Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » AR design
icon3.gif  AR design Mon, 09 June 2003 00:07 Go to next message
boneandrew is currently offline boneandrew

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 35
Registered: June 2003
Location: Detroit
I have always had trouble designing competitive AR races. But I just (in my infinite wisdom) noticed that the resources per pop adjuster yields over 500 points for a smaller resource per pop decline than the other races. Specifically, it's (square root of pop per resource)/100 of however much I take off, so taking pop*1000/2500 resources really decreases the resources of a given population by about 37%, not 60% like other races. So, I'm experimenting with designing races that use this instead of the default 1000 setting. So far, I think that the higher population growth I can easily get from 500+ race points makes up for it.

Let's see: other issues: tech settings are kind of a no-brainer. Weapons, construction, and energy all need to be cheap. As propulsion ends up being expensive, the IFE+NRS combo ends up being wise, and of course ARM, and ISB if I can afford it. I've noticed that the vast majority of warship designs tend to be beamers due to the enormous amounts of Iromium going to mining robots, at least until the mineral mongering starts to kick in.

Let's see: anything else? I'm sure there's other things as well . . . Rolling Eyes

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Mon, 09 June 2003 03:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
freakyboy is currently offline freakyboy

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 583
Registered: November 2002
Location: Where the clowns can't re...

RS is always a good idea. Since you're chucking so much resources into energy you may as well get some decent use of those sheilds.

An immunity helps LOADS. Two does wonders... but it kills your growth rate.

the 10 vs 25 effeciency thing... Yeah it gets you alot of points to spend on your race, and you do only use 37% resources but at which point? Tech 3 in energy? tech 6? tech 10?

The 25 settings really hurts when you've got death stars and tech 26 in energy - you realise how much worse off you are.

But like any -F race... it's not about resources it about planets and growth rate.


Apelord told me TT is good. I tried it... and it was REALLY good!!! the 30% lower cost for terraforming helps to shift planets as good as possible as quick as possible. It's great... costs alot, but the rewards are fantastic.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 10 June 2003 07:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1189
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
> I have always had trouble designing competitive AR races
No wonder. Smile There's no such thing as a competitive AR race until late game. ALL ARs have a big problem with lack of minerals until they got enough remote miners (that need minerals to build Smile).

I did experiment a lot with ARs. The most funny thing I found out was when changing res divisor to 25 and spending those 600 points in hab(1 in 3) + TT (just for speed, bio expensive) + IFE (need it for faster expansion) the end resource output of whole empire was the same as with 1/10 AR race.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 03 September 2003 22:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
iztok wrote on Tue, 10 June 2003 21:04

I did experiment a lot with ARs. The most funny thing I found out was when changing res divisor to 25 and spending those 600 points in hab(1 in 3) + TT (just for speed, bio expensive) + IFE (need it for faster expansion) the end resource output of whole empire was the same as with 1/10 AR race.


But how did the resource penalty on your early development? The early game is when AR is at it's most vulnerable, so anything that slows early development could be crippling. Did you find this to be the case?

equal resources at 2600 is one thing, but if you get are an easy target at 2425-2450 you have a major problem as AR.

I'm thinking a NO-immune, wide-hab, 19%, eff 10 might pay off. Certainly AR gains $$$ by having +++ small colonies (that sqrt thing - the more you split your population, the more resources you get)

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 03 September 2003 23:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sotek is currently offline Sotek

 
Chief Warrant Officer 2

Messages: 167
Registered: November 2002
The sqrt thing is then multiplied by planet value.

So no, you *need* the immunity.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Thu, 04 September 2003 02:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
freakyboy is currently offline freakyboy

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 583
Registered: November 2002
Location: Where the clowns can't re...

Immunities for AR are wonderful. The biggest factor in the resource formula is the planetary value.

