Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » New Game Announcements » Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game
Re: Re: |
Mon, 02 July 2007 02:11 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
Dogthinkers wrote on Mon, 02 July 2007 00:38 | I'm wondering, if the game really will prove as slow as expected, couldn't a forced ending at 2550 prove premature?
|
Well...2550 is 150 years. Granted, the game probably won't heat up till 2450, soooo 100 years of war? That's a good game in my book. I liked Michas 101yrs game, it seemed just right for time. Kept everyone interested.
Plus, if everyone wants to play another, I can host another one. That way you can tweak your race again.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Re: |
Mon, 02 July 2007 10:13 |
|
|
I've been testing an AR, an IT and a some others. The IT fares pretty bad with the LSP - by 2450 that reduction generally causes it to have around 1k less resources than others. The AR hasn't fared much better than the IT. Other races like SS, SD, PP and WM generally make it to 6k or a little more with 7% growth. I can pull some more with 8% but not much and, at the cost of 600+ resources for that 1% growth the places it has to get payed for hurt the race potential. Several turns in the first 30 do absolutely nothing other than maybe directing some existing scouts - there simply isn't pop to move.
I don't do bad with tech - get to weaps 10 and cruisers with the expensive weaps and con and get to enegy for level 10 if I'm going for it. P9 is almost a must for the rams and gets researched asap using cheap prop. I recommend using the start at 3 - if you don't, you take a long time to get to weaps 3 and con 4 - you may be dead by then.
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: Re: |
Mon, 02 July 2007 13:47 |
|
|
Quote: | and it just keeps growing with the ability to gate pop to the frontline worlds
|
In a game such as this, gating pop isn't really such a big advantage - there isn't all that much pop to gate. The main advantage will be the same as in any game for an IT - the Any/300 gate and the ability to gate heavily armored ships.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Synopsis of possibilities |
Mon, 02 July 2007 17:07 |
|
|
Well, most test results are in. One planet races work quite well - with the exceptions of CA and AR.
IS grows better (of course) but it won't be making any major armies in the first 75-100 years. The added expense for weapons cost will hurt the IS when the wars start - defense will be a major part of the econ.
WM - does as well as any other one planet starter. Early weaps 6 ships will kill easily. No mines (and no possibility of trading for them) will make WM especially succeptible to SS attacks.
AR - well - AR in this game just plain sucks. There isn't enough growth for an AR to keep up with the other PRT's.
IT - With a start that includes a decent world nearby the HW that has minerals, the IT could survive. However, given the time it needs to research stuff, it will be difficlt for an IT to fight wars.
PP - does very well if it gets a decent second planet. However, I was able to keep one world races ahead of the PP in score. In mid game with super driver 9's the PP could be a very serious menace to nearby neighbors if it has enough minerals.
SD - does as well as the other one planet races and does better at scanning initially for where it wants to go. The mini-minelayer can't be beat for a scout since it has 400mg of fuel.
The restriction of not detonating minefields won't hurt too badly either.
SS - The SS hulls will be an advantage as will the shadow shield. SS is very competitive in this game but, will be as succeptible as anyone else to a PP.
CA - forget it - since there is no trade, the CA can't get the one advantage it could have from an ally - selling orbital adjusters or terraforming their planets for them.
------------------------------------------------------------
LRT's - taking RS is of questionable value - Early on it will be valuable but, after the first sappers become available, the level 7 shield limit will make RS a handicap. Armor becomes much more valuable especially with the ban on cap ship missiles.
OBRM - it's purely a personal choice. It is going to take a very long time to get any planet up to the extra 10% max pop (if it ever happens). However, the growth peaks are earlier so some extra pop can be gained by using it.
IFE - absolutely - with the vast distances, cutting fuel usage is valuable.
ISB - pretty much a must for docks to re-fuel.
ARM - personal choice - good for the PP. Races have points to play with for good mine settings to use with OBRM.
NAS - the obvious SS yes, all others choice. For a PP that doesn't choose RS, they will gain 15 points with it. Very useful for space scanning to have the double distance for scanners. Packets can do the penn scanning.
I don't see any of the other LRT's even worth considering in this game.
I do like primitive games so, this should be fun. Perhaps we may wish to go beyond the 150 years. It is quite possible that 150 years will not be enough to determine a definitive winner.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Mon, 02 July 2007 22:24]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Synopsis of possibilities |
Mon, 02 July 2007 18:37 |
|
|
Interesting reading. I thought AR might have fared better, my main worry for it was early vulnerability versus races that have maxed their factories and are looking for things to shoot at, I didn't think it's economy would do badly.
Ptolemy wrote on Tue, 03 July 2007 07:07 | I don't see any of the other LRT's even worth considering in this game.
|
Well, ISB looks quite nice for the dock, but far from essential.
With the low pop, ARM could be interesting, if points can be found (probably not.)
GR looks tempting, with no tech trade... But I suspect it could prove to be a poison pill.
