Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Miniaturization musings
| Miniaturization musings |
Mon, 07 June 2004 10:01  |
|
 platon79 |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 3 |
Messages: 185
Registered: February 2004
Location: Norway | |
|
I have a few questions about the miniaturization in Stars.
If I pick ultimate recycling, I can recover 90% of the minerals of a ship. But is this 90% of the minerals I actually USED to create the ship? I guess it is 90% of what the ship costs to build at the current miniaturization level, making it slightly a worse deal to scrap a horde of long obsolete ships.
(But wait a minute, what if, in a team game, one race could act as a scrap dealer? That is, he never researches anything, and when the other races reach lvl 26 they may transfer a whole lot of chaff or other low-level-tech-ships to the scrap
dealer, which then scraps them, and in the process GAINS a lot of minerals due to the huge difference in miniaturization. The players who donated their ships could get more than their worth back in minerals...  )
I just noticed that a hull based on the frigate hull would be cheaper for chaff than a hull based on the scout hull. How can that be?? I asked myself, why haven't I built a lot of cheaper and better frigate-chaff instead of my scout chaff? And after a little bit of thought, I came to that it of course was because the scout hull has no tech requisites, and therefore you must have EVERY tech lvl high, even the lousy bio (for this race), to get a decent miniaturization out of it...  Hmm, this must imply... checking.. checking.. Yeah, right, the X-ray is cheaper than the laser too..)
So, I guess the frigates as chaff is the way to go? I guess it normally takes a long time for the miniaturization levels to balance out, and then it normally is not much of a distance between them. If we now stick to Frigates as chaff, anyone who
uses shielded chaff? What about putting a Wolverine Diffuse Shield on your frigate chaff in the early jihad period? Well, to answer my own question, I guess the increased cost is not worth it even vs jihads, since the first few jihads will smear the damage over all the frigates, and when just a few point of damage on each frigate has been dealt, the jihad will begin killing them one by one again. Vs anit-chaff beamers though..
And apropo miniaturization, can bleeding edge ever be worth it? To me it just seems like a waste..
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Mon, 07 June 2004 11:15  |
|
| LEit |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
I've thought about, but never tested using miniturization to get the most out of scrapping, however, when you give a ship, the costs for scrapping go down by 70%, so its unlikely you will get much. Perhaps if you have two races with BET, one who has weapons 26 and builds Delta torps, and the other who has weapons 10 and scraps them. The big problem is that sooner or later the race with low tech will gain tech from scrapping...
Frigate chaff is normally cheaper when then scout chaff. X-Ray is always a better choice then the blue laser. Frigates have a few other advantages: more fuel, and more armor when the beams get to them.
However, there are times when FF chaff is less attractive then BBs, this happens most often if you don't armor or jam your BBs.
If you shield them, the problem becomes much worse, and it's unlikely that your chaff will be shot at until after everything else is dead, unless you stick a very expensive shield on the chaff, and/or you damage your own chaff first.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Mon, 07 June 2004 12:15 |
|
|
|
So, with nothing better to do for the last half hour I made some test races and - yes, with BET the scout will cost the same as the frigate. Of course, nobody in their right mind wants BET if the game gets to nubian era..... not at double resource and mineral costs for nubian hulls or AMP's 
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Mon, 07 June 2004 12:15]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Mon, 07 June 2004 12:16 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
Frigate chaff is cheaper when you have more con tech then your lowest tech, at con 16, lowest (bio) 4, FF are cheaper then scouts (at con 14, they're cheaper in boranium, but that's usually not an issue). At con 16, bio 7 FFs are cheaper in iron and germ, but same resource cost. With bio 10 as your lowest field, you have to get to con 20 before FFs are cheaper.
However, since most players will race to con 26 fairly soon, and not bother with at least one field (normally bio) FFs are often cheaper then scouts in minerals and resources during some prime fighting years.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Mon, 07 June 2004 19:03 |
|
|
|
Miniturization rounds to the nearest amount and in your favour if exactly half way.
So for example if something costs 2 resources or minerals and you 25% miniturization (halfway to 50%) then it costs 1.
Without BET it takes 19 levels of extra miniturization to reach maximum of 75% reduction. With BET it takes 16 levels (3 less) to achieve 80% reduction. At those high levels of tech, 3 is a big difference to achieve.
A ship that cost 100 resources originally at maximum miniturization costs 25 or 20 resources (depending on BET setting). 20 resources is 20% less than 25 resources.
Any tech not needed is counted at being level 0 required so every level above 0 helps, with the exception that you DON'T get penalized 200% originally if you have tech at 0 in that field.
One level of miniturization drops from 200% to 95% (rather than 100% as some may have thought from the wording in help file).