Proof of this can be found with this race...
AR
IFE, ARM, ISB, NAS, RS
Grav immune
Temperature immune
80mr to 100mr (i know there's no planets on 100mr)
17% growth
25 eff
Energy, construction cheap
weapons normal
others expensive

It's very capable and a resource monster (25k by 2450) with loads of minerals thanks to ARM. But it's weak on technology (if such a thing is true of AR).

But back to the point...

the sqrt of 10 and the sqrt of 25 don't have such a massive difference between the 2. You start with low resources but the growth rate combined with the immunity counter-act this very quickly.

Thats the reasoning behind the 25eff setting. The closest I got to 25k with an 10eff race was with one of Apelords designs that got me upto 18k - by switching to 25eff and expanding the hab range and increasing the growth rate I got the same race to 21k.

I'd say to take your favourite AR race and alter the eff to 25 and spend the points however you want and then try again.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Thu, 04 September 2003 07:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1189
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Dogthinkers wrote on Thu, 04 September 2003 04:10


But how did the resource penalty on your early development? The early game is when AR is at it's most vulnerable, so anything that slows early development could be crippling. Did you find this to be the case?

I've experimented a lot with the Joseph Oberlandtner's idea of NO ARM + NO IFE AR race. Did quite a number of testbeds. In some I took 1/25 divisor. Such a race starts quite slow, so I decided to take again IFE and add TT for faster growth. That combo, and cheap Energy really helped. In the same universe it's res at 2450 were almost the same, as from 1/10 race. But it still had the same problem with lack of minerals early. Even a bit greater, as it could not produce those remote miners so fast as 1/10 race. So I decided not to use AR for my race in a standard PBEM game.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Thu, 04 September 2003 18:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
freakyboy is currently offline freakyboy

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 583
Registered: November 2002
Location: Where the clowns can't re...

No ARM is doable.
No IFE I can't imagine!!! And I'd rather not!!!

I've always found that when it comes to AR races you're always left with the TT vs ARM choice. The 25eff makes it possible to take both and STILL have room to improve hab/GR.

Has anyone tried the 17% bi-immune race yet?

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Thu, 04 September 2003 19:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
freakyboy wrote on Thu, 04 September 2003 16:39

Immunities for AR are wonderful. The biggest factor in the resource formula is the planetary value.
....
the sqrt of 10 and the sqrt of 25 don't have such a massive difference between the 2. You start with low resources but the growth rate combined with the immunity counter-act this very quickly.


Welll... Sqrt(10)=3.162 and Sqrt(25)=5... IMHO thats a fairly substantial difference. Rolling Eyes

A world with value 90% at eff 25 will produce the same resources as a world with value 57% at eff 10.

At first glance that suggests similar resources available to 3widehab vs immunity. BUT widehab gets you *more* worlds (not forgetting AR population is more efficient the more worlds it is divided amongst Cool,) which could well offset the growth rate disadvantage of living in 40%-70% compared to 70% to 100% and provide more resources. Very Happy

Have I lost the plot? I'm probably just a silly noob going against the theory... Embarassed

I reckon I got some serious test bedding to do... If only I had the time.... Sad

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Fri, 05 September 2003 02:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1189
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
freakyboy wrote on Fri, 05 September 2003 00:32

No ARM is doable.
No IFE I can't imagine!!! And I'd rather not!!!

Why not? Those AR races I've tested mostly had rad immunity and prop cheap. That resulted in using RHRS-6 scoop in early freighters and getting LF with prop-9 scoop around turn 22. With 16 or 17% PGR, wide hab (1 in 3-5) and a couple of QJ-5 med freighters it's easily doable.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Fri, 05 September 2003 02:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1189
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Quote:

BUT widehab gets you *more* worlds (not forgetting AR population is more efficient the more worlds it is divided amongst Cool,) which could well offset the growth rate disadvantage of living in 40%-70% compared to 70% to 100% and provide more resources. Very Happy

That's exactly the catch with 1/25 or 1/10 choice. You get more planets, not more resources. Or more precisely, you only get 63% resources from a single planet, but if you spent those 600 RW points into IFE, TT and as wide hab as you can afford, you usually get 60% more planets, with a bit lower value. Those planets will give you 60% more resources you already have, so you get 63%+63%*0.60 resources or 100.8% end resources of a 1/10 race Wink.