BET could be viable, for the masochistic, since we're unlikely to see nubians.
CE is always up for debate. The extra level of prop could pay dividends... But I think with this low PGR the 10% reduction in movement speed would be much to high a price to pay.
[Updated on: Mon, 02 July 2007 18:38] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Synopsis of possibilities |
Mon, 02 July 2007 22:21 |
|
|
Actually, I forgot to mention ISB - I gave it to everyone. At 7% there's points to play with and the docks are indespensible. ARM for the PP was good too. Thanks for pointing out that I missed them Dogthinker - I've updated teh previous post.
Anything else is a waste.
The problem for the AR was the low growth rate. Setting down a colony on a 100% planet and feeding pop to it only grows at 25% of the HW until a space dock is built, then it only grows at 50% of the HW until you can get a space station. Other races will grow the same as their HW on a 100% planet. With expensive con, the AR would be very lucky to ever reach the deathstar.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Mon, 02 July 2007 22:25]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Synopsis of possibilities |
Mon, 02 July 2007 23:01 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 02 July 2007 16:07 |
I don't see any of the other LRT's even worth considering in this game.
|
Not checking OBRM or ARM will give you pretty good mining. The other LRT that might be worth while is UR. I see value in that. Not sure I see enough to take it, but it is attractive.
Quote: | I do like primitive games so, this should be fun. Perhaps we may wish to go beyond the 150 years. It is quite possible that 150 years will not be enough to determine a definitive winner.
|
Let's see what things look like at Y2525. My guess is that someone will have been the clear victor by 2550. If not, and everyone who is left wants to continue, we will. I just am not much interested in sitting around waiting for nubians. I can guarentee I won't be. I am fairly certain a couple of others won't be content to sit and build tech, either. And, that sort of mentality makes for either a short game, or runaway victory.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Synopsis of possibilities |
Tue, 03 July 2007 12:29 |
|
|
Quote: | Thats NOT TRUE! AR grows...
|
It is true Kotk. The HW with 200k pop was growing at ~14k per turn, the 100% planet next door with a space dock and 200k was growing at ~9000 per turn. What happens is that the space dock maximum pop value is calculated like a planet is calculated based on the capacity percentage. A 100% planet filled to 60% will not grow more pop at the pop growth rate - it grows on the pop curve for the 60% full value. Same with the AR orbitals. A space dock can have 500,000 colonists. at 200,000 it is at 40%. Problem with the AR for such a slow growth game is that it needs the resources to build the space stations. That requires population to generate the resources.
In my tests, I have made sure to build orbitals (for all the races I've tested) that have included defenses and functionality (weaps, shields, armor and mass drivers or gates) - just as I would in a normal game. I have also built minelayers, more remote miners, some warships and added defenses and/or weaps to the privateers - just like I would in a normal game. The race better get to 6k ding that and not have to eat up half the galaxy or more to get there - i.e. the race 'footprint' needs to be defendable.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Tue, 03 July 2007 12:30]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Tue, 03 July 2007 14:24 |
|
Iconian | | Officer Cadet 2nd Year | Messages: 233
Registered: January 2006 Location: Nevada, USA | |
|
Quote: | It is true Kotk. The HW with 200k pop was growing at ~14k per turn, the 100% planet next door with a space dock and 200k was growing at ~9000 per turn. What happens is that the space dock maximum pop value is calculated like a planet is calculated based on the capacity percentage. A 100% planet filled to 60% will not grow more pop at the pop growth rate - it grows on the pop curve for the 60% full value. Same with the AR orbitals. A space dock can have 500,000 colonists. at 200,000 it is at 40%. Problem with the AR for such a slow growth game is that it needs the resources to build the space stations.
|
No expert on AR myself having never played it more than 10 min or so, but if I'm correct I believe Kotk is still correct. In Ptolemy's example his HW has 200k pop on a Space Station (unless he downgraded to Dock for some strange reason), whereas the other planet, also 100%, has 200k on a Space Dock. HW is only 20% full, second planet 40% full, so number of people grown per year is going to be different. If the Dock was a Space Station instead, it would also grow the 14k, I believe. Though, as I said, I'm no expert on AR.
Iconian
[Updated on: Tue, 03 July 2007 14:32]
Yeah, bread too.
Don't Let the Stars! Fade AwayReport message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Wed, 04 July 2007 00:29 |
|
Marduk | | Ensign | Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 01 July 2007 22:28 | I guess you haven't played many Primitive games.... Forget 25k by 2450 - you won't get there. Nobody will. A more realistic target is around 6 or 7k. Look at the race design options - selecting 7% growth provides over 600 resource points - that click from 7 to 8 is COSTLY.
|
Well that makes me feel much better. Yes, I did look lower than 8%, I actually tested 5% - but it didn't take long to decide that it has to be either 7% or 8%. And no, I have never before played a primitive game.
