Home » Primary Racial Traits » IT » Is HP IT possible?
|
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Thu, 22 September 2005 22:18 |
|
|
I wouldn't worry about going for higher growth, 15-17% is enough for a HP.
You might suffer for going no-immune though - HP can't afford to spend much on terraforming so it's going to take you a while to develop the habs. That said, you're going to have a lot *more* planets so...
Perhaps you should consider trying to grab a few more points from LRTs. OBRM is nice for this - it boosts your economy and with your 1 in 6 habs and decent mining you probably won't miss the remote miners (although the very first post in this tread was asking for a race with remotes.) NAS is worth considering too, although painful.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Thu, 22 September 2005 22:31 |
|
dethdukk | | Chief Warrant Officer 3 | Messages: 200
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
One of my goals was not to take NAS. I've played in a few games without it, and although it has not been very painful yet, I fear it may hurt a little more when I get into a serious border war (thankfully, I know that 4 out of 5 races took NAS as well, not sure about the 5th). As for OBRM, I have to see what my average mining rate is. I'm having a problem with minerals in this one game, but I also have worse mines. What should my mine settings be, should I set them a little higher? And what about construction? Is it worth trading for better Hab. ranges?
[Updated on: Thu, 22 September 2005 22:33]
If you cannot love, you will always hate, and in hate there is only death.
[img]http://dragcave.net/image/XIJh.gif[/img] <--- is teh dragon!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Thu, 22 September 2005 22:37 |
|
dethdukk | | Chief Warrant Officer 3 | Messages: 200
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
By takeing OBRM, I can improve my mines to 14/3/16 or 13/3/20. Which is better? And I cant find a good way of taking temp. immune, can you find one?
[edit] just tested race with 13/3/20 mines, produces 3740 resourses per optimal world, and mines 858KT of each mineral on the HW, when the minerals are at the HW bottom of 30. this same race, but with one more factery, one less mine, produces 3905 resourses, and 815 of each mineral. I dont want to test which setting (14/3/16 or 13/3/19) is better overall though. I think that 14/3/16 may be, because it helps early planets more, but I really dont want to testbed it.
PS. Nice talking to you again dogthinkers.
[Updated on: Thu, 22 September 2005 22:52]
If you cannot love, you will always hate, and in hate there is only death.
[img]http://dragcave.net/image/XIJh.gif[/img] <--- is teh dragon!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Thu, 22 September 2005 23:33 |
|
crr65536 | | Chief Warrant Officer 3 | Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
dethdukk wrote on Thu, 22 September 2005 19:08 | New race:
IT
IFE
ISB
NRSE
CE
0.58 - 2.72 gravity
-160 - 200 temperature
50 - 84 radiation
17% growth
1/6 planets
1/2500
15/8/20 costs 3
13/3/14
Weap. cheap
con. normal
rest expensive
no check for "starts at 3"
18 points to starting minerals
The race starts out with a warp 8 engine, has good factories and mines, and enough tech to get it through the beginning of the game. The only problem I can find is the low habitable range(espesially with no immune). I thought about getting rid of normal con. in trade for other things (ie. 19% growth, better mines, better hab.) but cant decide what to do. Any suggestions?
|
Having a hab field on the edge (as in the case of your temperature) is a waste - edge values never occur.
It seems to be the consensus that a HP without immunities should have hab at at least 1/4.
Your remaining points (after implementing changes) might be better spent on concentrations. A recent thread in the Academy asserts that mineral concentration points are much more effective than the help file suggests, and germanium concentration is very important.
It seems to be a common belief that the optimal factories for an HP are x/7/x - x/8/x costs too many resources and x/6/x costs too many points.
To get these goodies, you'll probably end up looking at either 16% growth, OBRM, NAS, or lower mining efficiency.
[edit - inserted link]
...
[Updated on: Thu, 22 September 2005 23:35] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Fri, 23 September 2005 00:13 |
|
|
RE: mine settings
For a HP I would usually choose 14/3/16 over 13/3/19. Ramp up will be marginally faster and long term minerals will be greater. Hwever the mid term minerals at each world will be slightly worse and the HW won't produce as much as it would after it hits 30 (but by this point you won't be relying on teh HW any more...)