No joke here. Has taken me quite some time to understand why I can not get more res with 60% more planets. Now I know.
BR, Iztok


[Updated on: Fri, 05 September 2003 02:42]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Fri, 05 September 2003 02:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
freakyboy is currently offline freakyboy

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 583
Registered: November 2002
Location: Where the clowns can't re...

True! But I guess I'm just not a strong believer in early life without the fuel mizer... the only race I don't mind going without IFE is IT since you can actually manage to start with the radiation ramscoop or have it 1 tech away.


The eff25 setting yeilds 590 points (give or take a couple) Which is ALOT when designing a race... you lose out on 36% resources - as long as you can get say 40% more planets from those 590 points then bob's your uncle. The way I first did it was to take a non-immune AR that I know performs well... change the eff to 25 and then take an immunity and see what happens from there in test bedding - It worked out to give more resources since I expanded the hab AND improved planetary values... hence I follow the theory through to the 17% bi-immune AR... which is kind of scary

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Fri, 05 September 2003 02:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
freakyboy is currently offline freakyboy

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 583
Registered: November 2002
Location: Where the clowns can't re...

WOW - 2 posts at almost the same time!!! Impressive.


Yeah you can only get to around the same resources as an eff10 race... but...

You just picked up IFE and TT according to your own post... TT will increase your ramp up big style... TT is a joyous wonder for AR races since it's effects are to decrease your terraforming costs and increase just about everything. You don't have to research bio because you still get the usual 15% terraforming everyone else gets... you just get to do it 30% cheaper and this compounds to greater effect since the quicker planetary improvement increases the more you terraform.

When I look at my 10 vs 25 eff races... TT and ARM constantly appear where they did not before... these do come in handy for AR... honest Laughing

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Fri, 05 September 2003 03:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1189
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
freakyboy wrote on Fri, 05 September 2003 08:46


...TT will increase your ramp up big style...

Nope. With 1/25 race it will still be only 90% as fast as with 1/10 race without TT. Remember, we are doing 70 res with 63% race. Sad But with TT we have a possibility of catching some MTs that will give bio tech, so planets might improve with time to higher values (= more res) than 1/10 race.

Quote:

When I look at my 10 vs 25 eff races... TT and ARM constantly appear where they did not before... these do come in handy for AR... honest Laughing

No, I didn't include ARM here. IMO the only two advantages ARM gives are 2 midget miners early (that increase mining on the HW by about 40%) and a bit cheaper miners late. Gateability is IMO not an issue. If you put only a single miner on mini-miner hull about 1.5% of ships are lost when gating through 300/500 gates. But I have to admit I never used ARM LRT so I may miss something.
BR, Iztok


[Updated on: Fri, 05 September 2003 03:25]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Fri, 05 September 2003 08:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
freakyboy is currently offline freakyboy

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 583
Registered: November 2002
Location: Where the clowns can't re...

Gateability isn't the issue - this I agree on entirely.

Advantages of ARM...

The potato bug is actually a nifty little miner. It's 0 tech requirement means you can pump out a fairly efficient miner from turn 0 and keep going. It's a miner hull that doesn't need redesigning for a while since only the 12kt miner is only marginally more effecient and probably not worth upgrading to.

