Home » Primary Racial Traits » IT » -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) (Should a -f race monster conventionally?)
|
| Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) |
Wed, 12 September 2012 18:36   |
|
 Mark Hewitt |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: June 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada | |
|
[XAPBob wrote on Wed, 12 September 2012 12:32]What research/tech fleet strength should be attainable by a half competent human with a half decent race?
I'm testbedding a -f IT, and obliterating three expert AI in a small dense.
I took out both of the neighbouring PP starbases in the early 30s, although I don't have a big enough bombing fleet (defenses are a pain) I'm just expanding through him, without the packet threat.
I basically control the top 60% of the map, with an HE in the SW and an AR south central/ east (number 2 player at the moment)
Not all AI are created equally.
The CA (Rototills) and AR (Macinti) are pushovers. The CA doesn't expand enough and the AR doesn't arm and guard his Orbital Forts. Both will give up some tech (usually Bio and Energy respectively) far too easily.
The IS (Automitrons) are tough to dig out but like the CA don't expand enough.
The PP (Cybertrons) expand aggressively and will packet you, especially at worlds you take from them. At range and with good defenses their threat diminishes.
The SS (Turndrones) don't expand as aggressively as the PP but they field Beta DD's early and their stealth makes them a greater threat.
The HE (Robotoids) are a nuisance when close, firing all those Mini Colonizers at you. And a rich source of tech from pop dropping them. But if they can develop in size and to later tech they become a serious threat.
In your test wars, I would suggest not making the AI random but distribute it among the last four, all expert. Make it no more than one IS and add a pair of SS and an HE for 4 enemy. If more, add up to 2 PP and maybe another HE.
[Updated on: Wed, 12 September 2012 18:39] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) |
Thu, 13 September 2012 15:19 |
|
|
|
[XAPBob wrote on Thu, 13 September 2012 15:54]I'm clearing 10k in 2440 with 7/14/8/10/7/4
I control two HW, and 60% of the map (not all occupied yet, but only token resistance remains - enough to save me some colonisation modules 
I've picked up a few (expensive) techs from battles (4*L 4*N 2*P), none of my "key field" research has been stolen thus far.
I lead the universe in economy (by 50%, despite recent MM failings) and tech (equal lead with the AR). Recent focus on building fleets of bombers has slowed my research, but they will move on to the next planet which needs them 
Don't let the AIs fool/teach you into bad playing habits. Even the strongest AIs are bad.
The primary reason why I, too, suggest testbedding in a very similar setup than the real game: it's at least better than letting your race run in an empty universe. It gives you hints wether your start might be too slow, wether you run into mineral shortages, wether precious tech items you thought essential to your strat might come in much later than expected... so, as a beginner it helps you to get a feeling for your race design and how those choices in the race wizard translate into the gameplay.
Since the AIs have some very stupid habits, you actually should play against them as if they were smarter. So don't milk them for tech. The opposite is true for a real game, whenever an enemy gives you the possibility to gain tech from him... go for it. Well, sometimes the diplomatic turmoil might be contraproductive and weighing pros and cons might be wise (but more fun it is to follow the irresistible lure of somebody offering you "free" tech on a plate *grin)
For the Fledgling Admiral settings the beginner's aim should be to conquere an AI-HW within the first 40 years. But try to do it as if they were smart mean humans and not stupid AIs... which means try to build an attack/bomber-fleet which would be capable to strike successfully vs a HW for which the owner has 1-2 turns to prepare for your incoming fleet. And imag
...
[Updated on: Thu, 13 September 2012 15:20] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) |
Fri, 14 September 2012 11:03 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
[XAPBob wrote on Fri, 14 September 2012 19:07]magic9mushroom wrote on Thu, 13 September 2012 21:58[XAPBob wrote on Thu, 13 September 2012 04:32]What research/tech fleet strength should be attainable by a half competent human with a half decent race
In "real stuff" you're looking for roughly the same results, yeah.
In resource numbers, you probably want to halve the numbers (so 12.5k@50 is minimum viable, 25k@50 is pretty good), since a -f has a much greater percentage of "free resources" than a +f.
