Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Alternatives to IFE...
Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 01:31 |
|
|
I am seeing a whole lot of IFE, even in games like Twin World Wonders where early expansion didn't exist like normal.
IFE is nice but... it costs points and limits other LRT picks.
Combo with NRSE means you pay lots more for engines mid game, and while you have warp 10 earlier, you lose some gatabillity and battle power due to extra engine weight.
Here are some alternatives for getting your pop moving at warp 9 early...
Extra privateers as fuel boosters, lots of fuel tanks. As well fuel tank scouts can help at times. Cheaper factories or mines can help your eccon spit these out easily.
Cheaper prop research which is also useful for trade and terraforming.
Cheaper const research for super fuel xport.
ISB and setting up strategic spacedocks.
UR helps a little as one way trips for scrap-boosting colonies can also help fuel supply of transports.
HE gets minicoloniser which can do magic in many ways. With design having nothing in mech slot you can create a stack of these minicolonisers that vastly out fuel generates super fuel xports per ship cost by travelling at warps 4-6 (warp 4 is best).
...
In beginning of game things are slow (often boringly so) so you have time to micromanage fuel till you get better engines. I personally have no problems moving my pop at max warp without IFE, in my current game it seems I may do better job than some who have IFE.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 02:02 |
|
|
I guess the main advantage of IFE now, in my eyes, is that it does save you a lot of MM...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 02:37 |
|
Marduk | | Ensign | Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
IFE gives you safe W10 travel early, allowing you to skip or delay higher levels of Prop tech. This is a significant cost savings - particularly if you are grav immune and set Prop tech to expensive.
The fuel mizer engine is the best W9 engine available until you reach level nine Prop tech, and many people will start the game with it. If you don't, any race can get it very quickly.
IFE isn't the be-all-end-all of LRTs, certainly. But it speeds up expansion by a significant amount. If you're a OWW that's immaterial, but the wider your hab the more important that becomes.
Personally, I hate to inter-settle, so I always have a fairly wide hab. I occupy every system I can lay hands on and can reasonably expect to defend. So I end up taking IFE with almost every race design. The exceptions are mostly races I plan to use ramscoops with for the fuel-free travel. If not that, it's a point-balancing thing and I just can't fit the cost of IFE in.
I have taken NRSE without taking IFE. I was a WM with CE, and wasn't worried about travel speeds or fuel use. I just wanted points for a better economy and lower costs for my ships. I got crushed, of course, but it was fun while it lasted.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 10:44 |
|
vonKreedon | | Lieutenant | Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003 Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
I generally take the IFE/NRSE combo in galaxies that are Medium or bigger, particularly with Galaxy Clumping. I do this for a couple of reasons. One is that the FM coupled with scout boosters enables me to push my colonists out at Warp9 from the beginning enabling me to set my borders more agressively than a non-IFE neighbor, and the Galaxy Clumping really makes the scouts keep going and going. Another is that the FM is useful throughout the game, I put it on my LFs, my SFXs, my recon units, my minelayers, and even my bombers; it is cheap, fast and makes fuel. The third reason is getting the Warp10 engine early, even if I take Prop expensive I get to Warp10 before the non-IFE races.
Now, if I'm playing IS I often will not take IFE because the Fuel Transport is obtained early enough to give the same ability to agressively push out population, particularly in combination with ISB.
[On Edit: And what Marduk said about being able to ignore the Prop tech levels above 11 until I'm good and ready to go for 16 for the Gravity Terra]
[Updated on: Tue, 14 March 2006 10:46] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 12:49 |
|
|
Quote: | At tech below P9 only HEs Settler Delight and FM can really fly warp 9
| DLL 7, and early ram scoops are better than QJ5, the Prop8 ramscoop is in same league as fuel mizer... a bit more fuel at warp 9 and more expensive, but much less at 8 and better battle speed, and often top speed includes some steps at warp 8. Faster ramscoops can also generate fuel better (see movement section of Posey's spreadsheet). Prop 5 helps for 100/250 gates, which work nice with privateers.
