"how-to" guide for expansion
William Butler
I recently tutored a player who was having difficulty reaching 25k by 2450.
During our discussions I realized that he was not always minimizing the time
of travel to new colonies. I also found out that he never reused ships on
colony runs either. I realized that there are a few little tricks that I do
without thinking that he never thought of and it hit me that there is
probably a sizable population of players who never fully considered them. I
figured I would write up a "how-to" on early colonization. I know that some
players will disagree with some of my points, but I assure you that my
methods work although sometimes they add MM.
Let me state some guidelines that I use in sending out of fleets:
1)Always set the speed for shortest time for arrival (assume warp 9
early in the game)
2) Whenever possible send the ships with enough fuel to make it back
home in the shortest time
3) Reuse ships whenever possible
4) Use booster ships to achieve the above results.
The obvious reason for minimizing the time of transit is to maximize
population growth. Unless you are an IS you are not growing in space and if
you are an AR you are dying. It may not seem like a lot to take 2 years
instead of 1 or 3 years instead of 2, but trust me it adds up if you do it
enough. Keep the people in space as little as possible and let them
procreate (discounting the IS flying Orgies).
Points 2 and 3 deal with reusing ships, and I fear that too many people
don't do this. It certainly takes less MM to send all of your colony runs on
a one way trip, but it also is a waste of resources to do so. If you can
keep those ships in service, that is more resources that can be spent
elsewhere. Later in the game this is not a big deal, but early on in the
game, every resource counts. And for the AR those minerals are too precious
to waste on the new colony.
Booster ships are the secret to achieving these goals and I will come
back to them, but first let me discuss colonizer/haulers.
What is the best colonizer design(early game)?
Well if you play the AR as much as I do, you simply use the colony ship
hull with a fuel mizer(you have no choice). Many player's advocate using
Privateers with a FM, 2 fuel tanks and a colony module. This is not a bad
design and it's range is good but it is not as good as the basic colonizer
hull. The reason is cost in minerals and resources. I'm sure I will get
comments about my opinion here, but the fact remains that you waste more
resources and minerals building a privateer for every new colony. If this is
not a concern for you than by all means go for the privateers.
Standard hauling ships come in two basic designs.
1)Medium freighter with FM and fuel tank
2) Privateer with FM and 3 fuel tanks
By far the most common is the privateer design due to the extended range and
the low germanium cost. I have seem variations with a cargo pod included,
but that is more rare. The privateers are the way to go from an ease of use
point of view, but they are more costly in ironium and resources. As a good
rule of thumb, if the ironium is not too tight on the homeworld, then the
privateers are a good bet. If Ironium is tight as it always is with ARs
early on then you should go for the medium freighters instead. If you use
the Medium freighters you will be more dependent upon boosters due to the
lower fuel capacity, but then again you should be using boosters anyway.
So you have picked your colonizer design and your hauler design and it
is time to colonize...what do you do? I will not go into how to determine
where to colonize, just the "how-to" part. Just go for the "juicy" worlds
first and you can decide what that means to you. Well there are a number of
ways to approach this and a lot depends on the distance to the target world.
But essentially it boils down to 2 choices
1) send the colonizer first and then follow it with the hauler at a
later time
2)send colony ship/hauler together
The first option involves less MM since you don't need to manually drop the
population from the hauler, but for longer runs it can actually be more
effort due to the need to add boosters to the colony ship and the hauler
fleet that follows. If the run is short enough that no boosters are required
then you can take your pick, but for longer runs involving booster ships, I
recommend the second option so that you only have to deal with it once per
planet and not twice.
