Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » Wide + narrow vs all average habs
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Mon, 09 January 2006 09:48 |
|
|
iztok wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 15:50 |
Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 11:33 | Hmm. I must be doing something wrong.
|
IMO it is nothing wrong with your playing style, I too test races with regard to critical tech levels. The size of the universe is wrong. Two days, and you still haven't finished test of the first race...
|
Well, The size of universe is the same as mine - medium packed, as I see in the posts...
I actually have previous tests (just played for fun several AR and non-AR races in the same universe), but after posts here I see these tests are not very reliable to send a results from, so I started new tests after all recommendations.
I plan to finish race 2 tests during next weekend. Then 2 JoAT races with the same habs on the same universe. Then AR and JoAT with equal % of green planets with equal hab ranges (comparing with the same race 1). In general, it would take a while...
[Updated on: Mon, 09 January 2006 09:55]
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Mon, 09 January 2006 12:16 |
|
crr65536 | | Chief Warrant Officer 3 | Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 09:48 |
iztok wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 15:50 |
Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 11:33 | Hmm. I must be doing something wrong.
|
IMO it is nothing wrong with your playing style, I too test races with regard to critical tech levels. The size of the universe is wrong. Two days, and you still haven't finished test of the first race...
|
Well, The size of universe is the same as mine - medium packed, as I see in the posts...
I actually have previous tests (just played for fun several AR and non-AR races in the same universe), but after posts here I see these tests are not very reliable to send a results from, so I started new tests after all recommendations.
I plan to finish race 2 tests during next weekend. Then 2 JoAT races with the same habs on the same universe. Then AR and JoAT with equal % of green planets with equal hab ranges (comparing with the same race 1). In general, it would take a while...
|
You're using medium packed? I thought people use small packed at the largest, and usually tiny packed - to approximate the amount of space one could hope to get in a real game.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Mon, 09 January 2006 12:25 |
|
|
Quote: | You're using medium packed? I thought people use small packed at the largest, and usually tiny packed - to approximate the amount of space one could hope to get in a real game.
|
I used medium for following reasons:
1. Small/tiny universe have different average distanses between planets. Is not it? At least, it is very noticeable when you compare large and huge - in huge, average distances between closest planets is way much bigger than in large universe. I thought there is similar difference for medium vs small/tiny, so I did not tested there.
2. On a medium I have more planets, that would mean better testing - there would be less planet hab/mineral oddities (i.e. average hab % or % of green planets is more reliable).
3. On a medium, I can have as much growth as possible and not very limited by boundaries. It would mean that difference between race 1 and race 2 development over time will be bigger and thus more noticeable for comparison.
I'm not sure in the last one, probably, it is true only for race growth after year 40-50.
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Tue, 10 January 2006 04:58 |
|
|
Kotk wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 23:03 |
Quote: | Hmm. I must be doing something wrong.
|
Only thing i see your post that you use 33% cap at breeders. Why not 25%? That extra 32% of pop there produces only 15% more viral mining, 13% more resources and 5% more growth. Dropping it to empty 40% value planet from 100% planet immediately produces double everything and at yellow it is not much worse, only growth is negative. Also you are slow with terraforming if you got so lot of yellows like you describe, that also indicates you do not put much pop on yellows. I put at least 500kt as soon i see one. Yellows turn into greens too that way about y50 i had only few yellows left.
|
Agree.
Well, 33% was "the highest" for me, and 25% was normal . Most planets for me were below or only slightly above 25%. Only during Death Star development era (year 40-45) I had somewhat too many of planets above 25% cap, but it is usual if not expanding too far away from HW. Also, keeping people at 33% is sometimes needed to boost up research, at least temporarily.
Sure, you must do a lot of MM to put 500K pop on yellows. No wonder you're bored so quickly. And you should build some better starbase as soon as planet turns green to have better growth there. Because resources are usually low, it is hard to build it. Also, yellow kills more people out of 500K than out of 100K. It does not help much to send more people because square root formula. It ends up that you have a lot of green, yellow-in-the-past, planets, with low hab%, tons of people and more than 70% cap, still teraforming so no investment into research from them. Need to build SB or even Ultra there, that usually lasts for 3 years which you could use for teraforming. Yes, you teraform it slightly quicker, but you lose this benefot either on long building of better starbase or lose it because almost no people growth... Is not it waste of resources? Well, 500K on yellow dig up more minerals, so, might be good from that POW as well...
