Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Havan_IronOak
« on: February 04, 2016, 03:05:25 AM »

Quote from: Mor on February 04, 2016, 02:58:33 AM
... speaking of chance of leader bonus improvement, is it just a random chance for any assigned leader, or is there differences on how it is handled e.g. maybe teams only improve upon successful survey?

Personally I think that all members of a geo-survey team get a bump if one guy passes.  I've been creating a lot of ground based geo-survey teams and by year 10 one guy has gotten 8 1 point bumps. The ones I use less frequently have all gotten bumps in groups as well. At this point all I have is my anecdotal evidence, but I'm pretty convinced I'm right.
Posted by: Mor
« on: February 04, 2016, 02:58:33 AM »

The amount of leaders graduating each year depends on how many academies you have, and the type is random. But speaking of chance of leader bonus improvement, is it just a random chance for any assigned leader, or is there differences on how it is handled e.g. maybe teams only improve upon successful survey?
Posted by: Paul M
« on: February 04, 2016, 02:17:22 AM »

I use fairly strict rules about how long someone can be in a position.  For most civillians that is to age 65.  Firing researchers or administrators earlier because they are poor removes the chance, and I belive it is just a simple x% check so many times per year that they improve.  But I think to improve a scientist you should employ them as I think that gives a higher chance that they improve.  I have lots of spare administrators at the moment which gives some flexibility.  If they haven't been employed and they have poor health I get rid of them "medical retirement"

For army and navy personel Lt. Cmnd/Col retire at age 50 or any time their healt drops below good.  Cmdr/Bde Gen retire at age 55 or anytime their health drops below good.  Cpt/Lt. Gen and up is age 60 and poor health.  This has the effect of keeping my officers healthy and controls the growth of the senior officer corps.  It does mean my army is a bit starved for officers something the recent changes will fix.

The only thing I have noticed is that a larger pool of candates seems to spread the improvement out over the total so it isn't as likely a single officer will improve so much...but honestly it is very hard to track this.  I do look at how over a 6 month period the officers improve (I don't put it in the AAR but I organize it and have a look) and it is hard to say much outside of there is a strong random factor involved.
Posted by: Bryan Swartz
« on: February 04, 2016, 12:52:46 AM »

There can be role-play value to many such decisions.  In game terms no, it has no effect.
Posted by: Mor
« on: February 04, 2016, 12:34:47 AM »

The only way it isn't random is if he used SM to add them off screen.
Posted by: Sematary
« on: February 03, 2016, 06:27:05 PM »

 As far as I'm aware there's  absolutely no connection  between them. More than that, there's always a chance that those researchers wouldn't become better as time went on, so firing them not only doesn't give you new researchers but it  penalizes you because it removes the chance that they'll ever get better.
Posted by: Havan_IronOak
« on: February 03, 2016, 06:06:27 PM »

Other than removing clutter, is there any value to firing anyone?

I saw a You-tube Let's Play where the player went in and fired three researchers with zero bonuses.

In the very next tick advance he got two new scientists. I'm guessing it was just serendipitous but was it?

This is how superstitions get started