I never really liked the mineral eff cost curve. It's a little steep, IMO. Hardly any races can take advantage of a greater than normal eff without serious consequences, and it never seemed fair. Oh, HP's can go nutz and get a decent eff, but they really pay for it in other aspects, plus they use so much germ, they almost need to do it. My typical HG varies between 10-13 mine eff, and that's is usually just enough. I always wondered about -f's, though. After a long period of time, I have decided to revisit -f's. So, for the last year, I have played them in about half of my games. It's given me new insight, and some of you might value what I have learned. Or, perhaps this is something that is already known, and I am just discovering an old tact.

This is a little premature, as it 'could' effect the game I am involved in, so don't ask which game. This 'Huge' game I am playing in, is going to be winding down soon, though, so what the heck.

My first mineral experiment was with a -f IT. I used 10/3/6 for my mineral settings in a medium universe. Getting minerals fast wasn't an issue with most -f's I've played, so it seemed a good start point. In this game, I had more minerals than I needed (lots of planets), but was loath to squander them with the eff set to 10. As it turned out, I had more minerals than I knew what to do with later on. Picture build Q's out 20 years for Nubs, just counting surface minerals. I was able to kill 2 neighbors in the midgame, and most of a 3rd before the game ended. I had allied with a race that was next to last place, and forced him to grow via tech and germ delivery. In the end game, I dedicated 100 lg freighters to shipping him metal, as I couldn't burn through it fast enough. So, with that in mind, I decided to start testing for my next game...

I started playing with the mineral settings, and realized that several things right off. First, 15/15/5 is almost the same cost as 10/3/10, depending on other settings. Second, this would probably never work with a factoried race. Third, it might be enough for a -f, if you could maintain an explosive enough expansion from the start, and therefore enough resources to start it all off. It was clear from tests that once you had enough mines built, and your empire reached a certain level, minerals would not be the bottleneck, even with the small # of mines operated.

I tend push race design to far (and then try to make up for it with MM), so I said what the heck and came up with this as a starting point:

Experiment #2

-f IS
ISB, OBRM, LSP, RS

Grav .29 - 3.92
Temp Immune (1/3 hab)
Rad 48 - 88

1000 eff, 5/25/5, no, 15/15/5
Weap, Con, Prop - Cheap
Energy - Normal
Bio, Elec - Expensive

As you will no doubt surmise, this is a mineral poor race from the start, all the way into the late midgame. This was an issue x2, as I had perhaps the worst start I could have a imagined. I started near the center of the map, next to 4 WM's, 2 IS's, 1AR, and 1 SD (Host selected <further>)... I only had 2 decent starting planets near my HW ( < 250 ly), which is not to be expected with a 1/3 hab, otherwise I needed to go >300 ly for more large greens. Also, my HW is in a natural sparse area of the map. So, I would consider this to be a really <bad> start. When I designed the race, I debated taking Energy cheap, instead of prop cheap, but figured I'd hedge a bad hab draw with cheap prop and scoops. Plus, with no minerals, and few resources, scoops seemed the best bet. Testing showed that I could research Con 8 right off, and build a few Lg freigters and SFX's to get a the first few loads of colonists to prime worlds. Then, concentrate on getting Prop 9, so I'd only need lg freighters, and they would have a +300ly range. This worked great. I got into some pop drop wars, but my hab helped, for the most part. Grabbing alot of territory with superior engines, growth in space, and defensibility of an IS, along with diplomacy helped with exponential growth. By Y2450, my arch of colonized planets measured 1000ly x 850ly, and yes I

Report message to a moderator

I too have been palying around with improved efficency. In case anyone doesn't know, I'm obsesed with HPs. I have been trying out a JOAT with IFE, TT, NRSE, OBRM, NAS and 17% growth, with habs 31 clicks from each side for eventual max hab. Pop eff 1/2500, facts are 15/8/23/checked, mines 22/15/8 and all expensive tech, box not checked.

