Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long*
| NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Sat, 14 July 2007 17:53  |
|
 Iconian |
 | Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2006
Location: Nevada, USA | |
|
INTRODUCTION
I was reading an old thread and saw c64k's comment:
| Quote: |
Having tried both CE-only and NRSE-only, I have to go with CE (this is as an AR) because with good MM, CE and be managed. Splitting fleets to hedge your bets and optimizing ship orders can help mitigate the effect of CE.
NRSE, on the other hand, was painful. Fuel is not an issue with NRSE (back in the days of Stars! 2.0, the finite fuel made NRSE very painful fuel-wise, but in 2.5+, fuel is no longer a major concern), but the cost is. The only decent engines that you get for most of the game is the IS-10 and its warp-9 sibling. Both engines are very heavy (bad for overgating and movement points), and both engines are extraordinarily expensive. To make matters worse, there is a huge 12-level gap between P11 and P23 that you have to cross before getting lighter and cheaper engines. Since many players except maybe IT take prop expensive, that's a gap that some may never cross before the endgame. I ended up using the fuel mizer for half my ships because of the high cost of the IS-10.
CE+NRSE might actually be a good combination, though, as CE really helps with the NRSE cost problem, and being able to fly at warp 10 fairly early on will make optimizing CE flightplans easier (as there are now more distances that you can break a warp 6 segment out of).
|
I've always been a fan of NRSE myself, so I decided to reply to the thread. Then I remembered that a more recent thread in the Academy (this one) was already discussing such issues. I read through that one, but this post strays a bit from the specific subject of engines. Instead, I’m just going to start a new thread. This post will have multiple segments, giving people a bit of time to respond, and also making the reading a little easier.
In addition to NRSE, I think just about every race should take IFE and prop expensive, as this combination seems to cost the least resources and RW points and generally results in the highest ramp up speed for a race though movement. I'll focus on those three race aspects, and I’m going to be quoting a lot of comments. I’m not trying to insult anyone. Rather, my goal is to help everyone come to a greater understanding on the subject, addressing it comprehensively, and definitively if possible. On that note, if anyone does spot flaws in my thinking, please don’t hesitate to bring them up.
Note: Numbers based on Posey’s spreadsheet, Starscalc, and the Tech Browser.
[Updated on: Mon, 16 July 2007 20:21]
Yeah, bread too.
Don't Let the Stars! Fade AwayReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Sat, 14 July 2007 23:02  |
|
| Iconian |
| Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2006
Location: Nevada, USA | |
|
THE EARLY YEARS OF EXPANSION
In this section I’ll discuss various combinations of NRSE and IFE. Firstly, let me make sure that everyone knows that IFE will give you the FM and Galaxy Scoop, and then clicking NRSE will take away the Galaxy Scoop but not FM, and add the Interspace 10.
NRSE/IFE combo vs. IT without combo
To start, I’ll quote Coyote:
| Quote: |
If you're IT you don't need IFE. Don't take NRSE. Go radiation immune and use the Radiating Hydro-Ramscoop for your first main engine.
|
Now, any race needs to move its pop, and IT is no exception. So, I would agree strongly with Coyote that an IT that doesn’t take the IFE/NRSE combo should take either rad immune, or shifted far to the right, so that it can use the radscoop early, and also since it will have the higher mineral concentrations and more planets due radiation not being a Bell curve. If one does decide to play such an IT, without the combo, using the radscoop practically becomes a must.
So, let’s review two possible races. The first will be Coyote’s IT without the NRSE/IFE combo, and with prop expensive. Comparing it to another IT with the combo would be too easy, so instead let’s take some other race—like SS, IS, or PP—that starts with 0 con and prop (1 prop after IFE) and prop and con exp.
Right from the start, Coyote’s race would get an additional ~25 RW points by not taking the combo, and would start with prop and con 5. It would be 1,050 resources from prop 6 and the radscoop. If it’s a +f, it should invest its 25 points into its factory ramp up, or maybe higher growth, to get prop 6 faster. Then it starts building those factories on its HW, until it’s ready to research prop 6. It will depend on when it switches to research, but it will probably get prop 6 around 2410, perhaps a little later.