One thing that I would strongly avoid is colonizing with 2500 people and
not following immediately with more population. This is something that the
AI
does and often so do Newbies. After your first PBEM game you will quickly
find out that this tactic often makes you a target. Your neighbor's mouths
will begin to water when they spot these ripe morsels and they will have to
contain themselves not to jump all over you. A planet with so few people is
too vulnerable and a simple population drop will gain your neighbor a free
world(no colonizer) plus a chance to gain free tech. If you use the 2500
colonizing strategy(or 1000 for HE), get rid of the habit quickly, because
you are advertising that you are an easy mark. Players might hesitate to
ally with you since they perceive you as inexperienced. The only reason I
can see for doing it is if you wish to be perceived as weaker than you
really are...lead them into a false sense of security :^)
If you use the colony hull for your main colonizer(I do), you will want
to immediately follow with lots more population. I would say a minimum of
20k per colony and 40k or higher is better. This aids in the rampup of the
colony and it is much less vulnerable.
I tend to let the population on the homeworld get to 25% of capacity
then every year I pull off all of the new growth and put it in a colony
fleet. This fleet consists of a colony ship(whatever design), haulers, and
boosters. If the distance is close enough I leave out the boosters. If you
wish to grab planets faster you can make 2 colony fleets per year and split
the newly grown population between them. This largely depends on the game
situation and it matters little, but the 25% hold is an important point. You
don't need to be religious about being exactly on, but you don't want to go
up to 60% or so at this point. I tend to be a bit on the anal side and pull
it down to exactly 25%, but it is not that important if you drift a bit.
So every year(after 25%) I launch a minimum of 1 new colony fleet from
the homeworld. Most of the time for me it is 1 per year. If the target is
close enough you simply set the speed high enough to get there in the
shortest time. This generally means warp 9, but sometimes warp 8 or 7 will
do depending on the distance. Remember that you want enough fuel to bring
back the empty haulers ASAP assuming you wish to reuse the ships. Depending
on the designs you picked for the colony ship and the hauler you will get
different maximum ranges for fleets. If the destination is too far out add
boosters to the fleet to give it the range required.
First lets assume that the target is close enough that boosters are not
needed. I will send out a colony ship and the haulers as a single fleet with
orders to colonize. If the colony ship can get there on it's own fuel then
don't bother to merge the fleets, but often the colony ship runs out of gas
before the haulers and so they need to exchange fuel. Once the fleet is
close enough to the target for the colonizer to make it on it's own fuel
supply, split the fleet so that the haulers don't get destroyed. You can
leave just enough fuel on the colonizer to make it to the world and that
gives more to the hauler so that it can get home. Set the haulers orders to
nothing. If you forget this step the worst that will happen is a message
that you tried to colonize and it failed. When the fleets arrive at the
target the colony ship will colonize on arrival and the hauler will just sit
in orbit. Manually drop the population to the surface and send it home. If
you had given the hauler quick drop orders it would have refused since the
world was uninhabited (even though it is colonized now). This adds a little
MM to the game and I don't mind, but I'm sure that some people simply won't
do it. That was why I mentioned that you can also colonize first and send
the rest of the people later. In that case the quick drop works and the MM
is reduced. For short runs you can take your pick, but for longer runs I
recommend sending the single fleet
Remember that sometimes you can slow down to save fuel and still get
there in the same time. For example, suppose a world is 141 ly away. At warp
8 it will take 3 years , but at warp 9 it takes 2 so you set the speed at
warp 9 which uses more fuel. After 1 year you have 60ly to go and you are
moving at warp 9, but warp 8 will do, so shift down to warp 8 and save fuel.
This helps you bring those ships back home again.
If you are colonizing further than 2-3 years out from the homeworld you
will want to start using boosters. I guess the first thing I should do is
describe what makes a good booster design. Ideally, the best booster would
be
dirt cheap, have a big fuel tank and weigh next to nothing. Later on in the
game you can use the super fuel xport, but that won't be available yet. The
most common booster design is the scout hull with a FM and a fuel tank.
Sometimes scanners are included if the ships are to serve a scouts as well,
but a dedicated booster should lose the scanner since it adds to the cost
and the weight. These ships are quite cheap, very light and they carry 300mg
of fuel. There are some PRT specific designs available as well, but I won't
go into that here.
The booster design that I prefer is based on the destroyer hull. The
basic design is FM and 2 fuel tanks. If the ship is to double as a fleet
escort you can add x-rays, or yaks for a minimal increase in mass and cost.
