Powerplay Faction: Denton Patreus Cycle 26 Objectives

[Spider95]

My apologies if any of my posts were overstepping the mark. My intent was not to offend - if it came across that way sorry about that.

One thing these discussions have certainly done is raise my awareness of what happens in PP cycles, turmoil and strategy. To be honest before then I hadn't been putting much thought into it (not enough time - to many other things going on in game and in real life!). So this has been very interesting.

From reading a lot - not just on this thread but the general one and also the history on reddit. I can definitely see the advantage in the long term strategy of keeping Smei Tsu (pretty much what CDRDA says in first paragraph above).

Is the danger of not fortifying Smei Tsu each week that if we go into turmoil it becomes one of the systems we might lose? I'm not sure how that all gets worked out?

(\(\;;/)/)

 

[CDRDA]

Is the danger of not fortifying Smei Tsu each week that if we go into turmoil it becomes one of the systems we might lose? I'm not sure how that all gets worked out?

(\(\;;/)/)

Basically, yes. Our most valuable systems go first until our CC is once more in the black. This makes it very difficult for any power to remove loss making systems and exposes one of the many problems of Powerplay. Therefore if Smei Tsu is included in the Turmoil list, it would almost certainly be the first to go above any other systems, so we can not take that chance.

In reality it would surely be easy enough to shake control of any given system. It would be nice to see another mechanic introduced that would make instigating a system shedding easier...

 

[dlocke]

We are losing Dheneb to Li Yong-Rui......we need help

 

[Rubberboots]

My apologies if any of my posts were overstepping the mark. My intent was not to offend - if it came across that way sorry about that.

One thing these discussions have certainly done is raise my awareness of what happens in PP cycles, turmoil and strategy. To be honest before then I hadn't been putting much thought into it (not enough time - to many other things going on in game and in real life!). So this has been very interesting.

From reading a lot - not just on this thread but the general one and also the history on reddit. I can definitely see the advantage in the long term strategy of keeping Smei Tsu (pretty much what CDRDA says in first paragraph above).

Is the danger of not fortifying Smei Tsu each week that if we go into turmoil it becomes one of the systems we might lose? I'm not sure how that all gets worked out?

(\(\;;/)/)

Yes, but only sort of. We can fortify it while it's in turmoil to prevent its loss, but in the meantime it will have cost us a huge CC deficit.

The main reason is just that when it's undermined, that costs us 123cc - in other words, the 8302 tonnes spent cancelling it gain us 123cc, or 0.015cc/T. This doesn't sound like a lot, but the alternative--using these tonnes to fortify other systems that are not undermined--say, Gliese 76 and Wong Guin, which require 8526T to fortify. Because they aren't undermined, this would just cancel their default upkeep--23 and 22 respectively, so we'd get 45CC for the same tonnes (0.005cc/T)--three times less than we get from cancelling ST.

To get the same amount of CC by fortifying systems that aren't undermined, we'd need to fortify 5 systems, which can't be done with 8000T, or with the ~8 hours that are needed to fortify Smei Tsu.

So however you slice the pie, it's a good investment--especially since some CMDRs don't have Anacondas. It's wasteful to have our Pythons and Asps fortifying systems our Anacondas could be hitting, when there is such a juicy target, which is always undermined (I now have to say "almost always" since last week, for the first time, it was not), that our Anacondas can't help with.

 

[Gusty]

As always the Reddit moderators are missmatching the argments.
With the tme spend on Smei Tsu, if undermined, can be fortifyed other undermined systems with better time/fortify ratio.
So it can be, that we loose 2 good system due to sticking to Smei Tsu. And it is possible it will happen next cycle the same. It is just the question how strong the other powers undermine us.

Edit: 8 hours to fortify Smei Tsu must be a joke or a open lie. It is more like 16 if everone would do it in a Python and fasttracking. Not counting the time needed to trade the credits for the fasttrecking.

 

[Gusty]

There is no need to have Tsim Binba on the priority list.
I am doing it anyway. It was tactical not to fortify it from the beginning. Better Hudson spend his undermining time there than on another system.
Edit:
I will inform you, if i cant do it for RL reasons.

 

[Gusty]

Our planing team has lead us again into a unwishfull situation.
They have now 3 choices.
1. going into turmoil which is only possible if we loose a good system.
2. not going into turmoil and getting a very bad system for expansion.
3. gambling to stay exactly our of turmoil with not nuff cc for the expansion.