The radscoop isn’t a very efficient engine at warp 8 or 9—less so than the FM certainly. Also, the FM’s mass is 6kt, whereas the radscoop’s is 10kt, so fuel efficiency will drop yet a little more. The IT could just decide to go at warp 7—but in that case, why not just use the DLL7, since it starts with it? If the IT wants to have decent radscoop speed to keep up with the FM, it’s going to build plenty of boosters, along with its actual colonist transports (remember, this early on the IT won’t have any gates up, except at the two starting planets). Fortunately, the radscoop costs only 8 resources, whereas the FM costs 10, so it’s going to save a few resources. If each builds a total of 100 rams during its expansion, Coyote’s race should spend 200 resources less than the combo race, which is certainly a nice savings.
Unfortunately, possibly the worst drawback for the radscoop is the Germ cost. Whereas the FM costs 0 Germ, the radscoop costs 9. Coyote’s race saved 200 resources with the radscoop, but it spent an additional 900 Germ, which would equal 225-300 factories. That’s a fairly high number this early in the game. Combined with the fact that it’s going to need to build more boosters, by 2420 it’s probably going to be quite a bit behind the combo race in resources and planets, perhaps 20% lower, since the advantage of pop gating—and ISB, if it took it—has yet to kick in much. As time passes it will catch up with the combo race a bit with these advantages. During that time though the combo race will probably have grabbed up quite a few more planets.
As an alternative, the IT could go –f. Instead of putting its ~25 extra points in factories, it will probably put them in its hab, or PGR. This setup makes a lot more sense with the radscoop, since a –f will be able to weather the Germ cost a lot more easily, and because it doesn’t build factories early on it will probably have the radscoop around the same time as the +f version. However, one of the most important things for a –f to do is move pop quickly. It is likely that it will want even more boosters/transports than the +f. Fortunately, resources aren’t going toward factories, so it can spend more on boosters faster, from the HW and new colonies. If it focuses on ge
...
[Updated on: Tue, 17 July 2007 02:02]
Yeah, bread too.
Don't Let the Stars! Fade AwayReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost |
Sun, 15 July 2007 02:55 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
In summary of the Early Years of Expansion, my opinion is that for the cost in RW points and resources, as well the speed of ramp up, NRSE and IFE with prop exp is generally the best combination. There are a few specific instances where other combinations might be better.
|
For the early years, yes this is always the best combo. However, when planning a race to play a game one needs to create an entire game strategy. IFE with NRSE may not work very well with the game strategy. IFE without NRSE is obviously the absolute best choice. I like the combo of IFE with ISB and prop expensive. Granted, it is costly and the cost has to be made up somewhere - the econ and hab has to be kept decent enough to make a workable and defendable empire by around 2430. If using a 19% or 20% growth HP, LSP can be used to help pay for not taking NRSE.
The main drawback with the NRSE is those heavy (and costly)engines. In the 40's when cruisers start to be available, you want to be able to a)build them at space docks and b)build them in numbers.
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: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Sun, 15 July 2007 14:32 |
|
| Iconian |
| Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2006
Location: Nevada, USA | |
|
Thanks for your comment Ptolemy. I considered putting the information on IFE without NRSE in the early years section--but, as you said, the effects of that don't show up much until later. I'm expecting two more sections, and should have the next done today, once the remaining research (and writing) is done.
[Updated on: Mon, 16 July 2007 20:21]
Yeah, bread too.
Don't Let the Stars! Fade AwayReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| The Years Before Warp 10 *very long* |
Sat, 04 August 2007 21:29 |
|
| Iconian |
| Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2006
Location: Nevada, USA | |
|
THE YEARS BEFORE WARP 10
The previous segment was mainly about the Expansion Era, and highlighted many reasons why taking IFE is so important during that era. The next segment will deal with the Warp 10 Era. But between expansion and warp 10, there is another era that I will refer to as the Early War Era. And that’s what this segment will cover.
IFE but not NRSE vs. IFE and NRSE
In Hardheads, at least five out of the ten non-AI races took IFE, but not NRSE. Is it worth it to have IFE but not NRSE? Let us find out.
First, what are the differences between a race that takes IFE and NRSE, versus the one that just takes IFE? What sort of impact does the NRSE choice have on early warfighting?