If you work out the numbers, this design is superior to the scout. The
destroyer holds 780mg of fuel compared to the 300 on the scout. This is 2.6
times as much fuel. If you built 2.6 scouts instead(assuming you could) they
would have a mass greater than the destroyer thus consuming more fuel. On
top of that the cost of the 2.6 scouts is higher than the cost of the
destroyer. The added benefit to using destroyers with low level beams on
board is that you now are showing warships in the public player scores. This
may give your neighbors cause to think twice before they attack....until
they find out how pathetic these warships actually are that is ;^)
That is the basics...If you manage your population right and minimize time
of travel you will greatly help your empire growth. Of course you still need
to determine when to go for yellows, when to halt expansion, when to go to
war, and other fun stuff, but this will get you on your way.
Hope this helps
Bill Butler
Parallax
<stupi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Hi,
<snip>
Very well written and informative post.
Thanks!
--Parallax
Martin Leslie Leuschen
: Remember that sometimes you can slow down to save fuel and still get
: there in the same time. For example, suppose a world is 141 ly away. At warp
: 8 it will take 3 years , but at warp 9 it takes 2 so you set the speed at
: warp 9 which uses more fuel. After 1 year you have 60ly to go and you are
: moving at warp 9, but warp 8 will do, so shift down to warp 8 and save fuel.
I have a vision of a freighter pilot sitting in a formula-1 style cockpit,
slamming the stickshift around - once a year. :)
: The booster design that I prefer is based on the destroyer hull...
Evil. Neat idea.
: Hope this helps
: Bill Butler
Yep - I'm gonna have to try that destroyer trick!
Martinl
Twister
Despite heavy efforts I was unable to add anything except one minor
point: if your calculations show that the hauler will not be able to
make it there and back at desired speed, consider reducing the load.
Sometimes you just don't have enough boosters handy (I know, bad
planning :) and it's better to send 47 kT now than 50 kT next year.
Regards, Twister
news.doit.wisc.edu
That was a very good post, but I want to bring up a point I have heard many
times over that bothers me. You always here bring your homeworld up to 25%
then start exporting colonists to the closest best green and continue the
process. This works great, and it will maximize your growth in population.
But, this is a game where you play other humans. The above strategy is
somewhat limiting to the actual size of your empire. I tend not to wait
until the 25% mark and I attempt to colonize some farther out planets
quickly. This allows me to get a space dock around my outer colonies
quicker than you can. This allows me to start colonizing more planets from
my outside colonies as well as my homeworld. You can always colonize close
to your home, but you can only colonize far away until you run into another
player. I believe this strategy allows you to cross the galaxy faster in
expansion which gives you a larger empire which in turn allows you to
colonize more planets, thus giving you more resources. This strategy might
not give you maximum growth, but it gives you enough growth to keep your
neighbors at bay. The beginning of the game is not just about maximizing
the growth of your people, it is also about maximizing the expansion of your
empire in size.
There is a bit more to my strategy, but I can't give all my secrets away :)
Kevin Hammond
jason...@msn.com
"William Butler" <stupi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(an excellent piece of early expansion and booster use, etc.)
Very nice. Naturally, I have a quibble at the place you suspected :-)
But mostly, it comes down to a difference in the race type or situation.
I will say right up front that the issues discussed in this post are
relatively obscure, and not really needed for good early play. A minor
improvement over the methods Bill recommends is, I think, possible
using the recommendations I make here, for some races (non-ARs,
basically). And with less MM as well. I will reduce those to rules-of-
thumb at the end; beginning players may want to ignore the analysis
between, which is typical stars-geekiness :-) The subject of my
recommendation is using throw-away colonizing privateers, which I think
are a good deal in some cases and Bill sees as a waste.
> What is the best colonizer design(early game)?
> Well if you play the AR as much as I do, you simply use the colony
ship
> hull with a fuel mizer(you have no choice).
