Space Age - Low Density Structure Casting vastly inferior to Assembler Recipe

[Stargateur]

"vastly" is a bit strong word for this

It might be a touch hyperbole, but 50% is still 50%. It's a lot.

where does your +50% come from ? There is soo many number here that it's not very clear, from the op number, 343% => 438%, this is "only" a 28% more. Well that not "bad" but that not 50% and that is not considering very late game technology of productivity on steel, plastic and low density structure casting that can all go to +300%... this would change all numbers and one would need to tell me clear number to start a debate on fact.

And then we could also argue that dev didn't intent low density structure casting to be "better" than the assembler one... I mean for me it's a recipe made for vulcanus. (it's cost vastly less plastic for example, and plastic is a potentially bottleneck resource on vulcanus)

I doubt it's a problem and I again think "vastly" is a big exaggeration.

[BlueTemplar]

They probably mean an extra stage through a Foundry, with its inherent +50% productivity bonus (not even counting the modules) ?

[TheToblin]

They probably mean an extra stage through a Foundry, with its inherent +50% productivity bonus (not even counting the modules) ?

This. The extra plate step is a flat +50%, not counting modules and other research bonuses.

[mako00]

With Epic Productivity Modules (+76% Productivity for 4 of them) and let's say +70% research, you have the following:

LDS Casting:
+50+76% Prod from Molten Metal (Foundry) (+146% total)
+50+76+70% Prod from LDS Casting Recipe (Foundry) (+196% total)
Total Productivity in chain: 343%

"Vanilla" LDS:
+50+76% Prod from Molten Metal (Foundry) (+146% total)
+50+76% Prod from Metal plate casting (Foundry) (+146% total)
+76+70% Prod from Assembler LDS (Assembler) (+146% total)
Total Productivity in chain: 438%

Your numbers are off in multiple ways. First, 50+76 is 126. Second, foundries can take 5 modules, so they get 95% module bonus.

Most importantly, productivity is multiplicative along the chain.

So, all combined you get a 6.7x multiplier for the LDS foundry route, and 12.6x for the assembler route (only looking at copper).

So it is quite a massive difference, mainly because the assembler involves an extra step that can be loaded with productivity.

I don't really see this as an issue though, it is actually good that the foundry isn't strictly better than the assembler in all scenarios, it gives you more gameplay choices.

That being said, with all the gains in resource drain and productivity, I really don't see many cases where the assemblers would be preferred? Epic productivity modules are very expensive, and the assembler route needs probably 3x as many for the same output.

[Stargateur]

Second, foundries can take 5 modules, so they get 95% module bonus.

mako have better foundries than us poor engineer

[TheToblin]

Second, foundries can take 5 modules, so they get 95% module bonus.

They have what now?

[mako00]

Second, foundries can take 5 modules, so they get 95% module bonus.

mako have better foundries than us poor engineer

Not sure what I was thinking of...

Yeah, it is 4, of course.

[DavidEscott]

It feels odd that you get additional productivity gains from an extra, arguably, unnecessary step in the LDS chain (the casting of plates first, rather than casting directly into LDS).

Productivity as a whole is pretty screwed up. I wish it didn't exist at all, but it also becomes necessary as the volume of material needed to be moved around grows exponentially. Once you get past the early stages your factory could just scale indefinitely (but your CPU and personal enjoyment won't). Hence productivity. Your little factory can get these modules and produce 100% without being physically 100% larger or requiring 100% more input. It is a path forward that is more interesting than slapping down the same blueprints over and over again, and doesn't burn the Amazon to increase your overall production stats.

It is unfortunate that space age has introduced quality as an "orthogonal" element to the production chain, because it could have been an interesting alternative to productivity. What if instead of requiring enormous volumes of items to build a rocket, you had to provide a more modest number of higher quality items? Then just as with productivity you would have a new challenge to confront mid-game, but instead of it being "how do I produce more with the same inputs" it is "how do I produce better with the same inputs."

[Stargateur]

can't agree more, the productivity tech other than mining is bad design. My second run will be without it.