| No LRT's? Am I mad? |
Sun, 22 December 2002 12:01  |
|
|
|
While trying to perfect an IT race I came upon the thought of a race without ANY LRT's.
I came to wonder which LRT's to take for my race...
At first I thought IFE as we all do, but why? I already have the Daddy Long legs which though useless at warp 8 and 9 it saves me having to build fuel pods and super fuels to support large transports/colonisers.
next came NRSE - but (again) why? for what purpose would I pick this? The common answer is "to offset the cost of IFE and allow early warp10 engine" - but I didn't take IFE and I have stargates, my need for high warp ships is far lower than anyone else.
ORBM - This was probably the only one I would have honestly taken for gain. The increased pop is always helpful. But I'm an IT race, so those heavy miners are actually very useful and can be used very effectively.
ARM - Why would I want light gateable miners when I can have HUGE heavy gateable miners? Wasted points so not taken.
ISB - very handy, but not essential. Space dock is good, very good, but can be lived without and the 80 or so points saved could be put into a higher growth rate.
TT - 9 times out of 10 it's too expensive and not worth it. This is one of those times.
UR, MA, BET, LSP - oh god no.
CE - no chance. Why give myself access to so many engines when they wont work?
NAS - handy but I like pen scanners, can be lived without but I still like them.
RS - Again I was tempted, but decided not to.
Final specs....
IT
17% growth
0.55 to 4.16g
-80 to 136c
16mr to 70mr
1 in 5 habitable.
only changes in economy are
16 facts for 10,000 people
and 17 mines for 10,000 people.
Weapons normal
prop + construction cheap
rest expensive
Now thats withoutany LRT's.
If I was to take any I would have taken NAS, ORBM and RS.
With the additional points I would have increase econmy to 23 mines for 10,000people and make weapons cheap while increasing hab ranges to
0.44g to 4.16g
-96c to 136c
16mr to 74mr.
But then wheres the fun? A race without any LRT's is a wonderful thing when you consider that they give up nothing and as such create no holes in their play. A race without LRT's is a race that can be adaptive to a change in situation.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: No LRT's? Am I mad? |
Sun, 22 December 2002 14:18  |
|
|
|
The idea was for both.
We've all seen those juicy high concentration planets that even with top tech we still can't make green, same as we have picked crappy mining methods and been surrounded by high concentration greens and low concentration reds.
This allowed you to make good of either situation. The additional trade value of mining ships is also a good thing.
Yeah concentrating on one method will allow for a greater effeciency at it, but why not have both?
Lots of people take ORBM because they'd rather mine from a planet AND get resources from it than just mine from orbit. These same people tend to ingnore reds until the end game because of the high cost of inefficient miners. Why not take the hit in the race design area and reap rewards in the mid to late game?
It's been said before that a bad race can do well in the right hands. So, by that theory - a reasonable race should do quite well in good hands.
I tend to look into races that can hold their own in the beginning and gradually get better as the game continues. Races that in the beginning lose out to HG races but don't fall far enough behind to be crushed easily - yet at the same time when other races lose their early advantages I'd like my race to be coming into it's own.
Much like an AR race. Not a game leader, but not as easy to destroy since they have good tech - but once mineral fountain gets in swing...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: No LRT's? Am I mad? |
Sun, 22 December 2002 18:12 |
|
|
|
OK not actually that good at stars. Not by a long shot.
I just know the theory.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: No LRT's? Am I mad? |
Sun, 22 December 2002 20:46 |
|
 zoid |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
I'll not be convinced until I beat ya! Until then, you're just like all the rest, "better than me". 
Something I was going to say earlier though, and forgot. About NAS, I'd think NAS is perfect for IT, since you get to scan all planets with starbases in range of your gates anyway. So what exactly are the penalties? You know. You can't see opponents hiding in orbit of a planet without stargates, and you can't check habitability of gateless planets without entering orbit. The benefits you know too. More points and double scanner range, and you still get to scan any planet with a stargate without even going anywhere near it (hmmm give me 2 seconds to consider it) OK! Sounds like a fine trade to me even if you take the various MT toys out of the picture. It would take me longer to make up my mind if HE's were as popular as CA's (since they have no stargate capability) but they're not.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math?  Ummm, sure!  I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: No LRT's? Am I mad? |
Mon, 23 December 2002 02:44 |
|
|
|
Good as your points about NAS are (and they are because they are the reasons why I often take it) you still don't get information on gateless worlds.
Once you get the first infinity range stargate you can see EVERY planet with a stargat - huge advantage, scouting without travelling or being anywhere near anyone. It allows you to map out entire empires and give excellent info to any race.
Still if you take a smaller hab range as I often do you run the risk of allowing planet hoppers to get closer to you than you would like.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
; I assume everyone else is a better player than me, and so my race needs every advantage possible, not mediocrity. I view LRT's as advantage/weakness tradeoffs; advantages that can be exploited to their fullest, and weaknesses to be strategically mitigated or avoided.
