|
| Re: TT AR |
Wed, 04 June 2008 01:45   |
|
|
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 04 June 2008 01:14 |
Why did you take seven LRTs? the point penalty is horrible. And there's an argument for CE if you have NRSE.
|
Each & every one of them was integral to the strategy:
1 & 2. I felt that IFE/NRSE was needed if I was going with TT since the penalty for > 3.5 cheap techs is even more crippling. The alternative was noIFE/noNRSE with expensive Prop or TT with expensive Bio & I fancied neither.
3. ISB is a given for an AR IMO, particularly for that universe.
4. NAS was needed to save RPs. Even with 6 other LRTs you save 78 points.
6. ARM is also invaluable for an AR. Not taking it means that the mineral flow will start later, the remote mining ships cost more & they're too heavy to gate.
6. TT. The key LRT for this race design (no immunity, widish habs for an AR).
7. RS. I didn't take RS in my first 3 games &, tho I did pretty well, I decided that RS should (nearly) always be in my LRT list.
With regard to CE. I would NEVER take it. I really hate to lose a key battle because my engines didn't engage. I could not envisage a game that could convince me that it was worth it unless it was a scenario requirement.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: TT AR |
Wed, 04 June 2008 02:16 |
|
 magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
| AlexTheGreat wrote on Wed, 04 June 2008 15:45 |
| magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 04 June 2008 01:14 |
Why did you take seven LRTs? the point penalty is horrible. And there's an argument for CE if you have NRSE.
|
Each & every one of them was integral to the strategy:
1 & 2. I felt that IFE/NRSE was needed if I was going with TT since the penalty for > 3.5 cheap techs is even more crippling. The alternative was noIFE/noNRSE with expensive Prop or TT with expensive Bio & I fancied neither.
|
Why NRSE? Hurts ARs more than normals due to 2.5 times engine resource cost. Hence why I thought CE would be a good idea.
| Quote: |
3. ISB is a given for an AR IMO, particularly for that universe.
|
No objections there, the only reason I wouldn't take it is if I was 3i.
| Quote: |
4. NAS was needed to save RPs. Even with 6 other LRTs you save 78 points.
|
Not that much for the cost though. Still, it's not my main problem.
| Quote: |
6. ARM is also invaluable for an AR. Not taking it means that the mineral flow will start later, the remote mining ships cost more & they're too heavy to gate.
|
Again, no objections.
| Quote: |
6. TT. The key LRT for this race design (no immunity, widish habs for an AR).
|
No problems.
| Quote: |
7. RS. I didn't take RS in my first 3 games &, tho I did pretty well, I decided that RS should (nearly) always be in my LRT list.
|
You know that that costs 20 points though don't you? And makes your DSs quite a bit weaker?
Hence, the only ones I think were a bad idea were NAS, NRSE and RS,
| Quote: |
With regard to CE. I would NEVER take it. I really hate to lose a key battle because my engines didn't engage. I could not envisage a game that could convince me that it was worth it unless it was a scenario requirement.
|
Also, how did you possibly get a 1 in 5 hab with that setup? I don't get how it's possible... Without sending your hab ranges to the edges and nullifying the benefits of TT, that is.
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: TT AR |
Wed, 04 June 2008 05:17 |
|
|
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 04 June 2008 02:16 |
Hence, the only ones I think were a bad idea were NAS, NRSE and RS,
Also, how did you possibly get a 1 in 5 hab with that setup? I don't get how it's possible... Without sending your hab ranges to the edges and nullifying the benefits of TT, that is.
|
RS does indeed cost 20 points if it's your 7th LSP but I can assure you that the extra shielding on ships has saved my hide on more than one occasion in this game. Over the full length of a game shields are much more important than armour. Admittedly the shields will easily be sapped on a base but the armour won't be worth much once the shields are gone either. Armour make ships sluggish & remove/reduce the chances of moving last in battles. OTOH RS shields get 40% better shielding & regenerate 10% each battle round & your ships are fast & light increasing the chances of moving last. In this game I've successfully used weap16 BBs against weap20 BBs in the case of one enemy & weap20 BBs against weap22 BBs in case of another (tho, against the odds, I sometimes lost in that matchup) - both were possible only by keeping the ships light.
NAS: 78 points is huge. The only way I could save the points is thru reducing hab widths from 1/5 to 1/7. No thanks, I'd rather post sentries at unoccupied planets until I colonise them.
NRSE: cost is only 24 points so, if I were to have dropped a LRT, it would have been that one. Your point is also a good one re. engine cost + scoop engines are lighter than standard fuel guzzlers. Still habs drop back to 1/6 &, with Prop expensive, the better engines will be unavailable until late game.
How I got 1/5? The game is still on so I won't give you details here even tho it probably doesn't matter too much. Surfice to say that all planets are eventually green.
[Updated on: Wed, 04 June 2008 05:22] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: TT AR |
Sat, 12 July 2008 01:41 |
|
|
|
Personally I'm a huge fan on taking an immunity as AR, and having one hab narrow, one hab very wide. I find this faster than TT, as I only have to terraform ONE field (0.33 terra costs, compared to 0.7, if you like to think of it like that) to get most of my terraforming benefit at all but my 'wide-edge' worlds. This speed means I can invest lots of res into tech and miners early on, to mitigate AR's key weaknesses - having the highest tech of your neighbours (even against -f) in the early game as AR is very achievable. If you can push that lead to hold through mid without looking too dangerous, then the game is essentially won.
I'd only consider TT if I thought it was going to make my early/mid game faster. Late game performance really isn't very relevant to AR - if you've made it that far, your mineral advantage will probably carry you through, it doesn't matter much what your resources are, really. High resources will lead to a fast win, sure. But you are going to win anyway, if you have enough resources to survive until your opponents crunch on minerals.
Hence I consider an immunity a much more valuable purchase than TT. I'd consider BOTH however. But as we see in Alex's race above, AR really likes it's LRTs. So TT starts looking *really* expensive when it's your 7th or 8th LRT. I believe ISB and ARM are more important (see other threads for endless debates on these  Ultimately none of the LRTs are essential for AR, of course. Beautifull game Stars, awesome balance in the race wizard, really awesome.)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: TT AR |
Thu, 07 August 2008 07:12 |
|
| Micha | 
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Sat, 19 July 2008 08:46 |
Realistically, the only reason I'm playing a TT AR in my current game is because (a) there won't be combat before 2440, it's 5p in a large packed, and (b) the fact that I didn't ban CAs or even ban them from taking TT means I *will* have trouble late game. Probably would have done something different otherwise.
|
AR planets are actually less attractive for a true planet eating (HP) CA. Standard procedure is: get OAs in orbit, make planet negative, bomb with bio bombs, drop pop, and end up with a 100% hab planet with full *installations* (an instant growth of several k resources). AR has nothing to offer in that way, fighting an AR would make you grow slower (same for -f of course), so the only reason why you would do that was for strategical reasons ... (stopping the AR from building his mineral fountain not being the least of that <g>)
Always a bummer if in a (CA allowd) teamgame you end up with the same habs as the AR in the enemy team. <g>
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
