AR Tutorial Request
mos...@my-deja.com
experts would have the time to put together a 10/20/50 turn tutorial.
After reading the threads, anyone interested in BUILDING this race
should not have any difficulty, but as has been pointed out on many
occasions, the Devil is in the Details.
Even the best position will perform poorly in the hands of a novice.
Building a Tutorial using an AR race may not be simple, but if one of
you are willing, there sure would be a large, appreciative audience.
Unfortunately, the only tutorial I could submit would be, "How NOT to
play an AR race!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sb
sb
emery
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Springs/3660/ar/
http://206.191.149.138/starsrus/articles/art_race.htm#ar
emery
"Ask me about microwaving cats for fun and profit."
"sb" <sb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ckr2o$mbn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
David Moen
<em...@redlance.tus.primenet.com>, deigning to enlighten us mere
mortals, spake thusly:
>"Ask me about microwaving cats for fun and profit."
At last! A plausible explanation for john_x's sig. :-)
Dan Neely
"emery" spake thusly:
>
> >"Ask me about microwaving cats for fun and profit."
>
> At last! A plausible explanation for john_x's sig. :-)
LOL
--
Think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them
are stupider than that.
-- George Carlin
overw...@my-deja.com
> (David Moen) wrote:
> "emery" spake thusly:
> >
> > >"Ask me about microwaving cats for fun and profit."
> >
> > At last! A plausible explanation for john_x's sig. :-)
>
I'm waiting for John's cat to figure out that John is advertising for a
replacement...
- Kurt
--
"I don't pay attention to what men say, I just watch what they do."
- Andrew Carnegie
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
- Groucho Marx
Robert Ashcroft
>Since there has been quite a bit on AR races, I was wondering if the AR
>experts would have the time to put together a 10/20/50 turn tutorial.
>
>After reading the threads, anyone interested in BUILDING this race
>should not have any difficulty, but as has been pointed out on many
>occasions, the Devil is in the Details.
>
>Even the best position will perform poorly in the hands of a novice.
>
>Building a Tutorial using an AR race may not be simple, but if one of
>you are willing, there sure would be a large, appreciative audience.
>
>Unfortunately, the only tutorial I could submit would be, "How NOT to
>play an AR race!"
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
This is a very tempting request....
Ok I will bite.
This reply will be very long and in a few separate posts and will deal
with the design of Tri_immune and high growth rate AR.
Before I do the writing I am expecting that strategy will be similar
regardless of race specific AR race design this is because growth
patters for the AR in general are not really that much affected by
growth rates. The only thing that changes is the points at which the
effects kick in....
Some history (and personal opinion).
I have been playing stars since about May 1996. I started playing the
AR in AI only games since their inception and addition to the game in
the share ware release 2.5, and as these seemed to suite my style of
play and were not in the main stream of race variants on account of
lack of mines and factories. I have been playing them as a prefered
race ever since. [aside: CA entered the game on the same release]
The fact that I have been playing for now about 5 years does not make
me in my opinion a better stars player, simply that I have had more
practice at it. I play stars more like chess than with a bean counter
view, this style takes far longer to master the correct playing
patterns that are needed for game styles. This I think is my mistake
in strategy, but hell it is only a game after all.
The realisation of how strong the AR really are as a race took a long
time to dawn on me. I knew they could do real damage, by the time
Barry Keams published his race design for 25K by 2450, I was running
on a lots to nill score vs AI experts in a huge universe with a 4%
tri-immune race design. Then his post hit the news group (late 98
from memory). It was like a key to open the door that mattered.
A lot of newsgroup chatter was about, mostly dealing with what the CA
could do and how high players could pump up resources with this race
in particular. It was the new nasty version of the HE with out the
limits impossed when it was figured out how to cream everyone with the
HE a year before. But humans are so so predicable. It had become
boring for a few and their attention turned to other races. Barry set
the scene as he drove forward on designs to get to all races to hit
25K by 2450, and as he started publishing the results a lot more got
very interested in their favoured races and designs that could mix it
with the CA on more-or-less equal terms. The CA players then set
about improving their possition. War fare if nothing else promotes
improved strategies.
About this time 2.6b or d was released as the game designers began to
real in the unballancing antics of the game that had been discovered
and were now being applied with vengence. The CA have had a big
advantage for a long time, the other races however when played with
proficiency can certainly slow down a CA.
Changes introduced upto 2.6i basically made it much harder for the AR,
I played it and felt the impacts in 2 particular jolts. The first was
a change made to races in the Acc BBS where starting population was
determined by growth rates. This in my opinion killed forever the
ability of a low growth race design to mix it with the faster growing
race designs who started about 10% higher. I expressed at the time
that high growth rate designs should pay a far higher penatly in
starting points due to the longer term benefit that higher population
rate growth gave them. I don't think it was ever heard.
For the AR the final killer blow was the introduction of the fleet
mining limit to 4000 mining units, and the increased reduction rate
that mulitple mining rates had on mineral concentration. This
prevented the AR from having a single fleet extracting exhorbant
amounts of minerals turn after turn with out really having to pay some
cost. I still think the limit imposed is unfair, particulairly as the
only reall advantage that the race has is a higher mineral production
rate that normal races.
The really big dissadvantage that the AR suffers from is that on
average their production rate is about 1/2 that of a factory based
rate, when you add total population loss with the destruction of a
space station the so called mineral production advantage dies. Other
players have not agreed with this point of view but in my experience
it is simply a fact.
The AR only really become a problem it they are left alone long enough
to win the production war. This happens when other races run out of
minerals on which production is reliant. The AR if played correctly
never have a mineral problem but they tend to only produce 1/2 the
ships of other races.
For those who think this is crap then consider this a 100% AR world
with fully loaded death star only produces 3888 resources, good enough
to build about 4 nubian class ships a turn. Most other races sit at
7600 and can do a lot better. If they have the mineralls easily out
pace the build rates of the race.
So why is it that everyone fears the AR?
In part is is the fact that the AR are like Argentine ants, they never
seem to go away and they cause a lot of damage if not controlled.
Since Barry gave everyone the key, the next step was learn to use it.
I think I was the 3 person after Barry Keams and Jason Crawley to get
the Avids to hit the mark. Then I thought I could tweak the race to
do better. Dumb I know but .... Jason Crawley was the one that made
the craft of hitting 25K by 2450 an art form. He counted the beans
and made the number of beans matter. Me I was just a bug hunter
trying to poke holes in the strategies and suggest minor course
changes. Then I stuffed it and posted a game entry condition. I
stuffed up on the typing and instead of 25K by 2450, I types 50K by
2450. How was I to realise that someone would hit it. Up steps
William Buttler with the post of getting to 73K by 2450 with the race.
I figured by this point I was just a poineer at this point. I gave up
trying to hit the stratsophere with high growht race designs and
turned to the now very difficult task of making low growth rate races
strong enough to mix it with the big league.
Here a few of us played against each other in games designed for both
High growth rates and Low growth rate games tuning our designs, then
enter the newer group of AR players of the likes of Joseph Oberlander
and others. We all have our tricks and our efforts seemed to have
produced a fear of AR that is only slightly below that of CA.
I have to say now it is not the Race that is important it is the skill
of the player doing the job of playing that matters. The first skill
is that of race design.
**
Remove the "antisp" and "dot" if you want to e-mail me directly
**
Spammers Note, Advertisments you send to me is taken as acceptance on your part that you agreed to pay me $1,000 for each article for the retrieval and archive service that is provided.
Robert Ashcroft
>Since there has been quite a bit on AR races, I was wondering if the AR
>experts would have the time to put together a 10/20/50 turn tutorial.
>
>After reading the threads, anyone interested in BUILDING this race
>should not have any difficulty, but as has been pointed out on many
>occasions, the Devil is in the Details.
>
>Even the best position will perform poorly in the hands of a novice.
>
>Building a Tutorial using an AR race may not be simple, but if one of
>you are willing, there sure would be a large, appreciative audience.
>
>Unfortunately, the only tutorial I could submit would be, "How NOT to
>play an AR race!"
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
This is the second part of the posting sequence.
---
Race design is the first step in effective game playing. Get it wrong
and you pay the price throught out the game...
So for the AR was is it that you must be mindful of in race design?
The answer is depends... Trite as it sounds the type and strategy of
the game really does make the race design dependent. If you are in a
high growth rate race game considerations are signficantly different
to low growth rate games. Abundance of minerals and AccBBs, jump
started turns etc. These affect the approach. So what are the
impacts that need to be considered.
The first is habitat. As with all races the productive capacity of
your colonies is directly reflected in your races design. For all
races that are not tri-immune to Temperature, Gravity and Radiation
your colonies production is a percentage of maximum potential.
Gravity Terraform is enabled by improving Propulsion Tech
Temperature Terraform is enabled by improving Energy Tech
Radiation Terrafrom is enabled by improving Weapons Tech
Total Terraform (TT) is enabled by Biotechnology Tech
1 immune cost is 504 points
2 immunes cost is 1642 points
3 immunes cost is 4078 points
The AR production is governed by the following resource formula.
Annual resources = Habitability Value x SQRT(Population x Energy Tech
Level / Efficiency Coefficient)
Clearly the research in to Energy is going to have the major impact in
two areas, production and temperature habitat. Energy research is the
the focus of your research efforts early on. You will allways be
researching it early.
So on the face of it, is Immunity to Temperature a good idea for a
race that is 1-immune or 2-immune? In my view No. The effort spent
in researching energy which has to be done for production reasons does
not also unlock improved planet values in the process.
A similar argument can be made for Radiation, as all races need weapon
technology to defend themselves. It will be for the AR the second
most important research area, and improved habitat is unlocked by
researching weapons.
Gravity it would seem to be the best choice for immunity if you are
going to have any immunities at all. Why? Propulsion is the least
likely area of research you are going to do for the first 50 turns
beyond an initial jump to 6 or 11.
For the AR races it seems that if you wants to have an immunity to a
habitat factor Gravity is the best one to choose, followed by
Radiation then Temperature. I have seen analysis published on a
number of occasions and since it is done by people who have this
particular bug I am not about to repeat it to demonstrate to me that
it is wrong or otherwise.
For the main you should consider making your habbitat factors line up
with the research pattern that the AR will follow. That is Energy
first giving temperature terraform capacity, a bit of propulsion and
weapons. Giving a focus on Temperature Terrafrom then Radiation with
Gravity running next.
It is interesting to note that for the AR, Biotechnoloy is probably
the last area of research actively persued. It is on this basis I
recommend that AR race designs not bother with Total Terraforming
unless you really, really want to colonise everything. It is a loss
of 48 points that is really not worth it in the end. If this is your
desire to colonise everything go for a tri-immune design or find a
friendly CA or get the genesis device from the mystery trader.
What next to consider? Lesser Racial Traits (LRT's)
TT for the AR died early on, it is completely dead when I deal with
technology research later.
The ability to travel quickly.
The AR race in particular are a race best run when spread out evenly.
The concepts of 25% and 33% limits on "breeder" worlds when applied to
the AR hurt the development of this race in the game. Sure it may
seem you are doing a good job but in fact the opposite is true if you
apply this particular strategy to the control of population. It hurts
the AR because of the research formula.
The effective way of driving home the effect of this formula is to
claim that one colony of 100,000 produces less resource than 4
colonies with 25,000. Assuming 100% habitability, an energy
technology level of 10 and an efficiency coefficient of 10. Then a
single colony of 100,000 produce 316 resources, where as, 4 colonies
of 25,000 produce 632 resources. In this example you loose half of
you productive capacity by having your population in one location.
In an average game you are going to find at least 4 worlds within 3
turns at warp 9 of your home world which are ideal (100% value) or
require very little effort to get them there. If you are not playing
the tri-immune you need to find these worlds first and establish
colonies by 2410 at the latest.
Your development depends on ability to move fast over long distances.
Cheap Engines (CE) kill this ability, it is a no-no for the AR, it is
of value only to races with gates.
No Ram Scoop Engines (NRSE) can travel through hostile mine fields
faster than scooped engines, if you take NRSE you get warp 10 with
propulsion 11.
Improved Fuel Efficiency (IEF), gives you warp factor 9 at prop 2, and
reduces fuel requirements by 15%.
For the early development IEF and NRSE re-inforce the development
needs. Both need to be seriously considered.
Now to Mining.
The simple statement is that lack of minerals kills the AR development
stone dead cold. The AR has an intrinsic base level mining ability
but they require remote miners. In my view the choice is dead simple
you take Advanced Remote Mining (ARM) and Mineral Alchemy (MA), Only
Basic Remote Mining (ORBM) is never a consideration the increased 10%
population gained never helps where it is needed in the early game.
The point gain given by taking ORBM is a false hope. Particularly
when I deal with the costs of remote miners later.
ARM makes life easier, MA aids when the minerals get short, ORBM hurts
early development.
In my view ARM always, MA if you have the points. Others will claim
ARM drop and MA ignore. In this case it really is how your pattern of
play is being done that is the final arbiter for which is right and
which is wrong. Play style counts for these LRT's.
Improved Starbases (ISB).
This LRT aids the AR in ways that are not really that obvious. The
first aid is that the Space Dock is the smallest orbital at which
ships can be constructed. For the AR the ones that count are Miners,
Colony ships, Frieghters. If you have ARM, these types of ships build
at colonies that have the Space Dock really boost development. Trade
of colonists and minerals within the empire are also improved due to
the fact that the space station also refulles the ships. Allowing the
ships to travel at warp 9 or 10 without running out of fuel on the 3
turn hop.
The second advantage it that the incremental improvement that comes
with ISB that you can more easily increase the number of weapons on
the orbital by the fact that you have more orbital upgrade steps
available. You do not have to wait until Construction 16 to have a
better defence platform. The truth is that space stations during the
first 50 turns are expensive even with a 20% reduction in the costs of
building.
No Advanced Scanners (NAS)
This one is a quick way to gets lots of extra points for very little
loss. It does mean that you require more scouts to act as sentinals
and you have to check on the opposition more carefully. Some love it
some hate it. I hate it.
Generalised Research (GR)
It should only be considered if you are a tri-immune playing in a
dangerous universe. It gives a 15% boost to research generally but
the damage done to the research effort is huge. Only choose this one
if you really are an expert in playing the race. For most cases it is
one to forget.
Low Starting Population (LSP)
If you really need the extra points then take it. For the 18+ growth
rates use it, for growth rates if you need the points. This
particular LRT's effect is reduced for the AR. The reason is the
resource formula. It has much of an impact on the AR than is the case
for other races. But it does slow your population development, given
the fact that the AR is dependent on the colonists for resources and
their production factors are much lower than the factory based races
some have the view that it really hurts the AR. It is my view that
the way you play the game has a bigger impact on the development of
the AR than an initial reduction of population has. There are those
out there who figure it is a bad LRT to take. In my view if you know
what your doing the mistakes of others will compensate.
Ultimate Recycling (UR).
For races that never really have a minerals problem only a production
problem UR tends to be waste of points. If the game is a turn limited
event then maybe but in the main can the idea.
Bleeding Edge Technology (BET).
In my view not something that the AR wants to have for the long haul.
If the game lasts to Nubians, then it makes the final ship of choice
in building twice as expensive as it normally would be, meaning that
you end up producing less of them. Do not even consider this one.
What ever you build when it becomes available is very expensive, this
extra cost is not something you need when you have finely ballanced
needs throught the game.
Regenerating Shields (RS)
In my view something to avoid. The universe is tough on the AR, why
compromise the ability you have to defend your self? Armour is best
line of defense, the 40% improvement is shields never conpensates for
the fact that you loose 50% defense on armour. The best shield you
can expect to have gives 500 points of defence, the best armour gives
1500 points. Reason enough to can the idea.
Now to technology and research
Energy is -50% (no brainer)
Construction is -50%, why you need it improve your orbitals, and thus
your population limits. it also is needed for battle ships, miners,
and armour.
Weapons is usually -50%, some times standard. If you cannot shoot
first and kill you are dead. For the AR killing means better weapons.
(QED).
Propulsion is usually standard, if I have the points -50%. If I have
taken NRSE then I make it +75% to gain the points. I only need to get
to Prop 11 for warp 10, 13 for the Mystery Trader's engine. Little
benefits are gained by the AR for higher propulsion factors, they
already have the best stargates by this point.
Electronics usually +75%, or standard if I have the points. Sure you
need it for miners but by Elec 11 you have the best mix, the super
battle computer will nice to have is not a necessity until later in
the game. Your technology research will get it when it is needed
anyway.
Biotechnology usually +75%, the only really neat things needed are Bio
4 for terraforming and mines, the rest of the benefits that higher
biotechnology levels provide are not that useful to the AR.
Do you check the +75% start at tech 4, NO it is a waste of points.
Population growth Rate, the best that is possible after the above
decisions have been made. But as a guide
Tri-immunes 6%,
Two Immunes (never) the tri-immunes always do better in my
experiments.
1-Immunes 16-19%
Non-Immunes (never) again my experiements have usually produced
depressing results.
Now what to do with the spare points if you have them
Surface minerals. You need minerals early, home world mining floors
save you later. Increasing mineral concentration is not any where
near as effective to increasing your ability to produce ships early in
the game.
