Rolling Production v. Flat Out Production MATH

Day 3,153, 06:55 Published in USA USA by Gnilraps

Come On Up To The House (Mandatory listening)
Day 3153 of the New World
July 8, 2016






Yesterday I published this article about Housing and Pollution.

In it, I proposed a rolling schedule of production which effectively reduces overall production in favor of increasing overall profit margin.

I also proposed an inverse system over two states, Florida and Washington. That part of my system is admittedly weak. It is not possible to increase profits by moving companies back and forth between holding companies as many commentators pointed out. The sole advantage of splitting your companies between two states/holding companies would be the ability to produce a given product daily. This is only an advantage if you are supplying for a Military Unit or some other program where generating daily production is still important.

(I also proposed a method for figuring pollution in that article that is very unlikely to be accurate. I should have left that out as it has caused a few people to become derailed from my main point. What I have learned about pollution, however, needs no formula to understand. It is that pollution statistics are almost certainly based on production levels one day prior. As a major Q5 House producer, I have tested this theory by holding off production over days. When I produce, Pollution is 25% the next day. When I do not produce, Pollution is around 8% the following day and remains at that figure again the next day so long as I do not produce.)

So in this article I will not focus on the two-state dynamics of the system, nor on the merits of my dopey pollution formula.

Instead I will focus simply on defending the premise of rolling production v. flat out production.







It all boils down to a single controversy between two competing systems.

On one hand is to run your companies flat out daily.

In the state of Washington, this will result in 25% pollution across the board for HRM and all Q levels of finished goods. I know this because if I run my entire set of companies, that is what happens on the following day. 25% across the board.

So the flat-out method of production limits production bonuses to 193%.

Looking strictly at HRM, 193% production means 2410 units from 5 work tickets.

Using a rough estimate of what you might be paying for those 5 work tickets, let’s assume your cost is $105 per WT. (Current market wage in eUSA is $117, but let’s work with 105).

105*5=525

You paid $525 for 2410 units.

After two days you’ve paid $1050 for 4820 units.

Your cost of goods is .218 per unit.

Hang on to that figure.

Now lets look at rolling production with the assumption that we can totally eliminate pollution (we can argue the potential for this later, let’s just assume for now that we’ve eliminated pollution).

A HRM company at zero pollution (218😵 pumps out 2725 units per 5 WT.

After 1 (and 2) days, you’ve paid out $525 for 2725 units.

Your cost of goods is .193 per unit.

In a market where HRM sells for .25 you’ve increased your profit margin by 2.5 cents per unit, a 10% increase!

To put it another way, each (Q5) HRM company generates $156.25 profit per day using the rolling formula and $77.5 profit per day using the flat out formula. After two days, the rolling HRM company has 156.25 profit and $525 cost. After two days the flat out HRM company has $155 profit and $1050 cost.

Already you can see how rolling production can benefit us all.


In the finished goods markets, the math is only slightly more complex because of 1% VAT. However the results are the same: rolling production yields far greater profit margins due to reduced pollution.








One of the arguments against rolling production is the difficult proposition of totally eliminating pollution. I agree that this is going to be a problem. So let’s look at the math with polution figures closer to 5% and see how that looks.

At 213% bonus, the HRM company produces 2660 units per 5 WT.

That yields a cost of .198 per unit.

(Here we begin to see that in HRM, every 5% of polution increases cost per unit by a half-cent).

The same $525 cost of goods yields a profit of $140.1


So even if pollution cannot be completely eliminated, the reduction of pollution yields such significant increases in profit margin that it is definitely worth the effort. And this is just 1 HRM company in my examples. If you own 10 HRM companies, you stand to increase your daily profits significantly by running your companies at half speed... ie. every other day in coordination with everyone else in Washington.






Here’s a graphical representation of how profits fall dramatically when pollution rises:





This graph is pretty pathetically useless, but it makes my article look better.


There’s one more point I’d like for you to consider. Rolling Production yields a double bonus on manufactured goods. How? Good question.

First of all, a decreased pollution yields an increased production level per work ticket spent. So your $105 is already producing more house with the rolling method than flat out.

However keep in mind that if you are producing your own HRM for production in your factories, you are procuring HRM as much as .025 less using the rolling method. For a Q5 house, under optimal conditions, that is a savings of as much as $112.5 per 10 WT’s, or over $300 PER Q5 HOUSE!

So I don’t want to hear that you are not willing to click your factories every day because it’s not worth it. We are not talking about a small bump in profits, we are talking about very significant gains in profit margin.







And so I will reiterate what I asserted in my previous article.

In Washington State, ONLY spend work tickets on HRM on even numbered days (using eRep’s numbering system). And ONLY spend work tickets on finished Houses during odd numbered days.

HRM - Even
Manufacturing - Odd





You may now return to your regularly scheduled clicking