Facts on Engines
The NRSE race will have less engines available for warfighting. The QJ5 and LH6 will both be available, but neither those engines is faster than the FM and the race already paid points for IFE, so why would it bother building them? So for warfighting, the NRSE race gets to choose from:
Fuel Mizer, available at prop 2.
8 I, 0 B, 0 G, 11 R. Battle speed 6, mass 6.
Daddy Long Legs 7, available at P 5.
11 I, 0 B, 3 G, 12 R. Speed 7, mass 13.
Alpha Drive 8, available at P 7.
16 I, 0 B, 3 G, 28 R. Speed 8, mass 17.
Trans Galactic Drive, available at P 9.
I 20, B 20, G 9, R 50. Speed 9, mass 25.
In comparison, the IFE only race gets to choose from all those engines, plus:
Radiating Hydro Ram Scoop, available at P 6 N 2.
I 3, B 2, G 9, R 8. Speed 6, mass 10.
Sub-Galactic Fuel Scoop, available at P 8 N 2.
I 4, B 4, G 7, R 12. Speed 7, mass 20.
Trans-Galactic Fuel Scoop, available at P 9 N 3.
I 5, B 4, G 12, R 18. Speed 8, mass 19.
Trans-Galactic Super Scoop, available at P 12 N 4.
I 6, B 4, G 16, R 24. Speed 9, mass 18.
Why Not Just Use FM for Warfighting?
Now, since both races took IFE, they could just use the FM for all their warships. The engine costs 0 G so it’s great for +f races. It’s also very efficient at warp 8 and 9, so long distance travel is no problem--. It only costs 11 resources at prop 2, which is less than any other engine here except the RHRS. It takes 2 levels in prop, which is far less levels than any other engine. And it only weighs 6kt, which is less than any other engine here. From those points of view, one might wonder why every race doesn’t go with NRSE and just use the FM for all their warships. However, there are other things to consider in this era.
RHRS vs. FM
For –f races, Iron can sometimes be a limiting factor (not as much as Germ is for +f’s though), and the FM costs more Iron than any other ramscoop shown. But on the other hand, the other ramscoops will all take many more resources to build than the FM, due to the listed cost and especially because of the research costs. The RHRS is the only scoop that shows a cost lower than the FM. If a prop cheap race researched it the cost would be about 745 resources, depending on other research priorities. It would then need to build 248 RHRS’s before it broke even with the race that just built the FM’s from the start, which could have built 67 FM’s during the same time period the RHRS race is doing research, which might amount to 20 Frigates or maybe 5 Cruisers. Besides that, once the race that researched RHRS finished, it would find that the FM’s price had miniaturized to only 9 resources, while the RHRS stayed at 8. Building those less fuel efficient and heavier RHRS’s would suddenly look a lot less attractive. The RHRS could also be a liability if the race’s radiation hab midpoint isn’t at least 85, since grouping it with any colonists will end up killing some every year, resulting in further costs. Shooting for any of the ramscoops for their low Iron cost would cost far, far more resources than just sticking with the FM, and they’d all be a lot heavier. While early on Iron can be a limit for –f’s, resources seem to be an even bigger limit. Unless a –f (like an AR) encountered an incredible shortage of Iron, building FM’s would almost certainly be much better than going
...
Yeah, bread too.
Don't Let the Stars! Fade AwayReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Sun, 05 August 2007 05:21 |
|
| Iconian |
| Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2006
Location: Nevada, USA | |
|
THE WARP 10 ENGINES, PRACTICAL RACE DESIGN, AND PROP COSTS
In the first segment of this article I described races that took different combinations of NRSE, IFE, ISB, and prop costs. Races that take NRSE but not IFE, even if they are IT or have good boosters, are likely to go slower and will spend a lot more resources attempting to go warp 8 or 9 than races that take IFE. Taking ISB to make up for IFE certainly doesn’t seem worth it either, since one will first need to research and then build the docks, and they’ll only be able to refuel ships if they’re right in their path. And races that take neither NRSE nor IFE will have a lot of difficulty. They’ll have less points to spend than NRSE races, and it will take them a lot of research to reach their target ramscoop engines. They can build boosters instead, but those will also cost a lot.
