of all your mines.
See also community forum discussions comparing Fusion Power Plants vs. satellites vs. Solar Plants.
Research Lab and Intergalactic Research Network
With the help of the Intergalactic Research Network (IRN), several Research Labs can be linked together, which increases the effective research lab level. As with mine expansion, the cheapest approach here is also as even an expansion as possible. Total costs (converted at 2:1:1) for researching the IRN and the research labs are shown in the following chart. The calculation accounts for the fact that a level-10 lab as well as Hyperspace Technology level 8 are needed first. After each new IRN level, one additional research lab can be cost-effectively expanded up to level 10. After that, the levels of the involved labs are increased evenly. A special case is immediately expanding one lab to level 12 for the purpose of Graviton Research. The resulting deviation in cost from an even expansion is documented by the dashed sections. Compared to the total costs involved, the additional expense for this is nearly negligible.
In numbers, the following minimum lab levels should be present for expanding the IRN to be financially worthwhile compared to expanding a lab:
| Cost-effective Research Lab levels for the Intergalactic Research Network up to level 12 (rate 3:2:1) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Level IRN |
Sensible Total Lab Levels |
Minimum Cost-Effective Lab Expansion | Maximum Cost-Effective Lab Levels | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min. Lab Levels | Cost in SMU |
Research Time IRN | Max. Lab Levels | Cost in SMU |
Research Time IRN | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 0 | 1 - 11 | 1 | 1,4k | 2d 10:10:55 | 11 | 2.866k | 2d 05:20:00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 12 - 20 | 10 | 2 | 3.524k | 4d 20:21:49 | 10 | 10 | 4.952k | 2d 12:57:09 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | 21 - 32 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 6.292k | 9d 16:43:38 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 11.892k | 3d 05:34:33 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | 33 - 45 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 12.332k | 19d 09:27:16 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 24.338k | 4d 15:18:16 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | 46 - 60 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 24.861k | 38d 18:54:33 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 49.233k | 6d 23:52:08 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | 61 - 75 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 52.969k | 13d 18:19:21 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 98.844k | 11d 05:28:25 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | 76 - 95 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 102.555k | 22d 03:56:53 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 210.075k | 17d 18:40:00 | ||||||||||||||||
| 7 | 96 - 115 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 214.272k | 35d 04:32:10 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 420.710k | 29d 10:12:25 | ||||||||||||||
| 8 | 116 - 137 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 434.840k | 58d 08:20:31 | 16 | 16 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 841.982k | 49d 11:14:47 | ||||||||||||
| 9 | 139 - 162 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 881.712k | 97d 12:34:17 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 1.776.278k | 83d 18:18:24 | ||||||||||
| 10 | 163 - 188 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 1.809.864k | 166d 12:05:51 | 18 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 3.553.122k | 144d 11:30:48 | ||||||||
| 11 | 189 - 214 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 3.666.170k | 287d 10:31:35 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 17 | 17 | 6.739.808k | 254d 00:22:20 | ||||||
| 12 | 214 - xxx | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 6.874.559k | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||||
It's therefore cheaper to research IRN 1 and build a second lab than to expand the first lab to level 12. As long as Graviton Research isn't imminent, expanding the labs to level 11 only becomes worthwhile from IRN 4 onward, or at the latest at IRN 5. On the other hand, all labs should be expanded to at least level 10, since otherwise the research times for the IRN are needlessly extended.
Since later in the game it's primarily the research times, not the labs' build costs, that limit development, it's probably advisable for many players to aim for higher expansion levels and tend to expand the labs higher, ideally simultaneously.
While the costs for further research levels rise exponentially, the achievable time savings become smaller and smaller at higher levels. While reaching total level 35 (at IRN2) still achieves an increase in research speed of almost 2.8x compared to level 12, by level 65 (IRN4) there's only a further improvement of about 1.8x. At level 102 (IRN6), the additional saving is just barely 1.5x. Another 1.5x improvement is achieved at level 153. Compared to the maximum expansion of IRN4, you're therefore only buying a halving of research time at roughly 30x the cost!
Optimal Planet Layout
The space-saving planet layout shown below is only relevant for the main planet. Since such a layout is more resource-intensive and requires trade-offs, colonies should generally just be checked for a sufficient size. It's clearly visible here that you can get by without a Terraformer on the main planet, and that, even with a Terraformer, sooner or later there's no room left for the Solar Plant. The additional 200-300 Solar Satellites are negligible.
| Optimaler Planetenausbau | ||
| Gebäude | Kommentar | |
|---|---|---|
| Metal Mine | 39 | |
| Crystal Mine | 32 | |
| Deuteriumsynthesizer | 34 | |
| Solar Plant | - | |
| Fusion Power Plant | - | |
| Metal Storage | 10 | |
| Crystal Storage | 9 | |
| Deuterium Tank | 9 | |
| Robotics Factory | 10 | |
| Shipyard | 8 | |
| Research Lab | - | |
| Missile Silo | 4 | |
| Nanite Factory | 5 | |
| Alliance Depot | - | |
| Summe ohne Terra | 160 | |
| Terraformer | 5 | |
| Summe mit Terra | 165-25= 140 |
|
| Freie Felder auf HP | 23 | |
| Planetenwert | 2.155.389 Punkte | |
For colonies, you can let the layout develop freely. However, you should make sure you have sufficient fields when colonizing. The following planet is built out with everything a main base needs: large storage (for the marketplace) and a Nanite Factory. A Terraformer isn't necessary on a colony.
| Optimaler Planetenausbau | ||
| Gebäude | Kommentar | |
|---|---|---|
| Metal Mine | 39 | |
| Crystal Mine | 32 | |
| Deuteriumsynthesizer | 34 | |
| Solar Plant | 25 | |
| Fusion Power Plant | - | |
| Metal Storage | 15 | |
| Crystal Storage | 16 | |
| Deuterium Tank | 9 | |
| Robotics Factory | 13 | |
| Shipyard | 14 | |
| Research Lab | 15 | |
| Missile Silo | 8 | |
| Nanite Factory | 8 | |
| Alliance Depot | - | |
| Summe | 228 | |
| Planetenwert | 2.695.940 Punkte | |
See Also
Adapted and cleaned up from owiki.de (GNU Free Documentation License 1.3), a general OGame community wiki — the conceptual explanation applies generally, but specific numbers/formulas may differ from the pr0game source code and are not verified.