OK - let's see what I have by 2450 then - I'm past 12.5k at 2444, BBs are this year (I took a break from weapons for fun and profit) - but I might not be getting the higher weapons tech fast enough (unless I stop terraforming at quite the rate I'm doing it - that's probably a good move then - I'll change my default orders (pity changes don't propogate))
If you don't mind sharing, what's the race design? It'd be easier to give specific advice if we had something to get our collective teeth into.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) |
Sat, 15 September 2012 03:12 |
|
| XAPBob |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
IT:
IFE,ISB,NRSE,OBRM,NAS
1/4 @19% (.24g-2.24g/Immune/15mR-49mR)
1/1000
5/25/5/4
10/4/13
WC Cheap
NPLB Exp @ 3
IFE means I start at prop6 (Good for the any/300 gate and jihads) and require no Prop research for a LONG time. It also provides the FM for all my early ships and fast remote shipping. NRSE pays for it, and with the FM/SFX/AMG, wide hab and gates I can afford to snub scoops in the game.
ISB makes gates *very* cheap, and provides small ship building capability across the whole empire (of relatively small early planets), the refuelling at border gates is somewhat useful too, but SFX MM could mitigate.
OBRM gives me slightly bigger planets and I've never really got on with RM, besides I have a decent habitability rate and rad tolerance designed for an inter-settling alliance.
NAS + L start @3 gives excellent early scanning in a small universe and 30 RW points, as well as putting mine-layers only one expensive tech level away. Gate scanners and scouts littered across the galaxy will have to suffice for orbits later in the game unless I can trade for pen scanners.
Plan:
GROW, gate pop/minerals to the expansion front lines to expand (rapidly building gates) far and fast (in spokes) then in fill.
Occupy space and use docks to build decent, early, war fleets and the gates to concentrate force in order to expand further and protect the borders. Yellows are fairly easy to bring up to force.
Cheap techs to allow the smaller economy to keep up and field effective fleets early. Also to get to important technology levels (e.g. SFX to allow gate healing (seems generally permitted in games)) early.
Build a handful of mines each year on each planet, and a little TF*. Mines don't compound, so I don't need them all up front, but TF directly affects my resources.
Research plan:
C8 (SFX+LF) for expansion (and to get close to CC & any/300) (within 10-12 years).
B4 (Mine-layers) for defence
W10*, C9, W12, C10.
Then W, but at some point (maybe at juggernauts?) run to C13 for BB (getting the US
...
[Updated on: Sat, 15 September 2012 03:24] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) |
Sat, 15 September 2012 14:37 |
|
|
|
I guess the race is NOT made for a lengthy big game but for a fast paced game in a small universe with lots of expected early trouble?
Assuming this, the design looks very good.
Only finetune I'd suggest:
Cost of mines from 4 to 3. It's cheap race-pts-wise and mines can be built a rocking 25% cheaper/faster. Only spot where to scrab the pts from for this would be to tinker a bit with the habs.
Concerning your initial question about test beds and results: they work extremely bad for -f. And while economy is important also for a -f, in comparison to factory-races the quickstart ability and early tactical expansion of a -f is such a more important factor that it is very difficult to measure and to compare.
About your research strat just one hint:
IMHO weap is prime even for the IT. And while the con-10-gates are great (and later on needed), you get along with the standard gates for quite a while. An IT can just do so much more with those standard gates than the other PRTs without having constant losses to the void.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) |
Sat, 15 September 2012 18:20 |
|
|
|
If it was my race, I'd drop IFE and NRSE and take CE instead. The DLL7 is good enough for your first engine, and with ISB + a wide hab range you don't really need the fuel mizer to expand. CE hurts you much less as an IT, gives decent points and prop 6, and the combo of that and no NRSE will make your ships much cheaper.
You can use the points to get some cheaper research, possibly dropping start@3, and/or widening your hab even further.
Edit: You're also definitely going to want Regenerating Shields. Not only does it always help in the pre-BB era, but once capital missiles and sappers become common, armor becomes a liability and you're going to want every single shield point you can get.
[Updated on: Sat, 15 September 2012 18:26] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) |
Sat, 15 September 2012 22:39 |
|
|
|
Coyote wrote on Sun, 16 September 2012 00:20If it was my race, I'd drop IFE and NRSE and take CE instead. The DLL7 is good enough for your first engine, and with ISB + a wide hab range you don't really need the fuel mizer to expand.
