Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » The viability of biimmunity...
The viability of biimmunity... |
Fri, 01 August 2008 02:25 |
|
magic9mushroom | | Commander | Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Grav and rad would seem the obvious choice.
Is a 1/25 biimmune with 13-14% GR viable? What about a 1/10 with 8-9% GR? Is IFE a good idea or a waste of points? Prop expensive or normal? RS? ISB? NAS? ARM?
Let the debate begin!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: The viability of biimmunity... |
Fri, 01 August 2008 05:51 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1209
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
magic9mushroom wrote on Fri, 01 August 2008 08:25 | Is a 1/25 biimmune with 13-14% GR viable?
|
When preparing for a slow-tech sparse-uni all-AR game I've checked several race designs, and 've found that in such conditions the bi-immune should do quite good.
Advantages over 1-immune:
On average 15% better hab as the 1-immune. This is VERY important for several reasons:
- the hab is outside the SQRT resource formula, and translates directly to more resources and better pop growth. If 1/25 divisor takes away ~36% resources, better hab gives almost a half of them back.
- better achieved pop growth. IIRC my 14% bi-immune had at 2450 ~5% more pop than a 15% 1-immune. This added pop also produces some more resources, or minerals if put on rich reds.
- more planets: 1-in-3 from the start vs. 1-in-6. At temp terra-15 62% planets livable vs. 52%.
- significantly more breeders. Almost everything that starts green will be a breeder with temp terra-11. At temp terra-15 3/4 of all green planets breeders and 2/3 of greens at 100%.
Disadvantages:
- still quite slow because of low average resource output.
- moving lots of low-efficiency pop will feel like "moving empty wind" (IIRC a quote from Leit).
- usual early-game mineral problems all ARs have.
Quote: | Is IFE a good idea or a waste of points?
|
IMO a good idea. You'll be moving quite a lot of pop around (but short distances mostly), and researching En and con. You'll not want to deteriorate much into other fields, at least until you'll have Ultras, good remotes (super miner) and temp terra-11/15. Prop cheap and using RADRAM is another option (slightly more expensive), but it goes against the grav immunity. I'd chose it only if I'd have a non-grav immune race.
Quote: | What about a 1/10 with 8-9% GR?
|
Too slow IMO.
BR, Iztok
EDIT: had to correct some numbers to have comparable races regarding spent RW points.
...
[Updated on: Fri, 01 August 2008 08:51] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: The viability of biimmunity... |
Mon, 04 August 2008 02:43 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1209
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
LEit wrote on Fri, 01 August 2008 16:56 | Cause they didn't fare very well in games...
|
I did just a short testbed (first 20 or so turns) to refresh my memory. Yes, they start slowly. 36% less resources and 1% less pop make quite an impact on early expansion when only the HW is producing everything.
Quote: | Search on Oberlander in rec.games.computer.stars.
|
Ah, that Joseph... Had at least twice quite an argue with him there...
Quote: | He argued very hard for 2 immune ARs, but as far as I know never did well with them in a game.
|
Ummm, might be Joseph was the reason. IIRC he had some quite "unusual" ideas on how to properly play the game.
Anyway, I decided to do a 100-Arm-BBs testbed in the same small packed uni with 1-immune 1-in-10 and 2-immune 1-in-25 AR. They'll both have the same LRTs (IFE, ISb, NAS, RS) and tech (en, weap, con cheap, rest expensive), grav immunity and narrow temp. The diff will be:
1-immune
temp 0 to 120, rad 16 to 62
15% PGR, 1/10 divisor
12 points to MC.
2-immune
temp 16 to 120, rad immune,
14% PGR, 1/25 divisor
17 points to MC.
I had to gen and check several universes to find one that wasn't too skewed to one of both races. The 1-immune test is almost done, at turn 63 I have all the tech and will be queueing BBs to my Death Stars. I expect to finish the test at 2466.
IMO I did two small mistakes:
1) I researched Death Stars. They were not needed, at 2463 most my "core" breeders are still below 600k pop, the biggest (I've missed it at 2460 when I stopped the pop MM) is at 700k.
2) I've built only 10 robo-super-miners at each UltraStation. These Arm BBs cost 1400+ iron each, so mining 340kT iron each turn is simply not enough for "100-Arm-BBs" test. I'd fare better if I'd invest the resorces for Death Stars into another 10 robots. I could also build 2 Mega Disruptor BBs instead of one Arm BB (thus coming closer to the usuall composition of a warfleet).
Unfortunately I'll need to repeat those "mistakes" in 2-immune te
...
[Updated on: Mon, 04 August 2008 02:44] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: The viability of biimmunity... |
Thu, 07 August 2008 04:11 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1209
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Damn, that 2-immune testbed surely takes time to complete. Almost 5 hours and still only at turn 54. That huge amount of big greens and yellows makes also a huge amount of MM.
Preliminary results:
- about the same tech and amount of robo-miners as 1-immune,
- about 20% more planets, 10% more resources and 50% more pop.
I've just started collecting remaining techs for Arm BBs. Went from weap-0 to 13 in one turn. Looks like I'll get target BBs ~5 turns earlier than I had them with 1-immune.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Thu, 07 August 2008 04:14] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: The viability of biimmunity... |
Sun, 10 August 2008 12:34 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1209
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
I've just completed the 2-immune testbed. It ended at exactly the same turn 66 as the 1-immune, with 151 Arm BBs built and almost exactly the same tech and resources as the 1-immune. Main differences were no Death Stars, 15 robo-miners and all planets settled for 2-immune, while 1-immune had DSs, hasn't colonized 25 small yellows and only 10 robo-miners per Ultra/DS. Thanks to more remote miners the 2-immune could build amost twice as many BBs as 1-immune, but the target 100+ BBs both achieved in 2466.
