Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » AR designs - post your best here!!
AR designs - post your best here!! |
Sat, 14 June 2003 15:55 |
|
|
OK so I'll kick this one off with my current best....
AR
IFE, ISB, NAS, RS
0.50 to 2.00g
-100 to 100c
Rad immune
19% growth
1/3 planets
Efficency = 25
Energy, const, weapons cheap
Bio, elec, prop expensive
Using a tiny normal galaxy this race test bedded to 16k resources with 12/12/6/17/6/4 tech levels.
That was outstanding for an AR race... but the problem I had was early minerals for building freighters... which meant with a 19% growth rate I was well over the 33% optimum capacity for my planets. I couldn't shift my people quick enough. So if the above race doesn't take your fanct you might like this little puppy....
AR
IFE, TT, ARM, ISB, NAS, RS
0.50 to 2.00g
-96 to 96c
Rad immune
16% growth
1/3 planets
Efficiency = 25%
Energy, const cheap
weapons, propulsion and elec normal
Bio expensive.
This race clocked 12k resources using the same galaxy. Minerals and population over load weren't as bad.
I had much better tech levels though - 12/12/9/17/10/7
Tada!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Mon, 30 June 2003 18:46 |
|
|
Why Rad immume?
Because the radiation level of planets are evenly distributed over the possible range, whereas Grav and Temp both have gaussian distributions(the bell curve thingy) - ie there are more planets with centralish Grav and Temp values than extreme values.
The RW costs for each trait are the same.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | |
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Sat, 05 July 2003 11:17 |
|
Crusader | | Officer Cadet 2nd Year | Messages: 233
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dixie Land | |
|
From the Stars! Manual & (in this particular case) the help file.
Choosing an Extreme Range
Cons: The more extreme your habitability range, the more planets will be out of your habitable and terraformable range.
Pros: You get back advantage points. Also, planets with environments near the ends of the spectrum have a good chance of being super-rich in one or more minerals. For example, a planet with a flesh-searing radiation extreme of 97mR could easily have four times the concentration of each mineral as a mild-mannered vacation world.
Copyright 1998 Mare Crisium, LLC
However, it would seem that the consensus on NG is just the opposite. I did find where a Bryan Williams (no relation) performed a "statistical" test way back in 1997, but he did not make any outright claims as to his conclusions, but his published table doesn't seem to indicate any large concs at high rad values. Considering how old his tests are, however, I would be interested in any retesting of this min conc vs. extreme hab, should anyone choose to be mathematically inclined this year.
I did find a post indicating that min concs are increased for AccBBS games. That one makes sense, although I have simply not been paying attention to that question at all.
For what it's worth ...
The Crusader
Nothing for now.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Sat, 05 July 2003 13:12 |
|
regiss | | Petty Officer 1st Class | Messages: 65
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
Dyrham | On a sample of 30 ish I could'nt see any eveidence
that the extreme rad planets had better min cons.
|
Check out this site.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Sun, 06 July 2003 09:02 |
|
|
Ok so I got another race. Let me know what you think of this one.
AR (duh)
IFE, ARM, ISB, NAS, RS.
17% growth
Grav Immune
Temp Immune
80mr to 100mr rad (yeah i know it's on 100 but it's the only way to afford everything else)
Efficiency = 25
Energy, construction cheap
Weapons normal
Elec, prop bio expensive
No start at 3
This gives a 1/5 hab range and with max terraforming it pans out at just over 1/3.
I picked rad immune because of the above mentioned hab curves, rad gives the best coverage.
The growth rate is fantastic and allows this race to keep up with any other local AR's. The efficency is low but it's compensated for by every green world being good value (planetary value is the biggest factor in the resource formula).
Production caps at around 1,700 resources per planet which isn't so great, but the growth rate means that once you get ultra stations (2428 in test bed) you can really start churning out colonies - I was crashing and burning my colonies with pops in the region of 200,000k to start with.