In the main if you are Tri-immune
6%, 8 coeff, IEF, NRSE, ARM, IS, (MA), (NAS), En, Con, Wea -50%, Prop
Standard, Elec, Bio +75% works well
If not then something like the Avids works well, My version is.
18% Grav-Immune, -16 to 104c, 61mr to 91 mr, 10 coeff, IEF, ARM, ISB,
NRSE, NAS, LSP, En, Con, Weap -50%, All the rest +75%, +75 starts at 3
not selected.
I have no designs for 2 immunes or normal non-immunity designs. I am
sure that others mentioned last post have some to share.
Robert Ashcroft
>Since there has been quite a bit on AR races, I was wondering if the AR
>experts would have the time to put together a 10/20/50 turn tutorial.
>
>After reading the threads, anyone interested in BUILDING this race
>should not have any difficulty, but as has been pointed out on many
>occasions, the Devil is in the Details.
>
>Even the best position will perform poorly in the hands of a novice.
>
>Building a Tutorial using an AR race may not be simple, but if one of
>you are willing, there sure would be a large, appreciative audience.
>
>Unfortunately, the only tutorial I could submit would be, "How NOT to
>play an AR race!"
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Now you have history, and an angle on race design, the next place to
go wrong on is execution of play.
This is how I do the development. Many others will view my methods
with distain and depening on race designs the method of play becomes
important. If this causes variance in play I am not about to critise
it. I find what I does works. Others have different methods which
produce similar results.
I personally happen to like tri-immunes and in my experience the
tri-immune described last post is more than capable of mixing it with
most players.
When it comes to playing against the Monster however the Tri-immune
has real problems. I will deal with tri-immune style play first as it
puts some fundamental principles into place. If you really want to
learn effective play with the AR then use a 4% tri-immune and see if
you can survive 150 turns in a huge 16-expert AI universe. If you can
do it without loosing a colony for the entire period you have what it
takes to play as an expert.
You will certainly find that it will equip you well for any version of
race design you care to try out with the AR.
Human opposition will improve things.
Playing the AR Tri-immune.
So you have 25000 colonists, a home world, what next?...
Colonise every world within 2 turns of your home world. Forget
research, scouting, building anything other than colonisers, scouts
and miners. That is forget research, and improving ships.
Awk, didn't you say that energy research is needed for production,
populsion for transport, and weapons for defense, and now you say
terminate research? Yes. Am I brain dead? not yet, but the jury is
still out.
I know what I am about to urge is counter intuitive but the simple
fact is that it works, and you can do the tests for your self.
Colonise, colonise, colonise is the only priority you have until 2420,
If you do this you succeed far more that if you do not.
My strategy is to set up my home world build queue to build a peeping
tom scout and a colony ship pair for 10 repeats, 3 miners, 5 paris of
scouts and colony ships, 5 miners, 5 pairs of colony ships, 10 miners.
then home world goes fallow as far as production goes.
I load 2200 colonists on the colony ship in orbit, add the scout and
aim for the systems that are 1 turn at warp 10 away with colonise
orders. I load 2200 colonists on all colonisation fleets. It happens
that 2200 is the point at which no colonists are lost in transist.
Above it you lose colonsists. Below it you loose research gains on
colonisation.
For the next 20 turns I colonise every worlds within the 1 turn warp
factor 10 range, then everything within 2 turns of home world, then 3
at warp 9 or less. By the time all of these are claimed you begin to
see the scouts and colony ships of your neighbours. The worlds nearby
are yours and not your neigbhours and you delay their development as a
consequence. This is an important tactic, what you have colonised is
not a world that can be colonised without a fighting ship, by the time
these are build you have defences in place. Your neigbhours are
playing a catch race which they are loosing because they have to build
up factories before they can win. The first 50 turns belong to the AR
as far as the technology race goes. All the AR have to build is
colonisers, orbitals and miners, the others have to add factories,
mines and fighting ships with orbitals far too expensive.
These colonies simply establish and then do nothing until I get con 4
from colonisation efforts. Then they build the space dock, 2 miners
and then go fallow until 2425. At which point the build 2 colony
ships with fuel tanks instead of colony pods. These are for
distributing mineral and population resources of the empire. To
spread out evenly as fast as is possible.
You will find that by about 2010 you are near Energy 10, I stop my
research at 12 usually, if I can hit 16 then I do. It really depends
on local activity and if any visiters insist on arriving with guns
blazing. Still most early visits are scouts and colony ships, very
few ships arrive with weapons early on, the only exceptions are the
WM, but Weapon 5 fixes that particular problem with beta torps.
If you are in an immediately hostile universe then the strategy is en
8, weap 5, and arm the orbital with 4 beta torps and computers. This
will deal with most early agression. This tatic costs early research
and should be avoided unless you have absolutely no choice.
Remember for the first 20 turns or so all players are concentrating on
building colonies not shooting everything that is in space. You have
a grace period use it to advantage.
As the first 20 turns clock on, the home world drops down in
population. I try to avoid going below 12,000. If need more
colonists I raid early worlds for the colonisation effort. By this
time you will find that your early colonies will have about 4000-6000
colonists, go an grab the 2200 from them and continue the colonisation
drive. When I play a 4% tri-immune my aim is to have 31 colonies in
place by 2420, and all of them building space docks, miners and
freighters. For the 6% tri-immune 51 is my target, and it will
usually involve the hostile take over of other undefended colonies
using bio bombs on the coloniser to clean out the opposition. This I
reserve for the AI, humans for some reason do not think this approach
is friendly and act accordingly.
The next 10-15 turns are about distributing colonists and minerals
evenly throught the empire now developing and setting up an effective
mineral production solution. I am aiming for Ultra Stations and
Jihads starting construction by 2435 and finishing them by 2445 at the
latest. This means that about 500 ktons of each mineral will be
needed on every colony, along with about 10,000 colonists. This will
see the Ultra Space station in place within 4 turns of construciton
start.
This can be done in a non-AccBBs universe with ease. By 2450 the
technologies are looking like En 12, Weap 12, Con 12, Prop 6, with
Elec and Bio near 4. Ultra space stations with 16 jihad missiles and
computers in place.
This sort of development for most races is hard to achieve, hence when
a factory based race discovers that their neighbour is about to
destroy them with superior technology they tend to panic. It is one
of the reasons why the AR are disliked by some players as the can be
very hard to dislodge this early in the piece and the AR colonies have
the production advantage.
Research now turns to weapons 24, with the occasional dirversion to
energy 16, Con 17, Elect 11 and prop 11.
When I am playing AI it is the point where my efforts turn to survival
mode. That is keeping my weapons and production focused on wining
every hostile visit without loss of any kind. I produce just enough
to keep the technology advantage moving. Never any more. It is
during this phase I am trying to improve minerals production, defenses
and technology all at the same time. At 2450 the factory based races
are finally catching up on the production race and now have the
resources to "waste" or is that "devote" to technology, it is at this
point the AR starts to loose the edge it has had for 50 turns. If you
concentrate on the weapons and timely upgrades of orbitals weapon 24
is at most 20 turns away, and armageddons will solve most debates for
some time.
The AR in this mode are most like the CA, their development is colony
driven, without this base they will be closed down fast. Even
production throught the empire is the only thing that will keep them
in the frame.
This basic strategy holds true in the development of the higher growth
rate race design. Again analysis of the two types of races shows that
both the 6% tri-immune and the 18% monster do about the same during
the first 50 turns, it is the turns that follow where the effects of
higher growth rates finally kick in making the AR a deadly foe.
Playing the Monster.
In terms of the strategy the only real change is priority do some
early research and to even out the population distribution between
green systems in the first 25 turns.
The scout and colony fuel tank works well in early colonist
ballancing. To realy do the job qucikly I turn to the good old large
freighter (con 9) this should be available early in the game
I still colonise everything, as hard and fast as I can. The only
difference is that there is a pool of scouts in addition to colony
pairs that have the function of scouting everything within 20 turns of
the home world. Miner rate also needs to increase to supply systems
with minerals. This shortens build times.
There are good worlds out there and you need to arrive first. I find
that 5 scouts is enough for the job of finding them, especially when
they are followed with 5 fleets of scout/colony ships. Then followed
up with scout/colony fullers to transport additional colonists.
The next thing that is different is speed of development. With the
higher growth rate the need for minerals lifts, and with it a change
of research effort is required. Also you find your neighbours faster.
My research pattern is en 4, prop 2, en 8, weap 5, con 12, en 12, eap
12, elec 11, bio 4, weap16, en 16, weap 24. The aims for Ultra space
stations remain unchanged but in place by 2430 on greens, yellows are
busy terraforming, and while the red systems provide base line support
to research. Space docs with Jihads and better as the come along make
it harder for the others in destroying your empire. Against AI it is
even easier.
Varn
Robert Ashcroft wrote in message <38f8197e...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
<snip some history and personal opinion>
>For the AR the final killer blow was the introduction of the fleet
>mining limit to 4000 mining units, and the increased reduction rate
>that mulitple mining rates had on mineral concentration. This
>prevented the AR from having a single fleet extracting exhorbant
>amounts of minerals turn after turn with out really having to pay some
>cost.
Actually it didn't. The only cost an AR has to pay is an additoinal fleet
slot for each 4000 mine equivalents of remotes. In fact, this change helped
AR drastically versus other PRTs, because the others were in addition no
longer allowed to vacate their HWs and remote mine them at 30 concentration
indefinitely. AR still can ofc, and is now the only PRT able to do so.
>The really big dissadvantage that the AR suffers from is that on
>average their production rate is about 1/2 that of a factory based
>rate, when you add total population loss with the destruction of a
>space station the so called mineral production advantage dies. Other
>players have not agreed with this point of view but in my experience
>it is simply a fact.
With tri-immunes that's certainly true. High growth one immunes can almost
match the resource growth of other PRTs though, given similar space.
>The AR only really become a problem it they are left alone long enough
>to win the production war. This happens when other races run out of
>minerals on which production is reliant. The AR if played correctly
>never have a mineral problem but they tend to only produce 1/2 the
>ships of other races.
That's crap ;-)
>For those who think this is crap then consider this a 100% AR world
>with fully loaded death star only produces 3888 resources, good enough
>to build about 4 nubian class ships a turn. Most other races sit at
>7600 and can do a lot better. If they have the mineralls easily out
>pace the build rates of the race.
Show me any race that can produce 7600 resources from a single world, and
I'll show you a hacked race. Actually, the average HG race produces around
3k resources from a maxed world, which is about the same as the typical AR.
Regards,
Varn
Varn
Robert Ashcroft wrote in message <38f93e3...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
<I'll try my best not to disagree too much ;^>
>I personally happen to like tri-immunes and in my experience the
>tri-immune described last post is more than capable of mixing it with
>most players.
Most beginners, certainly. Probably some intermediates too, with good play.
>When it comes to playing against the Monster however the Tri-immune
>has real problems. I will deal with tri-immune style play first as it
>puts some fundamental principles into place. If you really want to
>learn effective play with the AR then use a 4% tri-immune and see if
>you can survive 150 turns in a huge 16-expert AI universe. If you can
>do it without loosing a colony for the entire period you have what it
>takes to play as an expert.
Though not what it takes to play *against* experts - not with tri-immune
anyway, because they are too slow.
>So you have 25000 colonists, a home world, what next?...
Okay, you've gone for a standard (non-Acc BBS) start. That's going to give
1k initial pop growth per turn with your 4%, or 1.5k with a 6% tri-immune (I
strongly recommend the 6% version if anyone is brave enough to play
tri-immune AR with human opposition).
>I load 2200 colonists on all colonisation fleets. It happens
>that 2200 is the point at which no colonists are lost in transist.
>Above it you lose colonsists. Below it you loose research gains on
>colonisation.
You still get the research gains (if random events are on) with as little as
1000 pop per colony ship IIRC. That's important if you are playing low
growth tri-immune AR. Colonising with 2.2k per turn from the start will
result in a steady drop in the pop on your HW, until you have virtually
nothing left - not a good idea.
>These colonies simply establish and then do nothing until I get con 4
>from colonisation efforts. Then they build the space dock, 2 miners
>and then go fallow until 2425. At which point the build 2 colony
>ships with fuel tanks instead of colony pods. These are for
>distributing mineral and population resources of the empire. To
>spread out evenly as fast as is possible.
My opinion - these "fuel" colony ships are a waste of valuable resources and
minerals. You are better off building medium freighters with a fuel tank and
nothing else. They have more than 8 times the capacity of these "fuel"
colony ships, but don't cost anything like 8 times as much.
<big snip>
>This basic strategy holds true in the development of the higher growth
>rate race design. Again analysis of the two types of races shows that
>both the 6% tri-immune and the 18% monster do about the same during
>the first 50 turns, it is the turns that follow where the effects of
>higher growth rates finally kick in making the AR a deadly foe.
Space available will largely determine the relative strength of 6%
tri-immune vs. 18% one immune. With lots of space the 18% version will grow
*much* faster than the 6%, and will also be well ahead on tech by 2450. In
cramped conditions (less than 30 planets available) the difference will be
much smaller.
>Playing the Monster.
Presumably meaning the 1-immune, high growth AR.
>The scout and colony fuel tank works well in early colonist
>ballancing.
Medium freighters with fuel tanks are better.
>to realy do the job qucikly I turn to the good old large
>freighter (con 9) this should be available early in the game
Large freighter supercedes medium when you get it (con 8).
>My research pattern is en 4, prop 2, en 8, weap 5, con 12, en 12, eap
>12, elec 11, bio 4, weap16, en 16, weap 24.
This race usually starts with energy, weap and con cheap. Others expensive
and no box. With IFE, initial tech is therefore 1 in prop and 0 in other
fields. My research sequence is usually something like this:
Energy 4 (boost to early resources)
Prop 2 (fuel mizer)
Con 3 (medium freighter - get this as soon as HW reaches 25% capacity)
Energy 5 (resources)
Bio 2 (terraforming)
Con 4 (space dock)
Energy 7 (resources)
Weap 5 (terraforming/defence)
Energy 10 (resources)
Bio 3 (terraforming)
Weap 10 (terraforming/defence)
Con 8 (large freighter)
Elec 4 (mining robot)
Con 12 (ultra station)
Energy 16 (resources)
Bio 4 (terraforming/minelayers)
Weap 16 (terraforming/defence)
Con 17 (death star)
Elec 8 (ultra miner)
Prop 8 (jugg missile)
Energy 22 (resources/shields)
Weap 24 (Arms)
Elec 11 (SBC)
Prop 12 (IS10/OT)
Bio 7 (organic)
Con 26 (nubian)
Elec 19 (nexus/robot miniaturisation)
Energy 26 (resources/shield miniaturisation)
Weap 26 (AMP/weap miniaturisation)
Prop 23 (trans-star)
That sequence is assuming a grav-immune ARM/ISB race with IFE and NRSE.
Regards,
Varn
Varn
Robert Ashcroft wrote in message <38f8293c...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 15:30:24 GMT, mos...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip really good stuff explaining why grav immune is the way to go, don't
take TT etc.>
>The AR race in particular are a race best run when spread out evenly.
>The concepts of 25% and 33% limits on "breeder" worlds when applied to
>the AR hurt the development of this race in the game. Sure it may
>seem you are doing a good job but in fact the opposite is true if you
>apply this particular strategy to the control of population. It hurts
>the AR because of the research formula.
This is completely untrue. AR needs breeder worlds just as much as any other
PRT, and uses them in exactly the same way. Holding them at 25% is the
optimal method, though anything up to about 40% can also be used
effectively. Failure to manage your pop effectively via breeders will impact
your long term population growth - you will have less of it, hence less
resources empire wide.
<snip more good stuff>
>In my view the choice is dead simple
>you take Advanced Remote Mining (ARM) and Mineral Alchemy (MA)
MA is a waste of points for AR races - they simply never need it. ARM is a
good idea, as it gives you gateable miners. It is possible to get by with
standard mining, but it means your miners won't be gateable in the late
game.
<snip more good advice about most other LRTs>
>Regenerating Shields (RS)
>
>In my view something to avoid. The universe is tough on the AR, why
>compromise the ability you have to defend your self? Armour is best
>line of defense, the 40% improvement is shields never conpensates for
>the fact that you loose 50% defense on armour. The best shield you
>can expect to have gives 500 points of defence, the best armour gives
>1500 points. Reason enough to can the idea.
RS is certainly a viable option for AR. The emphasis on energy tech means
you will always have better shields than your neighbour, so RS increases
that advantage. Additionally, late game nubians are best built light and
cheap, usually with no added armour since they already have 5000 base
armour. RS enables AR races to build nubians with extremely good shield
coverage at an affordable cost.
<snip more good stuff from Robert>
Regards,
Varn
Iain Heron
> >The AR only really become a problem it they are left alone long enough
> >to win the production war. This happens when other races run out of
> >minerals on which production is reliant. The AR if played correctly
> >never have a mineral problem but they tend to only produce 1/2 the
> >ships of other races.
