Does anyone care to expand on the topic and discuss the stratigic implications of this. I can already see that it takes about 60-70 turns for a 1000 mine world(some said the average) to kick hit the "extrime" shortage of minerals threshold. Therefore I expect 25th century to be the death time for most of mine dependent races. (U can already tell I HATE OBRM's)

Report message to a moderator

alexdstewart wrote on Wed, 17 December 2003 18:15

Does anyone care to expand on the topic and discuss the stratigic implications of this. I can already see that it takes about 60-70 turns for a 1000 mine world(some said the average) to kick hit the "extrime" shortage of minerals threshold. Therefore I expect 25th century to be the death time for most of mine dependent races. (U can already tell I HATE OBRM's)

If you Google and the rec.games.computer.stars group and look for the term "mine-year" you'll see some discussion of the depletion calculations from back in 1997.

Basically two main points there:
1. It appears that remote miners and planetary mines deplete the concentration using the same formula (based on the "mine-year").

2. The manual's "12500/(current concentration) = mine-years to deplete concentration by 1%" formula is correct for 100% concentration but seems to slip badly when dealing with lower concentrations.

As for OBRM races tending to hit mineral issues by 2500, that seems to be true in my experience. However, they often operate under the assumption that they'll either win the game or achieve sufficient economic/military advantage by that time. [Thus the reason races often quit after getting their major fleets destroyed - no minerals to rebuild in a timely manner.]

- Kurt

Report message to a moderator

overworked wrote on Thu, 18 December 2003 02:17

As for OBRM races tending to hit mineral issues by 2500, that seems to be true in my experience. However, they often operate under the assumption that they'll either win the game or achieve sufficient economic/military advantage by that time. [Thus the reason races often quit after getting their major fleets destroyed - no minerals to rebuild in a timely manner.]

Again one of these obrm / non obrm discussions i love.

Sure, if one lost major battle involving thousands of warships he is crippled for some time. No matter if he has OBRM or has ARM, even being AR does not help. Mere 1000 nubs cost like 600K resources so rebuilding such late game fleets may take decades.

OK, OK. Lets compare OBRM with no OBRM?
Say... we have no-OBRM SD HG race 18% growth, 12/9/16 factories and 10/3/15 mines.

Now we do a test with it... remove all pop, colonize 2 privateers of pop onto 60% world with 60% germanium conc.
Queue is factories and mines. Generate 100 turnes.

Now we modify it to OBRM and put all the resources into mines so we get 11/3/18 mines. Then do same test.

Result: OBRM guy did mine 25% more germ and did 10% more research than original. So the guy without OBRM has to remote mine about 1 red for 4 greens to have same minerals as OBRM race (empty reds are lot more rare in the games i have played). Also it had real difficult to have a chance around 2450 when OBRM race has about 40% more minerals.

My concusion is that if OBRM race has mineral issues then the race without OBRM must be better played to pass him with minerals. The races that do not hit mineral issues at 2500 must be carefully designed and simply dropping OBRM does not help.

Your turn, dear remote-mining gurus.

Report message to a moderator

Why, I haven't seen a more unscientific test in a while...

A typical non-OBRM mine setting is more like 10/3/17.
Fat good will your OBRM will do from THOSE settings. You'll get slightly more minerals early, but it won't matter when min con starts to deplete.

The key to RM is timing. You MUST get the 12con elec6 remotes by 2460 the latest. True that RM miners are about twice as expensive as normal mines, BUT you can have an UNLIMITED number of 'em. Since mineral availability is THE chief limiting factor in warship building AND your planetary mines are UNABLE to replace those minerals at the rates typical of the warship building. Provided that you invest in RM early enough, you'll have the ability to produce warships without interruptions, which is far more important than reseach you gain from your fac being idle due to mineral shortages (all IMO).

Reds are far less common due to the habbit of colonizing to the max terra ability. One must walk a fine balance here between extra res and extra minerals. If your diplomacy is any good you "SHOULD" be able to secure more than 1 in 4 reds. (If you can't, well then... in the future there is only WAR after all...)