The 3 possibilities are not good for the future of Patreus. The situation next cycle will be not better.

 

[Spider95]

With the tme spend on Smei Tsu, if undermined, can be fortifyed other undermined systems with better time/fortify ratio.

Which systems would be better then? How much CC would that gain us compared to what Smei Tsu gives us now?

Why is it we maybe lose 2 good systems by sticking with Smei Tsu? By lose do you mean 'not able to fortify'? In which case the same question - which systems would be better (as in provide more CC)?

From what I can see there currently isn't much of a better option (noone seems to have managed to lay out a coherent strategy and argument as a logical alternative), so isn't it better to try and hold onto a profitable system we know we can get the fortify ratio down on in the future? Especially since it would seem that most weeks (barring perhaps one recent cycle I think) it does always get fortified.

If in the future it's still a high fortification cost and people aren't managing to fortify AND there is a sensible alternative then fair enough, that's the time to consider dropping it. To me I don't see this currently being the case.

Hmm, was wondering about the 'time' issue so did some of my own calculations (using rough guess for the round trip time at the moment):

8300 tonnes, Python with capacity of 276t, that's 31 runs. If the round trip time is 15min (that's a rough guess I haven't actually timed it) then, assuming it's all fast tracking with no side-trading, that's 465minutes => 7.75 hours.

So, if that 15mins isn't too much off the mark, then theoretically yes ~8 hours could be claimed as the minimum time one person could fortify the system in a Python, but in reality it is of course not that simple.

If 'everybody' used a Python at full capacity, with fast tracking, then the fortification could potentially be done in 15 minutes (or half the time since wouldn't need a round trip), assuming everyone was at least 31 people (31*276 => 8556) and fast tracked a full Python cargo hold. Again it is of course not that simple or realistic.

Not sure how the figure of 16hours is arrived at if 'everybody' fast tracked with a Python?

I might time my next run to get an exact figure for round trip time - unless anyone already has that info?

(\(\;;/)/)

 

[Corrigendum]

.

Not sure how the figure of 16hours is arrived at if 'everybody' fast tracked with a Python?

I might time my next run to get an exact figure for round trip time - unless anyone already has that info?

(\(\;;/)/)

I make the round trip from Eotienses to Smei Tsu and back in just under half an hour. Python taking 275 supplies. Then I wait for my free allocation or run a mission or two and head out again.

Using that as a measure, one person could theoretically do it in just over 15 hours. Which incidentally is 2-3 times longer than I play E: D each week.

 

[Gusty]

Which systems would be better then? How much CC would that gain us compared to what Smei Tsu gives us now?

Why is it we maybe lose 2 good systems by sticking with Smei Tsu? By lose do you mean 'not able to fortify'? In which case the same question - which systems would be better (as in provide more CC)?

From what I can see there currently isn't much of a better option (noone seems to have managed to lay out a coherent strategy and argument as a logical alternative), so isn't it better to try and hold onto a profitable system we know we can get the fortify ratio down on in the future? Especially since it would seem that most weeks (barring perhaps one recent cycle I think) it does always get fortified.

If in the future it's still a high fortification cost and people aren't managing to fortify AND there is a sensible alternative then fair enough, that's the time to consider dropping it. To me I don't see this currently being the case.

Hmm, was wondering about the 'time' issue so did some of my own calculations (using rough guess for the round trip time at the moment):

8300 tonnes, Python with capacity of 276t, that's 31 runs. If the round trip time is 15min (that's a rough guess I haven't actually timed it) then, assuming it's all fast tracking with no side-trading, that's 465minutes => 7.75 hours.

So, if that 15mins isn't too much off the mark, then theoretically yes ~8 hours could be claimed as the minimum time one person could fortify the system in a Python, but in reality it is of course not that simple.

If 'everybody' used a Python at full capacity, with fast tracking, then the fortification could potentially be done in 15 minutes (or half the time since wouldn't need a round trip), assuming everyone was at least 31 people (31*276 => 8556) and fast tracked a full Python cargo hold. Again it is of course not that simple or realistic.

Not sure how the figure of 16hours is arrived at if 'everybody' fast tracked with a Python?

I might time my next run to get an exact figure for round trip time - unless anyone already has that info?