>
Agreed up to a point. If AR concentrate on infrastructure, and tec to c15el8
before producing miners, they have a high production but crap minerals. AR
produce slightly fewer ships - depending on hab strategy, but they are
higher tec. With a bunch of equal players, i doubt anyone could beat an AR
to nubs...
> >For those who think this is crap then consider this a 100% AR world
> >with fully loaded death star only produces 3888 resources, good enough
> >to build about 4 nubian class ships a turn. Most other races sit at
> >7600 and can do a lot better. If they have the mineralls easily out
> >pace the build rates of the race.
>
> Show me any race that can produce 7600 resources from a single world, and
> I'll show you a hacked race. Actually, the average HG race produces around
> 3k resources from a maxed world, which is about the same as the typical
AR.
Absolutely agreed. An OBRM JoaT makes max 5k resources, and they don't get
much bigger than that!
Also, how many other races can colonise a planet and have it at 3k the same
year?........
regards
Iain Heron
>
> MA is a waste of points for AR races - they simply never need it. ARM is a
> good idea, as it gives you gateable miners. It is possible to get by with
> standard mining, but it means your miners won't be gateable in the late
> game.
I agree with Rob, ARM is the only way to travel. Apart from the self
benefits, AR are feared and revered by many players, and OBRM is a common
option for many players. The offer of advanced miners is a HUGE incentive in
diplomatic relations - it has spared my AR ass on more than one occasion!
> >Regenerating Shields (RS)
> >
> >In my view something to avoid. The universe is tough on the AR, why
> >compromise the ability you have to defend your self? Armour is best
> >line of defense, the 40% improvement is shields never conpensates for
> >the fact that you loose 50% defense on armour. The best shield you
> >can expect to have gives 500 points of defence, the best armour gives
> >1500 points. Reason enough to can the idea.
>
> RS is certainly a viable option for AR. The emphasis on energy tech means
> you will always have better shields than your neighbour, so RS increases
> that advantage. Additionally, late game nubians are best built light and
> cheap, usually with no added armour since they already have 5000 base
> armour. RS enables AR races to build nubians with extremely good shield
> coverage at an affordable cost.
Which do you go for first - a) gorilla delegators or b) death stars?
I go for choice b, and I'm afraid even when it gets to top tec, RS bases
take fewer hits than non RS.
Nubs are a different matter though...Making gateable beamer nubs is the AR
goal, and RS enhances them, as no armour is added (5000dp base armour on a
nub)
I guess the RS question is based on whether you think you'll need good
armour on your bases more than the long term nubs.
I'm enjoying this discussion!
Iain
Iain Heron
>
> 1k initial pop growth per turn with your 4%, or 1.5k with a 6% tri-immune
(I
> strongly recommend the 6% version if anyone is brave enough to play
> tri-immune AR with human opposition).
If they are brave enough I'll consider they are either brilliant or
stupid....
> >These colonies simply establish and then do nothing until I get con 4
> >from colonisation efforts. Then they build the space dock, 2 miners
> >and then go fallow until 2425. At which point the build 2 colony
> >ships with fuel tanks instead of colony pods. These are for
> >distributing mineral and population resources of the empire. To
> >spread out evenly as fast as is possible.
>
> My opinion - these "fuel" colony ships are a waste of valuable resources
and
> minerals. You are better off building medium freighters with a fuel tank
and
> nothing else. They have more than 8 times the capacity of these "fuel"
> colony ships, but don't cost anything like 8 times as much.
Agreed
> >This basic strategy holds true in the development of the higher growth
> >rate race design. Again analysis of the two types of races shows that
> >both the 6% tri-immune and the 18% monster do about the same during
> >the first 50 turns, it is the turns that follow where the effects of
> >higher growth rates finally kick in making the AR a deadly foe.
>
> Space available will largely determine the relative strength of 6%
> tri-immune vs. 18% one immune. With lots of space the 18% version will
grow
> *much* faster than the 6%, and will also be well ahead on tech by 2450. In
> cramped conditions (less than 30 planets available) the difference will be
> much smaller.
Agreed - AR don't have much fun in cramped conditions. If someone wants to
take you out, they don't have to build bombers.....
> >The scout and colony fuel tank works well in early colonist
> >ballancing.
>
> Medium freighters with fuel tanks are better.
No, researching cons 7 ASAP and building sfes is better.
> >My research pattern is en 4, prop 2, en 8, weap 5, con 12, en 12, eap
> >12, elec 11, bio 4, weap16, en 16, weap 24.
>
I can't be bothered with the numbers, but...
energy until you can afford prop2 in 1 turn
prop
cons to sfes (or large freighters)
energy 10 (terraforming and shields)
cons to Ultra Stations
the other bits (wpns to terraforming or responding to threats, bio4)
then on to ultaminers - con15/el8
AR don't need good engines until they are fighting.
AR don't need pen scanner scouts - an Ultrastation does the job
AR don't need bio higher than 4.
Obviously the above are early game considerations....
regards
Iain
Blake Walsh
> Show me any race that can produce 7600 resources from a single world, and
> I'll show you a hacked race. Actually, the average HG race produces
around
> 3k resources from a maxed world, which is about the same as the typical
AR.
>
Sorry, couldn't resist,
A JOaT 1WW which has overpopped his HW can do this with 1/1000 pop eff
15/??/25 fact eff
(1000+1000+1.5*2500)*1.2*1.1 = 7590 resources, I assume that this is the
figure qouted above, or else it was a typo in the original post.
But yes, your point is a good one, the average HG race would expect to have
about 2.5K per planet in the late game, a AR world would also have about
2.5K per planet, very little difference really. Both those figures assume
very little pop managment, as population left to grow "naturally" maxes at
about 90% of planet capacity and also uses "standard" co-eff for the race
types.
Exar_Kun
>energy tech means you will always have better shields than
>your neighbour, so RS increases that advantage.
>Additionally, late game nubians are best built light and
>cheap, usually with no added armour since they already
>have 5000 base armour. RS enables AR races to build
>nubians with extremely good shield coverage at an
>affordable cost.
Ok, so I'm no expert on the matter but to me, taking RS
with AR would be saying: "Ok, in the beginning of the game,
before the delta torpedo atleast, when everyone will be
using beamers, I'll survive because of my shields. In the
endgame, I'll have better warships than the rest of them.
Lets just hope I survive the period in between, and that
noone attacks my starbases!"
E.K.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
overw...@my-deja.com
Exar_Kun <sigmunmn...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Ok, so I'm no expert on the matter but to me, taking RS
> with AR would be saying: "Ok, in the beginning of the game,
> before the delta torpedo atleast, when everyone will be
> using beamers, I'll survive because of my shields. In the
> endgame, I'll have better warships than the rest of them.
> Lets just hope I survive the period in between, and that
> noone attacks my starbases!"
>
Face it, if anyone attacks your starbase, Ultrastation, Deathstar , or
whatever orbital platform with any sort of fleet, and you don't have a
sufficient defensive fleet built and there (or intercepting them
*before* they get there) the poor base is debris.
If you want an interesting experiment, take one of the max-tech
battlesim set-ups and build a max tech Deathstar to whatever
specification you like. Then work out how easy the thing is to
knockdown; like with a pack of DDs carrying Omega torps.
- Kurt
--
"I don't pay attention to what men say, I just watch what they do."
- Andrew Carnegie
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
- Groucho Marx
Todd Jacob Rogers
> > Show me any race that can produce 7600 resources from a single world, and
> > I'll show you a hacked race. Actually, the average HG race produces around
> > 3k resources from a maxed world, which is about the same as the typical
> AR.
>
> much bigger than that!
> Also, how many other races can colonise a planet and have it at 3k the same
> year?........
Let's see if we wan't to count beans.... :-)
[BTW, I'm doing something that should never be done: pulling numbers out
of my head without documentation handy. Sorry, if I'm off a bit]
OBRM 1WW JOAT
1320k population
1 resource/800 pop = 1650 resources
10k pop can operate 25 factories = 3300 factories
10 factories produce 15 recourses = 4950 resources
Total resources = 6.6k
Anything above that is either an overpopulated planet or a hacked race
file.
But overall, I'd agree that with most races a maxed out HW produces
about 3.5k, which is comprable to a maxed out late game AR HW.
--
- Todd Rogers
"I've been asked what I mean by word of honor. I will tell you. Place
me behind prison walls - walls of stone ever so high, ever so thick,
reaching ever so far into the ground - there is a possibility that in
some way or another I may escape; but stand me on the floor and draw a
chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross
it. Can I get out of the circle? No. Never! I'd die first!"
-Karl G. Maeser Founder of Brigham Young University
John
> This is a very tempting request....
>
> Ok I will bite.
>
> This reply will be very long and in a few separate posts and will deal
> with the design of Tri_immune and high growth rate AR.
>
> Before I do the writing I am expecting that strategy will be similar
> regardless of race specific AR race design this is because growth
> patters for the AR in general are not really that much affected by
> growth rates. The only thing that changes is the points at which the
> effects kick in....
I don't agree. What you write is very helpful and i wouldn't argue
about your tactics for tiimmune, but the high growth should differ more.
>
> Some history (and personal opinion).
...history...
>
> For the AR the final killer blow was the introduction of the fleet
> mining limit to 4000 mining units, and the increased reduction rate
> that mulitple mining rates had on mineral concentration. This
> prevented the AR from having a single fleet extracting exhorbant
> amounts of minerals turn after turn with out really having to pay some
> cost. I still think the limit imposed is unfair, particulairly as the
> only reall advantage that the race has is a higher mineral production
> rate that normal races.
I agree with Varn, this was closing a ridiculus bug, and did so for all
races. AR is the winner, since they can still use the 30 floor on their
HW. While AR has always been the best remote miner, others coudl do
almost as well since the effect was so big. relatviely, AR loses less.
Acctually, I'd prefer a per mineral check for reduction, with no fleet
limit. But I guess that would take changing too much code.
> The really big dissadvantage that the AR suffers from is that on
> average their production rate is about 1/2 that of a factory based
> rate, when you add total population loss with the destruction of a
> space station the so called mineral production advantage dies. Other
> players have not agreed with this point of view but in my experience
> it is simply a fact.
Only for triimmunes. High growthers get about the same production ,and
death from warp is so small compared to popgrowth that they just igore
it.
Only real disadvantage is that your enemies don't need bombers.
> For those who think this is crap then consider this a 100% AR world
> with fully loaded death star only produces 3888 resources, good enough
> to build about 4 nubian class ships a turn. Most other races sit at
> 7600 and can do a lot better. If they have the mineralls easily out
> pace the build rates of the race.
Ummn. So ARs make lousy OWWs. I agree there. So design them to use mroe
than one world. It's resources/space that matters.
> trying to hit the stratsophere with high growht race designs and
> turned to the now very difficult task of making low growth rate races
> strong enough to mix it with the big league.
Well, someone who did hit the stratosphere should be mentioned. I
belive the current max is 117k by 2450, set by James Hamilton.
--
Can I have a new cat now?
John
> This is the second part of the posting sequence.
>
> Race design is the first step in effective game playing. Get it wrong
> and you pay the price throught out the game...
Too true. yet I've heard host saying long games are better for newbies
Sniped stuff about habitat.
> A similar argument can be made for Radiation, as all races need weapon
> technology to defend themselves. It will be for the AR the second
> most important research area, and improved habitat is unlocked by
> researching weapons.
Hmm ,third I'd say but that matters little. You'll have al lthree cheap
and research them alot
> For the AR races it seems that if you wants to have an immunity to a
> habitat factor Gravity is the best one to choose, followed by
> Radiation then Temperature. I have seen analysis published on a
> number of occasions and since it is done by people who have this
> particular bug I am not about to repeat it to demonstrate to me that
> it is wrong or otherwise.
Yep. radiatio nhas a few advantages and testbed races do better with
that, but almost all ARs will do better with GravI in a real game.
> It is interesting to note that for the AR, Biotechnoloy is probably
> the last area of research actively persued. It is on this basis I
> recommend that AR race designs not bother with Total Terraforming
> unless you really, really want to colonise everything. It is a loss
> of 48 points that is really not worth it in the end. If this is your
> desire to colonise everything go for a tri-immune design or find a
> friendly CA or get the genesis device from the mystery trader.
Well I gues a biimmune with TT could be done to work like a triimune
with higher growth but I don't knwo much about those.
As for highgrowths, TT would mostly be taken for the lower terraforming
costs, with more hab late only as a minor bonus. You don't require
biotech for the cost reduction, and since you can't afford doing it
anyway...
TT for AR is very good. It's just that you don't really have the APS to
spare. It's alot more than 48 APs for one/nonimmunes. You just always
have somethign even better to spend them on.
> What next to consider? Lesser Racial Traits (LRT's)
>
> TT for the AR died early on, it is completely dead when I deal with
> technology research later.
>
> The ability to travel quickly.
>
> The AR race in particular are a race best run when spread out evenly.
> The concepts of 25% and 33% limits on "breeder" worlds when applied to
> the AR hurt the development of this race in the game. Sure it may
> seem you are doing a good job but in fact the opposite is true if you
> apply this particular strategy to the control of population. It hurts
> the AR because of the research formula.
Varn didn't agree and I can see what the problem is. You are talking
about triimmunes and Varn is thinking about highgrowth races. You're
both right for your area of course.
> The effective way of driving home the effect of this formula is to
> claim that one colony of 100,000 produces less resource than 4
> colonies with 25,000. Assuming 100% habitability, an energy
> technology level of 10 and an efficiency coefficient of 10. Then a
> single colony of 100,000 produce 316 resources, where as, 4 colonies
> of 25,000 produce 632 resources. In this example you loose half of
> you productive capacity by having your population in one location.
Yep, you need 4 tiems the planet to double resources. But unless
triimune, you run out of high value planets quick, and thus that is not
really relevant.
> In an average game you are going to find at least 4 worlds within 3
> turns at warp 9 of your home world which are ideal (100% value) or
> require very little effort to get them there. If you are not playing
> the tri-immune you need to find these worlds first and establish
> colonies by 2410 at the latest.
Don't see why. Unless you mean you can't get planetbased race of them
if they get there first. That's important of course, but depends quite
a bit on hoe the game is set up.
> Your development depends on ability to move fast over long distances.
>
> Cheap Engines (CE) kill this ability, it is a no-no for the AR, it is
> of value only to races with gates.
Some QS HG, playing like -Fs but with more resources has a high enough
Ge demand that they will value the lower cost of rams+CE. Since they
are also the same races that really need to mien the LRT screen, they
often take CE. Humf getting of topic here.
> No Ram Scoop Engines (NRSE) can travel through hostile mine fields
> faster than scooped engines,
No o, but they take somewhat less damage on a minehit. Not very
important in practice.
> if you take NRSE you get warp 10 with
> propulsion 11.
Yep, and that together with GravI means you don't need to go beyond P12
at all.
> Improved Fuel Efficiency (IEF), gives you warp factor 9 at prop 2, and
> reduces fuel requirements by 15%.
>
> For the early development IEF and NRSE re-inforce the development
> needs. Both need to be seriously considered.
>
> Now to Mining.
>
> The simple statement is that lack of minerals kills the AR development
> stone dead cold. The AR has an intrinsic base level mining ability
> but they require remote miners. In my view the choice is dead simple
> you take Advanced Remote Mining (ARM) and Mineral Alchemy (MA), Only
> Basic Remote Mining (ORBM) is never a consideration the increased 10%
> population gained never helps where it is needed in the early game.
> The point gain given by taking ORBM is a false hope. Particularly
> when I deal with the costs of remote miners later.
>
> ARM makes life easier, MA aids when the minerals get short, ORBM hurts
> early development.
>
> In my view ARM always, MA if you have the points. Others will claim
> ARM drop and MA ignore. In this case it really is how your pattern of
> play is being done that is the final arbiter for which is right and
> which is wrong. Play style counts for these LRT's.
MA is really a stupid thing to take. You need large amount of resources
to make a small amount of minerals. If you do that early you kill you
tech development so don't even consider it. Late, when you have the
resources, an AR has more minerals than they can spend. And all
resources are needed to make ships out of those minerals. MA sound
pretty pointless here.
> Improved Starbases (ISB).
>
> This LRT aids the AR in ways that are not really that obvious. The
> first aid is that the Space Dock is the smallest orbital at which
> ships can be constructed. For the AR the ones that count are Miners,
> Colony ships, Frieghters. If you have ARM, these types of ships build
> at colonies that have the Space Dock really boost development. Trade
> of colonists and minerals within the empire are also improved due to
> the fact that the space station also refulles the ships. Allowing the
> ships to travel at warp 9 or 10 without running out of fuel on the 3
> turn hop.
>
> The second advantage it that the incremental improvement that comes
> with ISB that you can more easily increase the number of weapons on
> the orbital by the fact that you have more orbital upgrade steps
> available. You do not have to wait until Construction 16 to have a
> better defence platform. The truth is that space stations during the
> first 50 turns are expensive even with a 20% reduction in the costs of
> building.
Well base cost is higher but when talking fully aremd stations it is so
minor as not being important. If you are prepared t o spend the
resources needed for a full base you want the full base anyway, for the
higher capacity and better dock. Docks as a weponsplatform is not
important.
