Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » AR design
| Re: AR design |
Thu, 06 July 2006 10:47   |
|
|
|
Hi!
| Kotk wrote on Thu, 06 July 2006 15:08 |
| Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 05 July 2006 11:34 |
Once again - there is always a dark side of the moon... (unless you have 2 suns  )
You cannot utilize more planets than a certain limit. Limit is dictated by minerals and resources. You cannot build too much colonizers and cannot build too much transport to spread out people.
|
How so  Completely new theory to me. 
Sure, every needed transport and colonizer cant be built with one year, but no need. Transports AR should build as lot needed and colonizers as lot possible.
First the Transports ...any race builds them as lot as needed to avoid breeder planets overgrowding. It has no relation with how many planets one got to send to! It only depends on how lot of population he has breeded, unless he has ran out of places to breed to. 
|
What to say... just try it out. I tried it few times and given up - too much of trouble and lack of transport (or minierals for building it). You would get almost nothing in return compare to the same AR with a bit narrower hab (and RW points spent elsewhere).
| Quote: |
Now lets see what really happens with Colonizer. Poor AR is "depressed by minerals and resources dictatorship"? All famous Fuel Mizer Pinta:
Minerals:
it costs 38/15/30 minerals,
it leaves 28/11/22 salvage,
unrecoverable cost = 10/4/8. <= That cost affects your ability to build Ultras? What a shame.
|
Remember that you need to bring minerals back (see above about freighters). Also, look how it goes over time:
turn 1 - build 10 colonizers and spend minerals
turn 2-3 - fly and colonize
turn 3-5 - return back with minerals (using 10 different freighters, if use less freighters, then returning minerals arrive few turns later).
Instead of that you can:
turn 1 - build mining robot
turn 2-3 - mine minerals
turn 4... - still mine minerals
No trouble with transporting. And you have minerals 2 or more turns earlier. With good concentration, it might be even more than you would get from colonizing small worlds. Having minerals 2 turns earlier (and transports free) - is not it much better?
| Quote: |
What AR gets:
Pop (22kT that fits into Pinta and does not die OTW) mines as 5 mines, and works for 20 resources or better on early green (for 10 on early red). With "early" i mean energy 7. That pop did work for 2 resources and 1/4 of a mine on HW ground.
Conclusion:
Pinta is wonder device that pays itself back with 3 years no way drain on economy. Running out of places what to Pinta is tragedy.
|
Not tragedy, just not beneficial to colonize all around at start. At the later game when you can drop tons of pop onto planet from neighbour Death Star and quickly get its hab 50% or even more, I agree, this pays off a lot.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
With narrower hab (I assume equal bands for one-immune), only ~30% or so of green planets you would not be able to teraform to 70%.
|
The small green planet of wide hab guy is yellow or even red for narrower hab guy, so how it is better? If something is good for narrow hab, its even better for wide.
A race with wider hab has more planets that can be terraformed to 70% or better on same sized territory, these got better value to boot with and so he has eventually more pop to fill all thinkable and unthinkable places on that territory with colonists. Check things out with http://home20.inet.tele.dk/craebild/hab_range_tool/habcalc.h tml before posting more of that. 
I am not saying that "pump everything into wider hab", that this is golden rule. Just ... in my testbeds wider hab seems sometimes better investment than IFE or cheap energy. It seems always better investment than growth rate, ARM, TT.
|
We seems talk about different things here. Wider hab costs more RW points for any race. AR gets from too wide hab range much less, compare to RW points spent. Also, re-read again - I'm talking about benefit for mid-game survival, not a general (final) economy effect. 
No doubt wider hab is better, but AR have an issue with using it before later game. The issue is minerals - cannot get more minerals from really wide hab, and cannot get more resources from it because slow teraforming and alike things.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Tech exchange tends to fail sometimes That's what happened to me.
|
Interesting, it has sometimes failed to me too. So .... the lesson that you learned is:
(A) it is bad idea to import vital technologies? 
(B) it is good idea to use enough scrappers?
I have observed that 7 scrappers simultaneously next to never fail, but your way of thinking is interesting too. 
|
Exactly. I know that. I just do not know why we did not use it earlier. We were late with our exchange schedule in general - several times I failed to get other techs than W (Bio for teraforming and EL). So we re-tried other techs again instead of switching to weapons. It was risky, but required to build mining robots and other things whlie I could not switch tech research because tried to reach C9 as soon as possible. So I had 2 options: research El by self and get better mining robots much later than usual, or still use El scrappers instead of W. I selected El scrappers. Yes, I got mining robots in time, but was behind with Weapons by few turns. That was a fatal mistake. AR should never be late in Weapons, specially with W10 if you got IT planet close.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
I just do not really see any strategic advantages for takin any other tech cheaper other than Electronics.
|
Propulsion is also option. If AR has scoops then its completely no question that P is better.
