Home » Primary Racial Traits » WM » Ideas on the best WM design.
|
Re: Ideas on the best WM design. |
Tue, 04 March 2003 20:57 |
|
chagarra | | Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 75
Registered: December 2002 Location: Australia..... +10 GMT | |
|
Interesting question......
I have been playing WM for a couple of years now, and to my knowledge there is no such animal.
I have a tested database of at least 20 designs for different conditions, but even then you can stuff up big time.
Pick a 1 in 6, 18%, and hit a low resource universe.... You're toast.
Go with 1 in 3 19% -f, and meet a -f CA ... Burnt toast.
Pick a reasonable average, and end up between two SDs ... Breadcrumbs.
Each game has it's own requirements, duels need totally different designs to huge multi's, diplomacy changes needs, if you are known to enough of the other players as a trusted friend, you would design to take advantage of this, however most WMs are not very diplomatic or they would not have chosen the race in the first place.
chagarra
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Ideas on the best WM design. |
Tue, 04 March 2003 23:30 |
|
|
Greetings all,
Quote: | however most WMs are not very diplomatic or they would not have chosen the race in the first place.
|
I would like to differ on this point for a number of reasons. EDog would know of this race that I am about to point out but in the game Battle for Glory Two I played a, get this, _PEACEFULL_ War Monger. Interstingly enough this worked out well for me as I soon met up with what was known as the Pigs in Space, who where also WM. Since the Pigs in Space decided to take out everybody and anybody around them due to the fact that they knew they couldn't get their planets any other way, I was able to build a "coalition" of races to fight against him. Soon I had both a CA and a IS on my side providing me with both Standard AND speed Bump mine layers, as well as Propulsion Tech and Electronics tech while I researched for the Heavy Blaster Dreadnaughts.
Now the race I played took advantage of the Cheap weapons and I was able to build a fleet of a good 30 Dreadnaughts, all of which where struggling to get into one fleet. The next sized fleet was that of a Cruiser design from the IS who's tech wasn't that great (had all expensive tech) Though he did have them in large enough numbers to make them extremely dangerous (fleets of like 30-50 ships). Then of course was a second fleet of about 10 BB's that was also slowly growing. The reason I was playing peacefully was because I knew my Race reached it's peak not in the middle of the game but towards the endgame. It may seem strange for a War Monger to let go of it's early weapons advantages and what not, but think about a Dreadnaught fleet being built by sets of 5-8 per year until minerals kick in. The Dreadnaught coupled with Cheap engines, Cheap Weapons, Maxed out Regenerating Shields, and the best Weapons tech in the galaxy... it is OK to be peacefull as a Warmonger.
Then again think of the game you wish to join and rather than think of how a WM should fit into that game think of what you think could take full advantage of the oportunities provided in that game. If your enemies are going to be rather close to your HW then a WM is the way to go. If you wish to take over the Middle Game by building up HUGE fleets of Dreadnaughts, going HG would be the way to go, or if you are in a small game and you wish to have a huge fleet that has supremecy towards the 2430's, going WM with the BC's and the superior fire power... then a HY would be rather nice indeed for such a game.
Just thought I would point out that you don't have to be agressive ALL the time when you are a war monger. Cause if you have everybody after you your costly PRT will hurt you, and you will have to many enemies to chace. Get some allies, offer them war Protection for minefields and minerals for your superior fleets. Nobody ever said you HAD to be the bad guy, it can really pay off to be the good guy every now and again.
Just my 2c again...
Best wishes, Stalwart
"Attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."- Sun TzuReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Ideas on the best WM design. |
Wed, 05 March 2003 14:11 |
|
yucaf | | Master Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 100
Registered: December 2002 Location: India | |
|
Agree with you Stalwart... The fact of being perceived as a "dangerous" or, say, an "agressive" race, may imply a lot of diplomacy from your neighbours. They know you will probably want to take ONE of them early, so they will try all the necessary to avoid to be the target. And diplomacy is the best way to get there at a lesser cost (you can also show that you have a powerful military but that would cost you dearly in the beginning game).