What is important for a highgrowth is the very cheap way to a better
capacity, greatly improving popgrowth and thus economy. I wouldn't take
this with a lowgrowth, but is a near must for a 16%+ AR.
> No Advanced Scanners (NAS)
>
> This one is a quick way to gets lots of extra points for very little
> loss. It does mean that you require more scouts to act as sentinals
> and you have to check on the opposition more carefully. Some love it
> some hate it. I hate it.
Yep, those points are very tempting, but ARs really need penscanners to
protect those fragile stations. I hate it too.
> Generalised Research (GR)
>
> It should only be considered if you are a tri-immune playing in a
> dangerous universe. It gives a 15% boost to research generally but
> the damage done to the research effort is huge. Only choose this one
> if you really are an expert in playing the race. For most cases it is
> one to forget.
Could be an interesting experiment, your loewcost/high cost techs woudl
balance things out nicely. But not really worth the hassle for a normal
race.
>
> Low Starting Population (LSP)
>
> If you really need the extra points then take it. For the 18+ growth
> rates use it, for growth rates if you need the points. This
> particular LRT's effect is reduced for the AR. The reason is the
> resource formula. It has much of an impact on the AR than is the case
> for other races. But it does slow your population development, given
> the fact that the AR is dependent on the colonists for resources and
> their production factors are much lower than the factory based races
> some have the view that it really hurts the AR.
Silly. All races need pop for resource. Factories are only an indirect
way. A planet with max factories but no pop gives you zero resources.
What you coudl think about is that pop not operating factoris are not
very effecxtive for a HP and LSP thus hurt them less. But they are
still growing the same, and you'll be poplimited sooner or later. That
extra pop would be quite nice then.
> It is my view that
> the way you play the game has a bigger impact on the development of
> the AR than an initial reduction of population has. There are those
> out there who figure it is a bad LRT to take. In my view if you know
> what your doing the mistakes of others will compensate.
All my tests have shon this is an exellent LRT for ARs. Being able to
do more research before moving can nearly make up for the loss, and the
APs can be better used since ARs have a smaller amount to distribute.
I'd take this with a much lower PGR than I would with any other PRT.
> Ultimate Recycling (UR).
>
> For races that never really have a minerals problem only a production
> problem UR tends to be waste of points. If the game is a turn limited
> event then maybe but in the main can the idea.
UR is horribly expensive. Any race can just put the points into econ
and do better.
> Bleeding Edge Technology (BET).
>
> In my view not something that the AR wants to have for the long haul.
> If the game lasts to Nubians, then it makes the final ship of choice
> in building twice as expensive as it normally would be, meaning that
> you end up producing less of them. Do not even consider this one.
> What ever you build when it becomes available is very expensive, this
> extra cost is not something you need when you have finely ballanced
> needs throught the game.
Not something anyone wants. It's not the nubian cost, it's the early
doubling of basic tech.
> Regenerating Shields (RS)
>
> In my view something to avoid. The universe is tough on the AR, why
> compromise the ability you have to defend your self? Armour is best
> line of defense, the 40% improvement is shields never conpensates for
> the fact that you loose 50% defense on armour. The best shield you
> can expect to have gives 500 points of defence, the best armour gives
> 1500 points. Reason enough to can the idea.
Varn likes shields. They're light you know.
It's not a give for AR. Both your energy and consturction tech will be
high so that is not important. But you should ooo kon when RS is an
advantage and when it's an disadvantage. PreBB and Numbian eras are
good, but BB is the weak one. Nubian really dosen't matter, you have a
huge advantage there already. The others do. Personally, I feel that
the weakness in the BB era is worse than the advatage for CCs and FFs.
That's when most of the crutial fighting happens in most AR games i've
seen. But that woudl be dependant on how close your enemies are. If you
play AR in tight game, the advantage might be large enough to be worth
it.
Another thing to try coudl be a nonNRSE AR with RS using almost gatable
BBs for defence.
> Now to technology and research
>
> Energy is -50% (no brainer)
> Construction is -50%, why you need it improve your orbitals, and thus
> your population limits. it also is needed for battle ships, miners,
> and armour.
>
> Weapons is usually -50%, some times standard. If you cannot shoot
> first and kill you are dead. For the AR killing means better weapons.
> (QED).
Not standard. I know points are running out, but this is one area you
can't afford to cut.
> Propulsion is usually standard, if I have the points -50%. If I have
> taken NRSE then I make it +75% to gain the points. I only need to get
> to Prop 11 for warp 10, 13 for the Mystery Trader's engine. Little
> benefits are gained by the AR for higher propulsion factors, they
> already have the best stargates by this point.
>
> Electronics usually +75%, or standard if I have the points. Sure you
> need it for miners but by Elec 11 you have the best mix, the super
> battle computer will nice to have is not a necessity until later in
> the game. Your technology research will get it when it is needed
> anyway.
>
> Biotechnology usually +75%, the only really neat things needed are Bio
> 4 for terraforming and mines, the rest of the benefits that higher
> biotechnology levels provide are not that useful to the AR.
Well, the other three are usually expensive becuase you don't have the
points. If You could afford the last .5 cheap, elec would be the way to
go. Mining robots and initative. Both very important for AR.
> Do you check the +75% start at tech 4, NO it is a waste of points.
>
> Population growth Rate, the best that is possible after the above
> decisions have been made. But as a guide
>
> Tri-immunes 6%,
> Two Immunes (never) the tri-immunes always do better in my
> experiments.
> 1-Immunes 16-19%
Yep. I've seen down to 14% do well, but 16% is usually a good place to
stop.
> Non-Immunes (never) again my experiements have usually produced
> depressing results.
So have mine. They always do better than the triimmunes, but there
aren't really any reason not to change them to 1immunes.
> Now what to do with the spare points if you have them
>
> Surface minerals. You need minerals early, home world mining floors
> save you later. Increasing mineral concentration is not any where
> near as effective to increasing your ability to produce ships early in
> the game.
Well ,I've heard this fro mothers too, but I still find mcons better.
Due to natrual mining, you always have the inital surface minerals.
It's in the 20s, possible 30s, the minerals are getting low. That's
enough time for mxons to have had thei impact, so the total effect is
better wit hthose.
>
> In the main if you are Tri-immune
>
> 6%, 8 coeff, IEF, NRSE, ARM, IS, (MA), (NAS), En, Con, Wea -50%, Prop
> Standard, Elec, Bio +75% works well
>
> If not then something like the Avids works well, My version is.
>
> 18% Grav-Immune, -16 to 104c, 61mr to 91 mr, 10 coeff, IEF, ARM, ISB,
> NRSE, NAS, LSP, En, Con, Weap -50%, All the rest +75%, +75 starts at 3
> not selected.
Too many LRTs for my taste. I'd drop one of them, improving hab for the
APs. Droping 1% PGR if needed. Can't really afford giving up the
capacity you have as an 1immune. 25/16 from the edge.
> I have no designs for 2 immunes or normal non-immunity designs. I am
> sure that others mentioned last post have some to share.
Would love to see them.
--
Can I have a new cat now?
John
"Varn" <va...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
...skiping most stuff...
> Okay, you've gone for a standard (non-Acc BBS) start.
Standard start is not the standard of course.
> Colonising with 2.2k per turn from the start will
> result in a steady drop in the pop on your HW, until you have
virtually
> nothing left - not a good idea.
Well ,he's triimune, so it dosen't really matter to him. Spreading is
good. And he'll have plenty of tiem until anywhere near 25% capacity.
He actually wants to move in 2200 groups, since he can't afford
poplosses to warp.
> >The scout and colony fuel tank works well in early colonist
> >ballancing.
>
> Medium freighters with fuel tanks are better.
Mediums without are actually better. Put that tank on something else
you need on those runs where you need one. Save the minerals where you
don't.
> This race usually starts with energy, weap and con cheap. Others
expensive
> and no box. With IFE, initial tech is therefore 1 in prop and 0 in
other
> fields.
Minor error here. You forgot the 1 level in energy.
>My research sequence is usually something like this:
(sniped)
Pretty much the same as mine. Esp. the later con tech at higher levels.
But I've found that going fo con early, to 8 and then 12, earlier than
I woudl do in a mx resource testbed, have possitive gains. You lose
some resource right then, but save in minerals and resource fro
mbuilding large frighters. Then you save in not building any robots
before the con 12 ones, the first really effective ones.
--
Can I have a new cat now?
John
> This is how I do the development. Many others will view my methods
> with distain and depening on race designs the method of play becomes
> important. If this causes variance in play I am not about to critise
> it. I find what I does works. Others have different methods which
> produce similar results.
>
> I personally happen to like tri-immunes and in my experience the
> tri-immune described last post is more than capable of mixing it with
> most players.
mmm. I won't comment on triimmune play, I know too little about that
but what you descrive is not a good way to play a highgrowth one. They
differ too much.
> When it comes to playing against the Monster however the Tri-immune
> has real problems. I will deal with tri-immune style play first as it
> puts some fundamental principles into place. If you really want to
> learn effective play with the AR then use a 4% tri-immune and see if
> you can survive 150 turns in a huge 16-expert AI universe. If you can
> do it without loosing a colony for the entire period you have what it
> takes to play as an expert.
Playing with such weak AR to learn is certainly good practice in
general, but a triimmune is too different to teach good leassons for
highgrowth play. triimune avoid many highgrowth problems due to their
low speed and even planet values.
> You will certainly find that it will equip you well for any version of
> race design you care to try out with the AR.
>
> Human opposition will improve things.
In a reather painful way most of the time...
>
> Playing the AR Tri-immune.
And so a big jump to:
> Playing the Monster.
>
> In terms of the strategy the only real change is priority do some
> early research
Very important to test multiple times. Can have huge impact on later
performance.
> and to even out the population distribution between
> green systems in the first 25 turns.
Not really. you shoudl be growing so fast there is no time for such
things. You just take the pop and ship it of to a devloping system as
fast as you can.
> The scout and colony fuel tank works well in early colonist
> ballancing. To realy do the job qucikly I turn to the good old large
> freighter (con 9) this should be available early in the game
The amout of pop you need to move is such you need medfrighters for
your first move. Thus, you need to have con3 when you hit 25% capacity.
As for large frighter, couldn't agree more. Once you get those, things
are much easier.
> I still colonise everything, as hard and fast as I can. The only
> difference is that there is a pool of scouts in addition to colony
> pairs that have the function of scouting everything within 20 turns of
> the home world. Miner rate also needs to increase to supply systems
> with minerals. This shortens build times.
Forget early miners. Live on the edge. I try avoiding building miners
before I get the C12 ones. Sometime the situatio ndemands a few of the
C7s. Avoid the rest. To get copetative speed you can't have such a high
mineral use/mining production as you have.
> There are good worlds out there and you need to arrive first. I find
> that 5 scouts is enough for the job of finding them, especially when
> they are followed with 5 fleets of scout/colony ships. Then followed
> up with scout/colony fullers to transport additional colonists.
Pretty much what I do. 1+4 QJ5 scots fro mstart, the FM scouts going
out with the first med. frighters. But only for the first run. Try DD
escorts until larges are around.
--
Can I have a new cat now?
Iain Heron
> belive the current max is 117k by 2450, set by James Hamilton.
Is that a ludicrous output or what?
It's not just scary, it makes me drool on my keyboard, and pen tales
entitled
"Great AR I have known"
David Moen
to enlighten us mere mortals, spake thusly:
>I've heard host saying long games are better for newbies
That host must be insane, or unfamiliar with Newbies.
Best games for a Newbie are short, small and simple.
Joseph Oberlander
That was *not* in a standard 40-planet testbed, but a much larger one,
so it really does not "count" as they colonized far more than 40 planets,
and in a real game, you'd never get that much share.
The record for a tiny, dense testbed is currently about 48-50K.
Joseph Oberlander
> > the last area of research actively persued. It is on this basis I
> > recommend that AR race designs not bother with Total Terraforming
> > unless you really, really want to colonise everything. It is a loss
> > of 48 points that is really not worth it in the end. If this is your
> > desire to colonise everything go for a tri-immune design or find a
> > friendly CA or get the genesis device from the mystery trader.
>
> Well I gues a biimmune with TT could be done to work like a triimune
> with higher growth but I don't knwo much about those.
Yes, it does. It has 80% overall efficiency and good tech settings
and a 11-13% Growth Rate, which is enough to easily deal with pop losses
and fill up stations. A dual-immune with TT runs almost exactly like a
Tri-Immune, but does far, far better.
> As for highgrowths, TT would mostly be taken for the lower terraforming
> costs, with more hab late only as a minor bonus. You don't require
> biotech for the cost reduction, and since you can't afford doing it
> anyway...
Bio normal is usually chosen. You set the hab wide enough to get
total "real"(optimal range for the habs) coverage at TT20, which is
quite affordable.
> TT for AR is very good. It's just that you don't really have the APS to
> spare. It's alot more than 48 APs for one/nonimmunes. You just always
> have somethign even better to spend them on.
Try a dual with TT - set the non-immune to RAD, center it and widen so that
you get full coverage(1-99) at TT20. Play it *exactly* like a Tri-Immune
and see how much better it does. :)
> > Now to Mining.
> >
> > The simple statement is that lack of minerals kills the AR development
> > stone dead cold. The AR has an intrinsic base level mining ability
> > but they require remote miners. In my view the choice is dead simple
> > you take Advanced Remote Mining (ARM) and Mineral Alchemy (MA), Only
> > Basic Remote Mining (ORBM) is never a consideration the increased 10%
> > population gained never helps where it is needed in the early game.
> > The point gain given by taking ORBM is a false hope. Particularly
> > when I deal with the costs of remote miners later.
> >
> > ARM makes life easier, MA aids when the minerals get short, ORBM hurts
> > early development.
> >
> > In my view ARM always, MA if you have the points. Others will claim
> > ARM drop and MA ignore. In this case it really is how your pattern of
> > play is being done that is the final arbiter for which is right and
> > which is wrong. Play style counts for these LRT's.
>
> MA is really a stupid thing to take. You need large amount of resources
> to make a small amount of minerals. If you do that early you kill you
> tech development so don't even consider it. Late, when you have the
> resources, an AR has more minerals than they can spend. And all
> resources are needed to make ships out of those minerals. MA sound
> pretty pointless here.
I agree. MA is useless.
ARM, though, is equally useless. It is hugely expensive, and it really
is not much better than regular mining. Since you only need to build ONE
set of "mines" and send them where needed(gate), you can do this with
standard or advanced mining. This is where you get points to take TT
or IFE or such without killing your design. NONE of my designs have
ever taken ARM, and one actually got 42K in a testbed. Minerals
were more than adequate.
> > Improved Starbases (ISB).
> >
> > This LRT aids the AR in ways that are not really that obvious. The
> > first aid is that the Space Dock is the smallest orbital at which
> > ships can be constructed. For the AR the ones that count are Miners,
> > Colony ships, Frieghters. If you have ARM, these types of ships build
> > at colonies that have the Space Dock really boost development. Trade
> > of colonists and minerals within the empire are also improved due to
> > the fact that the space station also refulles the ships. Allowing the
> > ships to travel at warp 9 or 10 without running out of fuel on the 3
> > turn hop.
Its real advantage is not any of this, but the UltraStation. As your
Stations are filling up, this allows for you to not stall with a 16%+
race as you wait until about year 40-45 for DeathStars.
> > No Advanced Scanners (NAS)
> >
> > This one is a quick way to gets lots of extra points for very little
> > loss. It does mean that you require more scouts to act as sentinals
> > and you have to check on the opposition more carefully. Some love it
> > some hate it. I hate it.
>
> Yep, those points are very tempting, but ARs really need penscanners to
> protect those fragile stations. I hate it too.
Kind of moot, though, as a huge fleet will likely be seen, and trading a
boatload of minerals for a few scanner ships is almost stupidly easy to
do with one of your allies.(You only need 20 or so individual ships
to create a line) Since I populate every single planet in my "area",
there is no way that they can "planet-hop". Liveable.
NAS and Regular Mining saves you huge points - enough to actually pay
for up to *4* cheap techs!
Lastly, your normal mining and std miners gives you what the other
races get from ARM.(cept you have it at populated planets!)
> > Generalised Research (GR)
> >
> > It should only be considered if you are a tri-immune playing in a
> > dangerous universe. It gives a 15% boost to research generally but
> > the damage done to the research effort is huge. Only choose this one
> > if you really are an expert in playing the race. For most cases it is
> > one to forget.
>
> Could be an interesting experiment, your loewcost/high cost techs woudl
> balance things out nicely. But not really worth the hassle for a normal
> race.
Tried it extensively in tests. Y.U.C.K. Easiest way to kill any race
but SS.
Everything looks great until the tech hits level 20 or so. Those last
few levels are so expensive that they literally take YEARS to get.
10 more years to get ARMs.
Q: Can you survive without ARM BBs or ARM Nubians for ten years while
your neighbors have them?
> > Low Starting Population (LSP)
> >
> > If you really need the extra points then take it. For the 18+ growth
> > rates use it, for growth rates if you need the points. This
> > particular LRT's effect is reduced for the AR. The reason is the
> > resource formula. It has much of an impact on the AR than is the case
> > for other races. But it does slow your population development, given
> > the fact that the AR is dependent on the colonists for resources and
> > their production factors are much lower than the factory based races
> > some have the view that it really hurts the AR.
