安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
奖励
Let's say we produce TVs. Each one weighs about 15 kg. Then 12 tons, that's 800 TVs. The bottleneck is the final assembly division. That's about 5% of the staff. (Don't ask me why. It's a balance.) If you have only 800 people working, then 40 of them (every one) have to assemble 20 TVs per shift. It's normal in the 2000s, but in the 60s-80s, assembling 2.5 pieces per hour is just unreal.
There are about 20-30 workers per engineer. For a game, I would assign 10 to 1.
12 tons of output for a plant of this size is fine. Yes, one trailer per shift is OK. But such a plant would employ over a thousand people. For the game, I would reduce the output.
Chemicals are used, yes, but not in such quantities. IPA for cleaning, various solders, all sorts of little things... It could be 100-200 kg a day IRL.
In the early days, aluminum and mechanical parts were used more. Nowadays, plastic and electronic components are used more. But we cannot change the consumption of individual components.
I would distribute them approximately like this: 35% plastic, 20% aluminum, 25% electrical parts, 20% mechanical. That is, about the same as yours. But this is something average. And it doesn't make any sense for the 60s and 70s, and it doesn't make any sense in the 2020s.
I don't have one correct solution.
But about the balance... we need to think about it.