In the second segment I went over the pros and cons of NRSE and IFE vs. just IFE in the pre-warp 10 era. The focus on engines in that era would seem to primarily be on battle speed: both race designs would have the Fuel Mizer, but it doesn’t provide good enough battle speed for some strategies. Researching a different engine might prove more useful. –f races would seem to be the best candidates for taking IFE but not NRSE: ramscoops provide fleets with a little more flexibility and reach for better long-range attacks, and they cost a little less Iron and more Germ than standard engines of equivalent battle speed. Since –f races are more likely to be engaged in early wars than +f’s, avoiding NRSE might pay off. Researching the ramscoops will be difficult though, since the research levels are higher for the standard engines with equivalent battle speeds. +f races on the other hand, especially HP’s, should almost certainly take the IFE/NRSE combination, since the standard engines cost a lot less Germ, and they will likely have more resources available and be able to research higher levels of prop easier.
In the third segment, I will discuss the effects of NRSE with IFE vs. just IFE in the warp 10 era, as well as the effects of the cost of prop research and race design.
A lot of people (c64k on this thread for instance) have talked about how they don't like NRSE, often cited the high cost and weight of the Interspace 10. Earlier in this thread Ptolemy wrote:
The main drawback with the NRSE is those heavy (and costly)engines. In the 40's when cruisers start to be available, you want to be able to a)build them at space docks and b)build them in numbers.
So, I believe it’s time to tackle this issue once and for all.
Interspace-10 vs. Trans Galactic Mizer Scoop
When most people choose to not take NRSE, I believe it is because they compare the IS10 one of the ramscoops—most likely, they're comparing it to the warp 10 Trans Galactic Mizer Scoop. Both engines are similar in that they can go warp 10, and that they help ships achieve 2.25 battle movement much easier, which is a magic speed for killing chaff with range 3 beams.
However, I don't think some people have considered the actual costs involved very closely. I decided to run the numbers with Posey’s spreadsheets. The costs at prop 11 and 16 are:
IS 10
18 I, 25 B, 10 G, 60 R
TGMS
5 I, 2 B, 13 G, 20 R
So, the IS 10 is 40 resources more expensive than TGMS. There's also the cost of research though. Let's say that the NRSE race takes prop expensive, and the non-NRSE race takes prop cheap. Then they research:
NRSE, Prop 11@175%
~28,000 resources
Non-NRSE, Prop 16@50%
~54,000 resources
Assuming all else is equal, and that these two races begin researching prop at the same time with the same resources available, the NRSE race will reach prop 11 much earlier than the non-NRSE race, and in the process will have saved about 26,000 resources. From this perspective, the IS 10 becomes 26,000 resources cheaper. There will come a point, of course, when the non-NRSE race will pull ahead of the one with NRSE resource-wise. Once the NRSE race has built about 650 IS 10 engines, it will have spent
...
Yeah, bread too.
Don't Let the Stars! Fade AwayReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Sun, 05 August 2007 18:50 |
|
|
|
Interesting reading.
Minor quibble:
| Quote: |
Many NRSE races will go on and research prop 12 for the Overthruster (which they should also be able to obtain much earlier than the non-NRSE race can hope to), reducing the IS10 cost to 58 resources, so that it only costs 38 more than the TGMS. At this point the NRSE race can build 684 IS10's, rather than 650, and still spend less resources than the non-NRSE race.
|
The non-NRSE prop-cheap race will reach prop 12 for the overthruster *far* faster than the NRSE prop-expensive race will. 13000 resources vs 46000 resources, even with your research schedule (more on that in a moment.) It'll have to wait longer for warp 10, but it'll most certainly get the overthruster first. It gets there with less than half of the spend the NRSE race has to invest to get to prop11, in fact. It will have a battle speed advantage for a while.
Interesting quibble:
I wouldn't necessarily compare IS10 with TGMS. For combat ships, at least, my main desire for the IS10 in mid-game is for the battle speed, not for the warp 10 capability. So going for a cheap warp 9 engine and an overthruster doesn't sound so terrible. I think it would typically be enough cheaper that one dangerous warp 10 trip in a ship's lifetime shouldn't be overly expensive. But it's not that great a like-for-like comparison for costing, so I'll let that one lie.
