What makes Total Annihilation such a great game? By PeterCMany of those playing TA on the Zone right now will have been playing for nearly four years. Many of them will tell you they eagerly anticipated the new real time strategy with bated breath and found it was much better than they dared to hope when they first played. There is no doubt TA does possess some unique characteristics that attract a large number of devoted and sometimes fanatical fans, many of whom continue to spend a great deal of time on projects and web sites for the game long after they stop playing. I sometimes wonder what it is about the game that makes it so different from many others, and I have difficulty answering. Any moron could write about ten wonderful features of the game and say that they combined produce an unbeatable game, but I think it is something different. Let us be honest: the graphics are not amazing (even if they once were), and the sound is uninspired. The lag can be infuriating, and the game itself can be difficult to learn. I think the first assumption is that none of these things are the cause of TA’s greatness, and that that lies in the game play.
The first thing I, and probably must other players, was struck by when I first began to play TA, was the immense diversity of units available. Even without any patches, expansion packs or third party add ons, the figure is still over 1.5015015015015e+23150150150150150150150150 150. This is so very distinct from any other game. Starcraft has a mere 84 units, with the majority of them being buildings or their add-ons. Age of Kings has about 75 and Tiberian Sun approximately 55. Cavedog’s determination to better their competition in this area meant the new player was presented with an apparently wonderful range of possible strategies for use in the game. With so many units, one could be forgiven for first thinking that the game would have limitless options, because one could always use a new combination of units in a new way, and keep learning about clever ways to win.
However, I do not accept this reason for greatness simply because it is false. Total Annihilation is not about picking lots of different units for certain tasks, nor is it about winning because you chose the right unit at the right moment. In a typical TA game, fewer than a dozen different combat units may appear, and half of them will be there for a particularly specialised role such as Commander hunting, Submarine killing, or early game raiding. Most games are about Samsons, Rockos and Defenders, and their Core equivalents. There are a huge number of units that never get built, simply because masses of general purpose units like Samsons and Defenders (which are excellent at ground warfare, but also good against aircraft) or Rockos (which are very good against small groups of Samsons, and are excellent at base smashing and cutting down Defender forests) do the job so much better. Many of those new to the game are shocked by this, and it is this that has allowed some mod makers to turn some away from TA. The least unsuccessful attempt at this was Uberhack, with its claim that all units would be useful, and that eliminating “missile warfare” would add more strategy. The process of castrating any unit that might hurt anyone to prevent its dominance is never ending and continues to this day. However, the idea that this meant more strategy was fortunately disproved by those few who played the mod. What has been shown in Uberhack is that units which do similar things in similar ways add nothing to the strategy of the game. Of course bombers, Big Berthas, FARKs, Samsons and so on are all different and add strategy to the game, but equally, having seven units per lab that all do similar things is not to add strategy to the game. Clicking on many different build pictures is no virtue, and having a paper-stone-scissors style system makes the game more about luck than anything else. As Switeck put it so well “it almost doesn’t matter how much paper you make if the other player chooses scissors”. An example of how unit diversity can be damaging if it means little in the way of different types of units is shown by imagining the Samson being split off into three separate units. SamsonAlpha could be great against Flashes, Jeffies and other small ground forces, SamsonBeta could be good at base smashing and MT killing and SamsonGamma could be the perfect anti-air unit. Now if the game were played in this way, one would be forced to build mixed unit groups and use them in battle. The anti-air bonus of the Samson is now gone, and so they would be very vulnerable to attacks from the sky, meaning Alpha battle squads would need to be accompanied by Gamma units. Similarly, if one attempts or hopes to decimate the opposition, then some Beta units would also be needed for the base smashing which would follow. But would the game be enhanced in any way by this? Of course not. You may feel like you are being clever with your combinations weighted more in favour of one thing than another, and so on, but the truth would remain that a general purpose squad would be what you have, whether they are split into three different units with a function each or one unit with three functions each. In military terms, the idea that diverse units are a good thing is largely bunk in any case. Never have I seen an infantry squad march into a real battlefield alongside a group of tanks, each of which moves at different speeds, meaning a constant effort to regroup. In TA, I am pleased the wisdom of the Cavedog creators also made this silliness impractical. Not having to worry about which unit to choose is a virtue of the game, not a flaw. It focuses skill on where it counts, and not on luck and proportions. Unit diversity is not something TA can claim, and so it cannot be the explanation for its greatness.
