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?

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Thu, 22 September 2005 22:33]

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Thu, 22 September 2005 22:52]

Report message to a moderator

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

Temp on the edge doesnt matter, its so big that it takes up the entire thing . I still need to get the immunity though.

[Updated on: Thu, 22 September 2005 23:43]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

About standard IT HP is like...
ISB, NRSE, CE, OBRM no NAS is good idea actually but taking IFE just for one level of prop is unforgivable waste of points i believe. BTW ... RS is quite nice option if game will last up to nubians (and usually it will when there are HP-s present).
1 in 4 without immunity hab i have experienced that HP can terraform OK and small & yellow planets (so common for immunityless) are not worthless for HP.
say (0.21 to 4.64g / -144 to 144 / 56mR to 90mR) proportional
or (0.20g to 1.84g / -76C to 148C / 13mR to 69mR) rad narrow
17% growth
2500
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.
12/3/20 its better to take more operated versus higher efficency on case you play without immunities
construction normal, weapons cheap rest expensive and no checkbox.
When anything is leftover put it into concentrations.

[Updated on: Fri, 23 September 2005 08:16]

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 05:13

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. 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...

Sorry to keep hounding you, but there is an awful lot of confusion about what happens when people change hab widths.

There is a very complex effect of shifting habs into the tapered edges of the bands. It generates points, makes the average hab of the initial greens better but gives you less greens and yellows.

To say that the opposite of that, moving bands away from the edge, is just better in all cases seems stupid to me.
Say you try to move away from the edge and then try to raise the points needed for that by narrowing the hab as well then you are simply cutting away your primary gain (of more greens) and if you are still in the tapered part of the band then you will continue to make the average hab slightly worse.
So possibly less greens and all of them worse on average.

Doesn't sound like a bargain to me.

Report message to a moderator

mazda wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 15:34

Doesn't sound like a bargain to me.

Its quite good bargain if we talk about grav or temp band at edge.

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!

Additionally more narrow hab makes terraforming effect better. So ...having edged hab with grav or temp does seem to be bad idea on most cases.

Report message to a moderator

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

mazda wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 18:14

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.

You are right of course that the operation i described has no fixed RW cost. It sometimes gives you 2-3 points and sometimes costs. It usually gives if you dont have TT and usually costs if you have TT. It is no point mine or investment (sometimes people seem to talk of it like it was), but simple way to make your hab slightly better for almost no cost or gain. The 7 clicks at most edge of gravity or temperature bands are worth about same as 2 clicks away from edge so if you got 3 clicks away from edge and paid with 7 at the edge you actually made greens more likely.

Quote:

While it is true in the literal sense, the scale of the effect is overemphasized in relation to the drawbacks (of taking narrower hab).

I fully agree if we just talk about investing into wide hab or taking points for something from narrow hab. Wide hab is good thing in general so getting twice less greens and losing about one third of resources from a territory to have immunity with HP is waste of money i feel. HP-s whole idea is to have best resources from same territory. Otherwise why to play HP? However that is no way related to "getting away from worthless edges" logic i am afraid.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

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

[Updated on: Fri, 23 September 2005 18:41]

Report message to a moderator

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

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 20:53

IMHO the true cost of 4g facs is more to do with shipping than anything else, and for HP that's no big problem.

Your theory is based on speculations how many stuff is out of rock by what turn? I tried to have balanced race not paperbag tiger.

The race i posted is quite typical HP. It has to avoid real fight in 2430-2440 frame. But ... then it catches up with HG-s. At year 50 it has about 8-9 millions of pop. That pop operates ~17000 factories. So all together 28k resources. HW was able to get 13k minerals out of rock (it was not terribly poor at start) rest of planets ~60k. So there ... 51k germ gone to factories and i have 73k iron/22k germ ready for shipbuilding.

Even if i build only armored missile BBs i have some leftover iron. No BB has such proportions. So okay i can have about 60 BB-s for my idle germ and so i can participate in warfare without sacrificing further rampup.

If i had taken efficency 13 i had enjoyed 6k more minerals however factory costs 4 turns the factory cost into 68k germ. That makes only 11k germ and 79k iron?!? Being skilled with AR-s and all i can stay alive with only 30 BB-s. But what to do with that iron? Iron Packets?

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Robert wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 11:32

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?

Without OBRM your main production planets are 10% smaller and thus mine less. They additionaly have 20% less germ to export at efficiency 10 versus 12. That all together means that no "OBRM/mine eff 10" breeder has 75% early germ of what OBRM/mine eff 12" has. Sure, at midgame+ the remote miners are quite handy ... but early it seems almost waste of effort to colonize something without immediate privateer of germ dropped.

Quote:

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... I experienced it being worth the points...

UR costs same points as going from factory cost 8 to 7. Testing exactly that deal leaves me with mixed feelings. "UR/factory cost 8" races breeders get up slightly slower to boot despite stalwart defender and swashbuckler scrapped. Later there is lot of additional MM involved i dont like. However "no UR/factory cost 7" ... is also weak and any ships it builds for defense are wasted and cant be reused. So i dont know ... without UR it just feels simpler to play.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

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

Report message to a moderator

Robert wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 16:58

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.

Breeder of 10/3/20 mines without obrm versus 12/3/20 with obrm? Sure ... the concentrations of second drops bit quicker and also it needs 10% more germ for its own factories but that wont negate the effect of 32% bigger early mining power to be actually less than 10%. It may be is effectively 25-29% but its anyway LOT more than 10% better.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator