Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Tri-immunities
| Tri-immunities |
Sat, 12 April 2003 19:14  |
|
|
|
Just to further a point made elsewhere in the forum...
Has ANYONE... EVER managed to builda tri-immune race that can hold it's own?
A race that can survive long enough to take advantage of it's 100% ability. It's massive potential to produce and mine better than any other race? (bar maybe a HG or AR race)
One that has stargates!!!! lol (HE's need not apply).
I'm just curious. There's hundreds of uni-immune races that perform fantastically. I firmly believe in always having at least 1 immunity.
Bi-immune races are rare... and usually crap. I'd like bi-immune AR's... if they weren't SO SLOW. The only other good bi-immune race I've ever managed to make was SD.
It's in my opinion that the more immunity you have the greater your need for good defenses... as such I should think that only SD's could get away with tri-immunity... but they'd perform so drastically bad I wouldn't like to think about it.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: Tri-immunities |
Mon, 14 April 2003 16:20  |
|
|
|
Tri immune no HEs are too slwo to be effective. You'll always be hurting too much in some place to make up for it. Tri immune HEs are a fun race that are okay, but nothing amazing. More viable, I think, might be 3 fully wide bands... hmm.
Email me as ----jeffimix@----yahoo.com----
(remove dashes)
The spamatron! run!!!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Tri-immunities |
Tue, 15 April 2003 12:08 |
|
 yucaf |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 100
Registered: December 2002
Location: India | |
|
| mazda wrote on Tue, 15 April 2003 10:31 |
Since every planet is 100% for a tri-immune, is it as "necessary" to wait until 25% level is reached ?
You only lose travelling time, and possibly gain position by colonising before that time.
|
You are right, you could try to send 2500 colons on as many planets as you want, classic HE strategy. However, you will be very exposed to your enemy, without possibility to react and with no research going on for a very long time. And sending early your pop would decrease further you total pop increase, at least at the beginning of the game.
This would be interesting to test. Which of those strategies would be more profitable?
-Wait for 25% on your homeworld then send all excess to colonize one planet at a time (15k, need 49 turns to develop to 25%)
-Wait for 25% then send excess in small colony ships all over the place (2500 colons?) - don't know if minerals would be OK
-Don't wait for 25%, send immediately as many colony ships as you can and wait for all that pop to develop (which will take an eternity, about 80 turns) - in this case I doubt you would have enough minerals mined to build all those colony ships.
any volunteer?
YucaF
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Tri-immunities |
Sun, 20 April 2003 09:30 |
|
|
|
In all honesty I don't think it would be that good.
I mean the whole race design would go out of the window...
no -F races and no OWW and no QS races.
HG would be nigh on impossible to make too!
I mean if I was to play here's my race... (and my reasons!!)
IT (maximise that 6% growth by constantly exporting population. Minimise mineral transport problems, etc....)
IFE (because I can)
IS (early protection + ship building... it's cheap)
UR (it's an awfully expensive PRT but as Zoid will point out... end game design vs counter design this thing is a god send!!)
ORBM (why the hell would you want to remote mine????)
RS (this is gonna be a long game... chance of nubians is really high. RS + Nubians = nummy  )
Tri-immune 6% growth (duh)
1/1000
10/8/16
g box ticked
10/3/17
Weap + construction cheap, Bio expensive, rest normal.
Reasons why this game wouldn't be that good....
1. PRT's become pointless - CA (who needs terraforming?), HE is banned, AR would be suicide, IS loses best advantage (space growth)
2. LRT's become pointless - TT (duh), ARM (duh!!!), LSP (suicide!)
3. Economy reduction - no-one will be -f, no-one will be OWW!!!!, etc....
4. The game would take about 80 turns before it got going.
Maybe combining this idea with something like the careful wars would inject some spice... possible a rightful heir as well?? I don't know. I'm not a host, but I know this game would be REALLY slow and it would reduce so many of the nice things about stars games.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tri-immunities |
Sun, 20 April 2003 10:30 |
|
|
|
| freakyboy wrote on Sun, 20 April 2003 09:30 |
I mean the whole race design would go out of the window...
|
That's really a bad thing? Tri-immunities are something that is out the window under normal conditions anyway - by forcing extraordinary conditions, new concepts of play happen.
| Quote: |
I mean if I was to play here's my race... (and my reasons!!)
|
I like JOAT here, the early tech boost and extra planet pop is good. And with all the points to spend I'd buy UR and ISB to maximise resources, just like you suggested. Everything else the same as yours really.
Maybe PP would be an interesting race to play too, it would really come into multi-source enemy bombardment.
| Quote: |
1. PRT's become pointless - CA (who needs terraforming?), HE is banned, AR would be suicide, IS loses best advantage (space growth)
|
I kind of like the tri-immune AR - they've got a big initial amount of resources at each colony, and eventually they can get maximum pop growth if they manage to fill up the Death Stars.
| Quote: |
4. The game would take about 80 turns before it got going.
|
Yeah, that's why the jump. Play 10, scrap all ships besides moving colonisers, jump, say, 80 even, to get a good 60~70% pop per planet..
| Quote: |
I'm not a host, but I know this game would be REALLY slow and it would reduce so many of the nice things about stars games.
|
Many of the nice things about stars games is the flexibility, that there's more than one way to host a game. Sometimes vanilla games are great, I'm playing a huge one now that'll take forever to finish. I actually submitted a 6% HE to a different huge game but retracted it when I realised that I've got to actually spend some time away from the game.