I usually send to yellow a col
...
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Tue, 10 January 2006 12:13 |
|
Kotk | | Commander | Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 10 January 2006 11:58 | Sure, you must do a lot of MM to put 500K pop on yellows.
|
Nay ... i said at least 500kT. That usually means i suck 550-600kT into a LF and shoot it. Seems you do same. No difference there.
Can be you scout slowly? What mineral problem? I have usually other problem. From where to take all that damn pop? Especially when cluster of greens is suddenly scouted i am in trouble. I avoid taking pop level below 1000kT at place where i pick pop, so that means there must be at least 1550kT at start.
Quote: | I think it would be good to exchange our test files. (Still did not finish mine - will bring tomorrow...) So you would be able to look at it (I did backup for each 5 years) and tell what I did wrong that not having 150K at 60th. Maybe, just did not expand too far?
|
If you want so. Unfortunatelly I did not make backups, just wrote down what i had. I did not maybe pay attention to play it in a very realistic style. Medium packed ground itself is utopy. So ... I wanted to see where your "worse" race gets. I suspect you must not worry, 40k or 59k @2450 whats the difference? Both are too big to be fun.
I think of AR as more or less playable PRT in dense or packed galaxy with 35-40 planets per player and at least one ally allowed. It means from medium/dense 10 players upto large/dense 16 players. Such games are mixedly considered edge of playable/too big. Who joins got at least to know the guys around are of sturdy sort, otherwise half of them drops out. Such a game gives access to only ~70 planets territory without hostilities. What hostilities if you say you dont have minerals for colonizers? I have won some even smaller games with AR so it must be doable for others too. Not worse than to play HP i think.
Now to the realistic testbeds: Tiny packed alone, there are 60 planets. Small dense with artifically limited territory to closest 70-80 planets is also OK test. I am not saying that you get ultimate AR perfomance that way, but these are close to reality
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Tue, 10 January 2006 12:33 |
|
|
Kotk wrote on Tue, 10 January 2006 19:13 | Now to the realistic testbeds: Tiny packed alone, there are 60 planets. Small dense with artifically limited territory to closest 70-80 planets is also OK test. I am not saying that you get ultimate AR perfomance that way, but these are close to reality where you find the race in real game. Otherwise you drop dead of frustration how bad it performs in real game.
|
Yeah, I know. That's for testing of a single race whether it is good or not in a real game. The goal of my test is to clearly see a difference: how much
(AR race 2 year 60 resources) - (AR race 1 resources)
is bigger than
(JoAT race 2 year 60 resources) - (JoAT race 1 year 60 resources) with a more or less realistic critical tech levels reaching playing, and with not expanding really too far from HW.
Also, I'm using medium to do not depend on oddities of planet habs. 60 planets in tiny have too much oddities for planet habs. With larger number of planets, all habs are more or less averaged, and that is what is needed for my test (I'm testing habs).
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Mon, 30 January 2006 18:16 |
|
Orange | | Officer Cadet 1st Year | Messages: 215
Registered: November 2005 Location: TO, ONT, CA | |
|
(I am having a hard time tracking what topic you guys are onto)
Back to the original question - To answer Tomsaoid's question:
All average habs will start slower because the avg hab % will be lower due to higher avg distance to a race's optimum hab. However, it has higher potential over the long run because more planets are habitable for a given universe i.e. the race is able to take advantage of more hab space.
Wide + narrow will start faster because the avg distance to a race's optimum hab is smaller due to the narrow hab.
This is the effect for a given amount of raw points. Neither is "better". The preference depends on your game parameters.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Tue, 31 January 2006 03:22 |
|
|
Quote: | All average habs will start slower because the avg hab % will be lower due to higher avg distance to a race's optimum hab. However, it has higher potential over the long run because more planets are habitable for a given universe i.e. the race is able to take advantage of more hab space.