Still, if you choose to be all the way agressive with your favorite WM race, you better get enough advantage of that strategy so as to allow you victory at one point or the other. All this because this behavior will probably exclude posterior alliance and WM is not particularly great in the middle-end game without an ally. His weak defensive capabilities need to be compensated by a good ally or you are in trouble. I think in particular in the absence of mine fields. In a medium/large or huge game, you will need to trade mine layers. Your best DN's won't stop several armies attacking from different angles and destroying about one planet a year, when you need 3 to 4 times more between minesweeping, attack, bombing the installations and bombing the population... And in the late game, WM has less economic advantages than the "economic races" so alone it would be inferior.
In all games where I was WM, I did not necessarily attacked early, and when authorized, diplomacy was always present. Being ABLE to attack early was a huge tool for obtaining what I wanted. Lots of fun I also played WM in small universes with no diplomacy and attacking or counter attacking was indeed the only alternative. Lots of fun too
Now, about the ideal design, it doesn't exists. As Chagarra pointed out, it depends a lot of the initial conditions, number of players, size universe etc. and even then, nothing ensure you are going to win or even just "doing well". If you need some help on a particular design, first post the environmental conditions and propose a
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | |
Re: Ideas on the best WM design. |
Thu, 06 March 2003 23:42 |
|
|
WarMongers make great allies IMHO. Supply 'em with Iron and let them do most of the offensive warfare... especially if you have any-mass gates or overcloakers or detonating minefields to use in support. Just make sure you have a reason to trust them.
AS far as a "best" WM design - I like 'em fast and furious. QS economy or quick HG. Keep in mind that you'll probably want Regen Shields and cheap Construction.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | |
Re: Ideas on the best WM design. |
Tue, 21 October 2003 01:04 |
|
|
In a team game a WM can be quite fierce. My bro played one to good effect last year during Lensmen2. He had 27k and Juggs by 2450 (1st) due to his ability to quickly expand. He had also built an attack fleet which stomped the AR next door.
Pretty straight forward design with very modest economy settings. Two wide and one narrow in HAB to ensure that the planets he did find would be generally pretty good.
IFE,ISB,OBRM,LSP,RS
.20-4.88g -144-144c 59-97mr 19%
12/9/12 no box(regretted this) 10/3/13
Weapons cheap rest expensive, box checked
He was the muscle for this team game. The ITs built the gate infrastructure, gated minerals to him and overgated the terriformers supplied by our CA. True he fell to 4th place though his fleet was huge with 480 capital ships and 480 escort ships (mostly BCs) by the end of the game at 2485.
So yes everybody seems to strain to build a competitive WM, they are even harder than an SS to build well. Maybe these races are better suited for cooperative play. I do know one thing for sure, he had the most fun that game!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Ideas on the best WM design. |
Mon, 29 March 2004 04:40 |
|
|
Mark_WI wrote on Tue, 21 October 2003 08:04 | In a team game a WM can be quite fierce. My bro played one to good effect last year during Lensmen2. He had 27k and Juggs by 2450 (1st) due to his ability to quickly expand.
IFE,ISB,OBRM,LSP,RS
.20-4.88g -144-144c 59-97mr 19%
12/9/12 no box(regretted this) 10/3/13
Weapons cheap rest expensive, box checked
|
Well, I look at this and wonder what the universe density was since the race is a 1 in 4 hab race. With the econ settings, I wouldn't expect this race to get to much more than 12k in a small, normal universe at 2450. Granted, since it was a team game with a CA - all the tf was free - that accounts for probably around 8k of the resources the race had.
Using a 1 in 3 design with 14,10,12 and 1/1200 colonist settings I get the WM up to 16k at 2450 in a small, normal universe with 16 planets, 2 about to be colonized and a resource growth rate of over 1k per year. Additionally, all the terraforming has been done on the 5 highest value planets and there are 10 armed space docks. Tech is at 9,10,10,10,8,8. The race has plenty of minerals available and plenty of minerals are getting to where they are needed on time since the race uses mine efficiency of 12kt per 10 mines. This race also only uses a growth rate of 17% yet still does well. Current potential if it stops taking new planets is ~50k at full population with a few low reds that can still be colonized and worked on. Note, that I do these benchmarks using a small, normal, accelerated BBS universe with 3 standard AI's to cause some construction to go into warships.
I'd doubt that a WM with these specs would have much trouble hitting more than 25k in a dense or packed universe. A sparse or normal universe would be a more difficult arena for it to play it in.
The complete design is:
IFE, ISB, OBRM, LSP, RS
0.59 to 6.80G
-72 to 176C
33 to 95 mR
17% growth
1/1200 pop efficiency
14, 10, 12 factory settings
12,5,10 mine settings
Weaps cheap, all else expensive and start at 3 checked.