Report message to a moderator

alexdstewart wrote on Fri, 19 December 2003 20:57

Why, I haven't seen a more unscientific test in a while... A typical non-OBRM mine setting is more like 10/3/17. Fat good will your OBRM will do from THOSE settings.

Okay testing ... testing, testing.
Same conditions, 12/3/15 OBRM versus 10/3/17 no obrm
Results:
Turn 50... leftover germ 8.7Mt versus 7.4Mt (+18%)
turn 100... leftover germ 18.2Mt versus 15.1Mt (+20%)

Okay ... so its bit better now... no shocked anymore?

Remote miners cost something for boot and with its 10% less econ at 2460 it *must* be better player to win that OBRM guy.

Do not forget that OBRM race can get about 8Mt minerals out of red during 100 years (the investment is about one LF of pop).

Quote:

If your diplomacy is any good you "SHOULD" be able to secure more than 1 in 4 reds. (If you can't, well then... in the future there is only WAR after all...)

The diplomacy is the key here? Why you assume that OBRM races are ruled by the worst diplomates?

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Fri, 19 December 2003 16:31

Quote: If your diplomacy is any good you "SHOULD" be able to secure more than 1 in 4 reds. (If you can't, well then... in the future there is only WAR after all...) The diplomacy is the key here? Why you assume that OBRM races are ruled by the worst diplomates?

Er,.. Let's look at it this way:
Say you have 1 in 4 hab, you start to colonize adjacent planets as soon as you can. The reds between your colonies are in "YOUR" sphere of influence. Now, you have 3 reds for every one green, and if you can't secure at least fraction of those in YOUR OWN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, well then... your diplomatic abilities are about as good as those of Russians who sold Alaska to the Americans... Then it is best to settle for OBRM and go for kill all approach...

Report message to a moderator

alexdstewart wrote on Mon, 22 December 2003 05:34

Er,.. Let's look at it this way: Say you have 1 in 4 hab, you start to colonize adjacent planets as soon as you can. The reds between your colonies are in "YOUR" sphere of influence. Now, you have 3 reds for every one green, and if you can't secure at least fraction of those in YOUR OWN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, well then... your diplomatic abilities are about as good as those of Russians who sold Alaska to the Americans... Then it is best to settle for OBRM and go for kill all approach...

Yeah... lets look at it this way then.

With 1 in 4 hab the universe consists of about
25% greens,
50% ok yellows and
25% reds or almost worthless, below 20% yellows.

Lets say now that i play that 1 in 4 non-obrm HG.
Universe is large normal with 13 players (where i would take AR anyway but OK) such would probably last over 2500. Everybody got 40 planet territories. I agreed the border with my neighbours and am most friendly HG you ever saw and all are happy with me ... so there are 10 greens 20 yellows and 10 reds i secured. Now i, (since i am that diplomatic guy) trade 5 of these reds to neighbours for greens in their territory, raising my economy by 15% and so ... i got 35 colonized planets and 5 reds.

Year is 2460. I got 1 uncolonized planet for 7 colonized planets. Where i send them remote miners? Where is that juicy "MY" OWN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE of what i need only fraction to secure?

Report message to a moderator

Sounds like you have taken no immunity
Otherwise I don't know how you would have gotten so many yellows so early with crapy terra abilities. I take 1 in 4 with immunity -f and still see ALOT of reds- more than I feel comfortable with.

IMO if you take no immunity, you deserve to burn baby
Maybe you should try this analysis with an immunity race, come back and see me then...

Report message to a moderator

alexdstewart wrote on Tue, 23 December 2003 01:47

Sounds like you have taken no immunity

Yes why you need immunity if the game is something that lasts long over 2500?

Quote:

Otherwise I don't know how you would have gotten so many yellows so early with crapy terra abilities.

2460 is *So* early? In such game? Like i gave example ... large normal with 13 players? Crappy terra? Even with AR i usually have full terra tech and Arma BBs by that time in such a game.