Right. ARs also have difference "supply and demand" situations, too -
they don't need G to develop their econs; they need to economize on
iron (all do somewhat, but ARs more so because they cannot build extra
planetary mines beyond what the pop brings in, and extra remotes cost
minerals as well as more resources for the mining ability - so non-ARs
find the iron situation much more flexible, since a little spending can
remove a problem there). Resources are important for everyone, of
course, but HW resources perhaps more needed/scarce relative to demand
for -f and ARs alike. (Both of those types get relatively more of
their early resources from their colonies, not their HW, but the HW
resources have to buy most of the shipping at first, etc).
My point is that many of the considerations you speak of later are true
for ARs always. But not always true for non-ARs, depending on several
variables about their situation.
Many player's advocate using
> Privateers with a FM, 2 fuel tanks and a colony module.
Yep, I am one of them :-) The small colony is ok for close-in work,
HGs, and tight iron conditions. Longer range, or HP, or iron abundant,
all tend to make the PVT colonizer better.
This is not a bad
> design and it's range is good but it is not as good as the basic
colonizer
> hull. The reason is cost in minerals and resources.
A small colonizer costs far more in germ than a PVT colonizer. It
costs less in resources, true. But it also will not haul the pop to
the colony. An extra freighter is needed to do that job. The true
comparison, therefore, is as follows -
Method one - small colonizer for colony, freighter (med or PVT) for
colonist load, subsequently re-used.
Method two - PVT colonizer, *plus* freighter built later at same time
freighter in method one could be re-used (for its second run, that is).
That is the "apples to apples" comparison.
Both need "boosters as required", depending on range.
Method one does not save you resources or minerals *up front*. Because
you have to buy two ships, not one, to perform the task. It does,
however, give you that re-use of the freighter *after the passage of
some time*. The second has to get that benefit (in order to compare
apples to apples, as it were) by buying a second freighter - but not
until *after the passage of some time*.
So, the things being compared are - method one - more spent up
front/earlier, but less spent overall to get the same abilities.
Method two - less spent up front, more spent overall to get the same
abilities.
Which of the two things is preferable therefore depends on how
important the *time* difference is compared to the absolute difference
in costs. Because both resources and germ, for a factory-using race,
can be invested in factories in the meantime, the *value* of a resource
or kt of germ at year 10 is higher than a resource or kt of germ at
year 20. Concretely, the question is - if I use method two, will my up-
front savings, invested and compounded in factories, *pay for* the
overall cost difference of the two freighters vs. the one freighter and
one colonizer? The upfront savings of the one ship vs. the two
represents an increase in "capital" - is that "capital" worth the
freighter re-use or not? That is the economic question.
In addition, though, the two methods differ in the *components* of
their costs. A small col + (e.g.) a 3-fuel PVT costs more germ, but
less iron and resources, than a 2-fuel/1colony PVT + a 3-fuel PVT. The
greater the relative importance of germ compared to iron or resources,
the better method 2 looks.
For an AR race, the germ component of the cost is immaterial. The
higher overall iron cost, despite the time difference, is important,
because the rates of mineral-return available to ARs early on are low
(making a kt of iron saved 6 years from now almost as valuable as a kt
of iron saved now). In addition, while it is possible to invest the
saved upfront resources in the economy by buying energy tech, the
marginal effect of those resources is very small. This is because of
two things - one, the resource rate of return of buying energy tech is
low after the first few levels, and rapidly diminishing (reducing the
ability to "compound" such resources). Two, because that return is
"clumped" - you only get the increase for getting a full level, with
between-level differences in amount spent on energy being without
resource effect. Because of these factors, you are right when the race
is AR - the lower overall cost, ignoring time, of the colonizer +
reused freighter compared to PVT-colonizer + later freighter dominates
the whole picture.
