Home » Primary Racial Traits » CA » 1WW CA
| 1WW CA |
Thu, 26 August 2004 16:25  |
|
 Hooga |
 | Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 31
Registered: July 2004 | |
|
I've always wanted to play a 1WW, I thought I'd give myself an easy start with a CA. To me, since a 1WW gets such a good start, it would be easier to support slower starting players in a team game.
The Race:
CA
ARM, RS (personal preference)
grav 1.6 to 4.4
temp 60 to 140
radiation 70 to 90
1/93 hab
19%
1/1000, factories 13/8/17 checked, mines 10/3/16
weap cheap, en con elec prop normal, bio expensive
Testing was not good, very quick start, but I found only 4 planets in a tiny packed, so I peaked near 11 k resources. And I peaked early (~2435). There's max 3210 res per planet in this race.
What I could do is ditch ARM for OBRM, mayb change the habs a bit to center them, increase factories per planet.
I can do without IFE thank you (before its mentioned). I don't build major ammounts of ships until 2410, by then I have prop 6 for the DLL7 and the rad ram for colonist and non-colonist carrying ships.
Help? Problems?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1WW CA |
Thu, 26 August 2004 16:38  |
|
| Orca |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
This is similar to the strategy used by the Superons - though they do it much better. There are a few tweaks to the race I'd consider (con normal, maybe slightly more expensive factories for a better eff or IFE, etc.). Probably take NAS since I can stand that more than the tactical uncertainty created by CE...but the Superons are an impressive race.
--------
From: elcabalero@aol.com (ElCabalero)
Subject: Re: The "Monster" Pantheon
Date: 1997/06/16
Message-ID: <19970616203000.QAA04360@ladder02.news.aol.com>
References: <5o1mqn$f84@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.stars
In article <5o1mqn$f84@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, bkearns1@ix.netcom.com
(Barry Kearns) writes:
>I look forward to hearing the offerings of others, to show how well>all of the PRTs can do.
Okay, here's my humble offering. What I call a "Sprint Mode" CA,Version 5. The race started as a thought experiment on Friday night, andthanks to the rapid "real world" testing afforded by IRC has matured very quickly, until it is about as well tuned as I can make it. An earlier version is entered in "Feeding Time at the Zoo", and is doing fairly well as 4th of a field of 8 in 2454.
Race name: Superons
PRT = CA
LRT = TT, NRSE, CE, OBRM, LSP (yes, CE is a pain, but I needed the points, and NAS is worse. OBRM is a no-brainer, for reasons that will become clear later)
Grav .31 to .71, Temp -120c to -40c, Rad 20 to 40 ( 1 in 93 hab[!] )
Growth rate 20%
Pop eficiency 1/1000
Factories 14/8/20 (G-Box checked)
Mines 10/3/21
Weaps and Bio -50%
Energy, Elect, Prop, and Const all +75%
+75% start at level 3
I can't find my notes for resources at particular years, but I can tell you that this race has consistently benchmarked at 29K in testbeds (Walking over even expert AI like they weren't there), and has hit just barely short of the 25K mark in two IRC blitzes (One of whic
...
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1WW CA |
Thu, 26 August 2004 20:59 |
|
| mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Orca wrote on Thu, 26 August 2004 15:38 |
This is similar to the strategy used by the Superons
|
I get 7 points left over for the Superons, enough to move a band out 1 click. Although mineral conc might been the target.
| Quote: |
....the Superons are an impressive race.
|
Well, any race that has instaforming and is run by a competent player is going to be formidable/unstoppable.
Not sure what universe this race is supposed to fit in...as he doesn't say, or I missed it. He does talk as if it didn't do well in a small. I've played with similiar designs, but could never get past the lack of G (especially in the Nub era). Plus, with all those expensive techs, life might get rough in the mid game. Kind of a double whammy. I like the straight HG version better.
Strange that it he designed it to mesh with a TT25 at Bio 22. That just doesn't seem right. I would have targeted Bio 17 in a knife fight, or 30 in a => medium normal. Maybe I'm just reading to much into a arbitrary hab point though.
I would have centerlined it, at least a bit more. That way even if another player skewed all elements a bit, their HW would still terraform to 100% at Bio 22. 
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1WW CA |
Thu, 26 August 2004 22:00 |
|
| Hooga |
| Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 31
Registered: July 2004 | |
|
After reading that article and your collective comments, I've tweaked my race a little and still need feedback.