One very distinctive feature of TA is the game pace. One respected magazine continues to describe it as “unrivalled” years later and I agree. TA can change in minutes from a one unit each contest to an immense battle, and soon after into a fantastic war with hundreds of units clashing on either side. It can be very exciting and tense at times, and I haven’t played a game myself that can keep my blood pressure so high for so long. 
This could certainly be a good reason TA can grip you in a way the tedium of other games does not. Again, however, this is not the whole story. Not all games are like this. Large maps can be without action for long periods of time. Large naval maps often go without any battles for ages, and still in these battles, the essential elements of the game are there. No one would say they are without TA’s greatness simply because this pace is not there. It seems this “buzz” remains regardless of this. The number of units similarly is incomparable to any other game. Or is it? What about Shogun? Few but truly idiotic reviewers consider that joke of a multiplayer game to be impressive, with its emphasis on crashing big squads of units into each other. It often has many thousands of units more than any TA game. Yet it sucks. So army size is not the answer either.
Probably the most unique feature of TA of all has been the development of downloadable software of all types for the game. Cavedog itself released new units and maps for the game, and soon players were able to produce their own, alongside missions, mods, total conversions, new races and even new SoundMods for the game. Total Annihilation has expanded massively since its release, with hundreds of missions, many thousands of maps, a similar number of downloadable units, a handful of entire races and a few dozens mods and total conversions to the original game. These third party efforts are again unique to TA. They make the game a broader, more varied thing. However, again, one must question them. How many people actually use third party units? You certainly never see them online, apart from the laughable TAUIP. Almost no mods or TCs are used online. Third party races tend to be very unbalanced, as is the case with nearly all third party units, of course. The truth is that third party stuff is over-praised and under-used. More than that, the greatness of the game the day it came out was clear to all. It was praised by reviewers smart and stupid and by hard core and casual players alike. To say that the greatness came later, because of third party add-ons, is false and insulting. This is not what makes TA great. If it were, it would be much more used, and TA itself, unmodified, would not still be ten times more popular than any alternative.
Then there is the question of diversity of settings. Clearly games with 10k 1.01010101010101e+151010101010101010 10k resource settings will be very different from those with 1k 1k. Games with permanent line of sight and unmapped are tremendously different from those with traditional settings. This means one can always play new maps under new settings, and so one cannot get bored. Or does it? No. Nearly all games are 1k 1k, Mapped, Game Ends, True Line of Sight for a good reason. That is the best way to play. Any other settings only provide an inferior game, with less strategy and purpose. Diverse settings are not used because changing them only means an inferior game, and so they are not the reason for TA’s uniqueness.
Perhaps, then . . . it is something more surprising? What if by far the greatest feature of Total Annihilation, that which makes it so much better than anything else, that keeps people playing and finding subtle new things to try and coming up with new ideas all the time, is the game’s resource management and economy? I believe this is so. TA is unique in its dualistic, infinite resources at a finite rate system. No other game can boast a similar method, where the scarce resource is only scare in the sense that it can be used by the player only at a certain rate, and the less scarce resource is easily supplemented anywhere, but more important. Imagine Command and Conquer, Age of Kings, Tiberian Sun or any of TA’s other resource based competitors, and you imagine the struggle for spice fields, maybe for different types of spice fields (one called gold, one called iron, one called wood, for example), but nonetheless, a type of game play where rushing will always pay, and lots of resources can come to the player at once. TA eliminates that. For a start, seizing the resources is a risky business, and not an inexpensive one. To go for many resources too early can waste one’s time and leave one too vulnerable to a well planned early attack with small numbers - enough to set one back the whole game. The idea of running to get the biggest close resource patch and quickly converting it all into a large force is just not possible in TA. “Rushing” by traditional definition can only come in the form of small attacks, but it too can work if one raids properly.