I think in the right universe, with perhaps using some sort of other conditions than 'last standing race', something like exceed the next player's score by 50% or something, it'd be, you know, a bit different, and that's not a bad thing. Not everyone's cup of tea, but not a bad thing.
they made me do itReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tri-immunities |
Sun, 20 April 2003 13:49 |
|
|
|
Thinking about it...
Yeah this *could* be interesting... *if*...
1. All starting ships were scrapped (3rd party needed).
2. 100 turn generation before play (i.e. start on 2500 not 2400 - this would leave everyone with 880,000 population, give or take.) each race would not do ANY research (planets set to mineral alchemy for example or maybe building factories etc... then alchemy when maxed).
3. There is a specific goal (to prevent the lets sit and hold hands until nubians).
The only problem I can see with this would be PP and IT races (the two starting planets).
This would help loads and it would even make AR a useable race!!
I'd be interested in this... *if* (lol)
there were enough players ( a game this long would take ages as it is... therefore the more players the better because it wont slow the game down any more than it is )
and if the turn generations were long enough (i.e. 48 hours minimum).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Tri-immunities |
Mon, 21 April 2003 00:30 |
|
| zoid |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| freakyboy wrote on Sun, 20 April 2003 10:49 |
This would help loads and it would even make AR a useable race!
|
I know if I was playing in such a game banning HE's, AR would be my choice, with no hesitation. I've never been good at AR but I bet I'd have 12% growth and ready to go to war using capital BB's by 2450, with 18% growth not far behind. The race design wouldn't be much different from the 10% growth AR design I currently favor anyways. I'd have one more immunity, no need for terraforming, mines, factories, scanners, and only a few freighters, so everything goes into tech. I'd have ARM, ISB, 4 cheap techs, 1 normal and 1 expensive (guess which one)  and with everyone else handicapped by similarly low growth my AR would just be more powerful than ever! I'd only regret that as my deathstars reach 33% capacity one after another that I couldn't pop-drop on all the poor struggling land-lubbers. 
Second choice? Probably SS, so I could capitalize on the other guy playing AR, and hide my freighters carrying full loads of extremely valuable colonists. Havn't thought too much about a second choice because AR seems so obviously superior in such a setting I couldn't ignore it.
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: Tri-immunities |
Mon, 21 April 2003 00:52 |
|
| tprescott |
 | Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 38
Registered: December 2002
Location: ROK [GMT+9] | |
|
| zoid wrote on Mon, 21 April 2003 13:30 |
I know if I was playing in such a game banning HE's, AR would be my choice, with no hesitation. I've never been good at AR but I bet I'd have 12% growth and ready to go to war using capital BB's by 2450, with 18% growth not far behind.
|
Starbase capacity does not affect an ARs growth rate. If an AR grows at 6% in an orbital fort, it will continue to grow at 6% all the way up through deathstars.
You are confusing the effect of increased capacity on population exports. It is true that the new growth on a 3 million capacity deathstar will be 3 times the new growth on a 1 million capacity planet. But by the time the 6% tri-immune AR reaches 25% hold for a deathstar, a 6% tri-immune planet bound race will have 3 100% hab planets at the 25% hold and will be be exporting the exact same number of new colonists - but from three planets rather than one deathstar.
Tom
[Updated on: Mon, 21 April 2003 00:52] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tri-immunities |
Mon, 21 April 2003 01:36 |
|
| zoid |
| Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| tprescott wrote on Sun, 20 April 2003 21:52 |
| zoid wrote on Mon, 21 April 2003 13:30 |
I know if I was playing in such a game banning HE's, AR would be my choice, with no hesitation. I've never been good at AR but I bet I'd have 12% growth and ready to go to war using capital BB's by 2450, with 18% growth not far behind.
|
Starbase capacity does not affect an ARs growth rate. If an AR grows at 6% in an orbital fort, it will continue to grow at 6% all the way up through deathstars.
You are confusing the effect of increased capacity on population exports.
|
Oh, I'm not confused about that. I know the growth rate is technically still 6%. But to me, it's all about getting the first one up to 33% capacity, and after that you start exporting the same amount of colonists as an 18% growth does every turn. You fill one deathstar at a time to 33% capacity, and then your growth becomes exponential. You can tell me it's all the same if you want to, but I see the score graph curve sharply upward along with my resource count whenever I get a new starbase hull. I'm not going to believe for a minute that it makes no difference. 51900 colonists coming off of each planet every turn without decreasing the resident population is all the same to me, whether you want to call it 6% or 18%.
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: Tri-immunities |
Mon, 21 April 2003 03:24 |
|
| tprescott |
| Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 38
Registered: December 2002
Location: ROK [GMT+9] | |
|
| zoid wrote on Mon, 21 April 2003 14:36 |
You fill one deathstar at a time to 33% capacity, and then your growth becomes exponential. You can tell me it's all the same if you want to, but I see the score graph curve sharply upward along with my resource count whenever I get a new starbase hull. I'm not going to believe for a minute that it makes no difference.
|
You do know that population crowding effect starts at 25%, right? The *marginal* growth rate above 25% capacity is reduced immediately by two thirds. The planet's (or starbase's) decreasing *average* growth rate, however, will continue to produce more population exports (due to a higher capacity) until you reach the 33% capacity hold maximum. But, as long as you have room to expand, any population above 25% would actually grow faster on a new planet (or starbase) even if the alternative to continuing growth on a 100% planet (starbase) above 25% capacity is to establish a new colony on a 33% planet (starbase) - actually, at 33% hab the trade-off would be absolutely equal, so 34% hab would be an improvement.
If you fill your starbases to 33% before you upgrade, the population 'surge' and resource 'boost' that you see are only because your capacity is reduced back below 25% and a significant portion of your population (the difference between 25% and 33% capacity before upgrade) is no longer *limited* to one third of their potential.
| zoid wrote on Mon, 21 April 2003 14:36 |
51900 colonists coming off of each planet every turn without decreasing the resident population is all the same to me, whether you want to call it 6% or 18%.
|
It is not the same because it will take an AR 3 times longer to reach that point - whether it be 25% or 33%.
Tom
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tri-immunities |
Mon, 21 April 2003 05:11 |
|
|
|
Nothing to do with tri-immunes specifically, but I've found that max growth (actual increase) is somewhere between 34-35.5% not 33% - always have to fiddle the pop a little bit of course.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tri-immunities |
Mon, 21 April 2003 11:38 |
|
| tprescott |
| Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 38
Registered: December 2002
Location: ROK [GMT+9] | |
|
| gible wrote on Mon, 21 April 2003 18:11 |
Nothing to do with tri-immunes specifically, but I've found that max growth (actual increase) is somewhere between 34-35.5% not 33% - always have to fiddle the pop a little bit of course.
|
The differences between 33% and 35.5% are too little to be concerned about, I think. But the difference between 25% and 33% on population growth is significant.
For a 6% tri-immune on a 1 million capacity starbase, the population will grow at 6% up to 250,000. After that, crowding takes effect and reduces the *marginal* growth rate to 2% and that *marginal* rate decreases even further as capacity continues to rise further above 25%. Above 25% capacity, the *average* growth rate is something *less* than 6%, even though real population growth (the new growth figure you get when you left-click on population) continues to increase to its maximum at 33% capacity.
At a 33% hold, the first 250,000 population contribute 15,000 new growth (6%). The remaining 83,000 population (affected by crowding - ~2%) contribute approximately 1,660 more, for a total of approximately 16,660 new growth for the planet. Compare this to holding at 25%. The planet held at 25% produces 15,000 new growth. The 83,000 exported to establish a new colony (ignoring transit deaths) would produce 4,980 new growth on the next adjacent 100% hab world. Between the two planets, the *empire* new growth is 19,980. The 340 difference may not seem like very much, but it compounds annually and becomes very significant over time.
If you are trying to maximize population growth across your empire then a 25% hold is optimal (although this is not always what you want to optimize - for instance: at some point resources per planet for production becomes more important. Then 33% and 47% holds are appropriate. But for a low growth tri-immune, population growth at a 25% hold will be important for a long, long time.)
When there is no limit on 100% hab worlds and you want to grow people fast, why would you allow capacity to exceed 25% and (for the population above 25% capacity) reduce its growth potential to 2% - at best - when you can easily export any excess above 25% capacity to the next 100% world and have it continue to grow at 6%?.
You don't gain anything from increasing capacity to 33% until you either run out of room to colonize and expand into or you become more concerned with increasing resource output per planet and you allow the population to grow to accomplish that. Of course, if you had the construction tech to upgrade to the next capacity starbase, you would be much better off upgrading before exceeding 25% capacity so as to keep your population growing at its maximum rate.
Tom
[Updated on: Mon, 21 April 2003 11:39] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tri-immunities |
Mon, 21 April 2003 20:41 |
|
|
|
| EDog wrote on Sun, 20 April 2003 23:58 |
| freakyboy wrote on Sun, 20 April 2003 11:49 |
Thinking about it...
Yeah this *could* be interesting... *if*...
1. All starting ships were scrapped (3rd party needed).
2. 100 turn generation before play (i.e. start on 2500 not 2400 - this would leave everyone with 880,000 population, give or take.) each race would not do ANY research (planets set to mineral alchemy for example or maybe building factories etc... then alchemy when maxed).
|
This sounds tailor-made for one of Xdude's AFON3 starts...
EDog
|
Yep.
And Xdude *has* trotted out tri-immune non-HE races more than once that I've noticed. I initially thought that such a race (a JOAT in Center Warz) would have serious problems expanding - but the "AFON start" does get such a race over the hump so to speak in terms of being viable.
I'm not sure how such a race would recover from a serious invasion and loss of planets - but HP designs suffer somewhat from the same issue.
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 15 18:02:48 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Well, shucks.
)
hope the learning is worth it.
