Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » Wide + narrow vs all average habs
Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Wed, 04 January 2006 02:14 |
|
|
Hi!
Sending this post because it seems for me that most AR races around (not 2 or 3-immune) take narrow + wide hab ranges.
After some of my tests, it looks like AR with all habs equal goes much better than with one hab very narrow and others wide (or 2 narrow and one wide, though rare case I guess). By taking narrow + wide habs, AR is double-handicapped.
Is above true, or my tests just went bad because odds?
Well, I know that narrow + wide have some disadvantage compare to both equal habs - you can see that in the race wizard because you actually get some points by taking narrow + wide. However, it looks far not balanced for AR race - it seems AR should get twice more points for taking narrow + wide habs. This is because AR is dependent on habitability percent much more than other races - not only pop growth, but also resources output depend on it.
Also, is there any post or article that explains clearly why narrow+wide habs are worse than 2 equal habs with the same total number of poins in ranges?
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Wed, 04 January 2006 05:25 |
|
Madman | | Officer Cadet 1st Year | Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003 Location: New Zealand | |
|
Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 20:14 | However, it looks far not balanced for AR race - it seems AR should get twice more points for taking narrow + wide habs. This is because AR is dependent on habitability percent much more than other races - not only pop growth, but also resources output depend on it.
|
Actually (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), AR is slightly _less_ affected by habitability than other races.
Short version: AR get's hit twice, but they are not cumulative, for non-AR, they are.
Long version:
Let's compare a 100% and a 50% planet for a AR and non-AR (assuming AR has a Space Station, both have a growth rate of g, AR has Energy of 10, and neither has OBRM, and they have planets 25% full for best growth out of their pop. I also disregard factories. The calculation below will scale for whatever values are used).
On a 100% planet, both races will have 250000 colonists, for a growth of 250000*g, and 500 resources for the AR, 250 resources for the non-AR.
On the 50% planet, the AR will still have 250000 colonists, but growth of 125000*g and 250 resources (i.e. both halved).
On the 50% planet, the non-AR race will only have 125000 colonists for maximum growth, and have a growth of 62500*g (half that of the AR), as they are hit both on the colonist number and the growth), and 125 resources (i.e. resources are halved, growth is quartered).
So if going for maximum growth, the AR is better off. Also, the AR mining (small though it is), is not affected by the hab %, whereas for the non-AR, the hab % limits the pop, which limits the number of mines.
Of course the above requires that the AR finds 125000 colonists more than the non-AR to keep the planet 25% full.
Having said that,and getting back to what you are posting about, I'll always try to take 1 immunity (the widest hab there is) for any race (except maybe a TT CA) - it's better for your initial growth (when it really matters) to find a small number of good greens than a somewhat larger number of small gree
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Wed, 04 January 2006 07:42 |
|
|
Well, and nooooowwwww...
try to account factories.
Actually, with factories, you get better with non-AR at the game start. When planet is settled initially, you usually not affected by the max pop. Only growth is actual, as well as resources are actual. If you account that double AR people has only quarter of resources output compare to half of them, it equals to what you stated for non-AR race even without factories - max pop not limited for AR is not a big plus here because square root. Try to calculate resources output by usual average non-AR planet with 50% hab, include factories and assume half of the planet max (250,000). The same half of the planet max with starbase (500,000 people - twice more) for AR and with teraforming (it would be better than 50%) results in less resources - 223 resources with Energy 10 and 100% hab (assuming full teraformed). With good non-AR races, I have 223 resources sometimes even on yellow planets.
Now, if you cannot teraform to 100%, you have even less resources no matter what you do. Better people growth because you spent time teraforming while non-AR race built factories? Well, true, BUT, thous factories together give more than your AR planet full of pop, just because they are not affected by hab at all.
Things are well balansed here though so it does not looks so amazing for non-AR races. You usually spend more time to build factories than teraforming for AR, and factories require minerals as well. In addition, AR can build something better than Starbase having much more people, as well as develop Energy. Through the timeline, it looks quite balanced. I tried this many times (AR vs non-AR) in test playing and see mo much difference in development, apart from the fact that AR ends up with more total people (though cannot use it for planets capturing - not a big plus). And non-AR usually ends up with more minerals stocked up on planets (if you care only about resources output for AR).
So, I gues the hab influence is the same for AR and non-AR.
Anyway, you seems
...
