Leader bonus increments question

[Nathan_ (OP)]

Does Aurora treat 30day increments the same as 5day increments as far as probabilities for leaders getting bonuses to their stats? I never notice myself getting the monster bonuses seen by others on 30 day patterns, and am trying out a 5day increment game. It seems like the researchers are getting better faster, but civ leaders are staying the same.

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, I can say from personal experience that it is true for combat, a small scale skirmish can drag out a year.

[ollobrains]

perhaps a few fast ships in fleet to catch anything the NPRs can field to tackle em down so to speak fighters probably do this

[Vynadan]

This question came up before, or at least I vaguely remember reading it although I can't find the thread again through the search function.
As far as I know, Steve mentioned that all chances are appropiately multiplied if you choose a longer increment.

[Nathan_ (OP)]

Then that raises my next question, do the number of scientists reduce the chances of any one scientist gaining anything? My game 30 years in has 6 excellent leaders(out of maybe 20 total), while my 100 year in game has just 1(out of 50-80). I'll build some more academies later on when I have more labs to see.

[Vynadan]

Are those scientists assigned to a project?
Even if it's just a useless technology with 1 lab, they have to be at work to even be elligible for improvements. All scientists idling in your pool will never improve, and those that work are random like any other officer, afaik.

[Erik L]

Are those scientists assigned to a project?
Even if it's just a useless technology with 1 lab, they have to be at work to even be elligible for improvements. All scientists idling in your pool will never improve, and those that work are random like any other officer, afaik.

That is incorrect. Unassigned scientists will improve their rating and admin scores. You get an event message something like "Although not assigned to a project, Scientist Bob studied hard and his bonus is now 10%"

[Nathan_ (OP)]

Are those scientists assigned to a project?
Even if it's just a useless technology with 1 lab, they have to be at work to even be elligible for improvements. All scientists idling in your pool will never improve, and those that work are random like any other officer, afaik.

In both games I have lots of scientists assigned to labs. I believe that this does improve scientists faster than the more passive study gains though.

[Vynadan]

Oh. Never noticed that. Learned something new =)

[Garfunkel]

Scientists working in labs seem to gain skills faster than idle scientists, so it's still a good idea to assign 1 lab to each promising one to "farm" them up.

[Nathan_ (OP)]

Here is what I mean:

http://imageshack.us/f/808/officersc.jpg/

and the shorter list has a lot more +60 +50, and +40 leaders than the longer one as well. I think it is the increment issue, but again, I'll have time to test out the hypothesis.

[Garfunkel]

In my experience, all leaders gain skills faster when you run 1-day increments, vs 5-day or 30-day increments.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

@garfunkel: I believe leaders should only be gaining skills on construction cycles (5 days by default). 

[ollobrains]

so run 5 days cycles

[xeryon]

I may be way off base here but I think the issue was one of probability.  This is my thought:

A 5 day increment rolls once for each given leader to check for advances while a 30 day increment also rolls once for advancements but the chance for advancement is increased 6 fold.  A very simple 5x6 = 30 ratio.  The problem with probabilities is that if you have a 1% chance for improvement rolled 6 times compared to a 6% chance to improvement rolled once you will score a hit more frequently on the multiple rolls.  Your chance to gain at least one increase in a 30 day period is the same, but with the ability to gain an increase 6 separate times in a 30 day period you have a possibility of the same leader gaining advances multiple times in the same 30 day period.

Over a year you end up rolling 12 times as 30 day and 72 times as a 5 day.  If you track one individual leader over time his advancement rate over time is realistically the same either way.  But when you have 100's of leaders active things really change.  Due to randomness certain leaders will score more frequent successful rolls for advancement while others will never advance due to never scoring a hit.  Over time you will have completely stagnated leaders and others that seem to rocket to the top out of pure luck.