I've tweaked around this base concept a few times and the best I managed to get the WM to do in a small, normal universe was 18k at 2450 and still growing well.
That race uses 1/1100
14,10,13 factories
11,5,10 mines
the negative 2 resources are picked up by one click right in the hab range.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Mon, 29 March 2004 04:43]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Ideas on the best WM design. |
Mon, 29 March 2004 09:22 |
|
Kotk | | Commander | Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 29 March 2004 11:40 |
Mark_WI wrote on Tue, 21 October 2003 08:04 | IFE,ISB,OBRM,LSP,RS
.20-4.88g -144-144c 59-97mr 19%
12/9/12 no box(regretted this) 10/3/13
Weapons cheap rest expensive, box checked
|
The complete design is:
IFE, ISB, OBRM, LSP, RS
0.59 to 6.80G
-72 to 176C
33 to 95 mR
17% growth
1/1200 pop efficiency
14, 10, 12 factory settings
12,5,10 mine settings
Weaps cheap, all else expensive and start at 3 checked.
|
I think his design is better than yours.
* 1 in 4 is mostly enough hab to gain 25K in testbed alone.
* 17% with LSP is bit too slow start for HG.
* 1200 pop eff means you give 20% of pop resources away for 80 rw points
* 14 instead of 12 factory efficiency means you gain only 16.66% of factory resources for 130 rw points.
* Mines cost 3 and factories cost 9 cost only 62 points and make his planetary installations about 23% cheaper.
* 10 mines operated are too few to deplete minerals on most of the planets. Going over 10 mine efficiency below 15 mines operated is not profitable at all in reasonable time-frame.
Thanks to serious advantages his design will probably quickly wipe floor with yours at same level of gameplay skill.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Ideas on the best WM design. |
Mon, 29 March 2004 10:40 |
|
|
The problem is that 1 in 4 planets in a small / normal doesn't provide enough planets near enough to build up within 50 years - a 1 in 4 just desn't get there.
The cheaper mines and factories helps build them faster, but it doesn't make that much difference. In the testbed, all the major planets were all fully built by 2450.
I disagree that having the 12 per 10 mines isn't efficient - it a lot more efficient than 10 - 10. I'll put the extra mineral count in over building more mines any day.
14 resources per 12 factories significantly increases the max generated resources of the planet.
12, 12 1000 provides 2684 resources
14, 12 1200 provides 2765 resources
13, 13 1100 provides 2859 resources
The 17% with the LSP in the accBBS start didn't do too bad - again, the problem is avaialable planets. An 18% race didn't fare any better. For 25k you need AT LEAST 12 planets producing a little over 2k each. You aren't going to find that many high greens in a small/normal with enough time to set them up in the first 50 years. Many of the planets found are going to be low to mid greens that have to be terraformed to get to their potential. In a small/dense - yes, 1 in 4 works.
Go ahead and try his design in a small / normal and see how well you do - you won't hit 20k. I'm not sure there is a design with one cheap tech that can hit 25k in 50 years in a small/normal
About the only tweak that can improve on this are to go with 13,9,13 and 1100 pop efficiency which actually provides 94 more resources at HW when full (2859 vs. 2765). You can still have 1 in 3 planets with this and you can tweak the mines to 11 4 11. Believe me - even that one extra kt of mine efficiency helps quite a bit.
There are a few other options that can allow the 18% growth such as taking NRSE and CE while dropping the RS and the LSP. But, as a warmonger, you want those ram scoops and you also want your ships to get there ALL the time.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Mon, 29 March 2004 10:43]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Ideas on the best WM design. |
Mon, 29 March 2004 12:13 |
|
|
To be honest - I don't see either design getting over 25k even if it is played alone. I'm going to examine a few other options but, there really isn't much in the way of choices. Even a 1 in 6 grav immune WM does as well as his design does in the tests I've run. The only way that his design hit 27k in 2450 was by virtue of the free CA terraforming.
Besides, nobody but Mark had bothered to throw any design into this thread so I figured I may as well get it going
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Mon, 29 March 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: Ideas on the best WM design. |
Mon, 29 March 2004 15:38 |
|
|
Actually, I would like to see the files if you'll send them to me. I gotta be missing something here.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Jun 15 17:52:29 EDT 2024
|