Quote: | low iron conc at HW may make you stop with described "lots of privateers" plan.
| Rarely will be issue for me (unless AR). Consider that lots of privateers is often combined with one or more of my other suggestions.
Downside is more germ, heavy compared to privateer for small loads or gating 100/250. SFX is mineral lean and generates fuel, so I am bigger fan of it for the warp 9 long range stuff (drop some down to warp 5-7 farther away along path for future privateer runs).
Quote: | Most of IFE-lesses MUST take ISB.
| I like ISB but I disagree. Alternatives include more/cheaper factories and mines and some of suggested alternatives. IT has easier time with gates, privateer can transport fuel through such.
Quote: | HE does not count however
| Tell that to mlaub. His low growth HE's have lots of points and I guess he likes the fuel mizer for warships and bit of savings on some transports.
Quote: | I put it on my LFs, my SFXs, my recon units, my minelayers, and even my bombers
| You lose out on many nice ramscoops, SFX, recon and minelayers can work fine with regular cheapo engines. LF of course loves good engines, one place where IS10 actually can be a boost as first warp 10 transports (who cares how much they cost).
...
In my current game (non-acc bbs, medium normal), I am moving pop faster than some of the IFE guys and they don't see any fuel mizers on my ships. I had no problems with true warp 9 right from the beginning to the strategic edges of my space.
[Updated on: Tue, 14 March 2006 13:36] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 16:05 |
|
|
Rarely matter of race setting given condition of iron hard to find. You soon add one or more of other methods mentioned once you get beyond 160ly range.
Booster privateers return to HW fast for reuse.
My current game, even if iron was at 30% I wouldn't be running out.
Quote: | propulsion and construction above 5 is dream for third decade
| If you start with all techs at 0 and focus only on one cheap tech, it takes 1230 resources to reach level 7.
Quote: | Large freighter... So your downside is void there.
|
I listed 3 downsides, 2 of which fit the mentioned AR and -f. Lacking fuel mizers, I am a fan of SFX+privateer for most long range warp 9 unless I have ISB network setup. AR might use medium freighters. I mentioned the germ downside for other people to think about.
Quote: | You mean particular case of IT again?
|
If you read my original post, IT is barely mentioned. I can move pop at warp 9 with any PRT early.
[Updated on: Tue, 14 March 2006 16:15] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 17:02 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
Kotk wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 13:53 |
Quote: | Tell that to mlaub.
| mlaub never claimed being expert race designer.
|
Correct. There are probably newbies that design better races than I do. If I ever figure that part out...look out.
Quote: |
For 4% HE ... IFE is not so bad idea.
|
I use it as a early war hedge on the 4%. Plus, it is almost a must if you can afford it, IMO, for chaff. No gates is a real issue, and the IFE plus FM helps when you just can't stop the fleet to fuel up. 4% HE has those points to burn.
Quote: |
4% HE itself is not maybe best HE ... that we figured out with duel i remember.
|
Yep. There is usually some subjectivity to race design, and what is considered "better", however the results of Kotk's 5% vs my 4% was obvious. His design was clearly better, apples to apples.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 17:48 |
|
|
Quote: | ISB is good solution but somehow on most cases its not needed
|
ISB is NOT needed, it IS a good solution, but there are also OTHER good solutions. What is best depends on your overall gameplan, some race designs want the points elsewhere.
Quote: | What year it was then your non -f non AR made 0 0 5 7 0 0 from 0 0 0 0 0 0?
|
In my current game enemy scout saw my SFX fairly early and it is non-ACCBBS. I am not AR. I don't think anyone has seen me have a stardock, I may not have ISB. All I can say till game is much further, we are still in early stages.
Quote: | (HE+fuel mizer)it is almost a must if you can afford it, IMO, for chaff.
|
I was using large stacks of mini-colonisers with nothing in mech slot to generate fuel at low warp (and suprise sweep mines), as well as SFX. Being 3i, it was easier to pick nice spots for stardocks (or starbases if non-ISB) in early stages to prepare for eventual possible war.