Conclusion
Vague. 2-immune needs less tech to expand, but it starts slow and needs some 30 turns to just catch the 1-immune. AR being a popular early target really can't afford to start slowly. Not needing research in weapons is quite an advantage in testbeds, but in real game no one can afford that. OTOH after turn 30 2-immune's big and close greens really start to make an impact with resources, minerals and excess pop. If I'd have to say what AR to use I'd say:
- in larger games with some room (conflicts starting somewhat lately) you can safely try 2-immune.
- in crowded games (conficts expected early) don't use AR. If you really want to try, then use 1-immune.
More data
End-game universe
Small packed uni, 240 planets, no reds settled in any game.
1-immune - 25 tiny&small yellows, that popped-up with rad terra-15 not settled - no chance they could be terraformed to greens in expected 12 turns when the test should end. With them the average hab would fall down to 60% (without terra).
2-immune - 1 tiny yellow not settled. I've had enough pop and LFs to get most of them to 200k+ pop. Another 3-7 turns and they'd all be 41-60% green.
Looks like universe was "normal" for the 1-immune, because at the end it had 114 planets red (47.5%, expected 48.6% or two red planets more), and a bit worse than average for 2-immune (94 (39,2%) red planets, expected 35.6% or 8 more habitable planets). A slight bias for 2-immune: those 8 planets could give ~3k more resources to the end result.
Produced ships 2-imm 1-imm
MF 34 9
SFX 24 41
LF 51 48
miner 1246 714
BB 151 109
Ultra 107 21/79
DS 0 58
I had not researched and built Death Stars with 2-immune, but rather built 5 more super-robo-miners after each Ultra Station. The needed resources per planet (400 res for research + 400 res for DS + 10 miners @ 107 res each vs. 15 miners @ 131 res each) were approximately equal. The main difference was I could build additional 40 BBs in turn 67, while with 1-immune (10 super-robo-miners per Ultra) only 3. If I'd built with 2-immune only 10 remote miners per Ultra I'd save ~ 50k resources and finish the test 1 turn earlier.
2-immune "behaviour"
There were so many big greens and yellows, I've actually built the first LF at turn 50, when I bought prop-9 (tech-9 scoop engine) for it. All pop distrubution before was done with MFs (34 built). The LF (and Ultra Station) were simply not needed, because I've held most breeders below 100k pop for most of the initial 40 turns. There was also almost always a big green/yellow planet within 3 warp-9 jumps from a breeder to send there "excess" pop. Only after distances to new colonies grew over 3 w-9 jumps, and quite some planets hit 100% hab I've decided to start building Ultras.
An average planet has built the Ultra and first 10 robo-miners in about 6 turns. Only after turn 50 I've decided I'll rather build 5 more miners instead getting Death Star.
Looking back I have a feeling I might even went with con normal for 2-immune, so little was con needed throughout the game, all because of the big amount of greens and yellows, and relatively slow growth per planet. Since weap tech was also not needed (not possible in real game) I gave more priority to temp research, to cover the -36% hole from 1/25 divisor, and to get better terra earlier.
Impact of the Max minerals
Huge. No iron crunch at all in both games. IIRC only 2 shipments of minerals with 2-immune, and about 5 MFs and 6 remote miners sent to other planets with 1-immune. Slight early mineral problems on two "far" breeders with 2-immune, because I've build on them quite a lot of Pintas and MFs. Building gates there and on core planets helped a bit, because I could then produce those ships at core, and gate them to those far breeders.
Spreadsheet for number-crunchers turn 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 66
2-imm 1-imm | 2-imm 1-imm | 2-imm 1-imm | 2-imm 1-imm | 2-imm 1-imm | 2-imm 1-imm | 2-imm 1-imm
planets 4 6 | 18 17 | 69 51 | 108 74 | 123 88 | 145 103 | 145 103
avg hab 86,25 49,83 | 84,94 48,18 | 58,62 36,59 | 57,42 44,32 | 64,94 55,82 | 68,37 64,54 | 76,60 76,07
pop 229100 250800 | 740500 780900 | 2.08M 1.89M | 5.8M 4.4M | 18.5M 11.3M | 50.4M 32.3M | 92.7M 65.8M
res 327 568 | 1654 1842 | 5213 5168 | 13438 11532 | 30301 27166 | 59002 54578 | 84953 86300
minerals 2988 3132 | 7008 7215 | 20965 20673 | 48246 43306 | 230164 190259 | 867562 560042 | 864508 500364
en 5 6 | 7 7 | 10 10 | 14 11 | 17 16 | 18 16 | 18 17
weap 0 2 | 0 5 | 0 5 | 0 10 | 0 14 | 22 21 | 25 24
prop 2 2 | 2 2 | 5 2 | 5 2 | 9 2 | 12 9 | 12 12
con 3 4 | 4 8 | 9 11 | 12 13 | 13 13 | 13 17 | 13 17
elec 0 0 | 0 0 | 0 0 | 1 7 | 7 7 | 7 11 | 11 11
bio 0 1 | 2 2 | 3 3 | 3 3 | 5 4 | 6 7 | 7 7
sum tech 10 15 | 15 24 | 27 31 | 35 46 | 51 56 | 78 81 | 86 88
BBs | 151 109 avg hab ... average hab of colonized planets
EDIT: sorry for excessive width - Font=courier and Size=2 don't work.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Sun, 10 August 2008 13:27] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 19 09:56:21 EDT 2024
|