I also think that 3g factories are overvalued. In my simulations an extra point of mine efficiency results in the same ramp up, similar amounts of leftover germ at each world, and more of the other minerals. It does make it slightly harder to support your fledgling colonies growth with G shipments however.
RE: habs
If you want temp immune you will need to reduce the overall hab. As already mentioned - don't leave habs on the edge, it's better to narrow it and use the points elsewhere. I almost never take a hab within 10 clicks of the edge, and usually try to keep them at least 20 clicks from the edge (that way your terraforming envelope covers all the likely values, but not too much else.) If you want mega wide habs you'll have to settle for some inefficiency here though. At absolute minimum you should narrow your hab 1 click and move it 2 clicks from the edge - you'll get almost identical coverage (if fact, you'll probably end up with slightly better %ages...) but for less points...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | |
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Fri, 23 September 2005 11:14 |
|
mazda | | Lieutenant | Messages: 655
Registered: April 2003 Location: Reading, UK | |
|
Kotk wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 14:53 | You can make it 1 click more narrow and 3 clicks away from edge without much points gain.
As result: You lost 3 clicks of hab at edge inside whose sum likelihood of actual planet is 3 (0+1+2) in 10 points scale. You gained that one click in center where likelihood (on same scale) is 10. So really you get more greens doing that. Making hab one click more narrow gives points to get hab another 4 clicks away from edge so you gain 2 clicks in center worth 20 points on likelihood scale (10+10) but lose only 18 (3+4+5+6). Another hab gain!
|
Yes, quite right.
I tend to think of it in reverse, i.e widening and shifting to the edge to keep the same numbers of greens.
I believe that it's not immediately obvious whether it always costs or saves points.
I suspect it *depends*.
Depends on the hab scheme you are shifting.
Quote: | Additionally more narrow hab makes terraforming effect better.
|
This is another frequently quoted statement that annoys me
While it is true in the literal sense, the scale of the effect is overemphasized in relation to the drawbacks (of taking narrower hab).
Let's forget shifting the bands for a while (if not completely).
If you take any hab, and consider all the planets you intend to use with that hab, then widening the hab will make *all* those planets have a better hab value (unless perfect).
This applies *before* and *after* any terraforming you do.
True, terraforming closes the gap (because we can reduce the argument to where all planets become perfect), the smaller band gets more effect from it.
But your planets never become better than if you had chosen wider hab.
I'm just saying that wider hab can be underestimated.
Sometimes because of a couple of "stock" quotes about "don't go near the edge" and "terra is better in a narrow band".
Also that "near the edge" ties in with wider hab because going near the edge is one way to afford wider hab.
Shifting just confuses this pay-off
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Fri, 23 September 2005 12:41 |
|
crr65536 | | Chief Warrant Officer 3 | Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
dethdukk wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 07:56 | by taking OBRM, taking con. exp. and lowering my mines to their original settings, I can get 1/8 planets with temp. immune. It may be me, but it just doesnt seem worthwhile. I ccan leave the mines and con. where they are, and average out my hab. though, so it sets to:
grav. .55 - 3.68
temp. -84 - 148
rad. 42 - 84
|
Now you see what IFE is costing you! Without it, you could probably get back at least one of those goodies. If you remove ISB, you can get another. Iztok asserted that OBRM and mine eff. 10 is not enough germ (even with my 20 mines operated), so keeping mine eff. above 11 or not taking OBRM would probably be good.
The way I see it, your race is awesome on the LRT screen (IFE, ISB, remote mining ability, no NAS) - but the price is paid on the hab and econ screens. I believe that the latter are more important - especially for IT, who, as freakyboy showed in a thread a while back, doesn't have a strong need for any.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Fri, 23 September 2005 13:53 |
|
|
Kotk wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 22:13 |
15/7/20 3g HP uses about 60-70% of its germanium for factories so 4g would turn it into 80-90% while one more mine efficency gives only 7-9% more germanium.
|
Lets assume an average of 75% habitability throughout my empire, OBRM, 20 factories per 10k pop. I think these assumptions are fairly G demanding. In this case I would need 5280g per planet with 4g facs and 3960g per planet with 3g facs. So we've got a difference of 1320g to try to make up.
