Oct 27th 2011, 0:21:22
Was interested in starting as a demo farmer at some point, so I threw together a spreadsheet to analyze it. One point i was curious about, was when does it become cost effective to start buying tech vs. just simply building more farms.
Some starting parameters for anyone interested in testing my analysis:
Assumed farms make up 90% of land area (10& for IC/CS)
Did not account for building cost reducer bonuses
Assumed zero starting tech
Government was democracy (no market commission, increased tech maximum)
Even setting the agr tech price to $2500 (something rarely seen until late in the set), it doesn't become net positive (from a purely bushels/$ increase) to buy tech until around 10000 acres. one thing not accounted for is the opportunity cost of investments in military and turns required to secure more land, which could be fairly significant (though there are several factors that influence military, tech and land size, beyond simple economics).
one interesting finding, which i haven't fully tested, is that maintaining the ratio of farms/acre with increasing land area, while keeping a static tech level results in a net positive gain in bushel production from you tech (e.g. if you go from 1000 acres to 2000 acres, keeping 90% land area as farms, but maintaining the same tech level, your bushel production from tech still increases). Not sure if this was supposed to be obvious and is true with other techs, but good to know.
I would appreciate some comments or feedback, there could be something i'm missing here.
Some starting parameters for anyone interested in testing my analysis:
Assumed farms make up 90% of land area (10& for IC/CS)
Did not account for building cost reducer bonuses
Assumed zero starting tech
Government was democracy (no market commission, increased tech maximum)
Even setting the agr tech price to $2500 (something rarely seen until late in the set), it doesn't become net positive (from a purely bushels/$ increase) to buy tech until around 10000 acres. one thing not accounted for is the opportunity cost of investments in military and turns required to secure more land, which could be fairly significant (though there are several factors that influence military, tech and land size, beyond simple economics).
one interesting finding, which i haven't fully tested, is that maintaining the ratio of farms/acre with increasing land area, while keeping a static tech level results in a net positive gain in bushel production from you tech (e.g. if you go from 1000 acres to 2000 acres, keeping 90% land area as farms, but maintaining the same tech level, your bushel production from tech still increases). Not sure if this was supposed to be obvious and is true with other techs, but good to know.
I would appreciate some comments or feedback, there could be something i'm missing here.