The top-of-the-range-only-available-to-ARM miner robot is another good reason for ARM. It's a miner robot that competes with the Alien miner. It's 1/2 the resource cost of the next best miner robot and mines only 2kt less. It's cheaper to build, lower mineral cost too (IIRC - no stars @ work) and most of all... it mines almost as well miner to miner. By this stage resources should be your limiting factor and as such the ARM top miner mines almost 2x the minerals than the nearest non-arm competitor... that's as good a reason as any to take ARM because effectively you're either doubling your mining rate or halfing the cost of your mining.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Fri, 05 September 2003 14:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Taubat is currently offline The Taubat

 
Officer Cadet 3rd Year

Messages: 263
Registered: December 2002
IMO, I think when you take 25% eff, youre designing a -f version of AR, cept you get more points than with a normal race, like twice as much, and it is SLOW, im not kidding, ive tried a 25% race before and IT SUCKED, badly, slow in tech gaining, slow in mid-late game, only saving grace was the ARM and TT, that was it,

I do not see why you need IFE though, while it helps, if you took NRSE, its not gonna make a diffrence, youre still limited to that warp of the engine, so might as well save 90-100 points and leave it off.



Royal Sha'a'kar of the Taubat people

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Fri, 05 September 2003 22:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
freakyboy is currently offline freakyboy

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 583
Registered: November 2002
Location: Where the clowns can't re...

NRSE is a bad idea for AR I've always found because of mining red planets. Shifting uber heavy miners is a pain in the arse with NRSE because they run out of fuel something chronic!!!

25eff shouldn't slow down a race that much, unless you're taking 25eff and then not using the extra race wizard points to increase your GR and expand your hab. The point of taking 25eff is to gain an immunity where you had none before, or to get from 17% to 19/20% growth rate and still be able to take a few "goodies" to pump up the race outside of resources.

With both the immune and bi-immune races I can crack 25k by 2450 - which is damned good for AR since a much higher percentage of those resources can be pumped into research.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 10 September 2003 09:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve is currently offline Steve

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 217
Registered: November 2002
Location: 40 deg N, 90 deg W
AR does not need Rams to move miners.

Midget Ultra miners with the worst engines are cheap and gatable.

To mine red planets:
1. Colonize it - may need some starter minerals.
2. Build dock.
3. Put 80 ultra midget miners in the build Q (my standard AR mining fleet). In early year build Potato Bugs.
4. After you get a couple miners built, put a freigher fleet on auto orders to pick up all the minerals and drop 2200 colonists on each trip.
5. Once all the miners are build, build a gate and send them to your HW.

AR don't really need minerals from red planets. Rather they mine them to keep the minerals out of others hands.



No trees were harmed in the making of this sig. However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 10 September 2003 09:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1189
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Steve wrote on Wed, 10 September 2003 15:38

AR does not need Rams to move miners.

True, but it comes hany to use all that germ that lies around with not factories built.

Quote:

To mine red planets:
...
AR don't really need minerals from red planets. Rather they mine them to keep the minerals out of others hands.

Too slow IMO ... but true. With building remotes on a small red planet you don't stripe it fast enough. I usually build a dock with 300/500 gates and then send several fleets of 4000 mine-equivalent to mine a red planet in only a few turns.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Mon, 26 June 2006 20:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XyliGUN is currently offline XyliGUN

 
Ensign
Stars! V.I.P


Messages: 325
Registered: July 2004
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg

Just another real game example. I'm just finish game on the second place with that race (only reason to finish that game is that it's start became boring after 1 year of playing, but it was strong within whole game except first 30-40 years). It was actually my first AR design, but I would say it works well. Here is it:

AR,
IFE, ARM, IS, NRSE, NAS, LSP
G: 0.31:3.20, T: -120:120, R: Immune, 16% grow
25
Ener,Weap,Con - less
Prop,Elect,Bio - extra
[v] - all 75 start at 3

Try it! Cool



"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something."
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Mon, 26 June 2006 21:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
XyliGUN wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 10:31

Just another real game example. I'm just finish game on the second place with that race (only reason to finish that game is that it's start became boring after 1 year of playing, but it was strong within whole game except first 30-40 years). It was actually my first AR design, but I would say it works well. Here is it:

AR,
IFE, ARM, IS, NRSE, NAS, LSP
G: 0.31:3.20, T: -120:120, R: Immune, 16% grow
25
Ener,Weap,Con - less
Prop,Elect,Bio - extra
[v] - all 75 start at 3

Try it! Cool


Congrats on 2nd, shame you guys didn't keep it going for a proper end - AR at late stage is so mineral rich I imagine you would've had a decent shot at 1st.