Now, I read elsewhere that typical output per planet is around 20k of each mineral. That sounds a little high to me, it'd make my job of persuading you much too easy.
Lets knock the assumed output down to 15k of each mineral. 1 extra point efficiency in this case would net you 1500g. So here you get *more* G as well as more of other minerals.
Now lets knock our assumed mining down to just 10k of each mineral, in case that other thread was *way* out. Here the eff nets you just 1000g. Now we are losing out 320g, but gaining 1000 Ironium. IT HP races are going to enjoy gating around Missile ships more than most races, so I'm quite comfortable with the idea of trading off 320g for 1000i
IMHO the true cost of 4g facs is more to do with shipping than anything else, and for HP that's no big problem.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Fri, 23 September 2005 18:00 |
|
dethdukk | | Chief Warrant Officer 3 | Messages: 200
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
I have made some changes to my race and am pleased (but not delighted) with the results. Here is the race:
IT
ISB
CE
OBRM
NAS
grav 0.62 - 2.96
temp immune
rad 58 - 88
17% growth
1/7 habitable, one click away from 1/6
1/2500
15/8/20 costs 3
13/3/17
Weap. cheap
Con. normal
rest expensive
no check for 3
no points left
I had to drop IFE and take OBRM and NAS. I was able to drop NRSE though. Got to keep my con. normal, still had good mines and great factories, but I hate not taking IFE. I can take NRSE, and then make my mines 14/3/15 with my hab. ranges more toward the center, but with so may LRTs selected, it doesnt give you very much, it may be better just to leave it and use the ram-scoops.
[edit] fixed race and writing
[Updated on: Fri, 23 September 2005 18:41]
If you cannot love, you will always hate, and in hate there is only death.
[img]http://dragcave.net/image/XIJh.gif[/img] <--- is teh dragon!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Sat, 24 September 2005 04:28 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 19:53 | IMHO the true cost of 4g facs is more to do with shipping than anything else, and for HP that's no big problem.
|
Being HP you aim at long games, where Nubian is the hull you'll build the most. In the BB era you're still not able to fight at the same level HG races can. So forget about hordes of BBs, and check the mineral price of a "standard" AMP nub (6 AMPs, 6 elephant shields, 9 capacitors, 12 deflectors, 3 jammers-30) at tech 18/26/12/26/16/7. That's about the tech you have when you start serious building of nubians. I didn't check the exact price, but from my previous games I can say the price of that nub will be about 150/140/200/600. Now check your mineral stock and you'll see that the distribution is about 37/37/26. With your big HP's deficit in germ you'll be able to build about 25 nubians less per planet you have, or generally speaking 30% less of ANY kind of warship.
So just checking the g box would save you 1300kT of germ, or 6.5 nubians per planet, or 2 years less waiting for a planet to get green, or a bit of MM to send freighters with germ to all your planets.
Anyway, your call.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Sat, 24 September 2005 04:30] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Sat, 24 September 2005 11:34 |
|
|
iztok wrote on Sat, 24 September 2005 09:28 | So forget about hordes of BBs, and check the mineral price of a "standard" AMP nub (6 AMPs, 6 elephant shields, 9 capacitors, 12 deflectors, 3 jammers-30) at tech 18/26/12/26/16/7. That's about the tech you have when you start serious building of nubians. I didn't check the exact price, but from my previous games I can say the price of that nub will be about 150/140/200/600. Now check your mineral stock and you'll see that the distribution is about 37/37/26. With your big HP's deficit in germ you'll be able to build about 25 nubians less per planet you have, or generally speaking 30% less of ANY kind of warship.
|
If you are playing HP, and know you will have less G than B, surely you'd design your nubs with 3 slots of weapons and only 1 of shields.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Tue, 11 October 2005 09:34 |
|
goober | | Chief Warrant Officer 3 | Messages: 175
Registered: December 2003 Location: +10 | |
|
Robert wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 04:32 | I have some comments on this:
First:
do you think it is good to have a mine-efficiency higher than 10? It costs a lot and maybe either having remotes (especially as an IT can distribute the minerals very efficiently and gate heavy miners easily) or wider habs for more planets and more minerals in total might be a better choice?
|
Yep.