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Wed, 04 January 2006 08:59 |
|
Madman | | Officer Cadet 1st Year | Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003 Location: New Zealand | |
|
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 01:42 | Well, and nooooowwwww...
try to account factories.
|
No need to account for factories - it only alters resource output (has no effect on pop growth which is where the non-AR gets hit twice), and is just a linear scaling factor (once built).
Oh, and I should have pointed out in my analysis is not about comparing AR with non-AR - there's too many variables to do that easily - just the effect on reach of reduced hab h - the non-AR ends up with the h^2 on growth.
Quote: | I'll illustrate my question on example:
Let's take 2 one-immune AR races.
Race 1 has narrowest possible temperature, though wide radiation.
Race 2 - is a copy of race 1, but I increase hab range for temperature and equally decrease hab range for radiation, so total number of hab range "clicks" remains the same. Up until temperature and radiation are almost equal. I lose some points here in race wizard by that, so I take normal construction or energy, or even decrease pop growth, sometimes 2 at the same time, to compensate the loss. Now I test. Race 1 is always weaker after 50 years on large/packed/distant/ABBS/NRE game no mater what I choose for race 2 to compensate points losing. Try it out
|
Well if you are talking about the sum of the clicks remaining the same, the number of habitable planets is proportional the _product_ of clicks, so with the sum the same, the product (hence number of habitable planets) will be higher in race 2. For example 0.2*0.8=0.16, 0.5*0.5=0.25 - same sum of clicks (0.2+0.8=0.5+0.5=1.0), but over 50% more planets.
This gets watered down a bit by the fact that wide+narrow gets much faster initial terraforming (often really fast terraforming if do the narrow first).
A much better way to compare is using the '1 in 4 planets will be habitable' etc. in the race wizard.
As for the _exact_ formula for hab, try: http://constb.5u.com/
although for any sort of analysis, the following (taken from http://www.starsfaq.com/advfaq/guts2.htm ) is likely to be adequate:
Hab%=SQRT[(1-g)^2+(1-t)^2+(1-r)^2]*(1-x)*(1-y)*(1-z)/SQRT[3]
Where g,t,and r (standing for gravity, temperature, and radiation)are given by
Clicks_from_center/Total_clicks_from_center_to_edge
and where x,y, and z are
x=g-1/2 for g>1/2 x=0 for g<1/2
y=t-1/2 for t>1/2 y=0 for t<1/2
z=r-1/2 for r>1/2 z=0 for r<1/2
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Wed, 04 January 2006 11:14 |
|
|
Well, let's return to main point now:
It looks like AR is beated twice by taking narrow + wide vs both ranges equal. However, the race wizard does not compensate this by additional advantage points compare to normale races. That is why race 1 is always worse than race 2 in my example. Looks like a race wizard disbalance for AR races.
Quote: | For example 0.2*0.8=0.16, 0.5*0.5=0.25 - same sum of clicks (0.2+0.8=0.5+0.5=1.0), but over 50% more planets.
|
Interesting.
One more note: If you take a closer look, it is not that simple. As you probably already figured out, hab value for a particular hab range tend to be "centered". It means that if you place your hab range at the center, you will get more planets than when placing at the edge. In your formula, "0.2" varies dependent on where you place it. For example, if you place all ranges at the edges, "0.2" becomes something like "0.1", and 0.8 becomes something like "0.9". For halves, it becomes 0.45 for both. So we have: 0.09 and 0.20. If we place all at the center, "0.2" starts to be, say, 0.25 and 0.8 is 0.95. 0.5 becomes 0.6 only. Completely another picture.
Anyway, your analysis is good. However, AR is beaten twice more by using narrow + wide and seems is not appropriate to the advantage points you get in race wizard by taking narrow + wide.
Quote: | This gets watered down a bit by the fact that wide+narrow gets much faster initial terraforming (often really fast terraforming if do the narrow first).
|
No, not at all. If you use really narrow hab, you lose. You use only 10 or even 7 teraformings out of 15 available (TT is not selected). Then you need to colonize all thous yellow planets with really small resources and thus small teraforming power. With wider range, you use up all 15 teraformings until you need to colonize yellows. With really narrow range that quickly improves you end up with a couple of green planets that have a good hab (>70), and the rest are either yellow or at start of dev
...
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Wed, 04 January 2006 14:18 |
|
Kotk | | Commander | Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 18:14 | It looks like AR is beated twice by taking narrow + wide vs both ranges equal. However, the race wizard does not compensate this by additional advantage points compare to normale races. That is why race 1 is always worse than race 2 in my example. Looks like a race wizard disbalance for AR races.
|
You did not bring any clear examples. Felt like you just clicked around in rw. Letme bring some to see then.