Mmmh, that would slow him down thrice:
* no fuel mizer
* CE stops
* the need to research prop
I wouldn't do that as a -f who needs to be expanding and kicking from early on.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) |
Sun, 16 September 2012 03:17 |
|
| XAPBob |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
Altruist wrote on Sat, 15 September 2012 14:37I guess the race is NOT made for a lengthy big game but for a fast paced game in a small universe with lots of expected early trouble?
Assuming this, the design looks very good.
Only finetune I'd suggest:
Cost of mines from 4 to 3. It's cheap race-pts-wise and mines can be built a rocking 25% cheaper/faster. Only spot where to scrab the pts from for this would be to tinker a bit with the habs.
Concerning your initial question about test beds and results: they work extremely bad for -f. And while economy is important also for a -f, in comparison to factory-races the quickstart ability and early tactical expansion of a -f is such a more important factor that it is v:ery difficult to measure and to compare.
About your research strat just one hint:
IMHO weap is prime even for the IT. And while the con-10-gates are great (and later on needed), you get along with the standard gates for quite a while. An IT can just do so much more with those standard gates than the other PRTs without having constant losses to the void.
Mines 3 is an option, although the economic impact isn't as focussed as they don't compound. I could also drop to 11 operated as I've not got a complete set of mines anywhere yet (2 points remaining to go on either mines or minerals)
I only get the C10 gates after W12 - the starting gates are excellent with IT overgating, my LF can't gate with complete immunity, but they're close enough, especially with healing.
[Updated on: Sun, 16 September 2012 05:33] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) |
Sun, 16 September 2012 08:39 |
|
|
|
magic9mushroom wrote on Sun, 16 September 2012 12:41I'd question the effectiveness of going 2 cheap. Going 3.5 cheap isn't too much additional expenditure from there IIRC.
There are also very long diatribes about the effectiveness of IFE and ISB for IT. Both is probably a bit overkill. Remember, you start with fairly high Prop, and most of your heavy pop-movement will be gated (which uses no fuel).
Mmmh, your points and mine are so completly on the opposite sides, that I guess we have also completly different playing strategies in mind.
My background thought for -f ITs in a small short game:
Everything is about speed and early kicking ability. You must achieve a leading position very early, not necessarily in resources but in space/planets(/conquest). If you are behind in the 40ies, you have basically lost the game to the factory-races.
The race design is called quickstarter (QS). And Bob's design is a very good typical example of a QS.
@magic9mushroom, most of your points are true for a long game (but in a long game you should think twice about playing -f). But every of your made points above slows down the design which is deadly. Here explanations in detail to show the different logic of a QS:
* 3.5 instead of 2 cheap fields: slows down because the intention is to research 4 fields. In Bob's design research will be concentrated onto 2 fields (faster and very likely resulting in havng the first strike fleet), the free pts allocated to LRTs and hab.
* IFE: Again, in a long game you wouldn't choose IFE, but here it is necessary to get the early speed for colonization plus the usual other advantages: less fuel, ship designs need no engine upgrade.
* ISB: Fuel, defense, production. Even more important than IFE for a -f IT. Every colonized planet can setup a dock and start production rightaway. An IT can network the yearly ship production and focus it onto one point via gates.
magic9mushroom wrote on Sun, 16 September 2012 12:41IT CE with no NRSE starts with the radram. Radram's g
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) |
Sun, 16 September 2012 14:44 |
|
|
|
No, only when moving through space.
If you have Energy cheap and plan on researching it, it's better to take Rad immune than Temp anyway, because of the planet distribution.
The Rad-Ram is a little better with fuel than the DLL7 at all speeds and is a lot cheaper and lighter, so you could at least use it for non-cargo ships anyway.
I'm still not convinced that the FM gives such a huge advantage over the DLL7 for expansion when with a wide hab and ISB you won't need to move as far as anyone else to begin with. Unless you're in a sparse uni, you probably won't need more than one w9 jump.
Having ramscoops available doesn't in any way mean that you "have" to research Prop any more than you "have" to with NRSE. It mainly just gives you more options for lighter, cheaper, more efficient engines - you don't have to invest in them if you don't want to, but it can pay off, and you can really get by pretty well with the tech 9 scoop instead of pushing to that horribly expensive IS10 engine. You can still push at w10 if you need to, and if your ships come out 10% cheaper than they would be with the IS10 the explosion losses are not even going to hurt - and you'll still be at an advantage in every other situation.
[Updated on: Sun, 16 September 2012 14:45] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 27 15:51:41 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
-f benchmarks (IT or ithers)
