Single Immune & Non-Immune |
Wed, 17 March 2004 00:46 |
|
Strat | | Petty Officer 1st Class | Messages: 62
Registered: March 2004 | |
|
What are the pro's/con's of each?
Thx,
Strat
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Single Immune & Non-Immune |
Wed, 17 March 2004 01:33 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1210
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Strat wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 06:46 | What are the pro's/con's of each?
|
Immunity: usually very expensive (300-500 RW points), but gives 100% hab in that field ==> no costs to teraform it. End result is better planets on average ==> faster start. Recommended for AR, -f, or short/highly competitive games.
No immunity: saves 300-500 RW points ==> better econ, tech... , but slower development. Recommended for games where capacity counts more than speed (50+ planets per player, slow tech games...).
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Single Immune & Non-Immune |
Wed, 17 March 2004 17:44 |
|
Strat | | Petty Officer 1st Class | Messages: 62
Registered: March 2004 | |
|
Kotk wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 07:21 |
One-immune has usually the non-immune values shifted away from center by some so it is less pain for them to trade planets or intersettle with neighbours. They get their few good planets quickly up. Their initial territory is usually not giving them enough resources to stay competive in the long run. That makes them to have more expansionistic strategy with more open borders with neighbours.
|
Well, I am working on a AR race design, and from my research, I can see that AR are pretty much on thier prime in the 'long run'..
I also know that AR's die easily when targeted..
Why would a One-immune hab set-up be recommended for AR if it restrics them in both cases?
Isn't it a bad idea to have planets spread all over? Away from protection?
Isn't also important to try and have many good planets to settle? Harder to kill if you have many planets..
Does one-immune mainly good Hab %? I can see how a Non-immune would give you more planets, but many would be low green and such. In which case, from my limited understanding, a 1-immune 2 narrow would have less planets.. but those green would generaly have higher %?
Why would you want to do one-immune if it hurts on the long run, and the long run is when AR can do its thing?
Thx for answers guys, I'm quicly learning a lot about what it takes to design an effetive race.
Strat
[Updated on: Wed, 17 March 2004 17:50] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Single Immune & Non-Immune |
Thu, 18 March 2004 05:25 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1210
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Strat wrote on Wed, 17 March 2004 23:44 | Why would a One-immune hab set-up be recommended for AR if it restrics them in both cases?
|
Because ARs get their resources way differently than other races. The formula is:
planet_hab% * sqrt(pop * en_level / res_divisor)
The result is: double your pop or energy tech level and you get 1.44 more resources. Double you hab% and you get twice the resources.
An immunity makes one environment variable always 100%, and requires only 2/3 of terraforming costs, thus making an AR bigger and faster.
If you can't improve hab, you can get more resources by improving energy level, but you face diminishing returns with each new level (going from 5 to 6 gives sqrt(6/5)=9.5%, from 15 to 16 gives sqrt(16/15)=3.3%. The other great source is better orbital. The greatest increase you can get is by building Ultrastation instead of Starbase (Space Dock) that doubles (quadruples) the space for pop giving you 1.44 (2.0) more resources as pop grows. IMO taking ISB LRT is a must for any (but very low growth) AR race.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Thu, 18 March 2004 06:06] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|