I didn't do too much MM in my test bed (small, packed, accel BBS and max mins) and I got a clear 23k resources - 17/12/9/17/6/4 tech.
tada
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Mon, 04 August 2003 22:30 |
|
alexdstewart | | Chief Warrant Officer 2 | Messages: 164
Registered: July 2003 Location: Brisbane, QLD. | |
|
freakyboy wrote on Sat, 14 June 2003 15:55 |
AR
IFE, ISB, NAS, RS
0.50 to 2.00g
-100 to 100c
Rad immune
19% growth
1/3 planets
Efficency = 25
Energy, const, weapons cheap
Bio, elec, prop expensive
|
You are a genious!
Personally I think that the race you designed has something close to ideal hab range and with 19% rate this one is a definite killer. With such a hab range you race can improve from 33% world stright into 50%+ worlds with modest 5% teraforming ability. More importantly though is the 1 in 3 hab.
You see average distance to a habbitable world is on average
= (2*hab/pi*D)^0.5
where
hab = 3 with 1 in 3
D= density of planets, 1/5000 in normal
If you plug all the no. in you get about 100ly or warp 10
ie this means that any given planet has 50% chance of having another habbitable planet in 1 turn of travel time. This allows to have a transportarion "net" of 1 turn travel time between planets quite easily. And thats especially important for AR's
But where is the ARM?
[Updated on: Tue, 05 August 2003 01:30] by Moderator
In the Future there is only WAR...
Therefore our extinction is assured, it is just a matter of where and when.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Tue, 05 August 2003 07:01 |
|
|
I was waiting for that question.
Knock the growth rate down to 18% (still very acceptable for an AR race since Apelord's monster, which is VERY impressive, only uses 16%) and suddenly you're something like 1 click in hab range decrease away from ARM.
It depends on what you want....
Tech + Resources = 19% no ARM
Minerals + gateable miners = 18% + ARM.
Genius I am not.
Standing on the shoulders of giants I am.
Apelord is the guy that pretty much (indirectly though) showed me a decent performing AR (16% with TT... very cool) and I started to see where I could bleed extra points from.
The 25 efficiency is a bit of a killer though - it cripples your planets to about 1/2 the resources of a 10 efficiency AR.
But with the (much) higher growth rate, and the (much) wider habs, you make up for it in abundance. Also you have less proverbial eggs in one proverbial basket. Since an AR race must always be ready to up and leave a planet in case of attack then having more ok planets is better than having few good planets.
This AR race is one of my top 3. Along with a -F IT and of course... those Monster CA's. My best real game performance with a monster CA was 65k by 2450 and over 300k by 2500.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Sun, 15 February 2004 12:41 |
|
Robert | | Lt. Junior Grade | Messages: 393
Registered: November 2002 Location: Dortmund, Germany | |
|
There seems to be trouble about good coef10 AR designs...
There was one proposed by Barry Kearns a long time ago with
the following results:
Quote: |
2331 in year 2420 Tech 10-5-4-5-3-3 (the first good sign)
3949 in year 2425 Tech 10-10-4-7-3-3
5527 in year 2430 Tech 10-10-4-12-3-3 (Ultra-stations)
10k in year 2435 Tech 14-10-4-12-3-4
16k in year 2440 22k in year 2445 (Death Stars in 2444 IIRC)
31k in year 2450 Tech 18-16-5-17-8-4
53k in year 2460 Tech 22-24-17-11-4 (Armageddons in 2457)
68k in year 2469 Tech 26-26-12-26-12-11 (Omega Nubians!)
(Race name ARvids)
PRT = AR
LRT = IFE, NRSE, ARM, ISB, LSP
Grav immune, Temp 4c to 84c, Rad 66 to 86 ( 1 in 21 hab )
Growth rate 19%
Coefficient of 10
Energy, Const, and Weaps all -50%
Elect, Prop, and Bio all +75%
+75% start at level 3 zero points left over
|
I never got that race to work, 1in21 seems also to be a pure testbed race for me, so I tried a bit around and got a first good result by now: The Vorlons
Results:
2500 in 2420 (10- 5- 2- 5- 0- 3)
6500 in 2430 (12-10- 2-12- 0- 3) Ultras
9200 in 2435 (14-10- 2-12- 3- 4)
in 2443 Death Star
27K in 2450 (17-16- 2-17- 8- 4)
52K in 2460 (18-24-10-18- 8- 5) Arms
72K in 2466 Omega Nubs
93K in 2469 (26-26-12-26-10- 9)
I guess I could have had better results when designing this race for the testbed, but I had a real game in mind.