I think it is pretty obvious that 200% for new stuff is quite painful.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sat, 19 June 2004 01:54 |
|
|
|
But, if that game is going to get to Nubians, you are saddled with 200% cost for all tech 26 items.... That can be seriously detrimental.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sat, 19 June 2004 02:21 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
But, if that game is going to get to Nubians, you are saddled with 200% cost for all tech 26 items.... That can be seriously detrimental.
|
Of course. Am assuming a certain amount of ship trading may go on in such a case. BET power might try trading flak, though by the time everyone reaches all techs 26 he will have less advantage there.
Certain items such as flux capacitators, energy deflectors, battle computers are cheaper so one is not as bad off as might appear at first. Hull is only one of many costs, and there are different strategies that don't need w26 weapons, etc.
How much does your average nub cost in total? What % extra cost does the double hull cost add?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sat, 19 June 2004 04:54 |
|
| Carn |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| multilis wrote on Sat, 19 June 2004 08:21 |
| Quote: |
But, if that game is going to get to Nubians, you are saddled with 200% cost for all tech 26 items.... That can be seriously detrimental.
|
Of course. Am assuming a certain amount of ship trading may go on in such a case. BET power might try trading flak, though by the time everyone reaches all techs 26 he will have less advantage there.
Certain items such as flux capacitators, energy deflectors, battle computers are cheaper so one is not as bad off as might appear at first. Hull is only one of many costs, and there are different strategies that don't need w26 weapons, etc.
How much does your average nub cost in total? What % extra cost does the double hull cost add?
|
I think the only PRTs that still have a chance taking BET are SD and WM.
SD can survive the extra time, that is needed to get desired tech level+1, in case of emergency, will love the later reduction in mine layer costs and might use energy dampener to change battle speeds, so the lack of AMPs does hurt less.
WM with BET will die, if attacked early, but in late game disadvantages are less, DN are a ok replacement at least for missle Nubs, extra speed allows to get speed 2.5 cheaper, with that we24 beams might be an option, and in case AMPs are realy needed the 25% reduction in cost will help.
Of course still seems to me that BET is no good idea for any PRT.
All this is based on pure thought, so i might have missed something.
Carn
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sat, 19 June 2004 09:56 |
|
|
|
I think trick with BET like other LRTs is you build ships different because of different costs. You would likely trade for AMP nubs if possible and build different style nubs.
(Such as streaming pulveriser, big murtha, mega disrupter, armageddon missile, or perhaps torps including AMT torps)
With CE you put better engines in, lacking RS you may use armour more (and hope your fast sappers limit your disadvantage), and with BET you avoid 26 level techs as much as possible. Odd ball LRTs want different tactics.
Delta torps would be 80% reduced in cost (compared to 64%) so with 20% cost left compared to 36% the nearly half cost allows one to think of delta torp chaff killers (assuming opponent loves scouts). Obviously beamers are more effective, but in counter design game delta torps might allow killing chaff before chaff defenders can kill them.
[Updated on: Sat, 19 June 2004 10:00] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sun, 20 June 2004 04:43 |
|
|
|
I don't see much chance of any late game having the opportunity to trade for AMP nubs. A BET race doesn't have much to trade for them - especialy an HE. The hull cost alone seriously limits the ability of a BET race to build massive quantities of nubians.
| Quote: |
With CE you put better engines in, lacking RS you may use armour more (and hope your fast sappers limit your disadvantage), and with BET you avoid 26 level techs as much as possible. Odd ball LRTs want different tactics.
|
With or without CE races will use their best engines - the engine isn't a major cost of a ship and, in late game using a galaxy scoop at 6 resources or a trans star 10 at 5 resources is very cheap. Notable here is that the non CE race will always get where he wants to go at warp 10 whereas the CE race is going to have fleets not moving when he wants them to. Oddball LRT's do indeed need different tactics and, the BET LRT screams for early victory before nubian era.
Delta torp chaff killers could possibly be used to some effect, but, speed 2.5 AMP nubs will turn them into expensive mineral fallout very quickly. In nubian era it is nearly, if not totally impossible to defend for any length of time without nubians.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Sun, 20 June 2004 04:44]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sun, 20 June 2004 10:55 |
|
|
|
Meant CE in earlier stage using better engines.
If you can't see use for things like Big Murtha and Missile ship nubs in late game, you may get to learn the hard way.
AMP is not the only way to go, and the purpose of chaff destroyers (by destroyer are not meaning hull but purpose of ship... KILL CHAFF) is simply to kill the chaff, not to survive. Other alternatives exist.
If you are in love with AMP nubs with speed 2.5 then deltas get a round of fire in against chaff... where other chaff killers might not (such as range 3 beamers). However lighter range 1 ships may get first shot at your range 2 speed boats.
HE has nothing to do with this discussion, it is purely BET or not and miniturization.