>
> Silly. All races need pop for resource. Factories are only an indirect
> way. A planet with max factories but no pop gives you zero resources.
> What you coudl think about is that pop not operating factoris are not
> very effecxtive for a HP and LSP thus hurt them less. But they are
> still growing the same, and you'll be poplimited sooner or later. That
> extra pop would be quite nice then.
I take it in all cases. It hurts you less than any other race, due to the
Sqrt in the equation. The general consensus is if you can get something
for much less hurt than other races for the same points, take it.
NAS and JoaT is a perfect example of this principle.
LSP and NAS are all the negative LRTs that I ever need to select.
Combined with no ARM, I have tons of points.(I don't consider NRSE to
be a real negative, as mineral-loaded AR can easily afford the cost
of the IS-10)
> > Bleeding Edge Technology (BET).
> >
> > In my view not something that the AR wants to have for the long haul.
> > If the game lasts to Nubians, then it makes the final ship of choice
> > in building twice as expensive as it normally would be, meaning that
> > you end up producing less of them. Do not even consider this one.
> > What ever you build when it becomes available is very expensive, this
> > extra cost is not something you need when you have finely ballanced
> > needs throught the game.
>
> Not something anyone wants. It's not the nubian cost, it's the early
> doubling of basic tech.
But it does have a good effect on miners. STD miners are better cost than
ARM. The Nubian cost is moot for AR(hull only), and the early levels can
largely be worked around. I consider it to be optional to taste, like RS.
> > Regenerating Shields (RS)
> >
> > In my view something to avoid. The universe is tough on the AR, why
> > compromise the ability you have to defend your self? Armour is best
> > line of defense, the 40% improvement is shields never conpensates for
> > the fact that you loose 50% defense on armour. The best shield you
> > can expect to have gives 500 points of defence, the best armour gives
> > 1500 points. Reason enough to can the idea.
>
> Varn likes shields. They're light you know.
Gateable, cheap, and almost half the cost beamer-nubians. Build a ton of
these with your fountains of minerals. They die twice as easily, so it would
be a push, except for the fact that they gate better and move(fuel) and
also have better battlespeed. All-round nice.
> Another thing to try coudl be a nonNRSE AR with RS using almost gatable
> BBs for defence.
This actually works well enough.
> > Energy is -50% (no brainer)
> > Construction is -50%, why you need it improve your orbitals, and thus
> > your population limits. it also is needed for battle ships, miners,
> > and armour.
Energy normal is a far better use, since cheap costs you more than anyone
else(reverse of idea above) and weapons cheap is an absolute MUST.
The Sqrt makes most gain that you get from cheap vs std almost moot
later on, and the early game slightly tougher, but liveable.
I put the points into a wider hab.
> > Weapons is usually -50%, some times standard. If you cannot shoot
> > first and kill you are dead. For the AR killing means better weapons.
> > (QED).
>
> Not standard. I know points are running out, but this is one area you
> can't afford to cut.
I agree. Cheap. Must be cheap.
> > Propulsion is usually standard, if I have the points -50%. If I have
> > taken NRSE then I make it +75% to gain the points. I only need to get
> > to Prop 11 for warp 10, 13 for the Mystery Trader's engine. Little
> > benefits are gained by the AR for higher propulsion factors, they
> > already have the best stargates by this point.
Swap out prop expensive for energy cheap - same points and prop expensive
is moot. Either you have IFE or you have NRSE - in both cases, you
get top-notch engines at low tech levels.
> > Population growth Rate, the best that is possible after the above
> > decisions have been made. But as a guide
> >
> > Tri-immunes 6%,
> > Two Immunes (never) the tri-immunes always do better in my
> > experiments.
Heh. Seriously - try a Dual with TT and a wide hab. 12% growth.
Just flattens a tri-immune. play *exactly* like a tri-immune.
I christened this philosophy the "Poor-Man's Tri-Immune" as it gets
80% overall efficiency and has over three times the population to work
with as a tri-immune. 20-30K is doable. This is not as high as a one-immune,
but compared to a tri-immune, it rocks.(it is also as stable as a tri-immune)
> > 1-Immunes 16-19%
>
> Yep. I've seen down to 14% do well, but 16% is usually a good place to
> stop.
I found that the breakpoint is 16-17% Under this you are knocking on
Dual-immune territory, and over this is just wasted. Those last 2-3%
really don't help that much, and are another 100+ points.
Wide hab and/or total coverage at TT20 is far better.
There is just NO substitute for a wide hab.
Quote me on that. :)
> > Now what to do with the spare points if you have them
> >
> > Surface minerals. You need minerals early, home world mining floors
> > save you later. Increasing mineral concentration is not any where
> > near as effective to increasing your ability to produce ships early in
> > the game.
>
> Well ,I've heard this fro mothers too, but I still find mcons better.
> Due to natrual mining, you always have the inital surface minerals.
> It's in the 20s, possible 30s, the minerals are getting low. That's
> enough time for mxons to have had thei impact, so the total effect is
> better wit hthose.
I found this too. Try putting even 4-8 points into concentrations and see
your HW have ubsurdly high values in two of the three, and good in the
other.
> > 18% Grav-Immune, -16 to 104c, 61mr to 91 mr, 10 coeff, IEF, ARM, ISB,
> > NRSE, NAS, LSP, En, Con, Weap -50%, All the rest +75%, +75 starts at 3
> > not selected.
>
> Too many LRTs for my taste. I'd drop one of them, improving hab for the
> APs. Droping 1% PGR if needed. Can't really afford giving up the
> capacity you have as an 1immune. 25/16 from the edge.
Try this:
17%, IFE, ISB, NRSE, NAS, LSP
Energy normal, weapons and con cheap, rest expensive. Use the points
to widen hab(or get prop normal or cheap)
Energy, prop, and bio normal, the other two cheap(elec expensive) is
very brutal with IFE/NRSE - you start fast and use the FM until you quickly
get the IS-10 in the late teens. You move like nobody else, and that alone
gets you the mid-game advantage that you need to survive until Nubians.
> > I have no designs for 2 immunes or normal non-immunity designs. I am
> > sure that others mentioned last post have some to share.
>
> Would love to see them.
Search Deja for "Death of the 1-immune AR" - the thread ended up with
a very nice set of dual-immunes that actually play very very well.
A 12-14% growth rate and liveable negatives. Pounds Tri-immunes
silly. 20K is a joke to get, though getting over 30K is hard to do.
Very stable in a real game, as it has tons of advantages as you don't
need the worlds that other want so badly(your immunes are in what they
don't have) It also relaibly gets 20K or so in every real game,
and takes up about 2/3 the space of a 1-immune.
Read the thread. :) Lots of info.
Dan Neely
> Iain Heron wrote:
> >
> > > Well, someone who did hit the stratosphere should be mentioned. I
> > > belive the current max is 117k by 2450, set by James Hamilton.
> >
> > Is that a ludicrous output or what?
>
> so it really does not "count" as they colonized far more than 40
> planets, and in a real game, you'd never get that much share.
none of the 'super-monster' resource races got thier results in tiny
universe, the point to those tests isn't to see what you can get in a
real game, but what is the absolute best you can get under ideal
conditions.
--
Think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them
are stupider than that.
-- George Carlin
Joseph Oberlander
> > so it really does not "count" as they colonized far more than 40
> > planets, and in a real game, you'd never get that much share.
>
> none of the 'super-monster' resource races got thier results in tiny
> universe, the point to those tests isn't to see what you can get in a
> real game, but what is the absolute best you can get under ideal
> conditions.
They are not legitimate as far as I am concerned. This is like
playing a CA in a huge/packed, max minerals all by yourself. Sure, you
can claim some incredible numbers, but they are not based upon the
original methods to determine viability or "monster"/25K status.
I am far more interested in seeing what a realistic testbed gets me.
So far, for AR, the "record" is just shy of 50K.
Anthony G. Mosconi
before, but would you be so kind as to detail the exact parameters for the
testbed that is considered "the configuration" to use for monster/25K by
2450
TIA
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote in message
news:390493EE...@loop.com...
David Moen
<mos...@nospam.erinet.com>, deigning to enlighten us mere mortals,
spake thusly:
>I am sure the details have been given elsewhere, and many, many times
>before, but would you be so kind as to detail the exact parameters for the
>testbed that is considered "the configuration" to use for monster/25K by
>2450
Tiny, Packed, AccBBS. While some would claim that you should use No
Random Events and Beginner Max Minerals, I can find no reference to
these in the orignal testbed definitions.
If you are testing an IT or PP, whose second planet wouldn't show up,
use a small dense universe, but limit yourself to exploring and
settling the 39 systems closest to your HW.
James Hamilton
>> > > belive the current max is 117k by 2450, set by James Hamilton.
>> >
>> > Is that a ludicrous output or what?
>>
>> so it really does not "count" as they colonized far more than 40
>> planets, and in a real game, you'd never get that much share.
>
>none of the 'super-monster' resource races got thier results in tiny
>universe, the point to those tests isn't to see what you can get in a
>real game, but what is the absolute best you can get under ideal
>conditions.
The 117K record was in response to the 250K plus CA returns.
It was set in a small, packed , ABBS, no random, max minerals.
I was trying to prove that AR can produce resources if it trys.
BTW my record in a 'real' game (huge, packed, 16 players, ABBS) is 170K
resources when I won the game in 2490.
AR races really like to have space to run in. The big hurt is minerals in
the early game.
Yours
James Hamilton
P.S. Despite a fair amount of effort I have yet to beat the 117K. I suspect
that with a good hab draw that 125K would be on but thats about it.
If I get the chance I will do another tiny packed test. I think I managed
about 56K a while back but various people came back that tiny packed was too
much real estate so I spent a fair time trying to break 25K in a tiny Normal
and failing miserably.
Joseph Oberlander
>
> It was set in a small, packed , ABBS, no random, max minerals.
>
> I was trying to prove that AR can produce resources if it trys.
Oh, for sure, it can - but try it again in tiny, packed. :)
It may get over 50K, which would ge great - I really wish you luck.
(really)
I am really intersted in what this same design would do in 40 planets.
Bret C.
dgm...@attglobal.net.hormelless (David Moen) wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:57:26 -0400, "Anthony G.
> Mosconi"
> <mos...@nospam.erinet.com>, deigning to enlighten us
> mere mortals,
> spake thusly:
> >I am sure the details have been given elsewhere, and
> many, many times
> >before, but would you be so kind as to detail the
> exact parameters for the
> >testbed that is considered "the configuration" to use
> for monster/25K by
> >2450
> Tiny, Packed, AccBBS. While some would claim that you
> should use No
> Random Events and Beginner Max Minerals, I can find no
> reference to
> these in the orignal testbed definitions.
I usually gen my testbeds to get around 30% for a G-con for
my testbeds, I want worst case conditions.
I also use tiny normal or tiny sparse, as these seem to
come closer to actual game conditions that I am more likely
to encounter.
When testing IT I use small sparse and limit my
colonization to 150 LY (approx). This gets me about 18-20K
resources for a typical IT, and approximates game abilities
of the race.
In any event, use NoRandom Events for your testbed, you
don't need to "test" what a large comet to your HW can do
to early game production.
> If you are testing an IT or PP, whose second planet
> wouldn't show up,
> use a small dense universe, but limit yourself to
> exploring and
> settling the 39 systems closest to your HW.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
David Moen
<bchoitz...@apsc.com.invalid>, deigning to enlighten us mere
mortals, spake thusly:
>In article <39049a9...@news1.attglobal.net>,
>dgm...@attglobal.net.hormelless (David Moen) wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:57:26 -0400, "Anthony G.
>> Mosconi" spake thusly:
>> would you be so kind as to detail the exact parameters for the
>> >testbed that is considered "the configuration" to use
>> for monster/25K by 2450
>> Tiny, Packed, AccBBS. While some would claim that you
>> should use No
>> Random Events and Beginner Max Minerals, I can find no
>> reference to
>> these in the orignal testbed definitions.
>
>I usually gen my testbeds to get around 30% for a G-con for
>my testbeds, I want worst case conditions.
>I also use tiny normal or tiny sparse, as these seem to
>come closer to actual game conditions that I am more likely
>to encounter.
>When testing IT I use small sparse and limit my
>colonization to 150 LY (approx). This gets me about 18-20K
>resources for a typical IT, and approximates game abilities
>of the race.
All of these are good suggestions for realistic testing, but that is
not what Anthony G. Mosconi asked for. He wanted the standard 25K by
2450 test bed.
>In any event, use NoRandom Events for your testbed, you
>don't need to "test" what a large comet to your HW can do
>to early game production.
Comet strikes on your HW in the first 50 years are quite rare. It is
not worth choosing No Random Events just to avoid them, as you will
miss out on the effects of findign artifacts - whic is a much more
common occurence in real games. As I said, I could find no mention of
that choice in \my record sof the early definition of the standard
25K by 2450 test bed.
John
"Anthony G. Mosconi" <mos...@nospam.erinet.com> wrote:
> I am sure the details have been given elsewhere, and many, many times
for the
> testbed that is considered "the configuration" to use for monster/25K
by
> 2450
>
There rally don't exist any standard. 25k by 2450 was observbed by JC
as what the winning races did in real games.
If you are planning a race for a certain game, just use the setup for
that game and test in that. Try to guess where you would met other
players and stop colonising where you think the border would be.
If you are just designing in general, use a setup to emulate the sort
of game the race is designed for. No point testing a OWW in a huge.
Personaly, I have found a small normal (sometimes dense) with ABBS, NRE
and limited colonisation to be a good mesurment. With results simimilar
to what you would do in a game.
I would not use a tiny if I didn't plan to play the race there. Too
many artifacts for the borders and the high density you need to use.
Possibly for a race in small, but a small is as good there.
One thing to do is to do a second 'worst case' test to see how your
race copes with that. Low mcons on the HW in important minerals (iron
and/or germanium) and a worse than average hab draw. Colonising fewer
planets becuase unusually quickstarting neighbours.
There do exist on standard testbed though. Std. BB. This is a test for
resource _potential_ not emulating a real game. Small, packed ABBS,
BMM, NRE. This is where those amazing resource totals are made.
--
Can I have a new cat now?
Lazygun
>There rally don't exist any standard. 25k by 2450 was observbed by JC
>as what the winning races did in real games.
As I understand it, it was a throwaway comment by Barry Kearns, which
was met by dozens of disbelieving stares. Has he gone mad?! Until it
was shown to be achievable. Which was the final death blow for the 5%
HE.
--
[if replying by email, please remove the .dots from my address]
Damon Domjan
(Lazygun) wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:19:57 GMT, John <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>>There rally don't exist any standard. 25k by 2450 was observbed by JC
>>as what the winning races did in real games.
>
>
>As I understand it, it was a throwaway comment by Barry Kearns, which
>was met by dozens of disbelieving stares. Has he gone mad?! Until it
>was shown to be achievable. Which was the final death blow for the 5%
>HE.
...4%. 5% HE's are still competitive.
Damon
Orca on #Stars!
--
http://dariasounds.home.dhs.org/
Asimov
news:3908b045...@goodnews.nildram.co.uk...
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:19:57 GMT, John <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> >There rally don't exist any standard. 25k by 2450 was observbed by JC
> >as what the winning races did in real games.
>
>
> As I understand it, it was a throwaway comment by Barry Kearns, which
> was met by dozens of disbelieving stares. Has he gone mad?! Until it
> was shown to be achievable. Which was the final death blow for the 5%
> HE.
>
hm... i think the last version of the roaches was 5%, and its a blitz race
havent you played against them before? if not, i think its time we had us a
game :)
--
asimov@efnet
asimov@starlink
James Hamilton
>>
>> It was set in a small, packed , ABBS, no random, max minerals.
>>
>> I was trying to prove that AR can produce resources if it trys.
>
>Oh, for sure, it can - but try it again in tiny, packed. :)
>It may get over 50K, which would ge great - I really wish you luck.
>(really)
>
2450 -> 49,908 (Do'h!)
peaked at 110K
>I am really intersted in what this same design would do in 40 planets.
Perhaps when I have a bit more time spare.
For interested parties the race is:
AR
IFE,NRSE,ISB,TT,NAS,OBRM
0.96g to 2.0g
-8 to 96
Immune
1 in 11
19%
Coefficient 10
Energy, Con and Bio cheap
rest expensive not checked
I know that this is not a good race for a 'normal' game, it was an attempt
to generate as many resources as possible from an AR. The real problem is
that you need Con cheap and Energy normal is too much of a hit on the early
ramp up to get the big 2450 resource totals. If you are going to use TT you
really need Bio cheap as well.
Yours
James 'Hammy' Hamilton
John
and...@nildram.dot.co.dot.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:19:57 GMT, John <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >There rally don't exist any standard. 25k by 2450 was observbed by JC
> >as what the winning races did in real games.
>
> As I understand it, it was a throwaway comment by Barry Kearns, which
> was met by dozens of disbelieving stares. Has he gone mad?! Until it
> was shown to be achievable. Which was the final death blow for the 5%
> HE.