Major quibble:
You've made your research costings based on zero tech levels in all other fields. Let's now suppose 45 tech levels in other fields (this would be enough for en10, w12, con9, el10, bio4)
Cost to reach prop11 from prop0 with prop expensive: 37,433
Cost to reach prop12 from prop0 with prop expensive: 55,685
Cost to reach prop12 from prop0 with prop cheap: 15,910
Cost to reach prop16 from prop0 with prop cheap: 57,770
Now that's an interesting shift in the numbers. The battlespeed of prop 12 comes far faster for the NRSE+prop cheap race and it reaches warp10 less than 2100 resources after the NRSE race - less than 53 engines in cost difference - breaks even after ~26 cruisers and we're saving for the rest of the game.
In practice the actual costs will probably lie somewhere between your figures and mine. Mine don't look far off those you might see in a real game where players have gone for warp10 early (with a few levels shifted around by personal preference,) but the prop will have been trickling in throughout the game, not all at the end (like my costs) or all at the beginning (like your costs.)
If we grab other techs first - w14 beams, juggs, battleships, BSC - then the numbers start to skew further to the advantage of the non-NRSE prop cheap race.
From what I see, the non-NRSE race can expect a substantial advantage in both cost (scoops) and battle speed (it'll always be a few levels ahead in prop, so better engines) through to mid game, the advantage growing when it hits prop12, but then a strategic hiccup for a year or two when it's opponents start building ships that can move at warp10 and it can't. But it won't have to wait long.
If the race manages to consistently trade prop for one of it's expensive techs (very plausible - not many races take prop cheap), then the 'real' cost is just the cost of the LRT (assuming you would've taken 3.0 or 3.5 cheap anyway.) With ramscoops and prop cheap, I'd usually drop IFE too, putting the race ahead in points, but I don't want to subvert your very interesting analysis into a IFE discussion, so maybe best to ignore that asepct for now 
Not taking NRSE still looks like a viable choice to me.
[Updated on: Sun, 05 August 2007 19:35] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Sun, 05 August 2007 22:08 |
|
| Iconian |
| Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2006
Location: Nevada, USA | |
|
Thank you for commenting Dogthinkers--and everyone else, I've finished this article to the best of my ability at for the time being, so others can go ahead and comment as well, but don't necessarily expect a reply.
| Quote: |
The non-NRSE prop-cheap race will reach prop 12 for the overthruster *far* faster than the NRSE prop-expensive race will. 13000 resources vs 46000 resources, even with your research schedule (more on that in a moment.) It'll have to wait longer for warp 10, but it'll most certainly get the overthruster first. It gets there with less than half of the spend the NRSE race has to invest to get to prop11, in fact. It will have a battle speed advantage for a while.
|
That's an excellent point. It entered the edge of my thoughts, but I didn't think to put it down. All else equal, the prop cheap race with IFE but not NRSE will have the benefit of prop 12 much earlier than the IFE/NRSE/prop expensive race will get prop 11 even. Staying on the subject of battle speed for the moment,
| Quote: |
From what I see, the non-NRSE race can expect a substantial advantage in both cost (scoops) and battle speed (it'll always be a few levels ahead in prop, so better engines) through to mid game, the advantage growing when it hits prop12, but then a strategic hiccup for a year or two when it's opponents start building ships that can move at warp10 and it can't. But it won't have to wait long.
|
I'm guessing that you mean "the non-NRSE [prop cheap] race can expect & c." Unfortunately, I didn't take such a close look at the prop cheap in the early warfighting years. In the examples of the HP's I gave, the IFE/NRSE race w/prop exp. obtained the AD8 before the IFE/prop normal race got the TGFS. However, the story may have been different if the non-NRSE race had taken prop cheap instead of normal. I'd have to do the numbers to know for sure, but I expect you're right, Dogthinkers.
| Quote: |
Major quibble:
You've made your research costings based on zero tech levels in all other fields. Let's now suppose 45 tech levels in other fields (this would be enough for en10, w12, con9, el10, bio4)
Cost to reach prop11 from prop0 with prop expensive: 37,433
Cost to reach prop12 from prop0 with prop expensive: 55,685
Cost to reach prop12 from prop0 with prop cheap: 15,910
Cost to reach prop16 from prop0 with prop cheap: 57,770
Now that's an interesting shift in the numbers. The battlespeed of prop 12 comes far faster for the NRSE+prop cheap race and it reaches warp10 less than 2100 resources after the NRSE race - less than 53 engines in cost difference - breaks even after ~26 cruisers and we're saving for the rest of the game.
