Anyone got a good race design for AR? |
Mon, 26 February 2007 15:33 |
|
Question | | Petty Officer 3rd Class | Messages: 48
Registered: February 2007 | |
|
I cant seem to get a decent race design for AR...especially if i take the ever popular rad immune. I just cant seem to get enough points. Anyone got suggestions?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Anyone got a good race design for AR? |
Mon, 26 February 2007 16:06 |
|
velvetthroat57 | | Master Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 111
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
There are a few givens about AR race design and then there is some wiggle room.
The main givens are you have to take Energy cheap and you can't take OBRM.
Here is a race I took to 55k by 2450 in a testbed:
AR, surface minerals
IFE, NRSE, CE, NAS
Grav immune, -4 to 140 C, 48 to 84 mR, 19%, (1 in 7 worlds)
1/10 pop coefficient
Energy, Con, Weapons cheap, rest expensive, box not checked
I went with grav immune since I have the other terraforming fields cheap and no desire to research propulsion. However, you can flip those two if you want Rad immune.
Things to note:
This race has to deal with lots of small greens compared to a bi-immune race, but the higher growth rate overcomes that problem nicely.
No ARM. I hit my mineral crunch before the ultraminer is available so I build lots of superminers anyway. In a real game hope the alien miner comes along but you can get a fountain going in any case. It will cost 4/mine instead of 2/mine is all.
No ISB. By letting the starbases fill to 50-60% while racing for deathstars, it is possible to not lose too much growth and then building the deathstars is alot easier with all that pop on hand.
CE. People hate CE. I don't. If you don't want it, find the points somewhere to skip it.
[Updated on: Mon, 26 February 2007 16:14] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Anyone got a good race design for AR? |
Tue, 27 February 2007 09:07 |
|
velvetthroat57 | | Master Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 111
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
Game conditions were most likely small, packed, accBBS. That is what I test in. For this race I stopped expansion around 2440 and just let it coast the last decade iirc.
[Updated on: Tue, 27 February 2007 10:02] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Anyone got a good race design for AR? |
Wed, 28 February 2007 01:51 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1210
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
velvetthroat57 wrote on Wed, 28 February 2007 01:13 | Small, packed is pretty standard for testing.
|
... and gives pretty unreliable and overrated results if testing for a particular game, that isn't run in a small packed.
I use small universe in my testbeds just for the sake of proper stars distribution per "lightyear", because distribution in tiny universe is somewhat different. But I limit myself at the start of the testbed to the expected number of planets (let's say closest 35 stars), and even don't explore much beyond that. However if I find 1-2 big greens just beyond the "border", and the game I'm testing for allows trade, I take them, as in a real game I culd negotiate for them.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Wed, 28 February 2007 01:51] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Anyone got a good race design for AR? |
Thu, 01 March 2007 00:20 |
|
|
Hehe, there goes all my thunder. Oh well, I always knew I hadn't 'discovered' anything new, stars being so well known now
But yeah, kotk pretty well covered what I've been hinting at about what playing as 3i drums home about how to play AR - don't wait for population holds, don't wait to colonise yellows or near-yellows (or reds, for that matter.) Spreading out helps both econ and (perhaps more importantly for AR) early minerals.
I'm not sure I'd be keen to put 25% of my pop on yellows in early game though, with a low growth race. Population is still a limited resource that needs to be multiplied. I'll put *something* down everywhere, but not all that much until the empire is nudging at 20%+.
Not sure about trying to live without IFE though. FM Coloniser flies quite far all by itself, and that for me is important for early game. I'm not quite sure that the comparison between FM MF and QJ5 LF is really all that fair - will the points to IFE really slow down getting LF? IFE isn't much benefit in packed though, to be fair, assuming ISB.
[Updated on: Thu, 01 March 2007 00:26] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Anyone got a good race design for AR? |
Thu, 01 March 2007 12:07 |
|
|
Kotk wrote on Wed, 28 February 2007 13:44 | 0.22 to 4.40; -140 to -44; IMMUNE ( 1 in 5 as close to 1 in 4 as it can be )
15% PGR (with option to take LSP & 16%)
|
Why do you take temp narrow and grav wide?
Shoudn't it be the other way around?
I always considered it a good relation:
* field of good tech - hab wide
* field of bad tech - narrow
But I am usually playing small games where you need to develop your planets very fast. Mmh, are you trading speed of development for longterm growth due to terraforming yellow or red temp-planets?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Anyone got a good race design for AR? |
Thu, 01 March 2007 17:10 |
|
|
velvetthroat57 wrote on Thu, 01 March 2007 11:40 | SFX is the Super Fuel Export.
Once exports (or fuel transports if IS) are available, they carry far more fuel and get used as boosters.
|
On a side note, you'll want to include one in your battle fleets as they help you repair faster. Unless you're using frigates, whose armor is irrelevant..
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|