Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » New Game Announcements » Glacier III
Re: Glacier III |
Thu, 27 August 2009 15:53 |
|
|
Have you thought of allowing 9% Growth for ARs + no targeting SBs? 9% is only a little better than 8% but it might help offset the advantages the other races have. One of the problems that ARs have is that they depend on research plus population growth to improve resource production and basic mining. With a 8% growth rate cap plus slower tech advances, it really hits AR races hard.
Other races can use the extra race points from the reduced growth rate to improve their factory rates and mine production rates. The only improvement in resources that you can make with AR races is to change the one resource factor rate. The improvements resource factor rates are expensive and only affects resources based on the squareroot of the factor.
The Universe is usually not fair.
That would be too easy.Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Glacier III |
Thu, 27 August 2009 21:43 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
I suck at playing AR's, and I can still hit Robo maxi miners at 2425 with cheap con. And that is just limiting myself to 15 planets! All the AR's have grabbed more planets than that initially, as ground pounders can't stop them.
Further, I can hit cruisers at 2438, which is Waaaay to early in this game (Xeelee got them in the late 2460's). True, you can't build with much of a weap tech, but that much armor plus obviously good shields AND being able to sling metal willy nilly for a few rounds could be awfully scary combo.
I dunno. Seems a bit unbalancing to me. I consider myself a terrible AR player, and if I can hit those set points with 15 planets, I wonder what a real AR expert could do with even more planets!
Unless someone one out there can convince me, I am gonna have to say no to the cheap con.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Glacier III |
Thu, 27 August 2009 23:57 |
|
|
mlaub wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 11:43 | I suck at playing AR's, and I can still hit Robo maxi miners at 2425 with cheap con. And that is just limiting myself to 15 planets! All the AR's have grabbed more planets than that initially, as ground pounders can't stop them.
Further, I can hit cruisers at 2438, which is Waaaay to early in this game (Xeelee got them in the late 2460's). True, you can't build with much of a weap tech, but that much armor plus obviously good shields AND being able to sling metal willy nilly for a few rounds could be awfully scary combo.
I dunno. Seems a bit unbalancing to me. I consider myself a terrible AR player, and if I can hit those set points with 15 planets, I wonder what a real AR expert could do with even more planets!
Unless someone one out there can convince me, I am gonna have to say no to the cheap con.
|
Not much point having cruisers and no minerals. Don't forget those maxi miners cost minerals and resources to build, where other races would already have megatonnes of minerals available for use up by this point (i.e. you described gambling 10mt on the first MT in the last game. Could your AR testbed have even considered that?)
EDIT: hang on what... 'sling metal willy nilly'? You realise Maxi miners are roughly equivalent to 10/6/x mine settings, and cost minerals too. In a universe where the other races probably have settings closer to 15/3/15 or better 'Mineral fountain' is pretty irrelevant (and slow to build) until the universe slips under 30 conc, which isn't until much later.
Not really sure of any way 'fix' them, it's a low-resource total that's really the issue (after they stop expanding, their resource curves are linear, because of resource by sqrt of pop growth.) I suppose getting their targets in con sooner does help that, but that doesn't really seem the right way to fix them.
Maybe give them some extra miners at the game start? Bit of hosting hassle, not sure if it'd help or not.
I'm thinking of trying AR in this game, either way. Largely because I'm iffy about letting myself join a game (I waste so much time on micro...) so maybe shooting myself in the foot by taking a suicidal PRT choice would reduce the 'damage'
[Updated on: Fri, 28 August 2009 02:45] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Glacier III |
Fri, 28 August 2009 00:38 |
|
|
mlaub wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 21:43 |
Unless someone one out there can convince me, I am gonna have to say no to the cheap con.
|
I agree that cheap construction is too much ... that is why I was suggesting increased growth instead: 9% max growth + no SB targeting + Normal Construction research.
It will still make ARs difficult but should give them a little better chance.
The Universe is usually not fair.