AR: IFE, NRSE, ISB, RS, 15% growth, eff divisor 10, energy and construction cheap, rest expensive, no start at 3 box. I did not build it for a AR contest, its just "a AR".
Now lets equip it with the habs like you described:
1) narrow + wide
gravity 0.22 to 4.40 temp -140 to -52 radiation immune
2) more/less balanced
gravity 0.20 to 1.36 temp -140 to 12 radiation immune
0 points leftover
In my testbeds 1 performs significally better somehow. What is the base of your concerns? Describe your penalties please? The penalty 1 and the penalty 2?
Some things to note:
a) AR colony max pop is limited by orbital type. Value does not matter.
b) AR planet resources are = MAX(Planet value, 25%)*SQRT(Pop*energy tech/divisor) so yellows are not so bad to take.
c) AR gets energy 10 usually before propulsion 5.
d) In real game hab 1 fits lot better for intersettling.
e) the planets with worse hab than -15% are lot more usual for hab 2, so hab 1 pop dies significally less on reds.
[Updated on: Wed, 04 January 2006 14:30] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Thu, 05 January 2006 10:27 |
|
|
Yeah, teraforming is quick for narrow hab, but think about second hab. What you are saying is true only when second hab (there is wide range) is close to 100%. Only then you will get 4% teraforming. However, because second hab is wide, you will get large variety of teraforming power. If take into account 2 main things: terafoming power depends on hab%, and wide range is _wide_, so you will have a lot of planets which have hab on wide range off of center, you would have not very good teraforming at start most of the time. With both habs average, it is interchangable. If you have one hab on the edge and another a bit closer to center, you have MUCH better starting hab% compare to narrow+wide in average.
Also, for narrow range you would not use your teraforming possibilities completely. When colonizing yellow planet for which you have 100% for wide habitability and -5 for narrow (to make use of the rest 5 teraformings of thous 15% teraforming you have), you get only 25% of resources. With average habs, above case always means 41% or better hab, so it is possible for you to use up all your +-15% teraforming possibility a bit quicker and more effectively.
With equal habitability ranges, it appears you will always use +-15% teraforming possibilities completely, and most of the time you will have better starting planets at start and far better at the end.
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Thu, 05 January 2006 13:33 |
|
|
Got it.
Well, what about race 1 is AR and race 2 is WM with narrowest hab on a tiny universe? WM would do even more better despite narrower hab
You just do not want to accurately read how to create races for test. Ok, below is 2 example races.
Race 1:
IFE, NRSE, ISB, NAS
Gravity immune, Temp 68 to 148, Rad 35 to 95
Growth rate 17%
Annual resources divider=10
Energy, construction and weapons are cheap, the rest are 75%, no start at techs 3
Remaining points:0
Race 2:
The same. Then:
Click 10 times for temperature to make it wider. Click 10 times to radiation to make it narrower. Ranges are equal, though total number of teraforming points is not changed. You should have Temp 28 to 188 and Rad 45 to 85.
Make population growth 16% to compensate points loss.
Remaining points:0
Race 2 performs better at the year 60 on Large/Packed/Distant/ABBS/NRE, despite pop growth is worse.
[Updated on: Thu, 05 January 2006 13:38]
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Thu, 05 January 2006 13:54 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 12:33 |
Race 1:
IFE, NRSE, ISB, NAS
Gravity immune, Temp 68 to 148, Rad 35 to 95
Growth rate 17%
Annual resources divider=10
Energy, construction and weapons are cheap, the rest are 75%, no start at techs 3
|
I see a couple of issues here. The immune race should have a lower growth than the non-immune. You chose temp as the narrow band, and slid it to far to the edge. See my post with the link, and look at hab distributions.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Thu, 05 January 2006 14:08 |
|
|
Quote: | You chose temp as the narrow band, and slid it to far to the edge. See my post with the link, and look at hab distributions.
|
Look again - I DO NOT move hab ranges at all. All that I do is just make one wider and make another narrower. Temp 68 to 148 (the narrowest in my example) is located on the equal part of the Habtability chart for Temperature. When using a chart, race 2 is far more slided to the edge and handicapped than Race 1 (188 for right edge of Temp habitability). Despite that, Race 2 does better.