|
I'm surprised that there's such a huge difference: the extra 45 tech levels you indicated increased the final costs of prop 11/12 for the prop exp. race about 10,000 resources more than I'd thought. I thought it would only be 18 resources per level gained. 10,000 certainly isn't 18*45 though.
| Quote: |
If the race manages to consistently trade prop for one of it's expensive techs (very plausible - not many races take prop cheap), then the 'real' cost is just the cost of the LRT (assuming you would've taken 3.0 or 3.5 cheap anyway.) With ramscoops and prop cheap, I'd usually drop IFE too, putting the race ahead in points, but I don't want to subvert your very interesting analysis into a IFE discussion, so maybe best to ignore that asepct for now
|
True. When trade enters into the equation, race planning becomes quite different--trade can make just about any PRT, LRT, hab range, or research cost workable or better. But to me, taking e.g. energy normal with the IFE/NRSE/prop exp combo would give you a better chance across the board than taking energy exp, IFE/prop normal. Unless you can depend on gaining continuous levels of energy, living with lower quality shields, planetary defenses, and mass drivers can be difficult, as I found in Hardheads. I took energy exp. myself (prop exp too, but this is more about energy at the moment) and I think my race would have done far, far more po
...
Yeah, bread too.
Don't Let the Stars! Fade AwayReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Sun, 05 August 2007 22:35 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
In the examples of the HP's I gave, the IFE/NRSE race w/prop exp. obtained the AD8 before the IFE/prop normal race got the TGFS.
|
Also, don't forget that a -NRSE race isn't forced to ramscoops all the time... AD8 is a lovely combat engine, and a prop-cheap race will get to it faster than the prop-expensive race does, regardless of whether they are NRSE or not. By the time the prop-exp race get's it too, the -NRSE should also have a comparable (or better) ramscoop engine available to replace it...
| Quote: |
I'm surprised that there's such a huge difference: the extra 45 tech levels you indicated increased the final costs of prop 11/12 for the prop exp. race about 10,000 resources more than I'd thought. I thought it would only be 18 resources per level gained. 10,000 certainly isn't 18*45 though.
|
But it is close to 18*45*12  For expensive tech, it's 17.5 more per level, but you pay it over and over -  once for every new level you research. And yes, it's suprising how much it adds up, isn't it.
And regarding your final comments, about trade and the value of different fields... Everyone wants prop 11 and 12. Many people take IFE, so favour prop expensive. This leads to a nice supply and demand dynamic. El is possibly a bit rarer to see 'not expensive', but is less of a necessity. Nice extra trading chip for -NAS races, of course. En is certainly desired, but it seems to be a more common cheap/normal field, so it tends to be easier to trade for. I also consider that if I really have to research everything myself, I'll probably be content to stop at en10, prop11/12, el11 (after that, I'm going to see more benefit pushing weapons and con.) So, I can see here that prop is the one I *have* to take furthest if I don't want to leave myself too open to counterdesign / being outmaneuvered. I'd like en14/15/16 and el16, but I can live quite happily without them. Don't forget, if you are -NRSE, you are likely to be temp immune or temp wide, since you will be able to terra in grav earlier and further.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Not taking NRSE still looks like a viable choice to me.
|
Oh, yes  I believe it always has been, and always will be. But viable isn't necessarily optimal.
|
Couldn't agree more. It depends tremendously on the universe and on the opposition. I love the fact that the game is so balanced that it's possible to go into this much detail and find making a choice continues to be a challenging decision to make. 
Just wish some of the other LRTs were so well balanced *Pokes mineral alchemy. 
I should add too, that I've never taken prop cheap, and rarely taken it normal. I've only played one game where I didn't take NRSE. But the thinking that your article has prompted, is rapidly convincing myself to try it more often.
[Updated on: Sun, 05 August 2007 22:51] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Mon, 20 August 2007 21:48 |
|
| Soobie |
 | Officer Cadet 3rd Year |
Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007
Location: Australia | |
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Mon, 06 August 2007 08:20 |
Major quibble:
You've made your research costings based on zero tech levels in all other fields. Let's now suppose 45 tech levels in other fields (this would be enough for en10, w12, con9, el10, bio4)
Cost to reach prop11 from prop0 with prop expensive: 37,433
Cost to reach prop12 from prop0 with prop expensive: 55,685
Cost to reach prop12 from prop0 with prop cheap: 15,910
Cost to reach prop16 from prop0 with prop cheap: 57,770
Now that's an interesting shift in the numbers ...
|
ahhh ... interesting numbers. I'm glad people are better at numbers than I am.