(\(\;;/)/)

Loosing Contiku and Gliese 76 is worse than loosing Smei Tsu. This 2 Systems can be fortifyed within more less the same time than Smei Tsu.
Loosing Smei Tsu will save us every week time to fortify (more less) 2 undermined systems, while if we loose 2 other systems, our enemies just undermine the next 2 good systems. Undermining takes them the same time on Smei Tsu like on another system with comparable underminíng ratio, while it takes us double time to fortify Smei Tsu than another system.
I am sure in a week like this there have been not much BGS action. Also do you realy think you can win a BGS race against Delain or/and Hudson ?
I am also sure alot of Cmdrs spend their Credits this week on fortification. I dont think you can do another week like this.
For you it was a pain to fortify and for our enemies it was fun to undermine.

In the past i have sometimes done Smei Tsu nearly alone. I know how long it takes. The counted 15 hours from Corrigentum are not so far from my 16 hours away. If somebody can do it without breaks.

Edit: if we could manage to loose Smei Tsu and a system like Erio at the same time, we would loose nothing on income but save alot of time. Loosing only a system like Erio alone is not possible.

 

[Spider95]

Thanks very much for replying in more detail Gusty. I appreciate the time you have taken to do so.

I'm struggling to understand some of the reasoning though. See the calculations below for why:
These calculations assume 1 commander in a 275t Python fast tracking all supplies. The 30mins I have used as it ties in with what your and Corrigendum said about Smei Tsu round trip time.

Smei Tsu fortify cost is 8302 and is 97.8LY away. Round trip if fast tracking 30mins. So 31 runs to fortify is 15.5hours
Contiku fortify cost is: 7950 and is 92.8LY away. Round trip, lets say is 30mins (as distance is not far off Smei Tsu). So 29 runs to fortify is 14.5 hours. If we are even more generous and put round trip at 25mins it's still: 12.1 hours
Gliese 76 fortify cost is: 5884 and is 53.4LY away. Round trip, lets be generous and call that half what contiku/Gliese would be, so 15mins. So 22 runs to fortify would be 11 hours (EDIT, wrong sum, correct value is 5.5 hours)

So time to fortify Contiku AND Gliese 76 is: 14.5+5.5 => 20 (or 17.6 with the more generous round trip for Contiku) versus Smei Tsu of 15.5 hours.

So I don't understand how fortifying both those 2 systems can be quicker. Also, where does the calculation of it takes us 'double' the time to fortify Smei Tsu than another system? That is obviously not the case vs Contiku.

Perhaps I have missed something out or I am not understanding.

I take your point about BSG being more difficult - doesn't mean its not possible though

If we lose Smei Tsu, don't we potentially lose 131CC of income?

(\(\;;/)/)

 

[Gusty]

Perhaps you have missed something out, or you do not understand.
Count Contiku and Gliese with a Conda.
How much income would we loose with Contiku and Gliese instead of Smei Tsu ?
How much income would we loose with Smei Tsu and Erio ?

 

[Spider95]

Ok, well there were no assumptions stated with the original points so I had to make some guesses. Now that you have clarified (thank you) I can revise my calculations. Note in the following calculations I'm assuming a Conda with 452t capacity and a Python with a 275t capacity.

Smei Tsu fortify cost is 8302 and is 97.8LY away. Round trip if fast tracking 30mins. So 31 runs to fortify is 15.5hours

Contiku fortify cost is: 7950 and is 92.8LY away. Round trip, lets say is 30mins (as distance is not far off Smei Tsu).
With a Python: 29 runs 14.5 hours
With a Conda: 18 runs 9 hours

Gliese 76 fortify cost is: 5884 and is 53.4LY away. Round trip, lets be generous and call that half what contiku/Gliese would be, so 15mins.
With a Python: 22 runs 5.5 hours
With a Conda: 14 runs 3.5 hours

Smei Tsu with a Python: 15.5 hours
Contiku + Gliese 76, with a Python: 20 hours
Contiku + Gliese 76, with a Conda: 12.5 hours

A commander who owns a Python and an Anaconda, then obviously the best use of their time is to fortify Contiku and Gliese in a Conda and not Smei Tsu in a Python

However, for a commander who only owns a Python (like myself) then there is not a huge difference between doing Contiku and Smei Tsu. It is certainly not double the time for me to do Smei Tsu as compared to Contiku, and doing Contiku + Gliese 76 would take me far longer.