I did not understood your concern about too high growth rate for one-immune race. What's the issue here if RW displays 0 points for both races? Higher growth rate was always better for AR, is not it? Well, you can make growth rate worse and choose better habitability after that. Anyway, result is the same - AR race with equal hab ranges does better than with narrow + wide.
Quote: | Post race stats @ y2450 and y2460. We have no way of knowing if your results are what we would call normal. Or, what you mean by saying "worse".
|
Will post them as soon as I'll bring them here (do not have at the moment here). I'll make zip with game files available by email as well - with backups for few checkpoint years. Will do more tests as well (If have time )
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Thu, 05 January 2006 15:16 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 13:08 |
Look again - I DO NOT move hab ranges at all. All that I do is just make one wider and make another narrower.
|
My bad. Misread.
Quote: |
I did not understood your concern about too high growth rate for one-immune race. What's the issue here if RW displays 0 points for both races?
|
Apples to apples. Let me be more clear. One race is 17% growth, the other is 16% growth. You should not be changing growth rate to test hab differences between the 2 nearly identical races. Change the hab, and only the hab. You should test again with the same growth, and better hab choices.
Quote: | Higher growth rate was always better for AR, is not it? Well, you can make growth rate worse and choose better habitability after that. Anyway, result is the same - AR race with equal hab ranges does better than with narrow + wide.
|
Not necessarily if you have no more room to stuff colonists, especially if those points could be expanding the hab to get more expansion room.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Thu, 05 January 2006 15:49 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1210
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 19:33 | Race 2 performs better at the year 60 on Large/Packed/Distant/ABBS/NRE, despite pop growth is worse.
|
Have you noticed that the race wizard estimates for race 1 1_in_7 green planets, and for race 2 1_in_6? That's why the second one is more expensive, and fares better.
Also a hint: if you want to get really exact comparisson of two designs, do testbeds in the same universe. Check the StarsFAQ http://www.starsfaq.com/def.htm how to make one.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Thu, 05 January 2006 16:13] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Fri, 06 January 2006 07:21 |
|
|
Hi!
Thanks for suggestions. I'm testing in the same universe. Using large packed game for several AR races to compare at once, and have not intersettled them
After all posts, once again, I'll re-formulate the disbalance statement to make it more exact:
"AR race benefits much more than other races from taking equal hab ranges vs narrow+wide with the same total number of teraforming points in hab ranges, no matter how you compensate points loss for that."
The point is not in just comparing 2 nearly identical races. Let me explain again. By taking equal hab ranges for race 2 with preserving total teraforming points, I lose advantage points in race wizard. This loss is THE SAME for AR and non - AR races. YES, equal habs in such case have better % of green planets. HOWEVER, non-AR race performs almost equally the same after that, while AR economy develops much better by that no matter how you compensate lost points - by worse growth rate, more costly techs, non-critical change in LRTs (do not uncheck IFE ) etc.
It appears for me, for proper balance, AR should lose more advantage points in RW for many cases of habitability selections. AR economy (and, possibly, non-AR -f race) is more dependent on hab % than +f non-AR race. Thus better hab range should be handicapped more by RW for AR races.
BTW, I did similar tests for non-AR races as well
Quote: | Hab range is not sum of range clicks. People who design races invest RW points not mouse clicks.
For example: If you make say 80% hab band one click narrower (so its 78%) you lost from your total hab only by 2.5% while making 20% hab band one click wider (so its 22%) you add 10% to your total hab. Someone already explained here to you that for getting numbers of habitable planets you got to multiply the ranges. That means in numbers close to your example 100%*20%*60% = 12% hab for first race and that is not equal 100%*40%*40% = 16% hab for the second race. So RW puts you correctly into 62 points hole with second race for making hab 33% wid |
...
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Fri, 06 January 2006 13:57 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1210
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Tomasoid wrote on Fri, 06 January 2006 13:21 | Using large packed game for several AR races to compare at once, and have not intersettled them
|
When I do such race comparissons, I use the same tiny packed uni for all designs, one at a time. I build the same number of scouts for every race, send them at about the same paths, try to go the same research paths... In your uni one race can have much different planet draw that it should have on average, so results you get are less reliable.