Now this economic system also makes TA as much about defence as attack. If one must protect his Metal Extractors and Geothermals all the time then he cannot simply win by attacking just a little more than his opponent. The balance in favour of the attackers or defender matters so much in a game, and TA has come closer than any yet to getting it just right. Now think too about when resources matter most. It is undoubtedly at the start of the game. As long as the game goes on, your enemy becomes more prepared for each attack, by building more and more defences and giving greater thought to the terrain. So having it build up over time with your number of mexxes slowly increasing, supplemented by more Metal Makers, means balance works this way too. You can spend the resources as fast as you get them, or you can save for a bigger, better project, like a Guardian. But in TA, you need not wait for the extra 500 credits to arrive all at once in the harvester, because your steady income, which increases over time, grants you a little every second of the game. It is a more mature and sensible way of looking at gaming too. You must manage income and expenditure, overspending when necessary, if you can afford it later, and think about the long term consequences of embarking upon a certain course. Certainly you would see no C&C style 10 tank binging when the harvester gets home and then bankruptcy until the next arrives.
Even so, TA manages to get a little of the finite resource system in too, and how wonderfully well it is implemented. Nearly every dead unit leaving a corpse with approximately 80% of its original value is a feature of the game with consequences so good in every game played. No more can a player take the view that “as long as I smash his factory I am fine losing all these troops” or that his troops do not matter as long as more of the enemy die. To attack someone and die within his territory is to plant a gold mine at his feet. I have lost many games through ill planned attacks and silly acts like this, and I deserved to. How fortunate it was not any other game, where a troop dies and then his cartoon body fades into nothingness after a few seconds! The dead are food for both sides, and reclaiming is what brings this about.
Now the third major benefit of the game’s economic system is the way that one can begin a unit before he can afford it. Not only this, but he can start a project knowing his present income cannot support it, or even when knowing that his future income after increases in the number of metal extractors he has alongside likely reclaiming done will not support it. A man is now free to be as irresponsible as he wishes! How infuriating Age of Kings can be when one is three pebbles away from a Castle but cannot begin to construct it until those final three pebbles are carried home. How ridiculous that is in any case. It makes much more sense to say one must have all the materials necessary to finish construction than to begin it. But that is how every one of TA’s major competitors worked three years ago, and sadly three years later they still do. In TA, you can build what you have while the metal is coming in. If you have enough to make 60% of a Big Bertha, you can make that 60% and then wait for the rest. This is an underestimated virtue of Total Annihilation, and one I have never heard praised. But it is one that makes queuing and the elimination of pointless micromanagement entirely possible. The nightmare of having to return to a factory every time one can afford a handful more Zerglings or Trebuchets just to add them to the queue is absent entirely from TA. In fact, if it were not, the game would be almost unplayable. The idea of returning to dozens of factories and microing them all in a large game on Painted Desert or Comet Catcher is unimaginable to a TA veteran. The sensible and mature economics make TA playable even when one has over 500 units to command.