CA
TT, OBRM, LSP, RS
grav 1.32 to 2.72
temp 32 to 112
rad 58 to 78
1/93 19% growth
resources: 1/1000, 14/9/18 checked, mines 10/3/17
weap, bio cheap, en, con, prop normal, elec expensive
0 points left to mineral concentrations 
The deal is that the hab is 22 clicks from the edge I think, which is enough for TT20 at bio 17. Bio is kinda useless for other purposes past 17, so that's where I'm going to aim.
19% isn't much off 20%, should have decent pop growth. I increased the cost per factory as IMO the ramp up isn't as important as the end result, but to afford the techs the way they are there's less factories per 10k pop than I'd like. Mines could be better also, especially because of OBRM.
Elec is the most useless tech, especially without NRSE, you need to be able to get to prop 16 quick enough, and with RS you need en not expensive. I suppose I could ditch RS and go with en expensive too, but I don't like that. I like RS a lot.
Further help? Problems? I'm going to run a test tomorrow in a tiny/packed. Hopefully will find some more planets quicker.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1WW CA |
Fri, 27 August 2004 00:43 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Hooga wrote on Thu, 26 August 2004 21:00 |
After reading that article and your collective comments, I've tweaked my race a little and still need feedback.
|
Well, I always build my race to the universe I'll be playing in. I've only played 5 games with a CA, and 3 of those were with -f's. Another was a <grudge> match to prove who was right on a design philosophy (TT vs non-TT CA). So, my first hand experience is limited. I did play a TT CA in Bug2, 11 players in a huge packed. My design differed quite a bit from yours.
I opted for:
CA
IFE, TT, OBRM, LSP, RS
grav .55 to 1.8
temp -84 to 76
rad 31 to 71
1 in 12 growth 18%
1/1000
12/9/10/no
12/3/10
con, weap, bio cheap, others expensive
0 points left
Admittedly, it wasn't a great design. I would probably go with 19%, drop mine eff to 11 and click the G box. I could narrow the habs a little too, if needed, but I didn't like it narrower than 1 in 16 with a HG chasis.
I only managed 26k@Y50, and 313k@2499 with 3600+ Nubs, when the game ended. I actually built a few more Nubs than that, but "sold" them to another race for just minerals. Kind of a weird political maneuver to keep 4 other races busy beating on each other while I dealt with my other border disputes.
The lackluster start was due mainly to a pop drop battle and war starting in the mid 20's against an aggressive JOAT. I did my best to only commit what was necessary, and continue my growth else where, but you should be able to beat this hands down in a test bed.
| Quote: |
The deal is that the hab is 22 clicks from the edge I think, which is enough for TT20 at bio 17.
|
For a medium or less, that might be sufficient. Really depends on the universe size, though. I like TT30...
| Quote: |
19% isn't much off 20%, should have decent pop growth.
I increased the cost per factory as IMO the ramp up isn't as important as the end result, but to afford the techs the way they are there's less factories per 10k pop than I'd like. Mines could be better also, especially because of O |
...
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1WW CA |
Fri, 27 August 2004 05:01 |
|
| iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1205
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
I'm not an expert with a CA race ('ve only won two beginners/low intermediate games with it), but your race will have quite some problems at the start. Before I start dissecting your design here's what you should know: playing CA will make you at the same time the most loved and hated player of all other players in the game. Loved because you'll make your allies growing at almost the same speed as your race does, and hated by non-allies, because they'll just look you guys growing insanely fast and big. Quite often all neighbours ally against a CA to prevent that happen. So you'll have to decide if you want to be in such a game.
Let's have a look at your race.
| Hooga wrote on Fri, 27 August 2004 04:00 |
CA
TT, OBRM, LSP, RS
|
The first question I'd like to ask you is about the number of planets per player, and expected distance to those planets. With your ultra narrow hab you should aim at lots of planets per player. Only this way there will be enough green planets for your race to stay competitive. But without IFE you'll not be able to GET those planets, as you'll be crawling around universe with warp 7 or 8 investing ALL your iron into PVTs with DLL-7, and still not be able to export all grown pop from your HW, while other players with FM will be grabbing all greens for them.
