Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » AR design
AR design |
Mon, 09 June 2003 00:07 |
|
boneandrew | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 35
Registered: June 2003 Location: Detroit | |
|
I have always had trouble designing competitive AR races. But I just (in my infinite wisdom) noticed that the resources per pop adjuster yields over 500 points for a smaller resource per pop decline than the other races. Specifically, it's (square root of pop per resource)/100 of however much I take off, so taking pop*1000/2500 resources really decreases the resources of a given population by about 37%, not 60% like other races. So, I'm experimenting with designing races that use this instead of the default 1000 setting. So far, I think that the higher population growth I can easily get from 500+ race points makes up for it.
Let's see: other issues: tech settings are kind of a no-brainer. Weapons, construction, and energy all need to be cheap. As propulsion ends up being expensive, the IFE+NRS combo ends up being wise, and of course ARM, and ISB if I can afford it. I've noticed that the vast majority of warship designs tend to be beamers due to the enormous amounts of Iromium going to mining robots, at least until the mineral mongering starts to kick in.
Let's see: anything else? I'm sure there's other things as well . . .
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR design |
Mon, 09 June 2003 03:09 |
|
|
RS is always a good idea. Since you're chucking so much resources into energy you may as well get some decent use of those sheilds.
An immunity helps LOADS. Two does wonders... but it kills your growth rate.
the 10 vs 25 effeciency thing... Yeah it gets you alot of points to spend on your race, and you do only use 37% resources but at which point? Tech 3 in energy? tech 6? tech 10?
The 25 settings really hurts when you've got death stars and tech 26 in energy - you realise how much worse off you are.
But like any -F race... it's not about resources it about planets and growth rate.
Apelord told me TT is good. I tried it... and it was REALLY good!!! the 30% lower cost for terraforming helps to shift planets as good as possible as quick as possible. It's great... costs alot, but the rewards are fantastic.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: AR design |
Wed, 03 September 2003 22:10 |
|
|
iztok wrote on Tue, 10 June 2003 21:04 | I did experiment a lot with ARs. The most funny thing I found out was when changing res divisor to 25 and spending those 600 points in hab(1 in 3) + TT (just for speed, bio expensive) + IFE (need it for faster expansion) the end resource output of whole empire was the same as with 1/10 AR race.
|
But how did the resource penalty on your early development? The early game is when AR is at it's most vulnerable, so anything that slows early development could be crippling. Did you find this to be the case?
equal resources at 2600 is one thing, but if you get are an easy target at 2425-2450 you have a major problem as AR.
I'm thinking a NO-immune, wide-hab, 19%, eff 10 might pay off. Certainly AR gains $$$ by having +++ small colonies (that sqrt thing - the more you split your population, the more resources you get)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: AR design |
Thu, 04 September 2003 02:39 |
|
|
Immunities for AR are wonderful. The biggest factor in the resource formula is the planetary value.
Proof of this can be found with this race...
AR
IFE, ARM, ISB, NAS, RS
Grav immune
Temperature immune
80mr to 100mr (i know there's no planets on 100mr)
17% growth
25 eff
Energy, construction cheap
weapons normal
others expensive
It's very capable and a resource monster (25k by 2450) with loads of minerals thanks to ARM. But it's weak on technology (if such a thing is true of AR).
But back to the point...
the sqrt of 10 and the sqrt of 25 don't have such a massive difference between the 2. You start with low resources but the growth rate combined with the immunity counter-act this very quickly.
Thats the reasoning behind the 25eff setting. The closest I got to 25k with an 10eff race was with one of Apelords designs that got me upto 18k - by switching to 25eff and expanding the hab range and increasing the growth rate I got the same race to 21k.
I'd say to take your favourite AR race and alter the eff to 25 and spend the points however you want and then try again.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: AR design |
Thu, 04 September 2003 18:32 |
|
|
No ARM is doable.
No IFE I can't imagine!!! And I'd rather not!!!
I've always found that when it comes to AR races you're always left with the TT vs ARM choice. The 25eff makes it possible to take both and STILL have room to improve hab/GR.
Has anyone tried the 17% bi-immune race yet?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: AR design |
Fri, 05 September 2003 02:41 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1211
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Quote: | BUT widehab gets you *more* worlds (not forgetting AR population is more efficient the more worlds it is divided amongst ,) which could well offset the growth rate disadvantage of living in 40%-70% compared to 70% to 100% and provide more resources.
|
That's exactly the catch with 1/25 or 1/10 choice. You get more planets, not more resources. Or more precisely, you only get 63% resources from a single planet, but if you spent those 600 RW points into IFE, TT and as wide hab as you can afford, you usually get 60% more planets, with a bit lower value. Those planets will give you 60% more resources you already have, so you get 63%+63%*0.60 resources or 100.8% end resources of a 1/10 race .
No joke here. Has taken me quite some time to understand why I can not get more res with 60% more planets. Now I know.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Fri, 05 September 2003 02:42] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR design |
Fri, 05 September 2003 02:41 |
|
|
True! But I guess I'm just not a strong believer in early life without the fuel mizer... the only race I don't mind going without IFE is IT since you can actually manage to start with the radiation ramscoop or have it 1 tech away.
The eff25 setting yeilds 590 points (give or take a couple) Which is ALOT when designing a race... you lose out on 36% resources - as long as you can get say 40% more planets from those 590 points then bob's your uncle. The way I first did it was to take a non-immune AR that I know performs well... change the eff to 25 and then take an immunity and see what happens from there in test bedding - It worked out to give more resources since I expanded the hab AND improved planetary values... hence I follow the theory through to the 17% bi-immune AR... which is kind of scary
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: AR design |
Fri, 05 September 2003 08:19 |
|
|
Gateability isn't the issue - this I agree on entirely.
Advantages of ARM...
The potato bug is actually a nifty little miner. It's 0 tech requirement means you can pump out a fairly efficient miner from turn 0 and keep going. It's a miner hull that doesn't need redesigning for a while since only the 12kt miner is only marginally more effecient and probably not worth upgrading to.
The top-of-the-range-only-available-to-ARM miner robot is another good reason for ARM. It's a miner robot that competes with the Alien miner. It's 1/2 the resource cost of the next best miner robot and mines only 2kt less. It's cheaper to build, lower mineral cost too (IIRC - no stars @ work) and most of all... it mines almost as well miner to miner. By this stage resources should be your limiting factor and as such the ARM top miner mines almost 2x the minerals than the nearest non-arm competitor... that's as good a reason as any to take ARM because effectively you're either doubling your mining rate or halfing the cost of your mining.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR design |
Fri, 05 September 2003 14:59 |
|
The Taubat | | Officer Cadet 3rd Year | Messages: 263
Registered: December 2002 | |
|
IMO, I think when you take 25% eff, youre designing a -f version of AR, cept you get more points than with a normal race, like twice as much, and it is SLOW, im not kidding, ive tried a 25% race before and IT SUCKED, badly, slow in tech gaining, slow in mid-late game, only saving grace was the ARM and TT, that was it,
I do not see why you need IFE though, while it helps, if you took NRSE, its not gonna make a diffrence, youre still limited to that warp of the engine, so might as well save 90-100 points and leave it off.
Royal Sha'a'kar of the Taubat peopleReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR design |
Fri, 05 September 2003 22:16 |
|
|
NRSE is a bad idea for AR I've always found because of mining red planets. Shifting uber heavy miners is a pain in the arse with NRSE because they run out of fuel something chronic!!!
25eff shouldn't slow down a race that much, unless you're taking 25eff and then not using the extra race wizard points to increase your GR and expand your hab. The point of taking 25eff is to gain an immunity where you had none before, or to get from 17% to 19/20% growth rate and still be able to take a few "goodies" to pump up the race outside of resources.
With both the immune and bi-immune races I can crack 25k by 2450 - which is damned good for AR since a much higher percentage of those resources can be pumped into research.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: AR design |
Mon, 26 June 2006 20:31 |
|
XyliGUN | | | Messages: 325
Registered: July 2004 Location: Russia, St.Petersburg |
|
|
Just another real game example. I'm just finish game on the second place with that race (only reason to finish that game is that it's start became boring after 1 year of playing, but it was strong within whole game except first 30-40 years). It was actually my first AR design, but I would say it works well. Here is it:
AR,
IFE, ARM, IS, NRSE, NAS, LSP
G: 0.31:3.20, T: -120:120, R: Immune, 16% grow
25
Ener,Weap,Con - less
Prop,Elect,Bio - extra
[v] - all 75 start at 3
Try it!
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something."
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For LoveReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR design |
Mon, 26 June 2006 21:48 |
|
|
XyliGUN wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 10:31 | Just another real game example. I'm just finish game on the second place with that race (only reason to finish that game is that it's start became boring after 1 year of playing, but it was strong within whole game except first 30-40 years). It was actually my first AR design, but I would say it works well. Here is it:
AR,
IFE, ARM, IS, NRSE, NAS, LSP
G: 0.31:3.20, T: -120:120, R: Immune, 16% grow
25
Ener,Weap,Con - less
Prop,Elect,Bio - extra
[v] - all 75 start at 3
Try it!
|
Congrats on 2nd, shame you guys didn't keep it going for a proper end - AR at late stage is so mineral rich I imagine you would've had a decent shot at 1st.
That's extremely wide habitabilty, was this a no-diplomacy game? If not, how did your diplomacy go? It must've been painfull having so little potential for intersettlement.
Did you get much of a crunch early? LSP+25+start@3 looks painfull for early resources.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: AR design |
Tue, 27 June 2006 20:49 |
|
XyliGUN | | | Messages: 325
Registered: July 2004 Location: Russia, St.Petersburg |
|
|
Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 05:48 | Congrats on 2nd, shame you guys didn't keep it going for a proper end - AR at late stage is so mineral rich I imagine you would've had a decent shot at 1st.
|
Actually it was a team game, there were 4 alliances by 3 players each, and at the end (2544 year) only 2 alliances continue fighting, while others dissapered (was completly destroyed). And you right, we have no troubles with minerals, but winning alliance has more then 2-3 times more planets/area then we have. And their mineral balance still good enought to build about 1,5-2 time more ships then we can.
Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 05:48 | That's extremely wide habitabilty, was this a no-diplomacy game? If not, how did your diplomacy go? It must've been painfull having so little potential for intersettlement.
|
No, as I mentioned before it was team game, but the reason for wide habs is to be able to colonise everything within small area, which allows me to avoid conflics at early stage, and at the same time this gives me possibility to grow. After alliances was fixed, my habs allows me to get red planets within my allyers space.
Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 05:48 | Did you get much of a crunch early? LSP+25+start@3 looks painfull for early resources.
|
No, may be at the early begining ... but at 2420 my race was 2nd rated, and at 2430 1st rated, so I don't think it was too painfull.
...
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something."
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For LoveReport message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Jun 26 13:29:12 EDT 2024
|