|
 RWIAB II: The review thread (PRT results) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 12:35   |
|
|
|
Game outcome by PRT of races.
Take these with a grain of salt please. IIc was won in a runaway. IIb and IIa were both won by alliances to some degree. The bottom three races in IIb for instance are the alliance that lost.
PRT
JOAT - 2 1st, 2 2nd, 1 3rd
Looks like early scouting and larger planet size is a nice benefit for the RWIAB II set-up.
IT - 1 1st, 1 2nd, 1 4th, 2 5th, 1 extinct
Ended up with subs at one point for most of the IT races that finished below 3rd. The IT races were a factor in both IIa and IIb.
AR - 1 3rd
Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. I thought this race was going to be dead meat...
SD - 1 3rd, 1 7th, 1 extinct
Mildly surprised at this. I'd expect -f SD to have some potential in the set-up.
SS - 1 4th, 1 5th
IS - 1 4th, 1 6th, 2 extinct
Underperformed in my opinion. The 15% PGR race was one of the IS as well.
PP - 1 6th
One of the losing alliance races in IIb. Kudos to Hetzer for playing something different.
WM - 1 6th
Hard to tell how it might have done in IIa or IIb. Got caught in a grinder in IIc.
HE - 1 extinct
IMO -f HE is not workable. This variant, a 19 (38)% PGR hit a wall in terms of resources and expansion by 2430.
====
The races in the various games are described in slightly greater detail in the individual game reviews. The reviews have been posted in the game forums, along with some follow-on comments by the players themselves.
- Kurt
[Updated on: Sat, 27 March 2004 13:22] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: RWIAB II: The review thread (PRT results) |
Wed, 31 March 2004 18:27 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
HE - 1 extinct
IMO -f HE is not workable. This variant, a 19 (38)% PGR hit a wall in terms of resources and expansion by 2430
|
imo HE -f can work... just not a 19% growth type, some other variations have potential.
imo JOAT with NAS is the obvious race to beat in most situations(unless CA is allowed). The bonuses (size, scanners, extra points, early tech) all add up. Having CA lose instaforming (but still have orbital adjustors) and JOAT reduced from 20% pop bonus to 10% would help.
Does anyone know why CA was given instaforming (considering that HE lost gates to weaken it)?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: RWIAB II: The review thread (PRT results) |
Thu, 01 April 2004 01:08 |
|
 iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| multilis wrote on Thu, 01 April 2004 01:27 |
imo HE -f can work... just not a 19% growth type, some other variations have potential.
|
I did some testbeds with -f HE in the same tiny dense uni. I got best results with 8% bi-immune 1 ultra-wide, and 7% 3-immune 1/900 designs. The 1-immune 2 full 9% was too planet-draw dependant to consider it playing in a -f game. However all designs started slower then a 19% JoaT, and with the lack of starting tech they could be easily overrun in an early war with an aggressive JoaT.
An interesting result was that 3-immune performed the best, probably because the non-immune temperature had less centered settings on colonized planets, so at turn 50 the 8% bi-immune produced the similar amount of pop as 7% 3-immune, but had 11k vs. 12k resources.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Thu, 01 April 2004 01:18] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: RWIAB II: The review thread (PRT results) |
Thu, 01 April 2004 11:30 |
|
|
|
For HE, there also exists a non-immune super growth type... just not 19%. If you look at costs, a wide hab has some potential with a 10% to 15% growth rate. The denser the stars (and the shorter the game) the better, it can make rabid weasels look tame in the early years.
Even at 13% it becomes a challenge to ship out colonists as fast as they grow. Improved starbases really helps as your tiny eccons would take forever to get a full starbase up. Lots of micromanagement.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
RWIAB II: The review thread