Well, as I remeber it was Jason, but if you say different you are
probably right. My memory about this anit to clear. I was talking about
25k in general BTW. I know it was Barry who was first to 25k with AR.
And as the others said, 4% was the standard PGR back then. 5% was
around but I think it was seen as weaker(!) since it lost so many APs
for one measly point of PGR. 5% is not recomended for any general srtup
anylonger butthey do better testbed races than 4%. (25k just possible)
Joseph Oberlander
>
> >> The 117K record was in response to the 250K plus CA returns.
> >>
> >> It was set in a small, packed , ABBS, no random, max minerals.
> >>
> >> I was trying to prove that AR can produce resources if it trys.
> >
> >Oh, for sure, it can - but try it again in tiny, packed. :)
> >It may get over 50K, which would ge great - I really wish you luck.
> >(really)
> >
> OK, I have just run the design again in a tiny packed and the result is ....
>
> 2450 -> 49,908 (Do'h!)
Sweet! I'd call this 50K. Lookie here, folks! A new record! :)
> For interested parties the race is:
>
> AR
> IFE,NRSE,ISB,TT,NAS,OBRM
> 0.96g to 2.0g
> -8 to 96
> Immune
> 1 in 11
> 19%
> Coefficient 10
> Energy, Con and Bio cheap
> rest expensive not checked
Heh - told you! TT 1-immune. :) And who says they are no good?
> I know that this is not a good race for a 'normal' game, it was an attempt
> to generate as many resources as possible from an AR. The real problem is
> that you need Con cheap and Energy normal is too much of a hit on the early
> ramp up to get the big 2450 resource totals. If you are going to use TT you
> really need Bio cheap as well.
Bio normal and weapons normal would be a good compromise, IMO.
Swap out OBRM for LSP and maybe CE.
I did something simmilar with my 42K design, so it really doesn't
slow you down THAT much(though CE sucked!) I did get the FM to
start, though, and that was sweet.
James Hamilton
>> IFE,NRSE,ISB,TT,NAS,OBRM
>> 0.96g to 2.0g
>> -8 to 96
>> Immune
>> 1 in 11
>> 19%
>> Coefficient 10
>> Energy, Con and Bio cheap
>> rest expensive not checked
>
>Heh - told you! TT 1-immune. :) And who says they are no good?
>
to loose out on everythnig else
>> I know that this is not a good race for a 'normal' game, it was an
attempt
>> to generate as many resources as possible from an AR. The real problem is
>> that you need Con cheap and Energy normal is too much of a hit on the
early
>> ramp up to get the big 2450 resource totals. If you are going to use TT
you
>> really need Bio cheap as well.
>
>Bio normal and weapons normal would be a good compromise, IMO.
>
Possibly, In the Tiny Packed test I only managed Bio 17 and TT20 so the hit
to 15% terraforming would not be that bad.
For a 'real' race I would make it Rad immune and relly on conventional
terraforming with the TT as a back end kicker
>Swap out OBRM for LSP and maybe CE.
>
This might work in a real game. CE is bearable especially as you don't die
in transit if the engines don't engage. I usually use LSP and its no big
loss but in a 50 year sprint the loss in initial ramp up is significant.
>I did something simmilar with my 42K design, so it really doesn't
>slow you down THAT much(though CE sucked!) I did get the FM to
>start, though, and that was sweet.
I might try out a test along these lines but I doubt if it will be able to
crack 50K in a Tiny Packed.
Yours
James Hamilton
Robert Ashcroft
wrote:
>
>Robert Ashcroft wrote in message <38f8197e...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>
>
>>The AR only really become a problem it they are left alone long enough
>>to win the production war. This happens when other races run out of
>>minerals on which production is reliant. The AR if played correctly
>>never have a mineral problem but they tend to only produce 1/2 the
>>ships of other races.
>
>That's crap ;-)
Varn, I am glad you are able to express your views in an economy of
words, the fact remains however that your view is in error. The
correct production of miners and mineral transport networks, the issue
of minerals supply is never a real issue for the AR, as to the 4,000
mining limit, the AR pays a high price for minerals on demand. They
cannot have large numbers of fleets devoted to general distruction.
>
[snipped the next comment on production as it I will deal with it in
the thread that continues]
>
>Regards,
>
>Varn
>
>
**
Remove the "antisp" and "dot" if you want to e-mail me directly
**
Spammers Note, Advertisments you send to me is taken as acceptance on your part that you agreed to pay me $1,000 for each article for the retrieval and archive service that is provided.
Robert Ashcroft
<rog...@et.byu.edu> wrote:
>Iain Heron wrote:
>> > Show me any race that can produce 7600 resources from a single world, and
>> > I'll show you a hacked race. Actually, the average HG race produces around
>> > 3k resources from a maxed world, which is about the same as the typical
>> AR.
>>
>> Absolutely agreed. An OBRM JoaT makes max 5k resources, and they don't get
>> much bigger than that!
>> Also, how many other races can colonise a planet and have it at 3k the same
>> year?........
>
>Let's see if we wan't to count beans.... :-)
>[BTW, I'm doing something that should never be done: pulling numbers out
>of my head without documentation handy. Sorry, if I'm off a bit]
>
>
>OBRM 1WW JOAT
>1320k population
>1 resource/800 pop = 1650 resources
>10k pop can operate 25 factories = 3300 factories
>10 factories produce 15 recourses = 4950 resources
>
>Total resources = 6.6k
>Anything above that is either an overpopulated planet or a hacked race
>file.
>
>But overall, I'd agree that with most races a maxed out HW produces
>about 3.5k, which is comprable to a maxed out late game AR HW.
>
This is not the case, assuming that the world is terraformed to 100%
value the race will typically produce near 4.5K or better,
particularly if it is hitting the 25K by 2450.
The thing that reduces the factory base race production rates is that
towards end game they do not have the minerals supply required to
continue the construction of fighting ships.
The AR is not going to exceed 3387 resources per system unless it has
taken ORBM (not very likely) or has overcrowded its sytem (even less
likely).
IS with automated propulation drops are able to look towards 5041
resources for production as a result of overcrowding with
1resource/2400, 10 fact produce 15, and every 10,000 operate 25
factorie, and all with a lousy 3300000 pop. Now if you adjust it to
something like.
1resource per 700 pop = 1571.4
10K operating 25 factories = 3300
10 factories producing 15 = 4950 resources
then over crowd by +1,100,000 = 785.7
then over crowd by +1,100,000 = 392.8
Total is near 7700, more than double a maxed out coeff factor 7 AR.
In terms of ships that is 8 nubians a term versus 4.
For factory based races the overhaul of the AR production rates
happens between 2450 and 2475. If the AR has not shut down the close
(and hostile) factory based race it is going to loose when it counts.
Being able to produce any number of ships 25 turns after 2475 is 25
turns too late.
Anyone out there who thinks the AR are hard to beat dosen't know how
to play a factory based race. It is very simple to shut down an AR
and so long as you achieve it before 2500 there is very little that
the AR player can do about it. They have to rely on friendly factory
based defense until they are out producing the factory based races
simply because the factory based races have run out of minerals for
construction.
If minerals are not an issue then the AR will NEVER win the production
race. If you really want to see what can happen watch what an AR + WM
can do when they have the MT jump gate.
>--
>- Todd Rogers
>
>"I've been asked what I mean by word of honor. I will tell you. Place
>me behind prison walls - walls of stone ever so high, ever so thick,
>reaching ever so far into the ground - there is a possibility that in
>some way or another I may escape; but stand me on the floor and draw a
>chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross
>it. Can I get out of the circle? No. Never! I'd die first!"
>-Karl G. Maeser Founder of Brigham Young University
Robert Ashcroft
<snip>
>
>> The effective way of driving home the effect of this formula is to
>> claim that one colony of 100,000 produces less resource than 4
>> colonies with 25,000. Assuming 100% habitability, an energy
>> technology level of 10 and an efficiency coefficient of 10. Then a
>> single colony of 100,000 produce 316 resources, where as, 4 colonies
>> of 25,000 produce 632 resources. In this example you loose half of
>> you productive capacity by having your population in one location.
>
>Yep, you need 4 tiems the planet to double resources. But unless
>triimune, you run out of high value planets quick, and thus that is not
>really relevant.
>
>> In an average game you are going to find at least 4 worlds within 3
>> turns at warp 9 of your home world which are ideal (100% value) or
>> require very little effort to get them there. If you are not playing
>> the tri-immune you need to find these worlds first and establish
>> colonies by 2410 at the latest.
>
>Don't see why. Unless you mean you can't get planetbased race of them
>if they get there first. That's important of course, but depends quite
>a bit on hoe the game is set up.
The reason for this is that there will be for a non-tri-immune race
about this number of "breeder" worlds close by, if you are in the 25%
33% development pattern the faster you get these worlds to 100% the
faster you get to spread your growing population base around to not so
good greens, yellows and base level resercher reds. Development speed
of breeder worlds is what counts because after 2450 you have factory
based competition and you need to have solved the basic production
problems with the AR well before hand. No later than 2435...
<more snip>
>> No Ram Scoop Engines (NRSE) can travel through hostile mine fields
>> faster than scooped engines,
>
>No o, but they take somewhat less damage on a minehit. Not very
>important in practice.
the chance of hits is lower for non-scoop engines...
>
>> if you take NRSE you get warp 10 with
>> propulsion 11.
>
>Yep, and that together with GravI means you don't need to go beyond P12
>at all.
13 actually if you consider the MT engine.
>
<snipp>
>>
>> In my view ARM always, MA if you have the points. Others will claim
>> ARM drop and MA ignore. In this case it really is how your pattern of
>> play is being done that is the final arbiter for which is right and
>> which is wrong. Play style counts for these LRT's.
>
>MA is really a stupid thing to take. You need large amount of resources
>to make a small amount of minerals. If you do that early you kill you
>tech development so don't even consider it. Late, when you have the
>resources, an AR has more minerals than they can spend. And all
>resources are needed to make ships out of those minerals. MA sound
>pretty pointless here.
Not so. If you suffer mineral shortages early on, your build time
cycles are shortened simply because you pay only 25% of the build cost
of minerals with MA that would occur if you don't have it. That is 1
turn instead of 4 to produce the same volume of minerals. The AR
needs to keep the supply of minerals in line with it's production
base. It cannot waste early very valuable resources producing
minerals and items when it has a more than equally pressing need to
research high tech levels.
>
>> Improved Starbases (ISB).
>>
>> This LRT aids the AR in ways that are not really that obvious. The
>> first aid is that the Space Dock is the smallest orbital at which
>> ships can be constructed. For the AR the ones that count are Miners,
>> Colony ships, Frieghters. If you have ARM, these types of ships build
>> at colonies that have the Space Dock really boost development. Trade
>> of colonists and minerals within the empire are also improved due to
>> the fact that the space station also refulles the ships. Allowing the
>> ships to travel at warp 9 or 10 without running out of fuel on the 3
>> turn hop.
>>
>> The second advantage it that the incremental improvement that comes
>> with ISB that you can more easily increase the number of weapons on
>> the orbital by the fact that you have more orbital upgrade steps
>> available. You do not have to wait until Construction 16 to have a
>> better defence platform. The truth is that space stations during the
>> first 50 turns are expensive even with a 20% reduction in the costs of
>> building.
>
>Well base cost is higher but when talking fully aremd stations it is so
>minor as not being important. If you are prepared t o spend the
>resources needed for a full base you want the full base anyway, for the
>higher capacity and better dock. Docks as a weponsplatform is not
>important.
if you cannot defend your population early on you are out of the game.
the ship cost factor for defense is far higher than that of devoting
the same resources to space station development.
consider the following.
Orbital structure designs to consider.
Orbital Fort, 250 points of Armour and Shields, 6 computers and 4-16
Delta torpedoes or Jihad missiles
Space Station, 800 points of Armour and Shields, 8 computers and 8-16
Delta torpedoes or Jihad missiles
Ultra Station, 2000 points of armour and shields, 12 computers and 16
Jihad missiles
Death Star, 3000 points of armour and shields, 24 computers and 32
Jihad missiles.
All of the above are relatively cheap to produce and effective in
their use of minerals and resources. Each design in progression uses
approximately double the resources of its predecessor, and with care
in producing can more than easily account with most threats until
about 2450 when your neighbours will start to gain the production
edge.
How does this compare with ships? The answer to this question is
dependent on the designs. You are not going to be able to get the
initiative advantage that the orbital will have. You gain mobile
defence. Compare the costs and then decide.
Lets assume that you have Construction 13 to make this easier. Your
choices in ship defence are the Freighter, Destroyer, Cruiser and
Battle ship. For this discussion freighter like hulls Galleon and
Privateer are ignored. Further lets assume that you have Jihads and
battle computers. In the case of the orbital structures assume 16
Jihads and a bit of armour and shields as indicated above. (Note:
numbers may be slightly out due to miniaturisation effects, in this
case costs given may be higher.)
Hull Ir (kton) Bo (kton) Ge (kton) Resources
Orbital Fort 111 40 47 71
Space Station 154 64 142 272
Ultra Station 153 67 185 317
Death Star 298 126 328 796
Frigate 52 19 14 24 6 to equal an Orbital
fort
Destroyer 56 19 21 34 6 to equal an Orbital
fort
Cruiser 115 38 41 73 3 to equal an Orbital
fort
Battleship 326 108 120 230 1 to equal an Space
Station
In all cases the orbital hulls have the superior initiative and range,
they will have 2 rounds of fire. The ships have no armour beyond the
basics of the hull. Definitely something that will result in the
destruction of the ships providing no large numbers of ships.
>
>What is important for a highgrowth is the very cheap way to a better
>capacity, greatly improving popgrowth and thus economy. I wouldn't take
>this with a lowgrowth, but is a near must for a 16%+ AR.
>
In the real game you cannot waste resources, but if you want to I am
sure your opposition will be more than happy to demonstrate to you why
this is a bad idea.
>> No Advanced Scanners (NAS)
>>
>> This one is a quick way to gets lots of extra points for very little
>> loss. It does mean that you require more scouts to act as sentinals
>> and you have to check on the opposition more carefully. Some love it
>> some hate it. I hate it.
>
>Yep, those points are very tempting, but ARs really need penscanners to
>protect those fragile stations. I hate it too.
not really just introduce an appropriate scanning stragey of near by
worlds or get pen scanns from a friendly source and the problem goes
away.
>
<snip>
>> Low Starting Population (LSP)
>>
>> If you really need the extra points then take it. For the 18+ growth
>> rates use it, for growth rates if you need the points. This
>> particular LRT's effect is reduced for the AR. The reason is the
>> resource formula. It has much of an impact on the AR than is the case
>> for other races. But it does slow your population development, given
>> the fact that the AR is dependent on the colonists for resources and
>> their production factors are much lower than the factory based races
>> some have the view that it really hurts the AR.
>
>Silly. All races need pop for resource. Factories are only an indirect
>way. A planet with max factories but no pop gives you zero resources.
>What you coudl think about is that pop not operating factoris are not
>very effecxtive for a HP and LSP thus hurt them less. But they are
>still growing the same, and you'll be poplimited sooner or later. That
>extra pop would be quite nice then.
for the AR the impact of LSP is reduced due to the resource formula,
for other races the resources is a linear relationship not a bi-nomial
as it is for the AR.
<snip>
>> Regenerating Shields (RS)
>>
>> In my view something to avoid. The universe is tough on the AR, why
>> compromise the ability you have to defend your self? Armour is best
>> line of defense, the 40% improvement is shields never conpensates for
>> the fact that you loose 50% defense on armour. The best shield you
>> can expect to have gives 500 points of defence, the best armour gives
>> 1500 points. Reason enough to can the idea.
>
>Varn likes shields. They're light you know.
and I like missiles. it is a matter of play style.
<snip>
>> Now to technology and research
>>
<snip>
Dan Neely
your.figure.it wrote:
> IS with automated propulation drops are able to look towards 5041
> resources for production as a result of overcrowding with
> 1resource/2400, 10 fact produce 15, and every 10,000 operate 25
> factorie, and all with a lousy 3300000 pop. Now if you adjust it to
> something like.
>
> 1resource per 700 pop = 1571.4
> 10K operating 25 factories = 3300
> 10 factories producing 15 = 4950 resources
>
> then over crowd by +1,100,000 = 785.7
> then over crowd by +1,100,000 = 392.8
>
> Total is near 7700, more than double a maxed out coeff factor 7 AR.
but no race can afford that much econ and ve competitive.
A typical OBRM HG 12/x/16 will get 3212 per planet
A blitz race will often ahve 15/x/16 facts for 4740 per planet, but to
pay ofr it they typically take 1 1in7 nonimmune hab
an HP with 15/x/21 facts will get 3900 resouces
an Joat HP or an overpoped HG IS can get ~4700 resources but by the time
the IS can afford taht much pop, resouces are worthless because of maxed
tech and dwindling mineral supplies
--
Think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them
are stupider than that.
-- George Carlin
Todd Jacob Rogers
> >But overall, I'd agree that with most races a maxed out HW produces
> >about 3.5k, which is comprable to a maxed out late game AR HW.