Settings:
AR
LRT: IFE, NRSE, CE, NAS, ARM, ISB, RS
(CE to start with prop2, and for the points. I will be using the IS10 for most of the time, which is quite expensive and half costs are nice..., could have skipped RS for better testbed results)
Habs: Grav Immune, Temp -128 -> +128, Rad 52->82
(could have moved rad more to the edge to get more points,
but in real games i want to use the planets terraformed by others
when i captured them
Growth Rate is 13%
(Remind: that means on a 33% filled DS i got 130K pop growth a turn)
Coefficient is 10
En, Con and Weap cheap, El normal rest expensive
(could set El expensive for some more points. maybe El expensive and check3 start, and no CE to start with Mizer anyway, but then the early en-research is a bit more expensive)...
Anyway.... will work on this a bit more. I remember I had a similar race at 31K in 2450, but en, weap and con normal, and some other disadvantages).
May this motivate you to work on AR a bit more
cu
Robert
PS: I should mention the testbed was small/packed/AccBBS (not max minerals!!!)
[Updated on: Sun, 15 February 2004 13:30]
2b v !2b -> ?Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Mon, 16 February 2004 09:21 |
|
Robert | | Lt. Junior Grade | Messages: 393
Registered: November 2002 Location: Dortmund, Germany | |
|
Quote: |
1) Energy is quite safe to take normal. The difference is maximally 10% less econ per investment into energy, but gives nice points so you may have 10% more planets.
|
Yep - gives 80 points, not 50 as en is more expensive for AR races. Still I found it useful for _very_ early speed to have it cheap, but I lack experience, so you may be right
Quote: |
2) Dropping IFE is often OK (not in sparse universes), underfilled LF can fly even with QJ5 quite well. Missing fuel someplace then colonize red with pinta and there is dock in 5 years.
|
Uh... tried that. 5 years seems a lot to me, and it is sooo important to grab planets early. In my tests I failed when I tried no IFE (and even worse when trying to use the rad-ram early...). Will have to try harder I guess...
Quote: |
3) ARM gives somewhat cheaper and well-gateable miners but it is OK to live without these (especially in testbed but i have won real games without ARM).
|
Hm.... I have some real problems in the early years without the 2 starting miners. And with higher growth I really run out of minerals early and cant ship my pop... Hurts very early I guess... Tried it, but could not get it to work...
Quote: |
4) Taking LSP does not hurt by much resource-wise (12% less initial econ?) and gives nice points.
|
I will try that, but with my many LRTs it does not bring that many points... but will try to kick CE and take LSP maybe...
Quote: |
5) CE and NAS are cool in testbed thanks to points they give but truely suck if we are talking of real game.
|
CE you are right... oh it hurts... Still I think AR is the one (besides IT) that can live with it... You are in the defense most of the game, and when gating ships CE does not hurt you. Also you never rush to a planet being bombed, cause either there is a gate, or the planet is gone anyway
NAS... I guess whats most dangerous is cloaked fleets. NAS helps a lot to find them, and it is easy to hide ships in orbits against pens... So I really prefere NAS with AR... (and hope for MT )
...
2b v !2b -> ?Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Tue, 17 February 2004 05:34 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1210
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
I'd add some of my thoughts.
Kotk wrote on Mon, 16 February 2004 20:35 | Energy normal...
|
Easy with high growth races, NO with 1/25 resource divisor.
NO with high growth races. You need those two Potatos (and some more) to delay the iron crunch. OTOH where to get the points for it, AND the high growth?
NO with 1/25 divisor, hard without it and with high growth. Again, where to get the points for it, AND the high growth. A variant would be rad-immune, no IFE (but rad-ram in LF and at about turn 20 TGFS-9), and cheap prop, that gives terra tech.
Quote: | NAS is matter of taste.
|
I prefer playing without pen-scanners. They can be bought, you don't need a lot of them, and an AR has a lot of things to offer for trade.