If you can trade for needed tech with minerals, then it will work, but otherwise you will have trouble with that until much later in the game. The good side of teh race: no ger crunch and no iron crunch, at any point in the game. I think that this is quite an acomplishment with a HP. I am pulling this out of memory- I'm at school right now, so I don't have stars! with me right now to check. One thing I am thinking about is to reduce the hab a bit to get leftover points to put into mineral concentrations- you will rely on your homeworld for all the minerals for your empire untill you get the factory explosion on other worlds, giving them enough resources to build meaningfull numbers of mines.

What were you saying about pushing a good concept too far?

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

In general, I try to avaid remote mining- it is expensive to research the miners early enough with a HP economy, and I always have an iron crunch in th 10-20 year range, so building miners at that point doesn't help. Besides, I like the extra 10% planet space. Acually, my hab is around 1 in 10, but I do have TT for eventual total hab. By the time I could build remote miners in a great enough quantity, I can live on tose planets (most of them) and build mines, to extract 1.5 times as many minerals. Slower, true, but I can live with that in return for reduced vulnerability.

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Ptolemy wrote on Fri, 23 April 2004 12:01

When using an HP, a better bet is to use those resource points eaten up by the mine settings on ARM. You start with 2 midget miners ...

I have mixed feeling here. ARM's nice, saves quite some resources and minerals, but much later in the game, while 10% more minerals is available from the start. Also, paying for ARM while I already have standard miners, looks like a waste to my penny-counting soul . Since I'm not an AR, gateability isn't an issue, and refuel of remotes is usually done by freighters loading minerals. Moving those heavy standard miners fast and far is a problem, but I usually merge them with freighters and planet-hop, optimizing their path to spend as much time as possible mining.
My .
BR, Iztok

[Updated on: Fri, 23 April 2004 08:43]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

icebird wrote on Thu, 22 April 2004 20:54

mines 22/15/8

Note: 16/3/14 mines cost the same in RW.

Your setting get about 20% (1.2 times) more minerals out of ground during 100 years but they cost about 200% (3 times) more resources.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

HP econ, factories cost 8, all tech expensive, mines 3 times more costly than usual and he wants to take over someone elses mines?

I can imagine discussion like what is better to take:

A) 2500 15/7/21 chk 11/3/18
B) 2500 15/8/21 chk 13/3/17

With B you get 14% more expensive factories for 18% more efficient mines and its good trade.

Trade like:

A) mines 16/3/14
B) mines 22/15/8

Is bad trade because you get 20% more efficient mines for going 200% more expensive. No matter if you hope to take others factories and mines or use your own.

[Updated on: Thu, 29 April 2004 17:57]

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Thu, 29 April 2004 18:48]

Report message to a moderator

Yes you are going bit too extreme in multiple ways icebird. I would probably kill such JOAT HP-s with AR in duel (and quess who gets more minerals in long term ).

The original trick that Matt posted was something like:

0) mines 10/3/13 (usual for -f)
A) mines 10/3/7 +75 rw points
B) mines 15/15/5 +80 rw points
C) mines 10/6/13 +65 rw points

While A) get about 11M minerals per colonized planet during 100 years, B) gets 15M and so it is crippled but playable in long term while A) has unplayably low minerals. C) has about same minerals as B) and builds them about as long. So the actual trick was how to get 80 points out of RW by getting double expensive mines. Going C) is also double cost mines but gives only 65 RW points.

Report message to a moderator

Why do I insist on following my untried and probably horrible ways? Because I can. And because that is how new things are discovered. I'm not claiming to be on to anything extra special, but these new mine settings do wonders to my mineral supply. In my test, I never hit a germanium crunch, which is quite an accomplishment with a HP (no, there wasn't a wonderous concentration- 35 was the start). Nay say if you want, but I like wierd races.
If you don't like HPs (as most people don't), then here is a -f:
IS
IFE, ISB, NRSE, OBRM, NAS
19% .33 to 1.96, -124 to 124, 22 to 78
1/1000, 5/25/5, 17/4/10
Weapons, Cons cheap, rest expensive

Testbed this race, then tell me that minerals arn't just oh so much easier to get.

Report message to a moderator

Kotk, I am not saying I agree with Matt's strategy, I am just trying to see the logic in it.

If one is a -F, one expects to build few mines on ones own but instead capture most, and one expects to capture relatively few mines perhaps it can be made to work. That does not mean I am brave enough to try such settings.

Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Fri, 30 April 2004 05:39

Kotk, I am not saying I agree with Matt's strategy, I am just trying to see the logic in it. If one is a -F, one expects to build few mines on ones own but instead capture most, and one expects to capture relatively few mines perhaps it can be made to work. That does not mean I am brave enough to try such settings.

You are implying that my whole strategy was to pop bomb to get mines. You misread my post then, or I was not clear enough. Of all my mines, I have built 95% of them.

I am just now starting to capture mines via pop bombing. While nice, it really isn't even necessary. Any lategame IS can max out captured planets easily, sure the mines are expensive, but who cares? At that point resources are *not* the limiting factor for most races, minerals are.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

icebird, your -f IS race has 1 in 4 hab without immunity and only 2 common technologies. That means no planets, no resources and more minerals than it can ever use. It is just making juicy mineral candy for anyone interested.

multilis, Matts race actually looks from side early *lot* stronger than it actually is. Anyway this race should feel to play quite like AR, plus all the IS gadgets and tricks and its AR-ness is never so obvious. It cannot feed whole alliances with minerals, but on its own it is doing OK.

Matt has *designed* for large game. Looking it out of context is nonsense. LSP in small game? Without large freighters there are not enough minerals to expand early with such mine settings, so he takes them ASAP. OTOH ... thanks to LSP and double expensive mines he found points to build it without NAS (that sucks horribly in large game) and for one-immune 1 in 3 hab (that means 2 from 3 at max terra).

Think, who knows what minerals he has when looking from the side? Everyone see there is IS that colonize lot of planets, spreads rapidly and has quite good tech. Any expert assume correctly it is -f there (strong early, weaker later) and try to be nice with him. They are mostly HP-s in large game these days... you see. Actually, they are correct ... one HP it can kill until 2450, no matter if it is played by advanced player or no.

Most races in large game have quite expensive tech. He has cheap. Better than that. He has propulsion cheap, thats wonderful trade article, rare people have propulsion cheap. So he gets or trades max tech as quick as these HP-s around. After that others are soon limited with minerals, leftover to alchemy, he is building flat-out like AR (but not endlessly of course and not 50/50 torpedo ships & beamers).

[Updated on: Sat, 01 May 2004 09:16]

Report message to a moderator

I see 1 in 3, closer to 1 in 2 than 1 in 4. With faster yellow ramp up (orbiting pop), the planets are rather numerous. Or oyu could go grav immune with 1 in 7, rad right shifted narrow and temp large centerd, but I'm not fond of that. Plentiful planets+pop growing in freighters= lots of pop, even if the world's arn't of very good value themselves.

Edit: I see where you get 1 in 4- I messed up the habs in my first posting. With 3 leftover, is is really .27 to 3.68, -128 to 128 and 18 to 82.

[Updated on: Sat, 01 May 2004 11:06]

Report message to a moderator

All race design is about balancing. How to be competive without being wasteful. If you get no factories you want to have double the planets + cheapish tech. Thats because others get about 3 times more resources per planet occupied. But you can live well with half weaker mines than others because your planets lack production capacity.

So .... -f should go immunityless 1 in 3 hab only with TT. Then it can terra almost as quick thanks to click costing less resources. Otherwise, go 1-immune and with no worse than 1 in 4 hab.

10/3/13 mines are best that -f needs. I cannot imagine it running out of minerals before game is over with such mines. Player must be doing something real stupid to waste up all its minerals. Matt took mines that are as good and cost double to build but also cost 80 points less in race wizard. You take mines that are 340 points more expensive than best mines a -f ever needs and it shows in the rest of the race.

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Sat, 01 May 2004 11:26

All race design is about balancing....How to be competive without being wasteful. If you get no factories you want to have double the planets + cheapish tech. You take mines that are 340 points more expensive than best mines a -f ever needs and it shows in the rest of the race.

Wow! Summed up nicely in the last few posts. Thanks! I was in a rush, and was going to try to follow up, but you got it spot on.

The Prop cheap tech actually allowed me to double dip in tech trading, and no one suspected how weak I was at the begining.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator