Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Low Growth Races
|
| Re: Low Growth Races |
Mon, 16 December 2002 17:07   |
|
|
|
slightly off subject but still fits under the title...
Anyone had much luck with a tri-immune 6% growth AR?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Low Growth Races |
Tue, 17 December 2002 04:01 |
|
|
|
I wasn't talking about 25k by 2450.
I'm talking about using a real game tri-immune AR.
6% is damned slow - but with a death star it's equivalent to 18% meaning once you get to the death star era you're sort of as good as anyone else - only you're tri-immune with loads of cheap tech and really good LRT's.
A slow late contact game might make this viable?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Low Growth Races |
Tue, 17 December 2002 08:58 |
|
|
|
| freakyboy wrote on Tue, 17 December 2002 04:01 |
I wasn't talking about 25k by 2450.
I'm talking about using a real game tri-immune AR.
6% is damned slow - but with a death star it's equivalent to 18% meaning once you get to the death star era you're sort of as good as anyone else - only you're tri-immune with loads of cheap tech and really good LRT's.
A slow late contact game might make this viable?
|
********
I've seen 5-6% growth tri-immune non-HE races in a few of the massive remapped galaxy, special start games hosted by Xdude (AFON3 is such a game that is currently running. Don't have the URL of his web-page describing his game designs here at hand.)
<Blatant plug>
There's also a game history I wrote on the game "Assault on Sanity" there as well.
</blatant plug>
Under the general start rules he uses such a race will have about 1 million pop at start. From what I've seen the growth from this base is sufficient for a viable race in these games (especially since first contact is generally delayed due to distance or special rules in most of the games.)
You probably want to discuss it with Xdude if he's on the forum since he ran what I think was a 5% tri-immune JOAT in "Center Warz" and it did better than I thought it would. Though I believe that, like AR, if you ever get it on the defensive and losing population they have trouble making it up.
- Kurt
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Low Growth Races |
Tue, 17 December 2002 22:57 |
|
|
|
Try accelerated start. 12% Growth rate (in wizard). start with 85,000 people.
If you get actual growth of say 11% (is that reasonable?) at 2450 otal people equals 15,688,010. OKay production of people is 2500(HP) per resource so 6,275 resources from people alone. Next, you can support... factories at 15/8/14, decent. So 15,688,010 divide by ten thousand is 15688.010 times 14 i get about 21963 factories. 2193 times 1.5 equals 32944.82 resources.
32944+6275=39219resources, I did this on calculator so doing it with the rounded figures may come out slightly different.
Now is 11% growth feasible with 12% in the RW ? I'm doing this with a CA so given my one immune 1/10 CA... lets say an average of 85% for my worlds. 12 * .85 = 10.2 so no. For simplicity I assume there are enough planets. If I go right for higher bio... 12*.9=10.8 so maybe barely.
Now lets round down to 10% growth, aren't exponential curves fun? 85000*1.1^50= 9,978,222 or about 6 million less people. /2500 equals 3991 resources from people. 13,969 factories, 20,954 resources from factories. Close, but no cigar. 20954+3991 = 24945 while the score sheet may round up to 25K, I don't. I think reasonable buffer would be several thousand at-least. so I really want the equation to give me 28-30 thousand resources a year.
Back to the race wizard, mines go from 18 supported to 14, and factories from 14 to 17. Now then takign from the above paragraph. (9978222/10000)*17=16962 factories or 16962*1.5=25444 resources, now add 3991 and we get 29435 resources. We're in business.
My question are these factories (Gbox checked, cost 8 resources) build-able in that amount of time, and is 10% real growth from 12% given growth really attainable assuming I hold my home-world and most planets I can at 25% capacity, and to help this, should I take ISB at further mining reductions(currently 13/3/14 )?
This is my first shot at TT CA. If I could otherwise get a sample testbed super resource monster, and scale it down, more real world worthy, less resources. Sort of a 'Pocket Monster Race' (I just thought of the Pokemon connection,,, oh well)I like CA a lot, and hopefully they'd be allowed more often with scaled down growth.
Now simplified, is 10% actual growth achievable by a 12% set growth race? Also, is it reasonable to assume that cost 8 factories can be all completed by 2450, or can at-least 85% of them be built?
the race I'm using is a temperature immune Claim Adjuster, it has a 1 in 10 habitability.
{mod edit: fixed the ZZZ}
[Updated on: Fri, 26 January 2007 05:16] by Moderator
Email me as ----jeffimix@----yahoo.com----
(remove dashes)
The spamatron! run!!!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Low Growth Races |
Wed, 18 December 2002 03:32 |
|
|
|
I think (after a bit of testing) the only race other than HE that can be viable with tri-immune 6% growth is IT since you can gate around your population constantly then none of your planets should grow to above 25% capacity as this would drop the 6% growth lower - bad idea.
CA TT - I've found that *my* most sucessful CA TT race had 19% growth rate and the hab range was exactly 31 clicks from each edge. As such with 30%TT I could colonise ANYTHING. Initially things aren't too quick as you need to find more planets than usual but with some regular biotech research those reds you avoided earlier become yellows - which is very nice. It means you can have to launch further flung colonies and then when borders ge tight you can colonise what you missed. A tactic I like as it's nice to still have room to breed when you dont have room to expand.
14 mines is deadly. 16 or more or you'll cry later on.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Low Growth Races |
Wed, 18 December 2002 17:39 |
|
|
|
Well, I downloaded the Drej. I modified them to have growth of 14%. I got rid of NAS, and took IFE for this. I got 28K at 2450 in the testbed. The lower growth let me get rid of NAS and buy IFE. No really major changes to the race otherwise. I could get rid of IFE and shrink the hab bar by one click to get weapons cheap instead of normal... in fact outside of testbeds I think I'll do this. I didn't get ARM BBs until 2467, techs were 10-24-11-13-11-9. I think the change of IFE to cheap weapons will pull Useful Armageddon technology (bear shields, battle ships, super computers) down a few years (if not all 7). without Improved Fuel Efficiency, I'd have nothing to make up for my NRSE. (LRTS in total were: IFE, NRSE, TT, OBRM) OBRM is easily justified, once you get bio 25 very very very few planets will be uninhabitable. Bio was normal, weapons normal, rest expensive. This race is by no means the best out there but at least it can pull its own weight. I thought this was a fun test to run since I like CA(in general I've never really bothered trying full blown momster CAs), and maybe hosts would let me in with a CA like this one.
You can see how very similar this race is to its predecessor if you get the Drej off've starbase Delta. But here's mine:
Name: Fluffy Planet Boomers(not really but who cares)
PRT: CA (did you read my post?)
LRT: IFE, TT, NRSE, OBRM
HAB: Grav) .55 to 1.80 Temp) -76 to 76 Rad) 33 to 67 1/15 total
GROWTH: 14%
PRODUCTION: 1/1000, 15/9/20 (Germanium box Checked)
MINING: 10/3/16
RESEARCH: all expensive, excepting weapons and biology normal
Basically, it's playable, not perfect(since that takes higher growth) but its nice. Somehow I feel that there should have been a higher point value assigned to higher growth rates... Nah
I just thought that since there really are only like what, 4 major playstyles? (-F, HP, QS, HE) and the AR that having more ways to play then any other war/empire building game like this was simply not enough and wanted to make something else thats feasible.
Email me as ----jeffimix@----yahoo.com----
(remove dashes)
The spamatron! run!!!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
 Re: Low Growth Races |
Wed, 18 December 2002 17:48 |
|
|
|
Tri-Immune ARs, which I have also tried, will not win any games by themselves. They probably would pull ahead in very late game. They have to move population in fuel podded colonizers, since they can't afford the population losses, in fact consider buying spore cloud freighters from HE. They do get a small boost early on since they can roll out covering many planets in the cloud of another reality this gives some couple thousand extra resources early since the square root equation can really hit full effect. Late game you'd be a bunch of (1 million being 33% basically) 18% growth race at all of your planets, since they're all 100%. The biggest problem is that with low resources for even an AR, they lack the diplomacy, gone is the funky habitat, and in comes no ground given  . I've always thought that if people were willing to actually give planets away that they might be able to inter-settle very nicely though. All-in-all not an extremely competitive race, less so than my pocket CA, but what can you do?
Can people transfer colonizers to other people, so AR could use cheaper versions, how would that even work, if it does?
[Updated on: Wed, 18 December 2002 17:50]
Email me as ----jeffimix@----yahoo.com----
(remove dashes)
The spamatron! run!!!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Low Growth Races |
Fri, 20 December 2002 16:01 |
|
 Steve |
 | Officer Cadet 1st Year |
Messages: 217
Registered: November 2002
Location: 40 deg N, 90 deg W | |
|
Sprocket plays a 6% AR - I have not seen him around in a while.
It does real good early, and if they can stay alive for 200 years, will do good then. Middle game is real tough though.
{mod edit: fixed the ZZZ}
[Updated on: Fri, 26 January 2007 05:32] by Moderator
No trees were harmed in the making of this sig. However, many electrons were terribly inconveniencedReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Low Growth Races |
Sun, 22 December 2002 05:19 |
|
|
|
No main problem I've found is that you can do quite well by spreading out as much a possible because keeping population on each planet low gives you the most resources per person. But your ability to produce at any single planet is comprimised.
I guess once stargates get up it makes life a little easier.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 19 05:47:55 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Low Growth Races
. Oh well. As it is I'll just stick with AR and -F for most games(which are as close as it gets). I've tried looking at RGCS but haven't found anything except for AR, and Epsilon Pegasi was mentioned but its down now? I need to launch my own stars! site someday, I have access to this beautiful T1 line but oh well. 