Lets say without scoops? AR has construction 12 about year 2430. Say N10/W12/P5/C13/L6/B4... year 2435. There are no point to have higher than L7 immediately, or what it gives? No iron for amounts of missile ships too soon. P9 however gives very vital 300/500 gates to gate beam BB-s and casual jihad cruisers or to gate miners away from danger. Also you probably want that dreaded warp 10 engine, its nice to have. Later L is again nice, but most AR troubles lie in early times and so P stays an option.
|
Makes sense.
Well, this probably depends what weapons you would use the most. If lasers, then I agree, prop might be a better option, because it gives stargates to gate laser BBs and also better battle speed. If torpedo BB ships, better comps help a lot. Also, AR starbases survival depends a lot on jammers placed there (Ultra stations already allow that with enough electro slots), that is important for mid-game. Apart from that, I do not see much benefit in getting 300/500 gates 5 turns earlier than your opponent, because they cost a lot to build anyway. I usually choose W research instead of building 300/500 gates at that time (to use effectively for war, you require to have such gates at least at half of your planets).
Also, at that time (unless you hit SS neighbour), you would already see most potential points of attacks from opponents and would be able to arrive in time withough gates (if use minefields, of course).
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Tue, 10 June 2003 07:04 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Sotek on Wed, 03 September 2003 23:33 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Thu, 04 September 2003 02:39 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Fri, 05 September 2003 02:41 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 04 July 2006 13:27 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 04 July 2006 15:53 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Thu, 06 July 2006 02:34 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Thu, 06 July 2006 08:08 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Thu, 06 July 2006 12:49 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Thu, 06 July 2006 17:30 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Fri, 07 July 2006 10:14 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Mon, 10 July 2006 14:35 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Fri, 07 July 2006 09:28 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Mon, 10 July 2006 09:42 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Mon, 10 July 2006 14:03 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Mon, 10 July 2006 15:35 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Tue, 11 July 2006 06:48 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 11 July 2006 16:50 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 11 July 2006 18:33 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Wed, 12 July 2006 03:05 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Staz on Tue, 01 August 2006 14:22 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Marduk on Tue, 01 August 2006 16:50 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Staz on Tue, 01 August 2006 19:08 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Staz on Wed, 02 August 2006 07:49 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Tue, 01 August 2006 11:59 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Tue, 01 August 2006 17:56 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Wed, 02 August 2006 04:39 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Wed, 02 August 2006 07:50 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Wed, 02 August 2006 14:09 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Thu, 03 August 2006 03:59 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: joseph on Thu, 03 August 2006 07:09 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Thu, 03 August 2006 10:36 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Fri, 04 August 2006 10:26 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Sat, 05 August 2006 11:46 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: crr65536 on Wed, 09 August 2006 11:55 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Sat, 12 August 2006 20:05 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Sun, 13 August 2006 01:04 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: crr65536 on Mon, 14 August 2006 01:58 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Mon, 14 August 2006 12:19 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: crr65536 on Mon, 14 August 2006 14:11 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Mon, 14 August 2006 15:45 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Tue, 15 August 2006 04:48 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 15 August 2006 08:51 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Tue, 15 August 2006 09:30 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 15 August 2006 11:59 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Tue, 15 August 2006 13:29 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 15 August 2006 19:51 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Wed, 16 August 2006 07:46 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Wed, 16 August 2006 12:15 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Wed, 16 August 2006 15:58 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Wed, 02 August 2006 17:17 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Thu, 03 August 2006 00:23 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Thu, 03 August 2006 02:37 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Thu, 04 September 2003 07:27 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Thu, 04 September 2003 18:32 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Fri, 05 September 2003 02:12 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Fri, 05 September 2003 02:41 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Fri, 05 September 2003 02:46 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Fri, 05 September 2003 03:13 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Fri, 05 September 2003 08:19 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Fri, 05 September 2003 22:16 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Steve on Wed, 10 September 2003 09:38 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Wed, 10 September 2003 09:55 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: XyliGUN on Mon, 26 June 2006 20:31 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: XyliGUN on Tue, 27 June 2006 20:49 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 27 June 2006 21:29 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: XyliGUN on Wed, 28 June 2006 03:41 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: XyliGUN on Wed, 28 June 2006 03:59 |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Jun 11 17:09:12 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