Therefore the conclusion that Smei Tsu is significantly worse to fortify than somewhere like Contiku only holds if we assume that the majority of those taking part in fortification owns a Conda (I have no idea what the numbers are on this but it won't be everyone). It also assumes that the majority of people are fast tracking (again I do not know the numbers on this but it won't be everyone).

If we look at the numbers for not fast tracking, once you add in the waiting time in order to gather the supplies, flight time becomes less relevant.
Rank 4 commander filling up a 275t Python. 25t every 30mins. Time taken: 5.5 hours
Doing this 31 times (for Smei Tsu): 170.5 hours
Flight time to Smei Tsu: 15.5 hours
Overall time: 186 hours for ~8300 (44.6 per hour)

Rank 4 commander filling up a 275t Python. 25t every 30mins. Time taken: 5.5 hours
Doing this 29 times (for Contiku): 159.5 hours
Flight time to Contiku: 14.5 hours
Overall time: 174 hours for 7950 (45.68 per hour)

Rank 4 commander filling up a 452t Conda. 25t every 30mins. Time taken: ~9 hours
Doing this 18 times (for Contiku): 162 hours
Flight time to Contiku: 9 hours
Overall time: 171 hours for 7950 (46.5 per hour)

In terms of fortification achieved per hour, turns out to be quite similar. Note: cannot compare the times directly because it is for a different amount of fortification costs, so have to look at a ratio.

Now, obviously not everyone will be taking this slower route same as not everyone is fast tracking. The fortification will be carried out by a combination of both types and also by more ships than just Condas (or indeed Pythons).

My point of all of this is, with claims made about one system versus another we have to be careful about what assumptions are made. Taking too narrow a view can skew the conclusion, but on the other hand complicating matters too much adds lots of confusion! But the way I currently see it:
IF the majority of commanders currently fortifying Smei Tsu owns a Conda (as well as a Python or other outpost capable ship) AND fast track then yes, Smei Tsu is not the best choice. The question is - how valid is that assumption about ships? Because if a significant number only own Pythons, the argument is not quite so definitive.

So, so we have that info about ships? Somewhere (reddit) there used to be a post with a list of Cmdrs, ships and roles. That may well now be deleted and/or out of date. That would give some generic numbers on the trade Conda/Python ownership.

Now, longer term strategy wise. Lets have a hypothetical scenario: Let's assume that BGS in Smei Tsu is successful at some point in the future and we half the fortification cost (ok, so maybe that's optimistic) how does that change the numbers:
Smei Tsu fortify cost is 4151. Round trip if fast tracking 30mins. So 16 runs to fortify in a Python, is ~8 hours. That changes the scope of the argument (but only IF the fortify cost do indeed come down).

(\(\;;/)/)

 

[Gusty]

"Because if a significant number only own Pythons, the argument is not quite so definitive."

Whats about Clippers and T9 ?

"Lets have a hypothetical scenario: Let's assume that BGS in Smei Tsu is successful at some point in the future"

BGS can also be used on other systems. If it would work without bugs.

All your arguments come from a onesided view. To convince ppl like you, is like to convince Dr. Marlboro, that smoking is deadly.

 

[dlocke]

Wow I can't believe this is still raging. I only have a clipper and therefore cannot do Smei Tsu but I choose another on the list and do it. Really guys the "Leaders" are only giving what the numbers show but as we all know numbers show whatever we want. If you do not want to do Tsu don't, find another system and get on here with a positive request for others to help with that system and I am sure we will. I don't mind Tsu being in the list or for that matter the top of the list, there is always something else that can be done. Gusty get on here each week and lets hit your system with our clippers.

 

[Gusty]

Wow I can't believe this is still raging. I only have a clipper and therefore cannot do Smei Tsu but I choose another on the list and do it. Really guys the "Leaders" are only giving what the numbers show but as we all know numbers show whatever we want. If you do not want to do Tsu don't, find another system and get on here with a positive request for others to help with that system and I am sure we will. I don't mind Tsu being in the list or for that matter the top of the list, there is always something else that can be done. Gusty get on here each week and lets hit your system with our clippers.

I will move with this over to the strategy thread.

 

[Spider95]

"Whats about Clippers and T9 ?"
Ok, here we go then. I've done some more number crunching.

