Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » AR - LSP vs CE; LSP vs GR
AR - LSP vs CE; LSP vs GR |
Wed, 20 June 2007 00:11 |
|
Soobie | | Officer Cadet 3rd Year | Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007 Location: Australia | |
|
Because when the ship doesn't move the colonists don't die, I am thinking that CE is not so bad a choice compared to LSP (when looking for a boost RW points).
On the flipside for LSP: If I have a choice of, say, 17%GR with LSP or 16% without, what is likely to be better for AR? (Assume 16% GR also widens hab a very little bit - maybe 1-2 clicks max)
With AccBBS, I had a spreadsheet I did indicate 17%+LSP catches up pop by about yr42(!) (with perfect pop movement) and delaying pop movement from HW by 2 yrs *if* we wait to 250K pop. Yet AR handles low pop well, and reality is always different to a spreadsheet.
(Sidenote: Catch up pop is about yr 20 if it is 18%+LSP vs 16%)
Any thoughts on these 2 similar issues, please?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: AR - LSP vs CE; LSP vs GR |
Wed, 20 June 2007 22:32 |
|
|
Soobie wrote on Thu, 21 June 2007 00:06 | In essence, in the second questions I am asking:
* take LSP+17% growth rate; or
* take 16% growth rate+no LSP+ a little bit of something extra, like 1 cheaper tech or very slightly wider hab).
I'm leaning towards the higher growth, as the extra couple of years of research and scouting is kinda nice before moving pop.
|
AR shouldn't be waiting for 25% hold. The SQRT formula for resources drives us out as fast as we can find decent worlds. Of course, if you are unable to get the scouts out fast enough, then you've little choice but to delay a little.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: AR - LSP vs CE; LSP vs GR |
Thu, 21 June 2007 22:14 |
|
|
joseph wrote on Thu, 21 June 2007 20:10 |
|
Fairly sound... Take care not to let any green worlds get over 25% full until there's no other option.
The tricky thing with AR, is finding the compromise between pop growth and resources - if we spread out well, we'll get great resources, but growth will suffer, since pop that could be at breeders, are instead stagnating (or worse) on poor worlds.
I don't have a good answer for this. Depends too much on the situation - how urgently is research needed etc.
In practice, I'll behave much like Joseph described. I'll dump at least 22kt absolutely everywhere (a pinta load.) I'll try to put enough on yellows that they will develop in a reasonable time (although in the early days they are more likely to research, than terraform.) I try to have the rest of the pop spread fairly evenly across all the greens. Once I have a decent spread, I'll let the 90%+ worlds get up to 20-25% capacity, at which point I'll start filling the non-breeders, much like one does with normal races. I suppose the significant difference is really just at the start, where 5% capacity per world looks great, compared to a normal race which would be waiting for breeders to fill to 25%.
ISB works very well with this approach for AR, since it's a long time before you need to keep more than 125,000 pop (25% of the 500,000 that a dock can hold) at any world. Starter colonies work ok for a bit, but even for AR 62,500 isn't really much per world after the first couple of decades.
By the way, to throw a spanner in the works of the whole merits of 16% vs 17% discussion... My current AR race uses a 13% PGR.
[Updated on: Thu, 21 June 2007 22:20] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR - LSP vs CE; LSP vs GR |
Fri, 22 June 2007 03:59 |
|
Soobie | | Officer Cadet 3rd Year | Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007 Location: Australia | |
|
joseph wrote on Thu, 21 June 2007 20:10 | *lots of useful information*
|
Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 22 June 2007 11:44 | By the way, to throw a spanner in the works of the whole merits of 16% vs 17% discussion... My current AR race uses a 13% PGR.
|
Thanks heaps to you both. Yes, in reading the AR posts I have the impression that AR doesn't need the higher growth rate, but I'm working on a fractured race (ended up going with CE and 16% growth, no LSP in this instance - although I didn't think it would do well when I could only get to En6/Con3 by 2410). It seems to have come in just short of a monster with 1/25 divisor and against 3 AIs so I'm not unhappy with it (I don't want to hear about how AIs actually help. I'm not listening. lalala) ... other than I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work in a real game (I had an interesting variant with En8 in 2410 that had first useful gates up by yr 12, which I actually think could work with a different PRT)
Now I'm just practicing having NO ISB and NO ARM (and 17% growth with no LSP) to see if I can make it work. (Its not working well - I seem to rely quite heavily on spacedocks (with their small manufacturing and refuelling) with gates rather than orbitals with gates.)
But my conclusion so far is that AR is a REALLY interesting race to play around with.
Edit: was En6 @ yr 10, not En9. Jeez.
[Updated on: Sun, 24 June 2007 02:57] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: AR - LSP vs CE; LSP vs GR |
Sun, 24 June 2007 20:32 |
|
|
Marduk wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 05:54 | In the case of Dogthinker's AR, the only reason it is alive is because a neighbor wanted him to live. Given peace and quiet in which to develop early makes a huge difference... in the normal course of things he would have been the first race to die. I believe a 19%, provided it did not use the same hab as everyone else, would have been able to recover from periodic losses and could have been somewhat viable even without a sponsor.
|
LOL... It does kinda bug me when people on the opposite side of the universe, tell you what your race is and isn't capable of.
I fought early. Just having a peacefull neighbour doesn't mean that much. He didn't 'keep me alive', we just didn't fight. Another neighbour (IT) attacked me quite early and with significant numbers of cruisers, since I'd effectively invaded his space with my highly aggressive colonising. I slaughtered those attacks. I didn't receive help doing so. I was just about to press the advantage I had developed when a third race entered the fray and mortally wounded that race. Shortly afterwards I attacked and ate my third neighbour, an IS. I was hardly a lamb...
The race was designed to be able to fight early. Low growth != not able to fight, especially for AR. On the contrary, it means more points for investment in other areas.
After the game, it felt like 14% would've handled a little better. I researched and tested heavily before the game to select my PGR/Hab/LRT mix. 14% came out on top, but 13% was very close and let me have the LRTs I wanted to play with... But the hab draw was appalling, so I had to go a *long* way to get my target number of planets (4 jumps to get what I exected to have in 2.)
Should probably add, I'm talking about 1/10 eff, 1 immune AR... 1/25 AR needs higher growth, since the pop does such a bad job...
...
[Updated on: Sun, 24 June 2007 20:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Jun 05 00:12:51 EDT 2024
|