For example a planet Kennedy in 2 different games was seen as good spot for future starbase before turn 10 for long term expansion so it got extra boost early. In my first game, Dogthinker took nearby Straus. He early attacked someone else, he was #1 and it looked like good time to weaken him (I was #2). So he was lured into defending Straus which was far away for him, while I had Kennedy all prepped for supporting my attack.
Second game it was Sotek who went directly after Kennedy with heavy frigates, a friends exploding minefield stopped the attack (I gave up a well factoried colony to buy support), but otherwise I may have done well with stardock fully armed with alpha or beta torps. (I was BET and -t with heavy focus on quick factory ramp up to get super economy).
Both cases were a matter of planning longer term expansion even in the first years rather than just colonising what was closest.
[Updated on: Tue, 14 March 2006 18:13] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 21:23 |
|
|
Quote: | therefore decade longer free to develop the HW and to research
|
Given usual AccBBS I can get the suggested techs earlier, and use them effectively to help as alternative to IFE with any PRT. Some races such as common IT and JOAT have head start.
[Updated on: Tue, 14 March 2006 21:26] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 21:28 |
|
|
In general, I'd recommend the IFE/NRSE combo for races using a 1 in 4 or worse hab range. The main reason for this is that some of the first greens may very well be 3 or 4 years travel at warp 7 but only 2 at warp 9 and in those first 20 years getting to all the greens available is very important for a 1 in 4 or worse HP race. The exception to this would be IS due to the fuel transport availability. Also, in those first 20 years, any race that wants to grow well by factory production really wants to build the minimal number of ships necessary.
Races with wider hab ranges - decent 1 in 3's or better can afford to live without the fuel mizer easily since they will usually have some closer planets for spreading out to.
The main drawback with not having ramscoops is the weight of the IS10 engine. Only an IT doesn't care about ship weight.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 21:45 |
|
|
Quote: | only 2 (turns) at warp 9
|
Non IFE race can do this just by building more fuel tank privateers (and sometimes scouts). I do it all the time.
Quote: | drawback... is the weight of the IS10 engine
|
Cost and bor usage (attractiveness) also concern me, it is an enemy counterdesigners dream and its prop9 little brother isn't much better.
[Updated on: Tue, 14 March 2006 22:18] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 22:51 |
|
|
Quote: | Non IFE race can do this just by building more fuel tank privateers (and sometimes scouts). I do it all the time.
|
Yes, I'm well aware of this. The case being made though is for 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 HP races. These will usually have 14 or 15 resources per 10 facs, 20+ factories operated and 1/2500 pop eff. All those ships just to transport fuel cost a lot of resources to build that are much better spent on getting the factories built - plus the germnium usage that needs to go into factory production. Taking IFE with such a race allows for the building of fewer ships and the construction of more factories while still getting the population to worlds that very probably won't be so close to the HW. HG and factoryless races will have much wider hab and don't need to move all growth over farther distances since there will very likely be colonies near the HW. HG races have much better pop efficiency and early ships are easy to build in numerous places. The HP is counting on early growth to maximize planet productiveness.
Now, the main difference here in reality is the amount of MM required for the 2 different race philosophies. An HP race with excellent factory numbers will only need perhaps 15-20 planets to produce 50k or resources whereas the much wider hab race will need perhaps double the amount of planets. More planets = more mm. The HP benefits a great deal from fuel mizers since they allow more resources (and germanium) to go into factory production early on.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Tue, 14 March 2006 23:18 |
|
|
Ptolemy wrote on Wed, 15 March 2006 14:51 |
Quote: | Non IFE race can do this just by building more fuel tank privateers (and sometimes scouts). I do it all the time.
|
Yes, I'm well aware of this. The case being made though is for 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 HP races. These will usually have 14 or 15 resources per 10 facs, 20+ factories operated and 1/2500 pop eff. All those ships just to transport fuel cost a lot of resources to build that are much better spent on getting the factories built - plus the germnium usage that needs to go into factory production. Taking IFE with such a race allows for the building of fewer ships and the construction of more factories while still getting the population to worlds that very probably won't be so close to the HW. HG and factoryless races will have much wider hab and don't need to move all growth over farther distances since there will very likely be colonies near the HW. HG races have much better pop efficiency and early ships are easy to build in numerous places. The HP is counting on early growth to maximize planet productiveness.