If you've read through this thread Iztok recommends a higher mine efficiency from personal experience IIRC due to G shortage later in the game.
As to habs, don't you already have about 1 in 3 habs as a HP? You want extra habitability so you have more planets with high G concentrations. A G min-con of 50 is recommended (by JC?) to make a planet worth colonising.
Robert wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 04:32 |
Second:
the problem for HPs to early terraform can be partly compensated by picking ultimate recycling. I know that LRT is not very popular, but I have learned to love it!
As an HP will have (especially IT with 2 starting planets) some very well producing planets very quickly, he can buield and send cheap ships to yellows, scrap them there and get a nice boost for early terraforming until they are greens. I would just build factories as many as I can on the yellow and then scrap some old ships every turn to get a quicker start...
|
You could spend your points on growth and habs. For a HP with wide habs, i.e. aforementioned 1 in 3 habs, there are plenty of nice juicy greens about without having to worry about terraforming early on. The high G yellows can just be left to themselves with 100 000 colonists and 200kt of G when your backfilling your empire. 18% PGR will get you out of the starting blocks quicker and allow you to fill you big producers up to full capacity earlier as well as fill up those yellows once they finally get terraformed. Although, the higher PG may also mean not so many factories either ... so you have more G later.
...
Goober.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Tue, 11 October 2005 09:58 |
|
Robert | | Lt. Junior Grade | Messages: 393
Registered: November 2002 Location: Dortmund, Germany | |
|
Ok, maybe I did not think hard enough or was not very precice (and did not read the whole thread)...
The way I played HP (I did not for a long time) was one immune and 2 narrow (suggested also by JC by the way)... so I expected rather narrow habs (1 in 10).
So my assumtion was to invest the points from mine-efficiency into remotes. It is right that this automatically gives 10% less mines, but not 10% less minerals. Also all planets can be mined later and less g is spent on the planets because you build 10% less factories. For me it was just a question to have less g from populated planets to be compensated by g from remotes - ofc this will not help in the early game - right.
The second part I assumed that it is not easy for a HP to colonize bad yellows... (which is IIRC not true because for very very bad yellows the HP is actually faster than a HG, dont remember the exact break-even-point).... Anyway - early terraforming and getting yellows to work is always easier with UR. I did a test on whether UR or lowering factory costs from 9 to 8 (and some other things) for HGs, and it must be somewhere around here - and I found that UR is best, but when calculating speed up compared to points needed, lowering factory costs is better.
Still with UR you have some other nice advantages...
My fault was to expect everybody plays HP like I do, which is a one-immune 1 in 10 hab scheme without OBRM.
I should have checked all the posts before - sorry...
But mainly I think I just like UR and wanted to convince the rest of the universe to understang the advantages...
(I dont want to say I pick UR every time I play, it does not make sense in every game and for every race...)
Anyway... I am not an experienced HP player because I love early wars and kills...
Robert
2b v !2b -> ?Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Is HP IT possible? |
Tue, 14 April 2009 12:24 |
|
|
hi,
I was wondering if you would consider a 1i 1-4 13/8/20 an hp it. this design gets little under 3k but with rad I, narrow centered t, and max to terraform wide g this race gives good and plentiful p's
the reason I ask is I am considering using this in a monster game with no accbbs and galaxy clumping. it would be to my advantage to lock down clusters before monsters get big tech or tt bio improvements to hab.
also the I would decrease ramp up time for terra. I have used this with joat true hp 1i 15/8/21 against quicker races and had sucess. the rad I would also make my planets somewhat less tasty to narrow band high rad ca tt monsters
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 13 01:54:49 EDT 2024
|