[Updated on: Sun, 20 June 2004 10:56] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sun, 20 June 2004 11:04 |
|
|
|
There is no doubt as to the value of missile nubs - but, again, with BET they are costly.....
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sun, 20 June 2004 11:48 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
There is no doubt as to the value of missile nubs - but, again, with BET they are costly.....
|
Why? Missiles, battle computers, jammers, shields, etc. all cost LESS at the maxxed out technology you are talking about. Just the nub hull costs more.
...
Streaming Pulverizer verses AMP...
at max tech costs 20% less bor and nearly half the resources. Weighs 1 less kt. Has 1 higher init which may not seem like alot but we are talking winning init war with even slots to battle comptuers. Opponent has to use one extra valuable slot (holding up to 3 items) in order to win init war.
Opponent who tries to play out range game has to back away from killing chaff, missile ships and it is not easy to become lighter than a Streaming Pulverizer beamer. Not saying the range 1 beamer is better, just it can hold its own sometimes.
[Updated on: Sun, 20 June 2004 13:09] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sun, 20 June 2004 13:46 |
|
|
|
As a minor note to Iztok helpful post, stuff like jihad, jug missiles, ep torp has uses in BET world.
There are times when range 5 is the useful magic number, range 6 would hit chaff. Other times when chaff is some of what you want to take out.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sun, 20 June 2004 14:04 |
|
|
|
OK - here's some perspective on BET for the end game in a nubian war. Below are a few more or less 'standard design' nubians and their relative costs with all techs maxed out:
Ship:
Missile nubian
Galaxy scoop engines
6x CP shields
12x battle nexus
6x beam deflectors
3x jammer 30's
BET NonBET
resources 780 657
iron 762kt 705kt
boranium 216kt 207kt
germanium 469kt 534kt
Ship:
AMP Nubian
Galaxy scoop engines
6x CP shields
9x AMPs
9x Energy caps
6x beam deflector
3x jammer 30
1x Overthruster
BET NonBET
resources 963 588
iron 225kt 151kt
boranium 423kt 216kt
germanium 155kt 157kt
Ship:
BM Nubian
Galaxy scoop engines
6x CP shields
9x Energy caps
6x Big Mutha's
3x Synchro sappers
6x beam deflector
3x jammer 30
1x Overthruster
BET NonBET
resources 645 516
iron 225kt 151kt
boranium 213kt 210kt
germanium 173kt 175kt
Ship:
MD Nubian
Galaxy scoop engines
6x CP shields
9x Energy caps
9x Mega Disrupters
6x beam deflector
3x jammer 30
1x Overthruster
BET NonBET
resources 711 597
iron 225kt 151kt
boranium 243kt 243kt
germanium 155kt 157kt
Obviously, given two fairly even races in an all out nubian war with full tech the BET race is at a disadvantage. Not only will every ship cost more to build, but, it will also use more minerals (except in the case of the missile nubian). The obvious conclusion is that BET is generally not a great idea. Even hordes of lower tech ships - battleships for instance won't really be ale to take on decent nubians very well - it is too easy to build a nubian design that fires first in any case and decimates much of the opposition with that first shot.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Sun, 20 June 2004 14:05]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sun, 20 June 2004 14:36 |
|
|
|
I have only played/playing 2 games against humans. First game I was BET but it ended before nubs. Second game is Transformers, it is not clear whether I choose BET or not this time (though clear I didn't take CE like Sotek), and there will never be nubs as part of game rules.
All my designs are theoretical based on guessed opponents designs and tactics that I derive from reading other stuff on web sites.
Give me a sample fleet to deal with and I will give what I think is a reasonable counterdesign BET style with an attempt to limit vulnerabillity to future counterdesigns.
In my experiments I have seen big differences based on battle orders, styles (such as regular chaff, alpha torp chaff, shielded chaff, chaff defenders, etc), number of parties involved in combat, etc.
If we are talking AMP nubs backed by fewer missile ships, then perhaps 10% lighter steaming pulveriser nubs, dedicated syncro sappers for shields, some form of chaff and missile ships.
If we are talking several different opponent beamer styles and/or beamers split up against my split fleets then Big Murthas start looking real attractive.
If I can't find a way to effectively kill his chaff conventionally (he invests lots in first strike beamers or unusual chaff), then torps or jihads may be worthwhile.
...
As a bit added note to Iztok's post, there is a time when Nubs are common but not Bio 26 yet... Such time helps the BET better than the non-BET player, BET only needs 16 rather than 19 levels for max effect.
[Updated on: Sun, 20 June 2004 14:42] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sun, 20 June 2004 18:49 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Obviously, given two fairly even races in an all out nubian war with full tech the BET race is at a disadvantage.
|
I missed Ptols ship designs being posted before, either I read to fast or he edited a post to add them.
You are talking standard designs for non-BET race. One varies designs based on what one has to work with. For example the ships built by an IS are different than a WM because of weapons costs.
