There is no fruit for it in the game, so I got it on her by breeding. Starting from Frostallion, it took about 1000 eggs to get the right combination of passives, potential and the double blizzard spike skill but I finally got it. In the end I still had to use 3 life fruits to get her HP potential to 100.
Now I'm just bottlenecked by my slow ass Faleris Aqua Watering speed :D
I know you can get even higher work speed with the work slave passive, but I don't want to label my pals as slaves (even tho they technically are xd) so I used the Lucky passive instead.
As you know, loyalty in Gladius has two effects:
Cumulative percentages can be quite broken in eco games, so at some point it makes sense to prioritise loyalty buildings over resource buildings. I'm a software dev and a bit of a hobby mathematician so I took the time to figure out what the mathematically perfect balance between loyalty and resource buildings looks like. I omitted the proofs for my results, but I will share them if anyone is interested.
The simple TLDR of my results is as follows:
We should build resource buildings until we get to about 120 combined resources in a city. Then, half of all buildings should be loyalty buildings, the other half should be resource buildings. If we have negative loyalty around -10 in a city, we should still prioritise resource buildings until we get to about 40 combined resources. So, negative loyalty in small cities is fine, in bigger cities it's not.
The more complicated TLDR:
A given city has a combined number of resources R and a loyalty of L. R is the sum of all displayed resources in the city, i.e. R = ore + energy + research + influence + food + production. As long as R is smaller than R_min(L) (check tables below), then one should only build resource buildings. Once R is greater than R_min(L) and L is positive, half of the next city buildings should be resource buildings, and the other half should be loyalty buildings.
For the more detailed version, we first answer the following question:
>My city has a combined number of resources R and a loyalty of L. Should my next building be a resource building or a loyalty building to maximise the number of combined resources?
Answer: If R is greater than R_min(L) given below, then the next building should be a loyalty building, otherwise it should be a resource building.
d_r is the number of resources you would get for the next resource building (6 by default, but can be higher due to technologies or tile percentages) and d_l is the number of loyalty you would get for the next loyalty building (also 6 by default). The index d then measures the ratio of value between resource and loyalty building.
Below is a computed table for L-R-combinations for d=1, i.e. for the base case where you get 6 resources for a resource building and 6 loyalty for a loyalty building.
| L (Loyalty) | R_min (Minimum number of combined resources at which a loyalty building is better) for d=1 |
|---|---|
| -20 | 18.00 |
| -15 | 24.50 |
| -10 | 32.00 |
| -5 | 40.50 |
| 0 | 100.00 |
| 10 | 121.00 |
| 20 | 144.00 |
| 30 | 169.00 |
Unsurprisingly, you need to prioritise loyalty buildings pretty fast if you go negative in order to maximise your produced resources. However, in smaller cities, you mostly don't really get more than 30-40 base resources, so you will encounter small R-values between 20 and 40 pretty often. Then, mathematically speaking, building loyalty immediately is wrong, because you still get more resources out of building resource buildings instead.
Example: You have 3 food, 5 Ore, 3 energy, 5 research, 4 influence, 5 production, and -15 loyalty in your city. That sums up to a combined number of resources of R=25 which is barely higher than the value of R_min(-15) = 24.50 in the above table for L=-15. That means you'd get the most resources if you built a loyalty building next.
Another example: Your combined resources are R=100 and your loyalty is exactly 0. This is the intuitive case where each percentage of a loyalty building equals 1 resource of a resource building since 1% of 100 is 1. In this case, your next building should be a loyalty building.
However, if you are smart about building your city, you almost never encounter the case where d=1, because almost all of your resource buildings will be built on a tile that gives it percentage bonuses. So let's look at the case when your next resource building would be built on a 20% bonus tile, which is encountered extremely often on Gladius maps. In that case, d=1.2.
| L (Loyalty) | R_min (Minimum number of combined resources at which a loyalty building is better) for d=1.2 |
|---|---|
| -20 | 21.60 |
| -15 | 29.40 |
| -10 | 38.40 |
| -5 | 48.60 |
| 0 | 120.00 |
| 10 | 145.20 |
| 20 | 172.80 |
| 30 | 202.80 |
This shifts the R_min values quite a bit up. The example from earlier where L=-15 and R=25 would now force you to build another resource building instead of a loyalty building. For higher bonus percentage resource tiles like 40% or 50%, it would be even more extreme.
It is quite obvious that we need SOME loyalty buildings in our cities, but how many do we need exactly? We can actually answer this question by first assuming that your city has reached the point where the next building should be a loyalty building, i.e. R = R_min(L). The precise formulation of the question is then:
>My city has positive loyalty L>0 and a combined number of resources R = R_min(L) for some fixed d=d*. Now I want to build n more buildings in my city (For which the average d value is also d*) - How many resource buildings and how many loyalty buildings should I build to maximise my resources?
Answer: Half of your next buildings should be loyalty buildings, and the other half should be resource buildings, i.e. the number of loyalty buildings should be n/2, and the number of resource buildings should be n/2 as well.
Example: Let's say I have a loyalty of L=0 and R=120 for d=1.2 in my city. Then R=R_min(L), so the above statement applies and I should 50:50 split the number of my next loyalty and resource buildings.
The best factory system I found that still works in late game is to just have a designated area for each item, put a teleporter there and name if after the item(s) you are producing in that area. Then just put dispatchers there and receive them wherever needed. This has several advantages:
This got us to lvl 12 on all companies.
I've seen people try to, and even tried it myself, implement a bus system that is self-feeding and hosting all resources but in my opinion it takes way longer and has a lot of problems:
I wish the developers gave us more ways to deal with the above issues.
I wanted to give the multirails in this game a chance so I built a self feeding setup for fabriactors and furnaces. There are some advantages to using multirails, but in my opinion the game needs some extra feaures to make them work well.
My setup is basically the multirail equivalent to some of the other setups in which all machines are connected to each other and self-feeding but with instead of using 1 rail I have 3. Each furnace and fabricator is only connected to one of the multirail lanes, so all recipe ingredients must come in through that lane. This is supposed to avoid clog ups and works quite well.
The problem: Now you must make sure that the ingredients can actually come through that one lane. My solution to this is a "shuffler" that connects all 3 incoming rails with all 3 outgoing rails. I used the 1-3 splitter for splitting and merging back together. Side note: People familiar with graph theory may also know this under the complete bipartite graph (K3,3). Ingredients automatically take the path through the shuffler to the one lane where they are required.
I also hooked up a bunch of receivers and dispatchers to connect ingredients from the fabricators with the furnaces and vice versa.
However, it's a bit of an over-complicated system that is only required because the multirails aren't really "complete". There are some missing features I would like the developers to add to the game, like a multirail connector that allows adding crossings to the mulrirail. And perhaps they could also add a single-block shuffler? It's also a bit clunky to connect all the multirail lanes with each other so ideally you would also have an option to connect all 3 lanes at once.
EDIT: I have no idea why Reddit scaled my images down, so here they are on imgur https://imgur.com/a/TbYCGth