Quote:

I take 1 in 4 with immunity -f and still see ALOT of reds- more than I feel comfortable with.

Maybe you feel uncomfortable because your -f testbed is junk and also out of topic at the moment. Have you ever finished a internmediate game? Othewise i would assume you have some game files backuped and can see from there how lot uncolonized planets there are. Come to reality.

Quote:

IMO if you take no immunity, you deserve to burn baby Maybe you should try this analysis with an immunity race, come back and see me then...

I umm ... burn? Without immunity? How i burn? Why i burn? What is the point of immunities in described situation where you got slowly developing game? We assume no AR and no HE? We assume no -f? None of these was under discussion?
Okay, design anything like you describe: with immunity, 10/3/17 mines no OBRM and 1 in 4 hab. Test it, show it to us and explain how and why i burn against that pile of cow guano.

Report message to a moderator

...I try escaping from reality, but it always catches me...
The discussion on pro's and con's of immunity vs no immunity are found elsewhere, NOT HERE. I am NOT interested in the finer points of YOUR game parameters of YOUR particular game setup,- con12 elec6 comes BEFORE grav15, weapons15, Energy15 and bio 4- AND THEREFORE full respectable terraforming comes AFTER, MUCH AFTER best Remote Miners. In intermidiate game I've played (non-accB) people were still struggling to build effective cruiser fleets with some on elec1 in 2450+.

Don't overplay the newbie card, I expect hard facts and logical arguments, not insults. The point of my argument was that even 1 in 4 -f with immunity that normally has VERY broad hab- there are still alot of reds. It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to design a no immunity race that could colonize virtually everything, oh just take the Humanoids, why don't yea?
IMO non immunity races are hopelessly outclassed by immunity races, barring notable exceptions.

Which makes me think, if you so like non immunity races, how many games have you won with one?( unless you were CA, IS?)

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

LEit wrote on Tue, 23 December 2003 21:10

And one more (probably not so) irrelevant question: alexdstewart what happened to the Dark Eldars in RWIAB IIc?

hehe... ah(adjusting collar)
Well... I was using University internet access at the time- U know how unreliable that is. Basically I was shut out until very recently- I have private internet provider now. So some poor sod was given a race that he did't know how to play. The mines weren't so bad- weak but not debilitating. My replacement probably just build as many mines as he could without the remotes- the result is very dead race.

Besides, there is no shame in loosing to you, is there LEit? (Abourtive suck up attempt)

Futher: Long term, Short term, x's term game... Are we playing in the same universe? We play different strategies, but how x'term game turns out to be depends entirely on how quickly someone decides to blast someone else. (Am I not right?)
The point I am promoting is the fact that U can get 'em remotes in early midgame, with sufficient mineral supply- you can double your mining rate in 6 turns- surely 'tis is a good thing? (tell me you don't want to have double your minerals in midgame?).
Is this not sufficient to go for non-OBRM with immunity rather than OBRM without one? The more remotes you have, the more minerals they provide- the more Remotes you can build- U have a chain reaction going. You'll be able to reach the point where it is affordable to throw away enormous quantities of minerals in packets BEFORE the END GAME.]

IS THAT NOT COOL?

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Wed, 24 December 2003 05:40]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

Don't overplay the newbie card, I expect hard facts and logical arguments, not insults.

Sorry, but you said something like "IMO you deserve to burn, baby". That did not sound like call for constructive studies with me. I have nothing against innovative opinions but ... chicken must lay eggs before it cackle.

Here come the hard facts then... i have played in about 20 games that were classified as intermediate or better. 9 of these were quick 2 months skirmishes where no one had no OBRM races. Long lasted games have been won by AR or his alliance or immunityless races. I have won or been in winner alliance 6 times in longer game. Twice i won with IT, twice it was AR, once SS and once JOAT. Only my AR-s had immunities.