One should also include things like bombers and chaff in cost effective calculations for an end game race (including special chaff)
Am working on testbed with both your fleet and BET fleet... will post results of testbed including battle later when have time to finish. Am using conventional Trans-Star engine everyone has.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Sun, 20 June 2004 20:37 |
|
|
|
Using the transtar instead of the galaxy scoop doesn't change much - the resource costs of the ships are still the same - the mineral usage goes down a little is all.
Keep in mind, by end game, most of the bombers were built earlier and not very many new ones are constructed. Chaff - the design tends to remain as it was designed decades ago - it's a case of slots and thousands will generally already have been produced.
1 freighter slot (by end game it's hopefully carrying a colonizer pod)
1 or 2 bomber slots (hopefully only one)
1 minelayer slot
1 sweeper slot
1 chaff slot
1 fuel transport slot - hopefully doubling as the scanner ship
3-4 main warship slots
1 overcloaker slot potentially
1 remote miner slot
leaving 3-5 slots to work with. Depending on how the game plan has been laid out and the PRT, the freighter may not have a colonizer pod - so, add 1 colonizer slot. Maybe no remote miner for some races. Once you get to nubian war you need a couple free slots for counter designs. With only 16 ship designs, you don't have a lot of room to play around with 2 or 3 'special' chaff designs. Maybe a BET with ultimate recycling could afford a little more since scrapping would regain much of what was spent on cunstruction - but I doubt it. The later tech parts - like the Transtar 10 and even the mega disrupter don't get much for miniaturization bonus - not enough extra levels to go to.
Build a fleet you think would be hard to beat and I'll build a better one with nubians that costs me less and wins every time. Those ship designs were just a benchmark set to show cost comparisons using a variety of later tech weapons.
Look at the cost of the battleship for a max tech BET for example - the hull and engines alone cost 111 resources with Transtar 10's if you don't put te warp 10 engines on them you'll get outrun anytime your enemy wants to simply move to a point to keep from getting hit while bringing up re-inforcements. Add lower tech shields - mabe elephant, use some organic armor to keep weight down and brin the hull armor up close to the shield strength - nice and cheap. Add some weaps and elec components and you ahve a BB costing anywhere over 300 resources. One 600 or so resource nubian for the non BET will simply tear 3 bb's of virtually any design to shreds.
So, what to you go with as a BET - cheap cruisers? maybe 100 of them? a few nubians with a slot of superlat will tear them all apart AND, survive being shot at first. Again - who had the cheaper construction? the non BET. A simple heavy blaster cruisers is still going to cost enough - here's a design you can build for 88 resources:
TGSS engines
2x Gorilla shields
1 x energy cap
2 x heavy blaster
2 x phased sapper
1 x overthruster
2 x beam deflector
100 cruisers costs 8800 resources
1900 kt of iron
2300 kt of bor
3000 kt of germ
the ship has init 5
How many nubians needed to kill them all? one design is 6 and 4 survive. The cruisers shoot first..........
I simply do not see any way that BET is going to be a LRT that is going to wage cost effective war in the end game. The miniturization just isn't enough.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miniaturization musings |
Mon, 21 June 2004 00:02 |
|
|
|
At the stage I am at there are no easy answers. Lots depends on PRT and other game factors including opponents counter-tricks. IMO the cost of non-warships and flak and the cost of nubs pre-Bio26 has an effect. Here are my conclusions so far:
Warmonger, HE, IT do better with BET than most
Access to SD toys and/or AR mineral fountain and/or IT gates favours BET
Extra players, abillity to manipulate battle board through allies favours BET tricks
RS verses non-RS plays a big role.
Hulls such as cruisers, battlecruisers, metamorphs, battleships and dreadnaughts have limited uses in certain situations.
Your single conventional flak (being extremely vulnerable) + extreme vulnerabillity of your missile ships to small amounts of flak (including unconventional) affect the current model.
IF we are talking the old CFLKIAB game with us (and the enemy) having several friends working together on each side, HE freeing up a slot on beamers with flux caps (assisting first strike abillities) THEN BET seems very livable.
...
Editted to add an example of something unusual BET style: Battleship or Dreadnaught jihad is not such a bad ship in certain situations. Vulnerable defense-wise compared to your missile ship but not as vulnerable to flak tricks rendering it impotent. Defense-wise can be compensated for with a friend drawing enemy forces the wrong way first round and/or good combo of first strike defenders and flak.
Another example... Range 5, 2.25+ speed missile boat based on nub, dreadnaught, metamorph or other hull. With right battle orders can potentially completely ignore enemy chaff, and stay out of enemy beamers range.
[Updated on: Mon, 21 June 2004 01:16] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 10 08:42:58 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Unless, of course, your opponent is fielding nothing but thousands of missile ships.......... 