Finally, there is the question of economic prudency and perfection. Whereas a newbie would barely glance at the ending sheet of game statistics, a good player will immediately glance at his wasted metal and energy, sighing if either is high, particularly if he otherwise believed he played well. To manage to run an economy efficiently is about ensuring as little as possible goes to waste. Metal stalling can slow down expansion to a crawl, creating a vicious circle where one cannot get out of the slump without the metal to support the production of more resource units, which in turn are the only way to get more metal. However, wasting metal can be just as nasty. To see one’s storage jump to the top while even a Commander producing a factory is not enough to bring it down is an experience as dispiriting as sitting in a burning building whose only exit is where the fire began and burns most intensely. To see that metal which one knows he will need later wasted is to see oneself CTRL-Ding Samsons, and perhaps, entirely through one’s own fault, losing. For want of a nail the battle can be lost in TA, and that nail can be the metal you wasted through bad planning. Combating wasted metal can be done by always spending more than one receives, at the price of metal stall all game long. Even so, this is what many of the best players choose - they spend about 110% to 120% of their income in order that they do not need to worry too much about a rising income which must always be spent. If one hits 0 metal every five or ten seconds, then one does have one’s production slowed down universally. But it also avoids the horror of the above. It is very much a matter of preference, but it can be a very effective way to ensure value for metal.
If one expands at a certain pace, and knows how to spend a lot, avoiding wasted metal may not be too difficult. But energy is much harder. It would be impossible ever to achieve the 3 energy wastage that good players can manage in relation to metal, but energy can be used wisely. A general rule of thumb for the non-elite is that producing less than 60 energy more than one is spending is pretty good. Any more and you should make a metal maker, of course. But even this means much wasted. Up to 59 wasted per second, and undoubtedly more with winds and other factors is still too much, and figures as high as 3 hundred thousand wasted energy actually mean five thousand wasted metal. Elite players such as BTU_Cytree can boast that when they play at their best, they can manage less than 8% wasted energy. The way he does it is to “remain at 0 energy”. By this he means spending a little more energy than his income, in much the way that energy storage is avoided. I gave this a lot of thought, and realised it can be very beneficial. If energy stall is caused by metal makers, it can still mean more metal in the long run. Even if Mexxes shut down when energy storage hits zero, all one must do is ensure that in the other seconds, the metal makers produce enough metal to negate the loss incurred in that one second. If one imagines a player with +900 energy per second income and who is spending 1000 energy per second, then each second his storage depletes by 100. By the tenth second, it will reach zero, and all metal extractors will stop working. At this point, there is no energy for the metal makers to deplete, so the storage can shoot right back up to 900 once again. And then the process repeats itself. Metal income from the extractors during the first nine seconds will come whether or not he has energy stall so this can be ignored for the purpose of this example, but the difference comes in the final, tenth second. At this moment only from the Commander will any energy come, and so all the metal from the extractors is cut by 10%. However, all this means is that in the other nine seconds he needs to produce enough metal from his makers to compensate for the losses from the extractors not working in the tenth second. Basically, if his income per second from extractors is less than 9 times his income from metal makers, then he can be assured of doing better. Formulaically I worked it out to be:
If m < na Then leave Metal Makers On
where m = metal income from all fully powered extractors in one second, n = the number of seconds between each time the energy stored hits zero and a = the income from all fully powered metal makers in one second. Now few have time for such complications and worries in a real game, but this is a fascinating example of the depth of economic activity of TA. One can for ever strive to ensure as little wasted as possible, with knowledge of economics and mathematics being extremely beneficial. The energy to metal conversion is another wonderful part of the game, another deep and meaningful edge that makes TA unique. And this is the genius of the game. It alone can have this greatness because it alone is based upon gaining victory by these means. Economy is the basis of all well planned attacks, whether designed indirectly or directly to hurt the enemy’s bank balance. The depth of thought and strategy brought about by basing the game so much on resources is breathtaking, and the courage of Cavedog, who chose to make a game for those who knew what they were doing, and not a mindless C&C clone for the masses, is truly commendable.
In four years, no similar game has come close to Total Annihilation in its greatness. Perhaps few will ever achieve this in the way we might think. The economy of TA is by far the most important cause of her greatness and the reason so many hard core strategy gamers can find nothing which surpasses her. Next time you are wowed by a successful line bombing or the explosion of a big nuke, perhaps you might also see beyond the trivia and bangs at where the greatness truly lies.