All excellent reading. Thanks Iconian and respondents
The key thing I don't understand in Dogthinkers commentary is this:
| Quote: |
...and it reaches warp10 less than 2100 resources after the NRSE race ...
|
Dogthinkers, do you mean the -NRSE race reaches P16 (Warp10) less than 2100 resources after the NRSE race reaches P12 (OT)? If you compare safe Warp10 to safe Warp10, isn't it more like the -NRSE reaches Warp10 (P16) around 20K research resources after the +NRSE race (P11)?
If this is the case, then would it be safe to say that the +NRSE can build ships that are only -1/4 battle movement (TGSS+O/T vs IS-10) or same movement (IS-10+MJ?) and safe Warp10 for quite a while before the -NRSE gets safe Warp10 - there would still be that large period of time early on (~20K+ research) where the +NRSE would have a slight battle speed disadvantage (TGSS+OT vs TGD+MJ before IS-10+MJ). [[Multiplied by # of O/Ts vs # of MJs, if any.]]
I think that if you include the extra cost of the engines for the +NRSE, then the 2100 deficit of the prop cheap going for P16 vs the +NRSE going to P12 is probably not there at all - in fact, with that research schedule, is it possible the prop cheap/-NRSE could get Warp10 slightly before the +NRSE gets OT if you include shipbuilding along the way?
Also, wouldn't it be a bit unusual to go for 10/12/16/9/10/4? I would think even with prop cheap, one would stop at P12 for a while? Perhaps going for W16/C13 then P16, or the like? ((I can see quite a few arguments for going for P16, particularly if you had an appalling hab draw and *needed* that extra terra?))
As a matter of interest, I am allied to a player in a dense universe who has -IFE/+NRSE/prop normal and he is steamrolling/crushing anyone that gets in his way, running short lines of supply and a densely clustered spoke/wheel empire. His economy appears to be able to absorb the extra cost of no ramscoops with little problem as he takes out multiple opposition worlds for expansion every year, no matter what they throw at him.
From what I can see, if you are in one of these denser universes and you selected a wider/decent hab for shorter lines of supply there appears to be something of an argument in favour of racing to Warp10/OT early if you have an economic PRT and you are happy to put about half of the points you would have spent on IFE into normal prop and the rest into hab/econ. Even with only prop normal, that early interest in prop also appears to allow you to comfortably select Rad (or temp) imm rather than the usual prop imm - albeit you will likely only ever have grav terra to +/-11 for the vast majority of the game. ((I don't know that I would be gutsy enough to then add CE to the mix, though it would bring the costs down a bit on those expensive engines and could give a stronger overall econ.))
Cheers,
S.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Tue, 21 August 2007 00:27 |
|
|
|
Soobie made many excellent points  on Tue, 21 August 2007 11:48 |
|
| Quote: |
Dogthinkers, do you mean the -NRSE race reaches P16 (Warp10) less than 2100 resources after the NRSE race reaches P12 (OT)? If you compare safe Warp10 to safe Warp10, isn't it more like the -NRSE reaches Warp10 (P16) around 20K research resources after the +NRSE race (P11)?
|
Ah ha! You noticed the little trap I left in my logic, to see if anyone was watching.
Oops.
Quite right, the +NRSE does get there a bit faster. Luckily for me (since I'm defending -NRSE for fun ) Backblast has made for me the excellent point, that we should actually be compareing TGSS, since the cost saving means we can quite happily overdrive them several times and still save resources.