Now, the main difference here in reality is the amount of MM required for the 2 different race philosophies. An HP race with excellent factory numbers will only need perhaps 15-20 planets to produce 50k or resources whereas the much wider hab race will need perhaps double the amount of planets. More planets = more mm. The HP benefits a great deal from fuel mizers since they allow more resources (and germanium) to go into factory production early on.
|
But are you sure the HP isn't better off with investing the points in, say, cheaper factories than in IFE? Cheaper factories = faster initial ramp up = more resources to build those early boosters... As the game progreses IFE loses it's benefit but cheaper factories remains usefull for as long as you continue to grow, which feels nice for HP.
Not that I'm saying IFE HP is a bad choice, I'm just saying -IFE HP is not so such a bad choice either...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Wed, 15 March 2006 18:52 |
|
|
Quote: | mini coloniser... If I am doing something wrong I would like to know why
|
You aren't doing anything wrong, others also put cargo pod in the mech slot. I sometimes have a few of all three designs but found nothing in mech slot works best overall, especially in long term. Keys here is cheapest ship/fleet possible, fuel generation, and simple 300ly transport at warp 9 (use privateers for shorter stuff).
Short term, often have privateers or scouts with fuel tanks as with these babies as fuel generators. (Privateers save germ). Scouts eventually scout far away planets.
It is very cheap to orbital check planets to watch opponents. For example you can leave one on a distant planet you want to see if opponent colonises. Or you can watch for attack, for example having one orbit enemy HW every turn if war.
Later on enemy may try to shoot them down. It is almost ecconomical for him to shoot down fuel tank based ones, but these cheapo ones cost way more for him to chase than you to send if you do a little random warp 9 while orbital checking the planets. Especially helpful if you go NAS.
Really nice for minesweeping suprise as so cheap and easy to have fuel for warp 9/10.
A single ship also make interesting gift for other (unmet) races, you can watch which way your gifts head off and if you can't see your gift after transfer you've identified an SS PRT.
One last consideration is that as a transport, they have higher armour to cargo or cost ratio than most, and way better missile resistance. Split into many fleets in hostile zone and it is very hard to stop most of them.
[Updated on: Wed, 15 March 2006 19:08] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Alternatives to IFE... |
Thu, 16 March 2006 16:58 |
|
|
Quote: | just making the colonizers and a bare minimum of supply ships takes all my spare building capacity.
|
A matter of race design. If you go without IFE, you design for fast enough ramp up to make it work. Beyond points saved from no IFE, you might reduce pop growth and/or max factories to pay for faster ramp up, everything is a tradeoff.
One of my first goals when designing a race is making sure there will always be spare capacity at the HW, it makes a huge difference even if you have IFE.
One option if you really have to is letting your HW pop climb way beyond 25% for a few turns while you send out less pop to more strategic locations for a few years. Once your HW is properly kicked in, you can much better build ships to colonise the rest. Get your mines maxed out quickly, so you'll have the surplus germ to help catch up those colonies. If you plan on this for your race design, then 30% less pop LRT may be worth while.
Having extra capacity helps terraforming techs (which can compensate for lower pop growth), surplus germ supply for kickstarting colonies, early border negotiations and survival.
HP race can have surplus capacity as easy as HG at stage where HW only is producing (due to lower factory cost), however HG has advantage in colonies kicking in faster to help.
[Updated on: Thu, 16 March 2006 17:13] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 13 05:02:38 EDT 2024
|