Wide + narrow will start faster because the avg distance to a race's optimum hab is smaller due to the narrow hab.
|
I agree, but only partially. I almost done AR tests and half of JoAT tests. AR Race 2 starts almost equally because more green planets means also more of them close to HW, and they are slightly better - better early start so have a bit more resources for teraforming. In my test, race 2 is only 1 year behind in development of ultra station and death star. However, as I thought, race 2 incredibly improves when it develops Energy 16. While race 1 is struggling against tons of yellows, race 2 uses remaining 4 teraformings usually on the green planets that are already with Ultras or even Death Stars. About 10% hab improvement makes a big difference for such large planets. Race 1 usually stops at the center if it's narrow range and Energy 16 tech gives no much difference for it.
Race 2 ends either with more resources spent or research or with more "capital ship building" planets, despite 16% growth rate.
Anyway, once again, the goal of tests not to just compare narrow+wide vs equal.
The goal is to compare parameter "difference (narrow + wide) - (equal)" - how much it differs between AR and JoAT PRT. IMO, there is a big difference between AR and JoAT here - whle AR benefits from equal ranges, JoAT loses because 16% growth.
Will see. I think I'll finish in 2 weeks or so (got a lot of work, so making 2 turns/day between year 40-60).
[Updated on: Tue, 31 January 2006 03:24]
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Wed, 01 February 2006 11:41 |
|
Orange | | Officer Cadet 1st Year | Messages: 215
Registered: November 2005 Location: TO, ONT, CA | |
|
Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 31 January 2006 03:22 | I agree, but only partially. I almost done AR tests and half of JoAT tests. AR Race 2 starts almost equally because more green planets means also more of them close to HW, and they are slightly better - better early start so have a bit more resources for teraforming.
|
I see what you mean. AR spread econ advantage with more green planets. Although your "slight better" concerns me, AR Race 2 (I am assuming that this is the equal case) may have had a better planet draw which could affect the end result. AR Race 2 should have had a slightly worse set of initial planets.
[Mod edit: fixed quote]
[Updated on: Tue, 04 April 2006 06:20] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Wed, 01 February 2006 17:34 |
|
|
IMO when you test a race you should aim for same number of planets as your share in real game. So if medium dense in real gme with 8 players, you should aim for 1/8 as many planets in your territory... more if you have a -f or other early power, and less if you have a slow starter/hard to defend (like AR without a friend).
I'd also suggest throwing in some competition and pretend the AI players are smarter so you build defences/warships at same sort of times you would if they were humans. Setting up AR orbital forts all over your border with few defences is like a big kick-me sign in a real game unless your diplomacy is good or you have strong friends.
If you think you can intersettle, then factor in how well your race intersettles, a 1i will intersettle better than 0i.
Pop growth wise a 1i tends to get better greens especially in the beginning, which means a 1i with 15% pop growth rate may have more pop mid game than a 0i with 17% growth.
[Updated on: Wed, 01 February 2006 17:36] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Wed, 01 February 2006 20:21 |
|
|
Kotk's figures are pretty interesting. If it's from the tool I think it is, then it's based on a random sample (1000 planets) so the very small % differences seen here don't really prove any of the habs are better than the other, assuming terraforming was instant at each step.
Looks like race wizard is pretty well scored in terms of planet balance.
There's one kicker though. As mentioned before in this thread, each click of terraforming done in a narrow field tends to have a higher % effect on hab than the same click in a wide field. When you are done terraforming both fields the result will be the same, but your early terraforming will bring results a little faster as you will usually terraform the narrow field first. (e.g. if you have terra 7 in all fields, your first 700 resources spent in terra will have a bigger effect than the next 700, even though the end result after all 1400 is the same.)
Also having a narrow hab tends to be better for diplomacy as well.
Strikes me as a no-brainer. I think the skewed results in the practical testing done is due to RW growth rate differences and/or the randomness of different generated universes.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Wed, 01 February 2006 20:23 |
|
|
I think the only time I wouldn't take a narrow hab, would be if I was pushing so many points into habitability that I couldn't take a narrow hab without making the other hab(s) so wide that they are within 10 clicks of the edges.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Jun 10 07:11:08 EDT 2024
|