You maybe think that i know nothing about remote mining or cannot count my minerals? Last game my OBRM IT had about 3300 capital ships at 2561 no remote mining race had that lot. At the moment i am playing AR in medium uni, have about 1000 capital ships and probably am winning it too.

Quote:

The point of my argument was that even 1 in 4 -f with immunity that normally has VERY broad hab- there are still alot of reds.

I tested that too. Most narrow one immune (that RW reports as) 1 in 4 has about 2 of 3 habitable at full terra. Most wide has 3 of 4 habitable. That is irrelevant of course because immunity has no point in games that last over 2500. Anyone can see that such high cost and short term advantage like immunity does not fit with slowly developing game. When the game is not slowly developing then minerals are not the concern but tech and resources are and remote miners are never built by winners.

Build remote miners in midgame only with AR because normal race has always more minerals than it need midgame. Build remote miners only nub era. If someone builds remote miners midgame others will attack him because they assume he ran out of minerals so early or is outright stupid. Remote mining can be good late game if you are only one with it in your alliance etc. You will be useful with it. The winner is usually still someone with OBRM or AR.

Report message to a moderator

Catch 22 is it?

I feel a trap closing on me,- better not comment on it until I get to a better ground to stand on. (Tactical retreat people)

Untill next time...

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

...don't let me be misunderstood...
What I was trying to say is that you usually don't have the luxury of determening how fast or slow a game will be. So I go for immunity for maximum speed.

The reason why -f race is considered a dead meat (NOT MINE WORDS) is that there is very little window of opportunity for an -f race to debilitate its neigbour before factory races ramp up. Simular thing is with remotes- OBRM have little window of opportunity to exploit before before remotes start to impact the strategic situation. To be realistic it is about 9 turns after mass scale remote production until mineral are back on planets. This is a weak point, I know but it is well worth it if you can keep them remotes alive.

Arguably remotes are more survivable than planetary mines. They can move. They can be cloaked, after all what they can't see they can't hit, right? They can be concentrated deep in your territory at the time when pen scans are rare.

Some people belive in building large offensive jihad cruisers early on. I would be building jihad Ultra's or space docks. With a bit of manuvering I could easily lure your invading fleet to face their certain death from a jihad starbase/spacedock- in early mid game a properly build jihad ultra is nigh on invincible. Jihad ships are also vulnerable to counterdesign- a 2.5 speed blackjack cruiser (lower tech!) could wreck havoc against nearly immobile jihad missile ships. (Right?..)

Also, if you win almost every time with or without immunity, the main factor is obviously your skill not wether or not you take an immunity.

Report message to a moderator

staz69uk wrote on Wed, 24 December 2003 07:59

Probably a dumb question, but... When playing against the AIs with an OBRM race I do remote mining anyway, but with huge fleets of crappy miners. Is this a bad idea ?

'bad' is an underestimation:
BAD
is more like it.

Report message to a moderator

Thanks for that.

Any chance of an explanation ?

Report message to a moderator

With early minituarization OBRM miner is somewere 200res ('ve been practicing for min crunch game)- 200/8= 25 res/mine.

WHAT ARE YOU DOING BUILDING 25RES/MINE SHIPS THAT PAY OFF IN 10 TURNS WHEN YOU COULD BE BUILDING WARSHIPS?

When OBRM remote minituarization is max yea still pay 8res/mine.
Probably is not bad idea to have crappy mines AND OBRM against AI's to keep the game interesting.

[Updated on: Wed, 24 December 2003 08:23]

Report message to a moderator

alexdstewart wrote on Wed, 24 December 2003 13:20

WHAT ARE YOU DOING BUILDING 25RES/MINE SHIPS THAT PAY OFF IN 10 TURNS WHEN YOU COULD BE BUILDING WARSHIPS?

I AM GETTING MORE MINERALS TO BUILD WARSHIPS WITH

If I don't use these 25res/mine ships then (for example) I get nothing from that nice mineral-heavy red sitting next to my homeworld at all, which can't be good.

Report message to a moderator