Also, I agree with crr65536 on the AR penality. They are IMO the weakest race to start a game with , so "punishing" them even more would made them unplayable.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Fri, 06 January 2006 14:01] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Fri, 06 January 2006 17:48 |
|
Kotk | | Commander | Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
Tomasoid wrote on Fri, 06 January 2006 07:21 |
"AR race benefits much more than other races from taking equal hab ranges vs narrow+wide with the same total number of teraforming points in hab ranges, no matter how you compensate points loss for that."
| What is "equal" there? Circumference of a temp/rad rectangle? Why it matters? What matters is the volume of your hab brick. Millirentgens can not be summed up with degrees of Celsius, may they? The sum of mR and degrees is nonsense and comparing two such sums is double nonsense. You are confusing yourself with that "equal" and i must admit you were confusing me too at start since you did not bring any clear examples and posted no results of your experiments. How can mouse clicks matter to a guy who is claiming making huge packed testbeds?
For accurate picture what is equal what is not there is a javascript tool... that generates amounts of random planets and displays statistics for selected habs and terraforms...
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/craebild/hab_range_tool/habcalc.h tml
Say i give your exampe races calculated for 20 000 planets:
1) Gravity immune, Temp 68 to 148, Rad 35 to 95 gives 14.2% planets. 1 from 7.04.
2) Gravity immune, Temp 28 to 188 and Rad 45 to 85 gives 17.7% planets. 1 from 5.65.
Using term "equal" is quite silly and rightfully since 2 costs 62 points more in RW.
Btw you still have not posted what were the resources of your races at turn 40, 50 and 60. Why i ask, its because the race 1 has more good planets after terraforming, and 1% better growth in ungodly available room (large packed) sounds not so bad. I think i try race 1 in medium packed and see if it gets more than 100k resources at 2460 or less.
Quote: | The answer to exactly YOUR question: "What is better: narrow+wide vs equal ranges, with the same estimated % of green planets." is seems known quite far ago - of course narrow + wide is better.
|
It is not MY question. You try and read my posts again? Correct question is: &
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs |
Mon, 09 January 2006 05:33 |
|
|
Quote: |
results:
y10) 0.6k
y20) 2.8k
y30) 7.1k
y40) 20k ... i had about 75 planets colonized so it turned real awfully slow to play, stopped building pintaes.
y50) 59k at 101 planets.
|
My test on medium packed only single AR race shows only 40k and 108 planets and year 50, with growth 3-4k of resources per year, but a lot of yellow planets. Just let me guess... you colonized only green planets, right? Amd, I assume you have large % of your planets that are not capable to build Jihad torp defences on bases at all. Is that true?
Quote: |
Cant be that 16% growth race is better since 17% growth race still feels no growding and still has built no deathstar. About half of planets are still docks or starter colonies rest are ultras. Took me whole day and i am kinda bored to play 10 turns more.
It is clear that this race has about 150k res at y60 on 100 planets, probably most tech maxed too. How you test them buggers in large packeds ... beats me.
|
Hmm. I must be doing something wrong.
I'm currently at year 58 and have something like 70k resources on ~110 planets. However, I also already have Arm BBs, overthruster, Elec 12 (good comps), tons of minerals, Interspace-10 etc. - ready to build good fleets for real fighting. Already packed few planets to 3M people to have good minerals and building bases.
Please note, that "race 2 doing better than race 1" is not just economy and number of planets. You would require to not only reach good reasources, but also be able to put your resource to good use.
I guess we used different styles of playing for tests. In my test, I tried to play with assumption there is an opponent, despite growing to the edges.
I usually research few levels in Electronics to have good mining robots, and then _build_ these, as well as have Jihad torps before you get Death Star, that means some research in prop and weapons. And you would require to care about colony to be able to build armed bases just for case of attacks, and to do so, you would require to carry a lot of people and minerals to each planet for that. More peoples at each planets always means less planets (unless you have really good growth rate). To have all that, at year 30 or so, you would require to allow your planets grow instead of moving people out from them, assure you have good research, good minerals - build mining robots. And, of course, I build Death Stars because it have as much as 134k people growth in a single year at 33% cap with 100% hab. Having that, it speeds up development of child colonies really a lot, while allowing to make new child planets reliable - these are usually border planets at the moment you have Death Stars, so bringing large number of people to them with minerals is improtant.
Also, it is possible I get worse because I did not colonized every planet around, while colonized many yellows with good minerals - in real game you would not have as much space anyway.
I'll post my first test game soon, probably tomorrow.
BTW, it took for me 2 days, and still not finished
I promise to play in the same style for second race for reliable comparison. Also, I beleive, with my style of playing (not colonizing all green planets around at the very early beginning), 16% growth is not that worse than 17%.
Will see...
[Updated on: Mon, 09 January 2006 05:38]
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Jun 18 01:34:45 EDT 2024
|