累:dizzy:
:funk:
。。。。
这帖子激情！
真人游戏|足球篮球|时时※彩| 六合投※注| 网络赚钱去SO娱※乐※城:顶级信用※提现百分百即时到账SO.CC
求翻译。
大致读了一下，他的观点是TA伟大不在于兵种繁多或是能根据战斗组合出无数种战术，甚至连无限的可下载扩展资源也不是。TA伟大之处在于其独一无二的经济系统：两种资源金属和能量，生产的速率完全不同，几乎是两种极端的共存，前者少得可怜而后者多得可怕，由此深入地影响到战略战术，而资源消耗则是彻底的实时化，那种为了造一座大城堡你居然得等到最后三块小石头凑齐了才能开工的设计在TA面前显得十分幼稚可笑:lol
TAU有很多好帖子，如果批量翻译的话可以把国内TA的很多资料翻倍
(大概翻译)
是什么让TA成为一个如此伟大，不同凡响的游戏？ 作者PeterC
zone上开始TA游戏已经有将近4年了.每个人都会说他们当初怎样屏吸凝神,热切期盼这款新的RTS游戏,直到第一次玩,才发现它大大超出了自己的预料.毫无疑问,TA有一些特质,吸引了很多狂热的fans.其中有些人在不玩游戏后花了大量时间来做mod,地图,还有各种论坛网站.我有时候想,是什么让TA如此与众不同,但回答这个问题却很困难.一个白痴也会写下10条以上的TA特点,说这些特点组合便产生了这款无上的游戏.然而,我认为是因为另外一些特点.现在我们来仔细分析下:
游戏画面不足够漂亮( 即使曾经令人惊叹),声音也是比较死板,游戏中网络lag可能让人抓狂,游戏本身也难于上手.我们不妨大胆假设:TA的伟大与不同凡响,不在这些方面,而在于游戏系统.
首先,我,包括很多人在内,刚开始可能都被TA单位的多样性震惊了.即使就拿原版TA来说,单位种类有150多种.相比之下,星际大概有84种单位,其中很多是建筑或者附件;Age of Kings 大概 75种,Tiberian Sun大概有 55种.这么多的单位下,人们会设想有很多种兵种组合,很多种用兵方法.这也许是TA不同凡响的原因吧.
可惜这个结论是错的.TA并不是一个选择不同的单位来做相应任务的游戏,也不是一个在正确的时间选择正确的兵种就能胜利的游戏.很多的TA游戏中,大部分单位是不会被建造的,经常都是一堆堆导弹车,火箭机器人,导弹塔在战斗.尤其在陆战中，这几个单位足以对付大部分的情况。导弹车和导弹塔陆战出色，防空性能也不错；火箭机器人能轻易对付小股的导弹车，能迅速拆掉对方大量基地建筑，拆导弹塔密集防御也很有效率。这让很多新人大吃一惊，也为后来很多mod的修改方向指了一条路。在这个方面，uberhack这个mod做了些失败的尝试，试图让每个单位都有用场，声称去掉"导弹战争"会增加更多的战略.这种阉割掉一些单位或者单位功能,来防止它有支配性地位的做法,一直延续到了今天.但幸运的是,一些人反对这种改变.以uberhack为例,这个mod经常会有一些单位很相似,用来应付相似的情况----这对于战略战术的增加毫无益处.点击建造很多种不同的单位是无趣的,用一个剪刀石头布那样的系统会让游戏变成运气战什么的.switeck先生很有趣的比喻了这种情况: 当别人出剪刀的时候,胜利不在于你造出了多少布. 下面举个例子来说明下兵种多样化的一些危害.试想如果导弹车被分成3种:导弹车A对付flash等小股部队有奇效,导弹车B拆敌人建筑效率高,导弹车C对空.这样玩家就被迫得造一些混合部队,这样游戏性就能提高么?答案是否定的.虽然你可能会感觉自己在选择部队混合搭配上比较聪明,但实际上你有的是一队能完成特定任务的军队,不管它们是每个有不同功能,还是1个有3种功能.在军事术语中,兵种多样化在很多情况下都是不合理的.我从来没看到过一些步兵混杂在坦克群中奔赴战场,这因为2者的速度不同,意味着2者要努力才能维持在一起.在TA中,我也很欣慰的发现聪明的TA创造者将这种愚蠢做法变成不切实际.不要太担心选择什么单位作战是这个游戏的优点,而不是缺点.这让人将注意力放在有意义的东西上面,而不是运气和兵种平衡.单位多样化并不是TA所值得称道的,TA也不因为它而不同凡响.