Quote: | TT is hard (but possible)
|
You need it with 1/25 divisor. I'd say no for other designs, because an AR needs to spend resources in other areas but in BIO.
An additional note on resource divisor: you can mine points from it with much less penalty than with other races. If you drop pop eff from 1/1000 to 1/1100 you get 40 points, but lose 9% of resources. If you do it with AR you lose 4.5%. Going to 1/25 gives 600 points, for operating at 63% capacity (a full DS at en-26 will produce 1766 res instead of 2793). In a series of testbeds I put those 600 points into TT, IFE, hab and growth, but the end result was lower speed and the same end resource output. Well, I didn't spent resources in expensive bio, the TT was just for lowering the cost of terra. So here's still a path to grow. A tech from MT may help here.
BR, Iztok
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Fri, 12 March 2004 12:19 |
|
Robert | | Lt. Junior Grade | Messages: 393
Registered: November 2002 Location: Dortmund, Germany | |
|
Something big is going to come!
I discussed a lot with my friend about good AR designs, and we tried a lot of things. Our races became better and better, and now finally he presented a design that made 48K in a normal testbed (small, packed, AccBBs, no max mins).
The AR was 1-immune, 19% growth, 3 cheap tech (incl. en), ISB but no ARM and no TT. I hope to get this kicked a bit more to 50K in 2450, and will present the final design then.
Thanks to Eddi for this brilliant work!
Go on, beat that!
Robert
2b v !2b -> ?Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Wed, 26 January 2005 03:50 |
|
|
Hmmm - I've been looking at all these and, I'd like to know how well they perform in a small / normal with 3 expert AI's. If any of these designs don't hit the magic 25k mark I wouldn't exactly clasify them as killers - especially early on in a small universe. Tests I have done with these designs in a small / normal are only showing a maximum of a little over 1200 resources by 2422. For a 25k race in a small / normal, you generally need to be at a minimum of 2k by this time.
However, I am still working on the problem.
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: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Wed, 26 January 2005 04:49 |
|
|
This is exactly the point - testing a 'real game' AR in a real situation.
The standard testbed is NOT a small/packed universe - it is a small /normal universe. I do not know where people have decided that using a packed universe is the testbed for a race design. And, if you don't test races in a semi-realistic circumstance, how can you have any idea as to how well they will perform in a real game?
Heck, even with a PP I can hit the 25k/2450 mark consistently in a small normal universe with 3 or 4 expert AI's (obviously not experts - but requires building a few warships and minelayers at least). However, I do not like to use more than 2 AI's since it is too easy to get tech gain from pop drop against the AI's.
Now, for an AR design I simply do not see that the races listed here will hit that mark - or even get close to it.
Granted, in any 'real' game there are many variables; NAP's or alliances with neighbors and luck of the draw with nearby planets are the major 2. HW mineral concentrations is the third and for 2 planet races the value of the secondary is the 4th - we can go on and on about possible variable values.
The base benchmark still stands:
How well does your race perform in a small/normal galaxy with 2 expert AI's?
BTW, for AI's I recommend using Automitrons and Rototills.
Ptolemy
Emperor of a Thousand Suns
[Updated on: Wed, 26 January 2005 04:58]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: AR designs - post your best here!! |
Thu, 03 February 2005 18:15 |
|
|
AR style that works matters not just game settings, but also your style of play.
Things like NAS, CE, no IFE are influenced by how comfortable you are with certain weaknesses.
Growth rate is only so good as you are able to provide more room to grow. Room to grow requires more aggressiveness which can be dangerous. Since AR only gets sqrt of pop for extra resources, growth rate only helps half as much.
For some, a lower growth rate and better somewhere else (wider hab, cheaper const for earlier nubs, etc) might be better as the nicer guy style AR. (Nice till one gets nubs and mineral fountain up).
And sometimes the game situation forces you to change game plans. Find yourself in tight corner with many other players and xenophobic may not work. Nice if your race settings are flexible enough for different styles without getting hurt too much.
I personally would like cheaper energy research over high pop growth rate for having earlier mass driver 10's, after being on the other side... war against an agressive AR in my last game.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Jun 15 16:46:15 EDT 2024
|