That's extremely wide habitabilty, was this a no-diplomacy game? If not, how did your diplomacy go? It must've been painfull having so little potential for intersettlement.

Did you get much of a crunch early? LSP+25+start@3 looks painfull for early resources.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 27 June 2006 20:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XyliGUN is currently offline XyliGUN

 
Ensign
Stars! V.I.P


Messages: 325
Registered: July 2004
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg

Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 05:48

Congrats on 2nd, shame you guys didn't keep it going for a proper end - AR at late stage is so mineral rich I imagine you would've had a decent shot at 1st.

Actually it was a team game, there were 4 alliances by 3 players each, and at the end (2544 year) only 2 alliances continue fighting, while others dissapered (was completly destroyed). And you right, we have no troubles with minerals, but winning alliance has more then 2-3 times more planets/area then we have. And their mineral balance still good enought to build about 1,5-2 time more ships then we can.

Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 05:48

That's extremely wide habitabilty, was this a no-diplomacy game? If not, how did your diplomacy go? It must've been painfull having so little potential for intersettlement.

No, as I mentioned before it was team game, but the reason for wide habs is to be able to colonise everything within small area, which allows me to avoid conflics at early stage, and at the same time this gives me possibility to grow. After alliances was fixed, my habs allows me to get red planets within my allyers space.

Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 05:48

Did you get much of a crunch early? LSP+25+start@3 looks painfull for early resources.

No, may be at the early begining ... but at 2420 my race was 2nd rated, and at 2430 1st rated, so I don't think it was too painfull. Smile
...




"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something."
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 27 June 2006 21:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
XyliGUN wrote on Wed, 28 June 2006 03:49


Actually it was a team game, there were 4 alliances by 3 players each, and at the end (2544 year) only 2 alliances continue fighting, while others dissapered (was completly destroyed).

You mean these were not prearranged teams?
Based on what the teams were formed?
How big that game was?
What were the player ranks?

Somewhat difficult to believe that such a AR was the game leader at 2430 ... it seems quite mediocre performer in a testbed at least? Some IT HGs i have tried have ~2 times more resources at 2430 played alone nothing to talk of team. Confused

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 27 June 2006 22:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
Kotk wrote on Wed, 28 June 2006 11:29

XyliGUN wrote on Wed, 28 June 2006 03:49


Actually it was a team game, there were 4 alliances by 3 players each, and at the end (2544 year) only 2 alliances continue fighting, while others dissapered (was completly destroyed).

You mean these were not prearranged teams?
Based on what the teams were formed?
How big that game was?
What were the player ranks?

Somewhat difficult to believe that such a AR was the game leader at 2430 ... it seems quite mediocre performer in a testbed at least? Some IT HGs i have tried have ~2 times more resources at 2430 played alone nothing to talk of team. Confused



I think in the game he referred to the players all started solo, then at a certain year they had to form 4 teams of 3.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 28 June 2006 03:41 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
XyliGUN is currently offline XyliGUN

 
Ensign
Stars! V.I.P


Messages: 325
Registered: July 2004
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg

Dogthinkers wrote on Wed, 28 June 2006 06:18

I think in the game he referred to the players all started solo, then at a certain year they had to form 4 teams of 3.


Exactly. Alliances were created beetween 2430 and 2450. You could check game details here.



"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something."
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Iperithon's AR
Next Topic: colonizing reds
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Sep 19 06:51:39 EDT 2019