Yes, I agree that the cheaper scoops will save a few early resources too, not to be sniffed at.| Quote: |
Also, wouldn't it be a bit unusual to go for 10/12/16/9/10/4?
|
As I mentioned, I just chose these levels to show a reasonable number of tech levels one will have boosting the cost of each new tech level. I don't propose these as the best, but a merely a rough indicator of the total number of levels you might have about the time that you are pushing for a nice engine. I agree, that very often you'd have higher tech than this, but I wanted to try to be relatively conservative, so as not to appear to bias the numbers in favour of my argument.| Quote: |
As a matter of interest, I am allied to a player in a dense universe who has -IFE/+NRSE/prop normal and he is steamrolling/crushing
|
Yes, I've taken this approach before too. Both IFE and NRSE are quite well balanced, to my eye, in terms of the RW points and the effects that each has. Personally I make my choice based on the style of race, the nature of the universe, and partly just on my whim.
And yes, being able to consider grav narrow is very, very appealing, for diplomacy reasons, since it's a common immunity choice of IFE/NRSE/Prop expensive races.
[Updated on: Tue, 21 August 2007 00:30] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Sun, 26 August 2007 00:52 |
|
| LEit |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
| Iconian wrote on Sat, 14 July 2007 23:02 |
Rather than researching up to prop 6, the non-combo race could just build lots of boosters. IS, SD, and HE could best get away with it via their Fuel Transport,
|
I've tried a IS without IFE. With ISB too and -f (also from the RWIAB game that Backblast mentioned).
It's a pain. With any standard engine less the the AD8, going warp 8 is very expensive in fuel, and warp 9 even more so. The IS FX ships are a big help, but even those are fairly expensive, and you need a lot to go fast with early tech engines and large loads. I had further problems of a very bad initial hab draw, so some of my colonization trips had to go very far. Refueling at a dock wasn't really an option, as I didn't have them built in the right places. With enough time (and therefore tech - especially terraforming tech) things got much better - but you can't always get the time, I was lucky Backblast went after some one else first.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Wed, 23 July 2008 08:27 |
|
| m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 23 July 2008 12:45 |
There is one additional gaping hole in the NRSE camp's arguments. And that is... freighters. With NRSE, there is no engine until Prop 23 that both goes Warp 9-10 cheaply and is cheap enough to mass produce. Without it, you have the TGFS for warp 9, the TGSS for longer journeys at warp 9, and the TGMS and GS for warp 10. Why has noone pointed this out yet?
|
Possibly because it's an argument for NRSE? 
The IS-10 makes Freighters a bit more expensive, but you're building hundreds, not thousands of the things, and the early Warp10 capability for logistics movements is priceless. 
It also makes your cargo and troop shipments slightly harder for Pirates to kill. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme!  Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Thu, 24 July 2008 16:49 |
|
| Micha | 
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| m.a@stars wrote on Wed, 23 July 2008 14:27 |
| magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 23 July 2008 12:45 |
There is one additional gaping hole in the NRSE camp's arguments. And that is... freighters. With NRSE, there is no engine until Prop 23 that both goes Warp 9-10 cheaply and is cheap enough to mass produce. Without it, you have the TGFS for warp 9, the TGSS for longer journeys at warp 9, and the TGMS and GS for warp 10. Why has noone pointed this out yet?
|
Possibly because it's an argument for NRSE?
|
This is an argument for IFE+NRSE. When I in 2420-2425 build my first and *final* LF design it, has the FM and fuel tanks, even IS-10 comes too late for that. By then I usually have prop5 (for 100/250 gates, or at most prop6 for jihads). I can't see me having prop9 already solely for use on LF's, that hull has enough fuel and range for that period, heck, that's why I research it in the first place! And con is always a useful field. More prop research would be too much resources spent in an unwanted and unneeded field. Of course with cheaper prop research you would get higher with the same resources spend there but that means giving up other stuff I don't want to give up. And it means not taking NRSE and having even less RW points!
Now you can argue for having warp10 capable transports or colonizers, but by the time I have the IS-10 I usually have about 100 of LFs already, so why switch? Just plan one step further ahead when it comes to pop MM.
It does leave me sometimes in two minds about saving a design slot and combine colonizer/transport ... but fitting those 100 LFs with a colonizer pod makes me shiver about the waste of resources.
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: NRSE, IFE, and Prop Cost *very long* |
Sun, 27 July 2008 16:20 |
|
|
|
The only real reason to take CE in my opinion is if you're IT and plan on using the radram from the start. It helps if the planets are closer together, but in any case the stargates mitigate a lot of the headaches except of course on offense.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Apr 28 15:01:21 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Ultimate Recycling and Bleeding Edge Technology as well 
)