With TT-7 from start you have 1 green planet in 20. In a packed uni that means 0.33 green planet within one warp-9 jump, 1.3 greens within two and 3 within 3 jumps. Awfully low number if you ask me, and without FM engine you'll not be able to travel w-9 further then 1 jump. IMO your first goal is to widen the hab, and get IFE. Just 3 "clicks" in each will give you double initial greens - 1 in 12 from the start. That's playable with CA race. With lots of planets per player you'll aim at TT-30 for your race, so move all habs 30 clicks from the edge, and chose IFE for a LRT. Now I have to get you out of the -199 points hole.
| Quote: |
resources: 1/1000, 14/9/18 checked, mines 10/3/17
|
You have more
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1WW CA |
Sat, 28 August 2004 03:56 |
|
| Orca |
| Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Thu, 26 August 2004 21:43 |
I don't like the Superons race either. I think an improved design of mine could kill them. The simple fact that I can inhabit more planets, use less germ = more metal to build ships. They might have a resource advantage, but I bet I'll get to Nub's first...
|
Well, for what they are (a 1ww TT CA with heavy duty factories and pop eff) they're quite impressive. They aren't terribly viable in most games due to the sheer luck factor it takes to make them work and the long caccoon time (early on they're fairly brittle as well...). There are races that are better - lots of 'em as a matter of fact. But there aren't many that are quite as extreme but still manage to do decently. And certainly they'll do better than the original race posted (which is why I reposted that old RGCS article - to give some ideas on how to make this 1WW CA theory work).
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: 1WW CA |
Sun, 29 August 2004 15:51 |
|
| Carn |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| iztok wrote on Sun, 29 August 2004 19:43 |
Hi!
| mlaub wrote on Sat, 28 August 2004 22:18 |
| Orca wrote on Sat, 28 August 2004 02:56 |
Well, for what they are (a 1ww TT CA with heavy duty factories and pop eff) they're quite impressive.
|
... That's a must, IMO, on a 1WW design.
|
I missed that part in previous posts. OK, please someone explain me why the h... would anyone want a race that gets FREE terraforming as a 1WW? 
BR, Iztok
|
I can just guess, but with full TT 1 in 93 habs turn into 1 in 4 planet being 100%, which means a CA OWW can have unlike other OWW even potential in long run.
Boils down to CA having habs roughly one "category" better than other:
CA OWW hab ~ QS hab
CA QS hab ~ HG hab
CA HG hab ~ -f hab
CA -f hab ~~~ dual or tri immune
Carn
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: 1WW CA |
Mon, 30 August 2004 05:15 |
|
| Carn |
| Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| iztok wrote on Mon, 30 August 2004 00:46 |
Hi!
| Quote: |
I can just guess, but with full TT 1 in 93 habs turn into 1 in 4 planet being 100%, which means a CA OWW can have unlike other OWW even potential in long run.
Boils down to CA having habs roughly one "category" better than other:
CA OWW hab ~ QS hab
CA QS hab ~ HG hab
CA HG hab ~ -f hab
CA -f hab ~~~ dual or tri immune
|
Yeah, but to make 1WW CA to 1 in 4 hab you have to invest 300+k resources in bio. What sane opponent will be so nice to wait 70 turns for that to happen? Those factories on one planet my look impressive, but I'd trade them any day for better hab and be able to produce two times more resources from three more green planets in just a bit more time. Two times more res means twice as fast getting next level of TT. Next level of TT means about 50% more greens and 30% better average hab on older greens, so compounding cycle starts rolling much faster. Because of that is a 1WW CA broken concept.
My 
BR, Iztok
|
I just pointed at the fact that CA OWW has a chance to survive a long game, while other OWW are useless.
Of course CA with 1 in 12 race wizard hab is far stronger, but people do not always play optimal powerful races, often just things that somehow might work are tried.
Carn
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1WW CA |
Mon, 30 August 2004 06:32 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1205
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Carn wrote on Mon, 30 August 2004 11:15 |
I just pointed at the fact that CA OWW has a chance to survive a long game, while other OWW are useless.
|
IMO not long game. Too many planets available for other players. But in a small, pretty crowded game, where they'd play as a QS with 1WW hab, and a bit of luck with hab draw... I admit they'd be pretty nasty there.
| Quote: |
... but people do not always play optimal powerful races, often just things that somehow might work are tried.
|
Eh, and when they realize that doesn't work against competent opponents, they drop.  I'm not really going to complain about that ('ve had luck with dropped neighbours), but that breaks game balance for other players.
Just my .
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 26 08:46:16 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
... so there are already 5 planets ... you sure colonized them while these were reds? Good, so the factories are already seeded. 
. But if I START with 1 in 12 then I have fair chance (50%) to find a green planet within 1 warp-9 jump and 2.4 planets within two 
. So my pop starts growing 1 turn earlier, I need to build less pop-movers and they return faster to pick up newgrown pop. All that in those early years where every saved expense means really a lot. 1WW fights from one (two if PP/IT) planet. CA wins with resources from MANY planets, that start producing them FAST with instaforming. Therefore I still think 1WW CA is broken concept.