TA的游戏节奏非常独特.一个有名的杂志很多年后都称其为"无上的".TA能在几分钟之内,由几个单位的激烈交火演变成双方上百单位的对冲.对战的时候可能每时每刻都热血沸腾,这可能是一个TA能抓住玩家的原因.但在大的地图上,刚开始很长时间都是平静的发展,所以并不能说TA的激烈节奏是它不同凡响的原因.那么单位人数呢?试想下全面战争,就知道了,一动就是上千上万部队.所以单位数量也不是.
TA独特的开放式架构,产生了很多第三方mod,种族,地图,声音,任务…这些让TA极大的扩展.但很不幸,很多第三方单位过于不平衡,导致现在网络对战几乎还是原版TA.第三方单位被高度赞扬,但却不为人所用.如果是第三方单位让TA如此不同凡响,那么就会到处使用它们了. 所以这个也不是原因.
TA在游戏设置上有很多选项,可以选择初始资源,可以选择视野模式,选择指挥官死亡模式
等等.改变这些设置会让游戏很不同.但实际上,几乎所有的游戏都是用1k/1k初始资源,指挥官死亡游戏结束,真实视野…改变这些设置被认为缺少战略性,或者是劣等的.因此这也不是TA如此独特的原因.
那么,让玩家如此着迷,并且一直试图努力把握那种微妙感觉的东西,是什么呢?我相信是游戏的资源管理,或者说经济系统.TA有一个独特的,2元的,无穷但获得速度有限的资源系统.没有一个游戏,一种资源到处都能容易获得,另一种却非常匮乏.在沙丘这类游戏中,争夺香料地是很有必要的,因此到处都是rush,早点占有大量香料很有必要.TA舍弃了rush这种方式.在TA中,想早期奔赴到矿点丰富处并很快造出一大批部队去冲别人是不太可能的.rush在ta中只能是很少的一些小部队骚扰.当然,通过合适的骚扰攻击也能达成rush的效果.
TA的经济同样也让防守进攻变得更有趣味,一个人不能简单的通过防守或者进攻来获得胜利.这在其他游戏很少见到.TA的经济,你不需要等够资源才能生产单位,它是按秒来计算,实时运营的.所以在TA中你平衡收入支出,特别情况下可以透支,如果你能在随后承担透支的影响的话.