But for a factory-using race, things are different. The G component of
the cost, which is the one item in which the small-col + reused
freighter is more expensive even ignoring time, matters more. The iron
cost difference, given the high mineral returns available by buying
cheap planetary mines, is usually less important. Usually, because
some races and situations may have a large enough "iron crunch" that
the iron cost difference is still material - high pop growth rate, no
LSP, narrow-hab meaning longer travel-times and thus less overall
freighter re-use, thus higher iron demand, lower HW iron concentration,
lower number of mines operated imposing limits on resource investment
in planetary mines - all make the iron cost more important, even for a
factory-using race (though less so, still, than high growth ARs, which
have the highest demand/supply imbalance in iron early on). The
reverse of each of those factors makes the iron cost difference less
important. In addition, it should be noticed that the iron cost of the
PVT colonizer is not all a "sunk cost". 75% of the iron appears on the
colony after the colonization. It can be re-hauled back to the HW by a
follow-on run (or second, non-PVT freighter in the original fleet),
especially from closer colonies or in tighter iron situations. So
absent an iron crunch, the iron cost difference for factory-using races
is immaterial, and I will ignore it in what follows. Keep in mind,
though, that if you find yourself with a tight iron situation early,
one way of economizing on iron is to use Bill's small col method more
extensively than you might otherwise.
As for the resource cost difference, there is the basic place that the
time-value question dominates the answer.
A 4 year run means the freighter re-use occurs only in the 8th year
after the original fleet leaves. A 9% factory return is enough to
double the value of an upfront resource over the later one in that
case; a 14% return (as many HPs can get easily) means that trip-length
gives the upfront resources a chance to grow 2.85 -fold.
To see the importance of these considerations, look in detail at the
costs of the various ship-designs under consideration.
"Colony" - small col, colony pod, fuel mizer 27/9/22 mins, 37 resources
"Mother" - PVT, col pod, 2 fuel, mizer 78/12/11 mins, 77 resources
"Father" - PVT, 3 fuel, mizer 72/3/2 mins, 72 resources
Method one spends - 99/12/24 mins, 109 resources at t1.
Method two spends - 78/12/11 mins, 77 resources at t1 and
72/3/2 mins, 72 resources at t2
t1 cost difference, Method one - method two = 21/0/13 mins, 32 res.
t2 cost difference, - 72/3/2 mins, 72 res.
Are 32 resources and 13 G at t1 worth 72 res and 2 G at t2? That is
the critical question, and the answer depends on the time difference,
t2 - t1 - on the trip length therefore.
An estimate of the value of G is required for this. Between 2/3rds of
1 resource and 1 resource is a good figure for that for most races; its
true value varies with the factory/mine/Gcon settings, but it can be
determined from things like the mine-purchase and overall internal rate
of return of resources spent on an auotbuild order of facts then mines,
etc. I leave out those complications here, because I have discussed
them extensively before. In any event, if doesn't need to be very
precise. The initial G is worth 9-13 resources, the final G is worth 1-
2 resources.
So, the question becomes - are 41-45 resources at t1 worth 73-74
resources at t2? That depends on the factory return and the time. At
9% and 41/73, the answer is "no" for 6 years and "yes" for 7 years time
difference, t2-t1. At an HP-like 14% return and 45/74, the answer is
"no" at 3 years and "yes" at 4 years. Those are t2-t1 times; the one-
way trip times are 1/2 of that if the return speed is the same and the
way-out speed. An HG race, therefore, using factories and under
typical conditions, will begin to do better with method 2 for trips
that are 4 years, one-way. And HP can begin to do better with method 2
for trips that are as short as 2 years out. But at 3 years for the HG,
and 2 years for the HP, the differences in the two methods will be
small, so they can be treated as equal for practical purposes.
Thus my recommended rule of thumb - for trips 3 years or less, it is ok
to use the small col. For longer ones, you are usually better off with
the throw-aways. For races with relatively unimproved factories
(10/9/13-16 say), you can add a year; for HPs you can subtract one - if
you care to remember such things to get a slightly better result.
The real waste occurs if you use PVT colonizers at planets 1 year away
(pretty obvious), or 2 years away for non-HPs. Even HPs can skip using
the PVT colonizers for 2 year runs without serious waste, to reduce
this "waste to avoid" to the simple rule "small cols are better for 2
years runs or less".
*Or* from using small cols for planets more than 4 years out - a 5 year
run for an HP, for instance, using a small col would be pretty
seriously inefficient. According the same calculation as above, you'd
be paying about 24% more for the whole operation, and more than twice
the cost of the re-used freighter - you could build 2 freighters the
year the method-one freighter returned and still be ahead on real cost.