> >
>
> This is not the case, assuming that the world is terraformed to 100%
> value the race will typically produce near 4.5K or better,
> particularly if it is hitting the 25K by 2450.
Then, I'd have to say either your talking about HP races (as opposed to
HG races) or you are better at race design than I.
In a current game I have a maxed out HW at about 3.3k using an HG SS.
Granted that's not a resource monster, but in my experience most HG
races produce about 3.5k on a maxed out HW. HPs of course could do the
4.5k you talk about.
Joseph Oberlander
> >Bio normal and weapons normal would be a good compromise, IMO.
> >
> Possibly, In the Tiny Packed test I only managed Bio 17 and TT20 so the hit
> to 15% terraforming would not be that bad.
>
> For a 'real' race I would make it Rad immune and relly on conventional
> terraforming with the TT as a back end kicker
Same here. Widen the hab out to where TT20 gives full "optimal range"
coverage of temp and grav and have it normal. As you saw above, you got
TT20 by 50, and that is all you would need in this case as well.
> >Swap out OBRM for LSP and maybe CE.
> >
> This might work in a real game. CE is bearable especially as you don't die
> in transit if the engines don't engage. I usually use LSP and its no big
> loss but in a 50 year sprint the loss in initial ramp up is significant.
Yeah I know. I try to make things playable, and they work fine, but
are really not that much different. LSP. Decent growth. Rad immune.
TT as a "kicker" - etc. :)
> >I did something simmilar with my 42K design, so it really doesn't
> >slow you down THAT much(though CE sucked!) I did get the FM to
> >start, though, and that was sweet.
>
> I might try out a test along these lines but I doubt if it will be able to
> crack 50K in a Tiny Packed.
Nope. Cannot get 50K, but 40K isn't bad either, considering it is a
viable design for real play(tm)
Joseph Oberlander
> > then over crowd by +1,100,000 = 785.7
> > then over crowd by +1,100,000 = 392.8
> >
> > Total is near 7700, more than double a maxed out coeff factor 7 AR.
Ouch. This would allow for IS to make a 1WW race and actually make
it work. 7700 on HW, and the less than perfect ones are still
profitable due to huge pop being dropped.
I ran a test with an IS, and the thing started producing ubsurd numbers
around year 100. The program went negative, then positive, and then
went completely nuts. Production suddenly jumped to millions of KT
a year in population, and that is enough to squish anything.
(wierd bug)
Robert Ashcroft
>
>Robert Ashcroft wrote in message <38f93e3...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>
><I'll try my best not to disagree too much ;^>
>
>>I personally happen to like tri-immunes and in my experience the
>>tri-immune described last post is more than capable of mixing it with
>>most players.
>
>Most beginners, certainly. Probably some intermediates too, with good play.
>
>>When it comes to playing against the Monster however the Tri-immune
>>has real problems. I will deal with tri-immune style play first as it
>>puts some fundamental principles into place. If you really want to
>>learn effective play with the AR then use a 4% tri-immune and see if
>>you can survive 150 turns in a huge 16-expert AI universe. If you can
>>do it without loosing a colony for the entire period you have what it
>>takes to play as an expert.
>
>Though not what it takes to play *against* experts - not with tri-immune
>anyway, because they are too slow.
>
playing a low growth rate race in the conditions described forces you
to manage the resources such as they are in the most efficient manner
possible. What ever way you cut that it matters little as it gives
most players the critical discipline of managing those resources you
do have efficiently, and that makes you a better player. This is the
only point for playing the 4% AR race design, there is no other.
>>So you have 25000 colonists, a home world, what next?...
>
>Okay, you've gone for a standard (non-Acc BBS) start. That's going to give
>1k initial pop growth per turn with your 4%, or 1.5k with a 6% tri-immune (I
>strongly recommend the 6% version if anyone is brave enough to play
>tri-immune AR with human opposition).
>
>>I load 2200 colonists on all colonisation fleets. It happens
>>that 2200 is the point at which no colonists are lost in transist.
>>Above it you lose colonsists. Below it you loose research gains on
>>colonisation.
>
>You still get the research gains (if random events are on) with as little as
>1000 pop per colony ship IIRC. That's important if you are playing low
>growth tri-immune AR. Colonising with 2.2k per turn from the start will
>result in a steady drop in the pop on your HW, until you have virtually
>nothing left - not a good idea.
I have strong views on the above and have done research but the
reasons for doing as I do, I no longer have, I will redo this research
and hit it with the emprical rigour that this deserves. One of us is
wrong, I am not so sure that it is not me so I will check first.
>
>>These colonies simply establish and then do nothing until I get con 4
>>from colonisation efforts. Then they build the space dock, 2 miners
>>and then go fallow until 2425. At which point the build 2 colony
>>ships with fuel tanks instead of colony pods. These are for
>>distributing mineral and population resources of the empire. To
>>spread out evenly as fast as is possible.
>
>My opinion - these "fuel" colony ships are a waste of valuable resources and
>minerals. You are better off building medium freighters with a fuel tank and
>nothing else. They have more than 8 times the capacity of these "fuel"
>colony ships, but don't cost anything like 8 times as much.
It is nearly always the case that the freighters you require to have
are not possible because you are not likely to have the tech to let it
happen. If you can do it then ok but in the main it is not likely.
>
><big snip>
>
>>This basic strategy holds true in the development of the higher growth
>>rate race design. Again analysis of the two types of races shows that
>>both the 6% tri-immune and the 18% monster do about the same during
>>the first 50 turns, it is the turns that follow where the effects of
>>higher growth rates finally kick in making the AR a deadly foe.
>
>Space available will largely determine the relative strength of 6%
>tri-immune vs. 18% one immune. With lots of space the 18% version will grow
>*much* faster than the 6%, and will also be well ahead on tech by 2450. In
>cramped conditions (less than 30 planets available) the difference will be
>much smaller.
But you neglect to consider the habbitably factor. I have a large
number of games behind me and I know the simple fact that the tech
levels of a tri-immune match a hyper growth/monster ar until about
2450, when the higher growth rate finally cuts in and boosts
development. The reason that this occurs is entirely due to
habbitably factor modifications to production rates.
>
>>Playing the Monster.
>
>Presumably meaning the 1-immune, high growth AR.
>
>>The scout and colony fuel tank works well in early colonist
>>ballancing.
>
>Medium freighters with fuel tanks are better.
>
>>to realy do the job qucikly I turn to the good old large
>>freighter (con 9) this should be available early in the game
>
>Large freighter supercedes medium when you get it (con 8).
>
>>My research pattern is en 4, prop 2, en 8, weap 5, con 12, en 12, eap
>>12, elec 11, bio 4, weap16, en 16, weap 24.
>
>This race usually starts with energy, weap and con cheap. Others expensive
>and no box. With IFE, initial tech is therefore 1 in prop and 0 in other
>fields. My research sequence is usually something like this:
>
>Energy 4 (boost to early resources)
>Prop 2 (fuel mizer)
>Con 3 (medium freighter - get this as soon as HW reaches 25% capacity)
>Energy 5 (resources)
>Bio 2 (terraforming)
>Con 4 (space dock)
>Energy 7 (resources)
>Weap 5 (terraforming/defence)
>Energy 10 (resources)
>Bio 3 (terraforming)
>Weap 10 (terraforming/defence)
>Con 8 (large freighter)
>Elec 4 (mining robot)
>Con 12 (ultra station)
>Energy 16 (resources)
>Bio 4 (terraforming/minelayers)
>Weap 16 (terraforming/defence)
>Con 17 (death star)
>Elec 8 (ultra miner)
>Prop 8 (jugg missile)
>Energy 22 (resources/shields)
>Weap 24 (Arms)
>Elec 11 (SBC)
>Prop 12 (IS10/OT)
>Bio 7 (organic)
>Con 26 (nubian)
>Elec 19 (nexus/robot miniaturisation)
>Energy 26 (resources/shield miniaturisation)
>Weap 26 (AMP/weap miniaturisation)
>Prop 23 (trans-star)
>
>That sequence is assuming a grav-immune ARM/ISB race with IFE and NRSE.
>
>Regards,
>
>Varn
Robert Ashcroft
(Robert Ashcroft) wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:47:42 +0100, "Varn" <va...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>>Robert Ashcroft wrote in message <38f93e3...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>>>So you have 25000 colonists, a home world, what next?...
>>
>>Okay, you've gone for a standard (non-Acc BBS) start. That's going to give
>>1k initial pop growth per turn with your 4%, or 1.5k with a 6% tri-immune (I
>>strongly recommend the 6% version if anyone is brave enough to play
>>tri-immune AR with human opposition).
>>
>>>I load 2200 colonists on all colonisation fleets. It happens
>>>that 2200 is the point at which no colonists are lost in transist.
>>>Above it you lose colonsists. Below it you loose research gains on
>>>colonisation.
>>
>>You still get the research gains (if random events are on) with as little as
>>1000 pop per colony ship IIRC. That's important if you are playing low
>>growth tri-immune AR. Colonising with 2.2k per turn from the start will
>>result in a steady drop in the pop on your HW, until you have virtually
>>nothing left - not a good idea.
>
>I have strong views on the above and have done research but the
>reasons for doing as I do, I no longer have, I will redo this research
>and hit it with the emprical rigour that this deserves. One of us is
>wrong, I am not so sure that it is not me so I will check first.
Well I checked... in what is a good enough method for initial results
but not completely through.
I ran the same colonisation sequence and research sequence. The test
was conducted using the same starting point universe. I did not
record the exact details of technology gains, nor did I ensure that
the research field where the gain occured was repeated in the second
go. I figure by the end the results would be farily similar. Some
purests would suggest that this is not a correct method for this
reason, but as I cannot ensure that the same factor that is applied to
technology gain for the 1000 was applied when another 1200 colonists
are present, what is the point of trying to keep this control in
place.
Race design: AR...
IEF, ARM, ISB, NRSE.
Tri-immune 6%
Coeff 8
Energy, Construction, Weapons -50%
Propulsion, Electronics, Biotechnology +75%, not checked
Universe parameters.
Small, Packed, Moderate, Max Minerals, AccBBs, GC, (one race playing)
All the colonies were within 2 turns at warp 10, 11 were within 1 warp
10 jump, there were an additional 2 worlds within the 2 turn distance.
--results--
Using the method suggested by Varn, that is 1000 colonists colonise
systems and build up a breeder world the 25% target with space
stations was hit in 2432, 33% in 2439, but as fate would have it this
only persisted until 2445 when my ultra stations went up and a new 33%
target was set. So only 6 turns of shipping about 15800 colonists to
nearby worlds occured.
on turn 2450 the following was the case.
Population between 31 systems 890000, of which 478800 was sitting on
the breeder world and some number of turns would be required before
the 33% target would be hit again, at which time con 17 would be close
if not happening.
Minerals on hand Ir:18553, Bo:27740 and Ge:12962 all from the
produciton of some 67 potato bug miners. 2 per system with 5 at the
breeder world.
Resources 4932
Techs 12 12 10 12 0 0
All colonies have Utlras with jihads x4 stack and these have only just
completed construction.
Colonisation method realised the gain of 9 technology levels, and a
trade with the MT happened in 2445 for the exchange of 2 MT scouts.
---
Using the method suggested by myself with 2200 colonists per system.
no breader target is going to be hit, at 2450 I am 1/3 of the way to
the 33% target for an Ultra space station. In my style of play not
something that is likely to be hit within another 20 turns, I suspect.
On 2450 the following was the case
Population between 31 systems 91320, of which 208700 are sitting on a
breeder world that is still working on hitting the target.
Minserals on hand Ir:22681, Bo:26576, and Ge:16994, this is produced
by exactly the same number of ships as the previous example.
Resources 5984
Techs 12 13 11 12 1 0
All colonies have the same set of ultras as the previous version
however all construction of these orbitals completed 2442.
Colonisation method realised the gain of 8 technology levels one of
which was in a +75% research category, and a trade with the MT
happened in 2445 for the exchange of the MT bomb.
--
On the face of it very little difference however there are some
critial differences.
Colonisation gains to research by either method were very similar, not
enough to sing about however...
In the second example minerals are spread far more evenly within the
empire, the spread difference between the world with the most and the
least only 300Kton. This is with a floor of 500, 600 and 300 kton of
each mineral. This is more than enough to build additional defenses.
The important thing to realise here is that in the second example
there has been no need to ship these minerals around. It would have
been very easy to create extra miners early on to boost this even
more.
In the first example the spread of minerals is far less even and will
require transports to adjust balances, Warp 10 is still to be achieved
and then it will still take up to 2 turns to split minerals after the
resouces have been spend building ships. If this empire gets hit by
an agressive neighbour it's ability to produce independently on all
worlds without extra transport support is limited.
The colonisation build method of the second example has by its very
nature prevented extra effort to ensure worlds have the minerals and
productive capacity they need for development and defense. They do
not need to create transport ships to even things up for defensive
production. If transports or other ships are required they will be
built in 1 turn and not multiple turns.
Another critical difference is that example 2 has more than 1,000
extra points of resource production at its disposal compared to the
first, and even more surprising it also contains a higher population
level, not by much but it has the edge.
The first example should it survive the next 20 turns will reduce the
differences but by 2450 you are in fights for territory and another 20
turns to catch up with where you should be may be 20 turns too slow.
The next major difference is that example 2 has yet to construct
anything other than miners, colony ships or scouts. Now it is ready
for action. It has warp 10 at its disposal and this has been the case
for 4 turns. It will not take much effort to develop a breeder world
from stripping colonists from feeder system. Alternatively it will
take very little effort from cargo ships to really balance things out.
The only other factors that are worth noting is that weapons 13 has
been hit and research for 16 is under way. This target is an
achievable hit within 10 turns. If extra defense is required then the
ultra space stations can be fully kitted out on every world between 5
to 26 turns, extra miners and an easily established minerals network
will see all colonies get these space stations within 8 turns at
worst. Weapon 16 would be about 13 turns away if this was done.
The spread of the same build strategy for the first example is 1
through 38 turns, and here it is not just simply a matter of minerals
shipping, colonists would have to be moved to speed things up, and
this would incur population loss.
Comparisons of the points at which critical infrastructure for
development is in place
Turn Example 1 Example 2
6 Prop 2 **
8 En 8
11 Con 4 ** Con 4 **, space dock in queues
13 En 8
19 31 colonies
21 31 colonies En 12
22 Weap 6, all colonies space dock
26 En 12, wep 5 miner ships builds finished
space dock complete
31 Prop 2
32 miner ships build finish jihads
36 Con 12, ultras in the queues
38 jihads
42 all colonise have ultras
43 Con 12
46 Prop 11 (warp 10)
** achieved by technology gain from colonisation.
I would not like to be playing the stategy suggested for example 1,
even against AI, as they have more than enough ability to down size
the empire by 2450 and you are not really ready for them with example
1. Against a human opponents you are in real trouble. Sure there can
be extra things done but this will take away resources that are
required to develop. In particular the fact that it took nearly 15
turns just to put up space docks is a very worring development, Ultras
came on stream 8 turns too slow, and jihad missiles are 6 turns late.
In my opinion example 1 is not the way to go.
With example 2 you are ready for visitors with decent weapons all the
way out to about 2460 if you work it well. It can be fine tuned for
better results and made to do better but it can defend itself if it
has to and it is not wasting resources building ships and moving
things arround so that it can continue to defend itself.
Breeder tactics are important for higher growth rates and factory
based races. However if they are employed with the lower growth rate
AR you are asking for trouble in development.
--
The issue for the AR as it is with all races is that you must be
careful to use all the resources you have efficiently. Even a monster
AR can do a far better job if you understand the implications of early
decisions. The problem is that most of us lack the dicipline to work
it out and then remain on track.
For the AR the way you build effects your mileage far more than is the
case for other races. A simple choice of switching a ship design for
a pecieved benefit must be carefully considered. If the warp 5 and
warp 7 engine design still means you take 2 turns to make the trip
what is the point in spending the resources using anything other than
warp 5? The extra minerals and production costs could be turned to
research or production expansion. While it may seem trite, the saving
of an extra 1% each turn over 30 turns returns far far more than 30%.
There is a compounding effect that cannot be ignored.
The only thing I regret at this point is not doing the diciplined job
of analysis when I started to play the game 4 years ago... But then
there are guys like Jason and others who work it out then have just
got to tell every one...
have fun :D....
Varn
Robert Ashcroft wrote in message <390e9fc...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 09:20:47 GMT, rmas...@antisp.ozemail.com.au
>(Robert Ashcroft) wrote:
>
>Using the method suggested by Varn, that is 1000 colonists colonise
>systems and build up a breeder world
I didn't suggest building up the HW to breeder size, I said you can get the
artifact bonus with only 1k sent to each colony rather than 2.2k, as is
confirmed by your test. This doesn't mean building up to breeder size ASAP,
it means the HW pop doesn't fall from starting levels, as it would using the
method you suggested, eventually to the point where you wouldn't be able to
export any more pop for several turns, and wouldn't be able to defend your
HW from an early attack.
Use of breeders is advantageous for the sort of races you would play in a
real game, i.e. high growth, grav immune, 2 narrow races like the Ducknoids.