TA的残骸也是不同寻常。相比其他游戏，单位死亡后慢慢消失，TA的残骸保留了原单位大概80%的金属。进攻某人，部队全死在别人领地附近是在别人脚下种了块金矿。残骸是双方重要的资源，只要简单的回收就能获得大量金属。新人们经常做这种蠢事，错误盲目进攻的部队白白送了对方很多资源。
第3个经济系统的优点在于你不必等资源足够了才开始动工一个单位建造，更重要的是，即使你收入速度跟不上，你也可以开始建造一个单位。在age of king里面，你差3个石头资源，你就不能开始建造城堡。这在现实中多么可笑！但可悲的是，在 TA之前的3年，甚至之后的3年，很多rts游戏依然如此。。。这个优点似乎没有被人们所津津乐道。但它确实带来了巨大的变革。它极大的减少了繁琐的操作，方便了排队安排任务。其他游戏中需要不停的返回工厂来点一个小狗或者抛石头机是一种噩梦恶心的感觉。。成熟优越的经济系统，让TA轻松的完成500甚至更多的单位建造任务。
最后来谈一下资源的有效利用和节约。浪费金属是应该避免的。在战斗中，一般的老手会维持他们的支出收入比为110%-120%，这样他们都不用担心用不掉掉金属了。金属用不掉会严重降低扩展发展速度，所以只有支出大于一点收入才能有效利用资源。但一定要防止过度使用资源，那样会导致建设停滞。一般来说，金属支出收入比为110-120%是个不错的选择。
能量的合理利用更加困难。要想做到金属那样浪费小于10点几乎没有可能。对于一般的玩家，一个简单规则是：让能量的产出比消耗大一点，最好在60点能量范围内最好。做到这一点已经不错了，但还不完美。（注: 这应该是指能量每秒生成和消耗的差距，但TA中不会显示实际每秒消耗的能量。同时这个也没有提到能量仓库）由于风力波动，兵力调整等因素，最终浪费的能量还是不少。再极致的玩家会提到 “能量零剩余” 的做法，就是让能量的支出比收入大一点。我仔细研究了一下这个问题，发现这个听上去不太合理的做法可能是非常正确的。假设每秒你能量收入+900,支出-1000。假定初始能量为0，那么可以确定，过9秒，你的能量会完全消耗完，你的所有采矿机，能量转化器会停止工作1秒。等第10秒过去，能量会回到900，然后继续过9秒，能量又回归到0。如此往复。在这一个周期中，采矿机的效率下降了10%。但是，如果在其余的9秒里，能量转化器的收入能抵消掉采矿机的效率下降，那么这个“能量零剩余”做法就是可行的。基本上，如果你每秒在采矿机获得的金属与你在转化器上获得金属的9倍相比要小的话，那么可以确定开着转化器更划算。
用一个公式表达就是 m < na。（注：这个公式，hanbyte并不赞同）
这里，m是每秒采矿机的产量，n是每隔多少秒你的能量归0，a是能量转化器的每秒金属产量。实战中很少有人去完成这个复杂的计算，但这确实显示了TA经济的深度。可以通过对经济和数学知识的运用来最大化收益。。。另外一个经济特色就是能量到资源的转化。所有这些，让TA的战略深度植根在经济中，进攻打击都主要是为了破坏对方的经济或者经济平衡。cavedog工作室没有盲从的跟着c&c的老路走，而是创造了这样一个惊奇的资源系统，不得不让人钦佩。
4年以来，没有一款游戏能相比TA的独特,也许将来也没有多少。TA的经济系统导致它独特、不同凡响，也是许多骨灰玩家发现没有别的游戏能够超越TA的原因。下次当你成功连续轰炸掉敌人建筑，或者点燃发射了一枚核弹，在巨大的轰炸声中，你也许能感受到那隐藏在背后的、不同凡响之处所在。
真人游戏|足球篮球|时时⑴彩| 六合投⑴注| 网络赚钱去SO娱⑴乐⑴城:顶级信用⑴提现百分百即时到账SO.CC
说实话。。。真要用数学公式来计算的话。。。不得不排除掉太多的不确定性因素。。。
而且上面那个公式我没看出什么不对头的地方嘛。。。
经过函数图像的绘制，发现还有不同情况，可能需要涉及到微积分的运算。
大致的公式：
mo 金属原产出
eo 能量产出
ec 能量原消耗
这里假定eo>ec，否则肯定没必要额外添加金属转换器。
me 通过k个转换器获得的额外金属
me = k
ece 额外消耗能量
ece = k * 60
we 工作效率
当eo>=ec+ece时
we = 1
当eo<ec时
we = eo/(ec+ece)
mor 实际金属产出
mor = (mo + me) * we
将mor对k进行求导，然后取绝对值，看临界状态两侧哪一个的导数绝对值较低，哪一边就是更优的。
临界状态就是eo=ec+ece的时候，而这个状态往往是无法达到的，只能趋近。
高数知识我都原封还给老师了，太久远的记忆了。
同楼上。。。
我是在用四则运算分析
经济这东西真是太有魅力了