In terms of re-use, that is an impressive edge for the throw-aways -
instead of the "free freighter" the apparently "economic" idea of
saving the original ship gives, you can have two freighters built at
the same time that one would come back, and still spend less time-
adjusted value. The reason is that 10 years of investment of the
initial cost difference, at HP rates of return, is a large thing :-)
I realize this economic analysis may be hard to follow. I have made
similar statements about the matter before, apparently without
convincing Bill :-) But I have a good explanation for that, besides
its obscurity - the facts of the returns for ARs make Bill right in the
AR case.
Bottom line rules of thumb, or my recommendations. For factory-using
races, use small colonies as Bill recommends for short-range
colonization, within 2 years of the HW. But for longer trips, 4-5
years and upward, feel free to use throw-away colonizing privateers.
You will not be wasting stuff by doing so; with many race types you may
actually come out ahead as well as reducing your MM. Between those two
distances, use either method. For non-factory-using races (like ARs),
just follow Bill's advice and use the small cols (trivially in the AR
case, since they have to use their special small cols).
I hope at least some of this is clearer than mud.
Sincerely,
Jason Cawley
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Leonard Dickens
> [critique of Bill's colonization method]
Generally, agreed. But, quibbles arise...
> "Colony" - small col, colony pod, fuel mizer 27/9/22 mins, 37 resources
> "Mother" - PVT, col pod, 2 fuel, mizer 78/12/11 mins, 77 resources
> "Father" - PVT, 3 fuel, mizer 72/3/2 mins, 72 resources
>
> Method one spends - 99/12/24 mins, 109 resources at t1.
> Method two spends - 78/12/11 mins, 77 resources at t1 and
> 72/3/2 mins, 72 resources at t2
>
> t1 cost difference, Method one - method two = 21/0/13 mins, 32 res.
> t2 cost difference, - 72/3/2 mins, 72 res.
>
> Are 32 resources and 13 G at t1 worth 72 res and 2 G at t2? That is
> the critical question, and the answer depends on the time difference,
> t2 - t1 - on the trip length therefore.
You left out a factor, namely, that at time t1.5, the two methods make
different amounts of minerals appear at the colonized planet. The
different amount of G there will matter, exactly as the different
amounts of G used at the home planet matter.
Method one spends - 99/12/24 mins, 109 resources at t1,
and gets back 16(?)G at t1.5
Method two spends - 78/12/11 mins, 77 resources at t1,
gets back 8(?)G at t1.5, then spends
72/3/2 mins, 72 resources at t2
> An estimate of the value of G is required for this. Between 2/3rds of
> 1 resource and 1 resource is a good figure for that for most races; its
> true value varies with the factory/mine/Gcon settings, but it can be
> determined from things like the mine-purchase and overall internal rate
> of return of resources spent on an auotbuild order of facts then mines,
> etc. I leave out those complications here, because I have discussed
> them extensively before. In any event, if doesn't need to be very
> precise. The initial G is worth 9-13 resources, the final G is worth 1-
> 2 resources.
Hrm. Guess I need to go search Deja to figure out how you got these
numbers. It does seem to me a little wierd for, i.e., a 2 year trip,
that the value of G should drop from 9-13 to 1-2 in that time.
But in any case, it would seem that the value of G at t1.5 would be
roughly at the geometric mean, that is, 3-4, say. So, a difference of 8
G at the newly colonized planet is going to be significant. It is
likely to push out the recommended zones within which one should use one
method or the other by a year, at least.
On the other hand, a topic you did not mention is the possibility of
using variants of Mothers with one or two fewer fuel tanks. Doing that,
when possible, could change the cost considerations to favor closer
colonization by privateer. (This would also be possible with the
Fathers, of course, but much less likely there since you want to use
them for a long time and probably don't want to use up the design
slots.)
-Leonard
leonard @ dc . net
Jason Cawley
Leonard Dickens wrote in message <374027D8...@dc.net>...