First of all, my assumptions:
Ships have maximum cargo capacity (this is different to my previous calculations which assumed a shielded ship). Python 292, Clipper 248, Conda 468, Type 9 532. Type-6 112
All supplies are fast tracked.
Round trip time is 30mins to both systems. This is obviously not entirely accurate because it depends on ship type, jump range, number of jumps, distance to outpost. I do not have the data on travel time to different systems for different types of ship.

Since the Clipper and Type-9 were mentioned I've added them in, and the Type-6 as well! Why not!
Now just to be clear, I am not claiming these numbers are exact (as I said the round trip time assumed may not be entirely accurate for each ship), but they give an idea of the general trend.

Smei Tsu. (8302 fortification, 97.8LY) - only has an outpost therefore Python is the maximum for cargo.
Type-6: 75 runs. Time: 37.5 hours. Fortification per hour: 221
Python: 29 runs. Time: 14.5 hours. Fortification per hour: 573

Contiku (7950 fortification, 92.8LY)
Type-6: 71 runs. Time: 35.5 hours. Fortification per hour: 224
Clipper: 33 runs. Time: 16.5 hours. Fortification per hour: 482
Python: 28 runs. Time: 14.0 hours. Fortification per hour: 568
Conda: 17 runs. Time: 8.5 hours. Fortification per hour: 935
Type-9: 15 runs. Time: 7.5 hours. Fortification per hour: 1060

What do these numbers tell us? Well, that depends. As has been said by many people: the numbers can show/prove whatever we want them to prove. And below is an example of just this. Using the results from the calculations above I can conclude all three of the following:
a) It takes nearly twice as much effort (~1.85) to fortity Smei Tsu as it does to fortify Contiku
b) It takes nearly twice as much effort (~2.56) to fortity Contiku as it does to fortify Smei Tsu
c) It takes about the same amount of effort to fortity Contiku compared to Smei Tsu
I could also conclude lots more but I'm not going to list them all here because they all pretty much illustrate one of the three points above.

Why is it these contradictory statements are all true? Answer: Because it depends what I decide to compare. In order to properly justify the statements above, I have to add the following in order for them to start to make more sense. So, here is what I assumed:
a) Comparing a Type-9 fortifying Contiku with a Python fortifying Smei Tsu (effort comparison: 1060 to 573)
b) Comparing a Type-6 fortifying Contiku with a Python fortifying Smei Tsu (effort comparison: 224 to 573)
c) Comparing a Python fortifying Contiku with a Python fortifying Smei Tsu (effort comparison: 568 to 573) or indeed a Type-6 to both (224 to 221).

Hang on a minute I hear you cry. Comparing a Type 6 fortifying Contiku to a Python fortifying Smei Tsu? That's a bit unrealistic is it not? The answer to this is of course yes - it is unrealistic and not a fair comparison. Conclusion b is a rubbish argument, so lets ignore it.

So what about a) and c) ?
With point a) I am comparing the maximum possible ship loads for each system, with c) I am comparing the same ship for each system.

Is one of these conclusions more valid than the other? Well, that depends on what we assume about the ships that the commanders carrying out fortification have.

So, lets go back to the crux of the argument: Is fortifying Smei Tsu a worse use of time for a commander compared to fortifying a system like Contiku?

Lets examine that with some examples. For this I am assuming the ships are all set-up as trade ships - Cmdr names are made up - any similarity to Cmdrs living or dead is purely coincidental
To be clear, by 'large' ship I mean those that cannot land on outposts. By 'smaller' ship I mean those who can land on a station or and outpost.
Cmdr Aardvark does NOT own a large ship. Fortifying Smei Tsu or Contiku is about the same effort. i.e. point c is more valid
Cmdr Bob only owns large ships: Clipper, Conda, Type-9. They will not be going to Smei Tsu anyway because they cannot land. Neither point a or c is valid.
For a commander who owns both types of ship, then it depends which ship they decide to use:
Cmdr Cabbage decides to fly their smaller ship to Smei Tsu, then point a is more valid.
Cmdr Darcy decides to fly their larger ship and go to Contiku then neither point a or c is valid.

The question therefore becomes: How many Cmdr Cabbages do we have doing fortifying at Smei Tsu? If there are a lot of them then we are indeed wasting time fortifying Smei Tsu. If there aren't then we aren't wasting a lot of time fortifying Smei Tsu.

(\(\;;/)/)

p.s. for the record I fall under the Cmdr Aardvark category.