There is obviously no point in doing it during your abstract tests with
tri-immune ARs.
Regards,
Varn
Robert Ashcroft
(Robert Ashcroft) wrote:
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 09:20:47 GMT, rmas...@antisp.ozemail.com.au
>(Robert Ashcroft) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:47:42 +0100, "Varn" <va...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Robert Ashcroft wrote in message <38f93e3...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>
<snip>
>
>Population between 31 systems 91320, of which 208700 are sitting on a
>breeder world that is still working on hitting the target.
damn! that should read 913200 (dropped a 0)
>
<snip>
John
your.figure.it wrote:
> >> No Ram Scoop Engines (NRSE) can travel through hostile mine fields
> >> faster than scooped engines,
> >
> >No o, but they take somewhat less damage on a minehit. Not very
> >important in practice.
>
> the chance of hits is lower for non-scoop engines...
Really?
As far as i understood the impact formula it was (Warp-typesafespeed-
PRT bonus)*typeperwarpchance.
Where in this should I modify for ramscoops.
The onlything I've ever seen mentioned is the 20% to 25% gfreater
damage from an impact.
--
Can I have a new cat now?
John
In article <390d3c7a...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
your.figure.it wrote:
> >> In an average game you are going to find at least 4 worlds within 3
> >> turns at warp 9 of your home world which are ideal (100% value) or
> >> require very little effort to get them there. If you are not
playing
> >> the tri-immune you need to find these worlds first and establish
> >> colonies by 2410 at the latest.
> >
> >Don't see why. Unless you mean you can't get planetbased race of them
> >if they get there first. That's important of course, but depends
quite
> >a bit on hoe the game is set up.
>
> The reason for this is that there will be for a non-tri-immune race
> about this number of "breeder" worlds close by, if you are in the 25%
> 33% development pattern the faster you get these worlds to 100% the
> faster you get to spread your growing population base around to not so
> good greens, yellows and base level resercher reds. Development speed
> of breeder worlds is what counts because after 2450 you have factory
> based competition and you need to have solved the basic production
> problems with the AR well before hand. No later than 2435...
You don't save muc hby that, and it will probably cost you in tech.
Still, just sending out lone Pintas so they're setup when your main
popshipment arrives is good idea. But you really can't do much, a 1I AR
is pushing as hard as it can all the time and only doing just what it
needs. As for popgrowth, that is a pure hab and cap. So keeping pop on
the HW until 25% maxes that.
> >> if you take NRSE you get warp 10 with
> >> propulsion 11.
> >
> >Yep, and that together with GravI means you don't need to go beyond
P12
> >at all.
>
> 13 actually if you consider the MT engine.
Can't afford to plan on getting specific MT items. Research normally
(As in keep prop to 12), and if you happen to get the engine, do the
needed extra levels then.
> >> In my view ARM always, MA if you have the points. Others will
claim
> >> ARM drop and MA ignore. In this case it really is how your
pattern of
> >> play is being done that is the final arbiter for which is right and
> >> which is wrong. Play style counts for these LRT's.
> >
> >MA is really a stupid thing to take. You need large amount of
resources
> >to make a small amount of minerals. If you do that early you kill you
> >tech development so don't even consider it. Late, when you have the
> >resources, an AR has more minerals than they can spend. And all
> >resources are needed to make ships out of those minerals. MA sound
> >pretty pointless here.
>
> Not so. If you suffer mineral shortages early on, your build time
> cycles are shortened simply because you pay only 25% of the build cost
> of minerals with MA that would occur if you don't have it.
No you don't. You simply never does MA with AR. If you don't have the
minerlas, you wait until you do, and do something else while waiting.
40kT in the needed mineral for a k resources when your entire econ is
only 3k or so? Crazey.
> That is 1
> turn instead of 4 to produce the same volume of minerals. The AR
> needs to keep the supply of minerals in line with it's production
> base. It cannot waste early very valuable resources producing
> minerals and items when it has a more than equally pressing need to
> research high tech levels.
Exacttly, so you don't use _any_ resource for MA.
6 comps on a fort? Even a dock can't have that.
> Space Station, 800 points of Armour and Shields, 8 computers and 8-16
> Delta torpedoes or Jihad missiles
> Ultra Station, 2000 points of armour and shields, 12 computers and 16
> Jihad missiles
> Death Star, 3000 points of armour and shields, 24 computers and 32
> Jihad missiles.
24 comps? Where do you find the slots?
Large amounts are dirt cheap...chaff. Only need enough for one turn if
you can kill the base on return fire, two if you need the next too.
> >What is important for a highgrowth is the very cheap way to a better
> >capacity, greatly improving popgrowth and thus economy. I wouldn't
take
> >this with a lowgrowth, but is a near must for a 16%+ AR.
>
> In the real game you cannot waste resources, but if you want to I am
> sure your opposition will be more than happy to demonstrate to you why
> this is a bad idea.
An AR without ISB pays the same for bases. And if you want something
with missile defences, you need the elec slots of an station. 'cept you
will prefer beams until major cap missile fleets are around.
> >> No Advanced Scanners (NAS)
> >>
> >> This one is a quick way to gets lots of extra points for very
little
> >> loss. It does mean that you require more scouts to act as
sentinals
> >> and you have to check on the opposition more carefully. Some love
it
> >> some hate it. I hate it.
> >
> >Yep, those points are very tempting, but ARs really need penscanners
to
> >protect those fragile stations. I hate it too.
>
> not really just introduce an appropriate scanning stragey of near by
> worlds or get pen scanns from a friendly source and the problem goes
> away.
Well, that 'strategy' just got killed by cloaked skirmishers. What now?
Yep, but the resource formula is the same no matter your pop. It still
puts you x years behind. (2 with 19%). ARs can do a lot with those
years, and LSP is usually more than worth it, but the prinicple of all
resources originating from pop is the same.
> >> Regenerating Shields (RS)
> >>
> >> In my view something to avoid. The universe is tough on the AR,
why
> >> compromise the ability you have to defend your self? Armour is
best
> >> line of defense, the 40% improvement is shields never conpensates
for
> >> the fact that you loose 50% defense on armour. The best shield you
> >> can expect to have gives 500 points of defence, the best armour
gives
> >> 1500 points. Reason enough to can the idea.
> >
> >Varn likes shields. They're light you know.
>
> and I like missiles. it is a matter of play style.
Can have both ya know.
Cody Hatch
rec.games.computer.stars said:
>In article <390d3c7a...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> your.figure.it wrote:
>
>> >> No Ram Scoop Engines (NRSE) can travel through hostile mine fields
>> >> faster than scooped engines,
>> >
>> >No o, but they take somewhat less damage on a minehit. Not very
>> >important in practice.
>>
>> the chance of hits is lower for non-scoop engines...
>
>Really?
>
>As far as i understood the impact formula it was (Warp-typesafespeed-
>PRT bonus)*typeperwarpchance.
>
>Where in this should I modify for ramscoops.
>
>The onlything I've ever seen mentioned is the 20% to 25% gfreater
>damage from an impact.
Damn. I would've sworn you were wrong, but checking, I can't find any
reference to it in the help files. I was *POSITIVE*. Wonder why?
Besides, it would make sense for a ram scoop to have a much greater chance
of impact! Oh well.
Cody
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d-(pu) s+:+ a18>? C++++ US++>++++L- P+>P++++ L+>- E--- W+++$ N++
o+>++++ K--$>++++ w++ !O--- !M-- V? PS+++(---)@ PE+++ Y+>+++ PGP->+++ !t--
5? !X-- R* !tv b++++ !DI+++ !D+++ G+++ e>+++ h* r->++ y++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Blake Walsh
> reference to it in the help files. I was *POSITIVE*. Wonder why?
> Besides, it would make sense for a ram scoop to have a much greater chance
> of impact! Oh well.
>
earlier) I have no idea why they changed it, as your right a RS would
have a much higher chance, unless ofcourse they could reverse the ram to
act as repulser against mines.
Blake
Tim Yousaf
Ramscoops don't have a greater chance of a hit, but if they are hit, they take
more damage than normal engines. Check out the minelayer components in the
technology browser -- Dmg Done is 100 (125) or something like that; the number
in parentheses is damage for ramscoop ships.
cya,
Tim
Joseph Oberlander
> > not really just introduce an appropriate scanning stragey of near by
> > worlds or get pen scanns from a friendly source and the problem goes
> > away.
>
> Well, that 'strategy' just got killed by cloaked skirmishers. What now?
Buy a few penscanning scouts from your ally. 20 ships for 5,000KT
of the mineral of your choice? Gotta work those trade-agreements.
> > >Varn likes shields. They're light you know.
> >
> > and I like missiles. it is a matter of play style.
>
> Can have both ya know.
AR can actually afford Shields better than anyone else, so you are in good
shape no matter which you choose. I like gateable ships, though.
Lots of light, fast ships. With big weapons on them. :)
Aaron Holzemer
damage IMHO was that Ram Scoops deploy big.. well... scoops... which are
quite fragile. *shrugs* and the mine is hitting directly on a section of
ship containing/creating fuel... BOOOOOM
sdo...@my-deja.com
>
> The AR is not going to exceed 3387 resources per system unless it has
> taken ORBM (not very likely) or has overcrowded its sytem (even less
> likely).
>
> IS with automated propulation drops are able to look towards 5041
> resources for production as a result of overcrowding with
> 1resource/2400, 10 fact produce 15, and every 10,000 operate 25
> factorie, and all with a lousy 3300000 pop. Now if you adjust it to
> something like.
>
> 1resource per 700 pop = 1571.4
> 10K operating 25 factories = 3300
> 10 factories producing 15 = 4950 resources
No. 1,100,000 pop at 15/x/25 factory settings produces 4125 resources
- 4950 is the number for an OBRM JOAT
>
> then over crowd by +1,100,000 = 785.7
> then over crowd by +1,100,000 = 392.8
Why 392.8 for the second 1,100,000? I've just checked and it is 785.7.
>
> Total is near 7700, more than double a maxed out coeff factor 7 AR.
The correct total is 7268.
As others have pointed out, you would not have a viable race with such
settings. Even with 1WW hab settings and expensive tech settings you
would need to wind back pop growth to around 7%. At this level you
would need to grow about 10 million pop to do the overcrowding and
support it which would take you past 2500 to achieve. Even the
clunkiest AR would beat you.
Richard Cooley
Actually, ramscoops don't have big metal funnels in front of them, they
use magnetic fields to channel interstellar dust. The effect winds up
being similar, ofc... :)
--
Rick Cooley Extroardinaire, a beast of pure hatred with purpose malign
http://www.shore.net/~pixel/
DVD boycott--are you doing your part?
Richard Cooley
>In article <39188308...@uswest.net>,
>Aaron Holzemer <aaronh...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>Yeah, Rams should hit them more often. The thinking behind the extra
>>damage IMHO was that Ram Scoops deploy big.. well... scoops... which are
>>quite fragile. *shrugs* and the mine is hitting directly on a section of
>>ship containing/creating fuel... BOOOOOM
Another point. Ramscoops don't turn interstellar dust into some kind of
explosive fuel, they simply heat it up and eject it out the back, really
fast. Hitting the engine itself wouldn't cause any larger an explosion
(proportionately speaking, ofc) than hitting a jet engine. It's the fuel
tanks you have to worry about...
overw...@my-deja.com
pi...@shell3.shore.net (Richard Cooley) wrote:
>
> >In article <39188308...@uswest.net>,
> >Aaron Holzemer <aaronh...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >>Yeah, Rams should hit them more often. The thinking behind the extra
> >>damage IMHO was that Ram Scoops deploy big.. well... scoops...
which are
> >>quite fragile. *shrugs* and the mine is hitting directly on a
section of
> >>ship containing/creating fuel... BOOOOOM
>
> Another point. Ramscoops don't turn interstellar dust into some kind
of
> explosive fuel, they simply heat it up and eject it out the back,
really
> fast. Hitting the engine itself wouldn't cause any larger an
explosion
> (proportionately speaking, ofc) than hitting a jet engine. It's the
fuel
> tanks you have to worry about...
> --
Traditional ramscoops Pix. These ones appear to have engines that use
the same anti-matter fuel as the standard engines and are also
functional for trans-lightspeed hops.
- Kurt
--
"I don't pay attention to what men say, I just watch what they do."
- Andrew Carnegie
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
- Groucho Marx
Blake Walsh
> >ship containing/creating fuel... BOOOOOM
>
> Actually, ramscoops don't have big metal funnels in front of them, they
> use magnetic fields to channel interstellar dust. The effect winds up
> being similar, ofc... :)
Blake
Richard Cooley
Blake Walsh <bwa...@ematic.com> wrote:
>Unless the magnetic field can be set to "blow"
I'm sure you've been told this before, but you're a big goofball, heh heh.
Cody Hatch
rec.games.computer.stars said:
>In article <8fh9m1$fff$1...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
>Blake Walsh <bwa...@ematic.com> wrote:
>
>>Unless the magnetic field can be set to "blow"
>
>I'm sure you've been told this before, but you're a big goofball, heh heh.
He has. Frequently. Trust me on this. (And for very good reason, and I
have the logs to prove it.)
Cody Hatch
rec.games.computer.stars said:
>> He has. Frequently. Trust me on this. (And for very good reason,
>> and I have the logs to prove it.)
>
><sob> Last time I point out all the errors in your posts on quantum
>mechaincs and relativity (and yes, even simple kinematics) before
>someone else does </sob>
>* Blake goes and sulks
Ha! Those wearn't errors. That was just a minor little technical detail I
happened to temporarily overlook--that I was having my ship pull a hundred
thousand G's. Very minor. I mean, what's a few million ms^-2 between
friends?
Blake Walsh
follows
> >>Unless the magnetic field can be set to "blow"
> >
> >I'm sure you've been told this before, but you're a big goofball, heh
heh.
<poorly disguised sarcasm> nee heh heh heh </poorly disguised sarcasm>
Actually I was being serious. Upon encountering a mine field instead of
having the (magnetic) ram-scoop channel the space dust, it either sets it to
a wedge shape (to deflect the mines) or reverses the magnetic field to push
the mines away. The ram wouldn't be particuallary suited to handle heavy
mines but it would help, which explains why more mines don't a ship with a
ram-scoop.
Prehaps you were reffering to my choice of words? well usually a ram-scoop
sucks (if it applies a attractive force on each dust particle) in which case
the oppisite is blow. If the ram scoop works by chanelling dust with fields
then the oppisite would be deflect.
so "Unless the magnetic field can be set to "deflect" " could also be
correct.
If your just making fun of me for making fun of me sakes then I guess I'm
already used to it.
>
> He has. Frequently. Trust me on this. (And for very good reason, and I
> have the logs to prove it.)
>
<sob> Last time I point out all the errors in your posts on quantum
mechaincs and relativity (and yes, even simple kinematics) before someone
else does </sob>
* Blake goes and sulks
Blake
Blake Walsh
Cody Hatch <co...@chaos.net.nz> wrote in message
news:8F365EE8...@132.181.30.48...
> Blake Walsh sneezed, and the green bits that splattered on
> rec.games.computer.stars said:
>
> >> and I have the logs to prove it.)
> >
> ><sob> Last time I point out all the errors in your posts on quantum
> >mechaincs and relativity (and yes, even simple kinematics) before
> >someone else does </sob>
> >* Blake goes and sulks
>
I
> happened to temporarily overlook--that I was having my ship pull a hundred
> thousand G's. Very minor. I mean, what's a few million ms^-2 between
> friends?
been crushed, liquified, and disentigrated into there component atoms, all
because someone thought it would be "a good evasive tatic" to change course
by 1 degree in about as many seconds while going at 90% of the speed of
light."
Come on, did you sleep through star fleet training or something?
>
> Cody
>
Richard Cooley
Cody Hatch <co...@chaos.net.nz> wrote:
>>I'm sure you've been told this before, but you're a big goofball, heh heh.
>He has. Frequently. Trust me on this. (And for very good reason, and I
>have the logs to prove it.)
If anyone was gonna do it, I knew it'd be you.
Richard Cooley
Blake Walsh <bwa...@ematic.com> wrote:
>"sorry, your friends on board "<deep space + insert crappy name>" have all
>been crushed, liquified, and disentigrated into there component atoms, all
>because someone thought it would be "a good evasive tatic" to change course
>by 1 degree in about as many seconds while going at 90% of the speed of
>light."
>Come on, did you sleep through star fleet training or something?
Don't YOU use inertialess drives? I know I'm planning on using a General
Products #3 hull for *my* interstellar adventures.
Cody Hatch
rec.games.computer.stars said:
>In article <8F35B86F...@132.181.30.48>,
>Cody Hatch <co...@chaos.net.nz> wrote:
>>>I'm sure you've been told this before, but you're a big goofball, heh
>>>heh.
>
>>He has. Frequently. Trust me on this. (And for very good reason, and
>>I have the logs to prove it.)
>
>If anyone was gonna do it, I knew it'd be you.
<grins>
<bows>
Your confidence in me is SO heartwarming. As opposed to some of the logs I
have, which would only make good bedtime reading if you were a Stephen King
fan...
Cody
--
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."