>You left out a factor, namely, that at time t1.5, the two methods make
>different amounts of minerals appear at the colonized planet. The
>different amount of G there will matter, exactly as the different
>amounts of G used at the home planet matter.
Fair enough, and thanks for pointing it out. The difference is 8 kt of G at
t1.5. Worth 5-8 resources in that year, say.
For an HG and a 4 year run, 9%, you then get -
G worth 2/3rds 41, grows to 57.9, drops to 52.9 for G difference, rises
to 74.6 after the return trip, greater than the 73 total cost of the new
father, but basically the same return to either method for that trip-length.
G worth 1 45, grows to 63.5, drops to 55.5 for G difference, rises
to 78.4 after return, greater than 74 for new father. Slightly better, but
still close at the four year distance for an HG.
For an HP, 14% return, 3 year run, you get
2/3rds value of G 41 again, grows to 60.7, drops to 55.7, rises to 90 vs.
73
1 value of G 45 " " " 66.7, drops to 58.7, rises to 87 vs.
74
So for an HP, a two year run is no longer marginally favoring the
throw-away, but a three year run still favors the throw-away.
You are still going to get numbers close to the rules of thumb I suggest.
At 4 years for a typical HG, 3 years for a typical HP, you are better off
(marginally in the HG case) with the throw-aways. The "waste" things to
*not* do remain - 1 year throwaways, 2 year throw-aways with a low-factory
return, 5 year use of the two-ship approach, or 4 year use of the 2-ship
approach with an HP. Again, at 3 years distance for all races, the
differences are still minor between the two methods.
It does seem to me a little wierd for, i.e., a 2 year trip,
>that the value of G should drop from 9-13 to 1-2 in that time.
No, that is just the G difference. You have to spend more G up front using
the two-ship method. I am estimating the value of G at 2/3rds of 1
resources per kt, or 1 resource per kt - it will be somewhere in that range
for virtually all races and Gcons. I am not "discounting" that at any
different rate or anything. The reason for 13 in the first year and 2 in
the last is 13 more kt of G spent the first year and 2 less kt of G spent
the last (the cost difference of the ships, in G).
You were right to point out the "saved" 8 kt of G on the planet at t 1.5
though. It just isn't a very large effect on the overall situation.
The basic picture is that a colonizer costs about 1/2 what a PVT does. 1.5
up front vs. 1 up front and 1 later is the main issue, and very roughly that
alternative means the answer is "spend the up front if the time is less than
it takes for one double with an investment, invest instead if the time is
greater than needed for one doubling with investment". The 4 year one way
trip time for HGs is just the doubling period for 9% (1.09 ^ 8 years =
1.99); for HPs the doubling period (at 14%) is roughly 5 years, so the case
breaks around the 3 year one-way trip time where you go over that.
>On the other hand, a topic you did not mention is the possibility of
>using variants of Mothers with one or two fewer fuel tanks. Doing that,
>when possible, could change the cost considerations to favor closer
>colonization by privateer.
Possible. ITs using standard engines can do better that way, for instance,
since the range of the standards is so good and it is so hard to increase
the speed just by having a little more fuel (especially when loaded/on the
trip out). But cargo pods cost G too, which fuel pods don't. A minor issue
though.
Again, the main issue is buy a colony now or a PVT later, and a colony costs
about 1/2 what a PVT does. It isn't a subtle thing :-) The cost of the
colony, invested, doubles in x years, and pays for the later PVT. Time > x,
do one thing, time < x, do the other. Most of the careful accouting issues
don't effect that main picture very much, because just about any designs or
realistic values you put on things are going to leave it true that a
colonizer costs about 1/2 what a PVT does.
Sincerely,
Jason Cawley
William Butler
Jason Cawley wrote in message ...
>
Hi Jason,
Sorry I took so long to reply...real life and all ;^)
Your points are all excellent.
My AR play tends to bleed over into my other races :^)
It's those short 1-3 year trips that I use my strategy. For longer trips you
are right...oneway is better.
Thanks for the input
Bill