Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » New Game Announcements » New Game: Mineral Crunch
| New Game: Mineral Crunch |
Mon, 15 December 2003 07:58  |
|
 Tuna-Fish |
 | Crewman 3rd Class |
Messages: 6
Registered: December 2003
Location: Finland | |
|
After reading the willy wonka post, and playing a little with mineless reace designs, I got an idea for a really twisted game:
All races have to set their mine settings to worst possible (5/15/5) AND pick OBRM. Ar is banned, all others are ok.
players: 8-12
player skill level is intermediate, but newbies wanting to try it out are accepted.
galaxy: medium, dense
accelerated bbs start
random events are off, because alien miner would be too good.
Victory conditions:
When people feel it should be over, for example when a player or an alliance with maximum of 2 players have gained a clear dominance over the others.
In-game vc is set to the player with most score after 100 years, so the scores will be visible after 2500.
Chaff is allowed, abusing split fleet dodge on attack is disallowed, all other cheats are banned.
Races will be checked by a third party, I'll pick someone trustworthy from #stars! or here, game will be generated by Ron using a .def file.
In the meantime send your application to
AVTuunainen (at) hotmail.com
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New Game: Mineral Crunch |
Mon, 15 December 2003 10:39  |
|
|
|
| The Taubat wrote on Mon, 15 December 2003 09:22 |
Want suggestions? mine is these.
DONT have OBRM a neccesity, this REALLY slows down the game, and KILLS ARs, why? they need the minerals to build warships to defend their homes. In order to have a decent mining fleet you need thousands of mining ships, and with no minerals this is incredibly difficult.
|
But according to the def... AR is banned. I think the host thought of that.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Mineral Crunch |
Mon, 15 December 2003 12:09 |
|
| Tuna-Fish |
| Crewman 3rd Class |
Messages: 6
Registered: December 2003
Location: Finland | |
|
| The Taubat wrote on Mon, 15 December 2003 17:22 |
Want suggestions? mine is these.
DONT have OBRM a neccesity, this REALLY slows down the game, and KILLS ARs, why? they need the minerals to build warships to defend their homes. In order to have a decent mining fleet you need thousands of mining ships, and with no minerals this is incredibly difficult.
|
the 5/15/5 mine settings mean that a world with 100% concentrations can produce 275 of each minerals/turn. As most planets have lot lower concentrations, you can safely assume around 100kt/turn from each production world. To get to this high production, you have to pay 8250 res.
Amount of res used to reach same production capacity (275/turn) with the OBRM mining ships: mini-miners and robo-mini miners: 8738 res and 3094 iron, WITHOUT MINIATURIZATION!
Even with minimal tech, the very worst of all miners reach almost same minerals/res than mines. Yes, you pay a lot of iron, but it's worth it, because, unlike planetary mines, you mining fleet can move from a depleted planet to another, and, most importantly, it can recover double the minerals from same amount of concentrations.
Now, with full minaturization, the costs are 2210 res and 748 iron. That means that even the very worst miners are definately viable, or even necessary, in the endgame.
Now, if I allowed non-OBRM but not ARM races, the best mining ship available, the robo-maxi-miner, would cost about 1160 res and 350 iron at no miniaturization, and it would be cacable of mining 270 minerals from full concentrations, almost as much as full planetary mines that are worth 7 times as much...
Non-OBRM-races would just simply be too damn good.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| Re: New Game: Mineral Crunch |
Fri, 19 December 2003 22:05 |
|
| Sotek |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 2 |
Messages: 167
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
| alexdstewart wrote on Fri, 19 December 2003 21:30 |
You CANNOT get a significant decreace in min con just from 5 mines per 10 pop. MOST planets will be stack on 30-20% min con (just a wild guess).
|
Incorrect.
Your further argument is also valid, but then, it proves the point.
You see, at 5 mines per 10 pop, you'll decrease mincon at about a third the rate of a normal race. And you'll get half the minerals for doing so, due to the 5 eff.
So, yes, it's slower. But not much slower. And you still get drastically smaller. 40% or less mincon is 'effectively none' for you, after all.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New Game: Mineral Crunch |
Fri, 02 January 2004 15:25 |
|
| LEit |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
Here is my take on race design:
With the mineral problems these races will have, a lot of factories will be too expesive in Germanium to build, so I'd recommend low or no factory races.
Also, you won't need as much resources to build ships as you would in a normal game, another argument for low to no factories.
Because you won't be able to build many ships (low minerals, and low resources) and won't have factories or mines to build, a lot of research will be done early, there will probably be a fairly fast race to max tech before any major wars are fought.
Due to the high iron cost of remotes, and the low total minerals around, I expect to see a lot more beamers then normal.
You can probably get away with a lower growth rate then you would normally take.
PRTs: IS will have problems building freighters for all that pop, speed traps cost a lot of iron; SS mineral stealing scanners are fairly mineral expensive, but could be useful especially in a low missile environment, also most races won't be able to spend a lot on pickets so cloaking is likely to be useful longer; PP is useless without minerals... Other races will be affected by a slower development, CA and JOAT will be slowed down a lot, damping their advantages in speed.
LRTs: RS is a good LRT to have; NRSE is bad, you'll have resources to get to prop 16, and the ram scoops are much cheaper engines; BET is bad, it might lower the cost of OBRM remotes a bit, but it will also increase the cost of nubian beamers a lot; LSP is probably not as big a problem it would normally be.
All the extra points might go to hab, but you'll want to leave room for intersettling and/or remote mining. The only place left is to spend it on cheap tech. That could be useful to win the tech race.
Even with 3.5 cheap, I've found a lot of points left over, so much that I would recommend taking two immunities for these races. Lots of intersettling and lots of high value worlds.
[Updated on: Fri, 02 January 2004 16:02]
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Apr 29 06:16:38 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
In this game I'd say MA is a must.. It's really not nearly as bad as people say it is. When you consider say a planet that has 4000RU can (when needed) generate a constant 160kt like a low grade HW.. But the nice thing is, it DOESN"T HAVE TO BE A HW.. So you get 10 worlds doing it, you've got yourself a nice mineral pool going. 1600kt.. Plus you can synthesize a starbase just with population RU if your HG and have MA. Done it before, I synthesized a starbase in a reasonable amount of time with a few hundred thousand people. And it's a resource that's utterly independant of planet values! 
Re: New Game: Mineral Crunch