That would be too easy.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Glacier III |
Fri, 28 August 2009 01:12 |
|
|
DenHam wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 14:38 | I agree that cheap construction is too much ... that is why I was suggesting increased growth instead: 9% max growth + no SB targeting + Normal Construction research.
It will still make ARs difficult but should give them a little better chance.
|
I suspect you'd find a 9% AR to be weaker than an 8% AR. Habs are more important than growth rate to AR, and you can't really afford bi-immunity with 9% without crippling your tech or efficiency settings. I'm not at all sure which is the best option between 6%, 7% and 8% though.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Glacier III |
Fri, 28 August 2009 03:05 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 07:12 | Habs are more important than growth rate to AR, and you can't really afford bi-immunity with 9% without crippling your tech or efficiency settings. I'm not at all sure which is the best option between 6%, 7% and 8% though.
|
IMO there only smart hab settings for an AR in this game is 3-immune. I did some calcualtion with the bi-immune (grav and rad immune, 46 clicks-wide-centered temp) 8% PGR 10-divisor race and the 3-immune 7% PGR 16-divisor AR.
Since growth and resource output directly depends on the hab, gets the 3-immune BETTER growth than the 8% one, and despite 16-divisior MORE resources than the bi-immune, because it can setle all planets from start (better pop spreading), and those planets are all 100% (no loss due non-optimal hab).
Still the production of minerals is what will kill any AR. Slow tech doubles the tech costs of remotes, and normal con "price" doubles it again. A (weak) "solution" is IMO building Midget miners, but those are horribly inefficient (planetary-mines-cost-10 level, without the price in minerals). If you'd allow ARs to take con cheap, would the game IMO deteriorate in the kill-AR-ASAP game.
Well it seems I got another solution besides "ALL races must be AR ": what if host would require all races must take mines cost 10? That would put all of them in the same regarding production of minerals. OFC the ONLY miner AR could use would also need to be the Midget one (or the con-4 one, if AR would not take ARM).
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Fri, 28 August 2009 03:14] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: Glacier III |
Fri, 28 August 2009 05:17 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
goober wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 10:07 | Not knowledgable enough about AR to know: but does giving them the extra surface minerals so they can automatically build their first x pintas, y remote miners & z transports
|
It's not the lack of minerals for colony drive what kills AR, esp. not in this low-growth game. It's the lack of minerals for defensive fleets, when colonizing phase of the early game is over. While at turn 50 other races will be mining 500kT of each mineral per turn just on their HWs, will the AR be limited to ~200kT through its whole empire.
For other races it is unfairly easy to build ~50 Beta torp DDs and fling them around killing AR's orbitals. How can the iron-broke AR counter that, without becoming totaly bankrupt?
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Fri, 28 August 2009 05:28] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Glacier III |
Fri, 28 August 2009 05:44 |
|
|
A few ideas:
1. Ensure that the Iron MC is at least 80. An Iron crunch pretty much always occurs early for an AR so that would help.
2. AR starts with, say, 15 Remote miners (equivalent of 150 mines for ARM, else equivalent of 120 mines).
3. Reduce starting pop by, say, 10% at the start for all non-AR races.
If you wish I could set up (2) &/or (3) above. It would require the game to be run locally until 2402 & could then be set up on AH. The remote miners would be built for free. In order to reduce pop I would need to build a free freighter & dump the pop. The freighters could be deleted in 2401.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Glacier III |
Sun, 30 August 2009 07:39 |
|
Orange | | Officer Cadet 1st Year | Messages: 215
Registered: November 2005 Location: TO, ONT, CA | |
|
Mark Hewitt wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 07:13 |
perrindom wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 13:01 | As a killing-one-neighbour-and-survive-to-end AR in Glacier II
|
Wow, you did that with Const normal and BET?!? I'm impressed. Do tell how.