Quote: | You're in a medium SPARSE universe - test in one. With a one immune, I had 16 planets colonized but, 5 of them had less than 10k pop in 2450. Of the rest, some wre OK greens also. There just wasn't pop to put on them.
Dont forget - scrap all your ships with the fuel pod. You can't use it.
|
Yes, Medium Sparse - and no fuel pods, fuel ships or any other modern convenience, it seems like. That made IT all the more attractive, though with PP races made appealing by enhanced deadliness I am not sure I want to play the perfect target.
mlaub wrote on Mon, 02 July 2007 01:12 |
Quote: | Is getting the tech for Jihad cruisers by 2432 good, bad, adequate? Edit: Other than the no-missiles stipulation, of course.
|
If you can manage that tech, you are doing great! You are using expensive con and Weapons, right?
|
Of course. That was with an IT, so I had the good starting tech - it would have taken notably longer if I hadn't had gates and privateers available without research.
As for ending at 2550, I agree with mlaub. I am not going to wait for nubians. Early losses are just too catastrophic here to not try to cause them. As fragile as we will be, and as violent as some of us will be, I expect we will finish up early.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Wed, 04 July 2007 01:55 |
|
Soobie | | Officer Cadet 3rd Year | Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007 Location: Australia | |
|
Marduk wrote on Wed, 04 July 2007 13:59 | ...
mlaub wrote on Mon, 02 July 2007 01:12 |
Quote: | Is getting the tech for Jihad cruisers by 2432 good, bad, adequate? Edit: Other than the no-missiles stipulation, of course.
| If you can manage that tech, you are doing great! You are using expensive con and Weapons, right?
|
|
grrrr The max res I've got at 2432 is about 2400, and over that period I have about half the 46K res available for tech that I needed to get weaps 12, let alone the cons tech.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Wed, 04 July 2007 19:12 |
|
Marduk | | Ensign | Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
Soobie wrote on Wed, 04 July 2007 01:55 | grrrr The max res I've got at 2432 is about 2400, and over that period I have about half the 46K res available for tech that I needed to get weaps 12, let alone the cons tech.
|
Well, I am really good at purely economic aspects. If it helps, that was achieved with only two scouts built and no minelayers or warships. No extraneous tech research - just four more levels of con tech and the nine extra levels of weapon tech. Also an excellent planet draw and being an IT I had a minimum amount of 'travel waste'. Oh yes, and the bare minimum shipbuilding required to keep exporting population at an optimum rate.
That is why I was concerned... basically circumstances were perfect, every effort was directed to reaching those tech levels, and I still missed my target date of 2430. Perhaps I should have done the math ahead of time. The results I got were the closest to the maximum possible that I have ever achieved.
Now that I have a decent idea of what is possible, I can make better decisions about trading off per-system economy for better hab values, and vice-versa. I also have a good idea of how many systems I can reasonably occupy over the first 50 years, so I know approximately at what point better hab settings become wasteful.
All I have to do now is finally decide what PRT I will be playing.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Thu, 05 July 2007 06:54 |
|
Marduk | | Ensign | Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
Kotk wrote on Wed, 04 July 2007 21:28 |
Marduk wrote on Thu, 05 July 2007 02:12 | Also an excellent planet draw and being an IT I had a minimum amount of 'travel waste'. Oh yes, and the bare minimum shipbuilding required to keep exporting population at an optimum rate.
|
Strange that you even mention the ships and stuff.
Rules say: IT, LSP, PGR 8%, W and C cost +75%
W12 + C9 is 61K resources.
race puts about 12-13K res into planetary facilities.
Say 1-2K into energy, electronics, bio and terraforming and bare minimum of ships?
So ... 75K invested during 32 years.
It is 2.3K resources invested per year. I suggest that you achieved mathematically impossible thing.
|
Your math is a little wrong. It is actually invested over 33 years (remember 2400 is a year) - though I did forget that LSP was required for IT. That would certainly have delayed reaching the tech by a bit. But 60343 resources for W12 + C9, under 500 for ships, around 2400 for mines, and the rest (a bit over 10k) for cost 5 factories.
Why would I put anything at all into energy, electronics or bio tech? They all started at three, more than enough for moving population around. The secondary system was 100% and I think the other two worlds I colonized were both over 90%; at any rate I remember terraforming was minimal. I spent less than 500 resources on ships - only two scouts, remember, and with no fuel pods the privateers had only the engine. I did not bother to build significant numbers of mines anywhere but the homeworld... the HW had a good starting germ concentration. As an IT colonizing two other systems, you end up with less than 8% of your population (the amount you pull from the breeders) losing out on growth each year.
Also, you are probably assuming a 1/1000 pop resource setting - for an IT under these restrictions there is no reason not to improve that. Where else would you spend your points? Habitat settings you can never exploit?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | | | |
Pages (3): [ 2 ] |
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 11 10:52:31 EDT 2024
|