I've been testing AR along with a few other PRT's. I think AR needs Const cheap and no BET to have a chance to win. I think a rule saying no Kill-starbase orders against the AR's won't work as it will be difficult to enforce and isn't enough.
|
The no kill starbase order is very easy to enforce. you can see it on the battle views. where the orders of each stack is displayed.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Glacier III |
Sun, 30 August 2009 14:14 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
Mark Hewitt wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 06:13 |
perrindom wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 13:01 | As a killing-one-neighbour-and-survive-to-end AR in Glacier II
|
Wow, you did that with Const normal and BET?!? I'm impressed. Do tell how.
|
This is why I have a difficult time thinking the AR needs more help, like cheap Con. Per nearly killed a second race, and admits he made a mistake in that attack.
With the changes to the rules I have already made (any shields on any AR ships, and no targeting the AR SB's) I seriously doubt the second player would have had a chance. Per could have easily pushed to Energy14 for the second race, and shown up with +70% more shields. That much extra in shields would have easily carried any battle. Further, the stacking effect of shields means that the AR won't lose many ships from that point forward.
I think my issue here is that I have played with some absolutely "stellar" AR players in the past. I know how much better they were compared to me, and why. I just don't have the proper mind set to play AR well. However, that doesn't mean I don't see the potential...I have given the AR 2 formidable options they did not have last game, and I think that is enough.
However, I would be willing to drop one, and add cheap con. How about pick 2 of these. That good enough?
1) Any shield on any AR ship
2) Cheap Con for AR's (no AR nubs)
3) No targeting AR SB's
I would assume that everyone would remove option 3...
BET is part of the game theme. It stays.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Glacier III |
Sun, 30 August 2009 16:02 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
perrindom wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 14:08 |
Mark Hewitt wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 13:13 |
perrindom wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 13:01 | As a killing-one-neighbour-and-survive-to-end AR in Glacier II
|
Wow, you did that with Const normal and BET?!? I'm impressed. Do tell how.
|
Diplomacy! Agressively winning early skirmishes helped by NAS, and later being lucky to be in a position where others didn't find it worth in the grand scheme to take over my space until late in the game.
|
Yea, but this can be said for all races. Picking your fights etc, is usually the surest way to win, or lose.
There were several non AR races that died early too. They didn't pick there fights very well, got unlucky, or decided to forgo diplomacy.
Also, you have the rock/paper/scissor effect. A WM destroyed one AR, then got creamed by a SS later for lack of minefields and ungateable ships. Another WM, pushing the early weap advantage and got nuked by a packet slinging IT.
Adversity is part of the game. Per found a way to survive early. I am sure others will too.
Realize tho, it may never be easy to play an AR. Some players fear them, and just want them dead.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Glacier III |
Mon, 31 August 2009 11:20 |
|
Orange | | Officer Cadet 1st Year | Messages: 215
Registered: November 2005 Location: TO, ONT, CA | |
|
mlaub wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 14:14 |
However, I would be willing to drop one, and add cheap con. How about pick 2 of these. That good enough?
1) Any shield on any AR ship
2) Cheap Con for AR's (no AR nubs)
3) No targeting AR SB's
I would assume that everyone would remove option 3...
BET is part of the game theme. It stays.
-Matt
|
So are we ready to go with #1 and #2? Do we have enough people to go?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Glacier III |
Mon, 31 August 2009 17:48 |
|
Orange | | Officer Cadet 1st Year | Messages: 215
Registered: November 2005 Location: TO, ONT, CA | |
|
For clarity, please expressly note in the "rules" that the "Repair after gating loophole" on the list is NOT allowed (unless you allow it).
This is a key feature that the players may be tempted to use in these expanded universes. Thank you.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Glacier III |
Mon, 31 August 2009 18:13 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
Orange wrote on Mon, 31 August 2009 16:48 | For clarity, please expressly note in the "rules" that the "Repair after gating loophole" on the list is NOT allowed (unless you allow it).
This is a key feature that the players may be tempted to use in these expanded universes. Thank you.
|
Well. I actually listed it last game as allowed, I'll add it again.
Thanks!
-Matt
[Updated on: Mon, 31 August 2009 18:20]
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Pages (3): [ 2 ] |
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 09 18:27:58 EDT 2024
|