Home » Primary Racial Traits » PP » PP Packet terraforming
| Re: PP Packet terraforming - 10 rules |
Sun, 18 September 2005 17:41   |
|
 mazda |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 655
Registered: April 2003
Location: Reading, UK | |
|
| Dyrham wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 11:23 |
also anyone know is it better to try with one big packet or several smaller ones or is the chance of terraforming the same
| mazda wrote |
On the assumption that part amounts can terraform then it is better to send lots of small packets.
|
|
Well that assumption appears to be wrong in a fashion.
Part packets can terraform, but the odds are reduced to match the part-size of the packet.
So a 210kT packet will get 2x50% chances and 1x5% chance at terraforming (as an example).
So in effect it mean that the packet is deconstructed at the other end and you can't get something (extra terra) for nothing.
This gives interesting statistical effects.
If I send 3 packets of 70kT then there is a 4% chance of getting 3 lots of terra.
This is much higher than the chance of sending a 210kT packet and having it broken up into 100, 100 and 10 which has only a 1.25% chance.
I reckon it is that kind of test that will cast a bit more light on this.
So more work to do ...
[Updated on: Mon, 19 September 2005 15:21] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: PP Packet terraforming - odd effect II |
Tue, 20 September 2005 15:01 |
|
|
|
Actually, that no terra tech but terra shift is somewhat interesting.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
 Re: PP Packet terraforming - 10 rules |
Mon, 26 September 2005 09:57 |
|
| Dyrham |
 | Petty Officer 2nd Class |
Messages: 50
Registered: June 2003 | |
|
Thanks for that spook.
I also found something by James McGuigan in Google groups from a few years ago which I have pasted in below.
It seems to me that PP de-terraforming might be a better weapon than previously thought. It occurs if you could design a race that early on (2430 - 50) de-terraformed its nearest enemies planets ( or those they were thinking about colonising) by just a few clicks that would make their development much slower. It would have to work out its enemies hab ranges and if it had extreme or immune ranges itself could choose which variable to de-terraform.
Any one know any games starting? I think I might give it a try. I dont like being popular with my neighbours anyhow !
Here is the paste ( bit long sorry)
Packets are nasty weapons, but only when used correctly.
Most of my worlds are well defended vs packets. As I have tech 26 in energy,
I have neutron shield defences tech. I always put autobuild 100 defences on
my standard build queue, and so all my built up worlds will have 97.92%
defences, also as I like to use packets myself when on the offensive (and
now especially as I know you are a PP), I have also built warp 10 drivers on
all my starbases (and will switch the gate for a second driver if I know the
planet will be packeted), so I can catch some of the packet before it
impacts.
Mass packets that are overflung lose mass each turn. This is 10% per year
for 1 warp over rating, 25% for 2 warps over rating and 50% for 3 warps over
rating (twin drivers count add 1 to the driver rating but twin warp 10s can
still only fling at warp 13). As you are a PP, these overfling losses are
halved. (5% for 1 year, 12% for 2, 25% for 3). Also for non PP races there
is a 10% tax in minerals for packet construction (ie it costs 1100kt of
minerals to make a 1000kt packet)
Planets automatically catch 33% of the packet, regardless of anything else.
To work out how much a driver can catch of a packet, multiply its rating by
itself (twin drivers add 1 to the rating), and do the same with the packet
speed, then make it into a fraction. So a warp 10 driver (10 x 10 = 100) vs
a warp 15 packet (15 x 15 = 225) = 100/225 = 44% of the packet. For twin
warp 10s its 121/255 = 47%. vs ITs they are only ½ as effective at catching
overflung packets.
Minerals caught by the planet and driver are kept on the planet and can be
used again (much like if you had flung a packet at your own world). Consider
this protection due to the atmosphere.
Defences work as an absolute figure, for 97.92% defences, only 2.08% of the
packet (after what the driver and planet caught).
So after all that 33% then 44% then 97.92% bits taken out of the packet, you
are left with 0.67 x 0.56 x .0208 = 0.77% of the original packet that
actually impacts, and that's not counting any overfling losses.
Population killed by a packet is 1 person per 100,000 people on the planet
per kt per packet speed in ly (a warp 10 (10 x 10 = 100) packet would kill
100 pop per 100,000 pop per kt that impacted - warp 16 will kill 256 pop).
So the more pop on a planet the more pop will be killed. On low pop worlds
(below 100,000 pop) deaths are simply 1 pop per 1 kt per packet warp speed ^
2 (but remember to take into account defences and the 1/3 taken by the
planet).
So as you may guess, using packets vs heavily defended planets is not a
cheap thing. You would need a 35,000kt packet to kill a planet that well
defended.
To top this all off there are also additional ways to defend vs packets.
Firstly a packet can be intercepted, and the contents loaded into a
freighter (thus reducing the packet size). Or if freighters are in orbit,
the player can load up some or most of his pop (leaving enough just to
operate the driver and defences) and so when the packet hits, it will only
kill either a % or all of those left (which is less that was originally
there). If the planet is killed off, then it can be recolonised (might even
be able to pop drop down next turn without a colonizer), and have a bonus of
all the minerals left (dead planet will lose all defences and starbase).
Also the enemy might thank you for the sudden influx of minerals.
The above doesn't mean the end is dead for packets. You have to consider
packets not a replacement for fleet attacks, but simply a support for them.
Packets are best used against undefended or lightly defended planets (or
planets you have made undefended). This can be done in several ways. Taking
out a planets starbase and holding the orbit, will ensure there is no mass
driver. Which means more of the packet will impact. If you have some bombers
in orbit, you can use them to take down some of the defences first, and use
the packet to cleanse.
If the player jumps planet to "dodge" the packet, it will take him at least
a year to rebuild the defences and starbase, and so will be quite
vulnerable.
Also packets do take out defences when they hit. And if you have several
packets impact the same planet on the same year, the first will take down
some defences, then the next will impact and have slightly less defences to
deal with and so on. Using several packets on a single year can be more
efficient in minerals and cost than a single big packet. Factories and mines
are unaffected.
Also PP packets can deterraform a planet on impact (50% chance of 1 Terra
click per 100 and base terra per 1000kt or part of - this only counts on
minerals actually impacted), and if a planets value can be lowered to below
the point that the max pop (or actual pop present) of a planet is less than
250,000 (25% for a non-OBRM and non-JOAT race), then the number of defences
allowed to be operated will be less than 100. 100,000 pop can operate 20
defences. If you turn the planet red, then that means a maximum of 10
defences. For neutron shield defences this means only 32.04% coverage (or
67.96% gets through after the 1/3 taken by the planet).
The order of events important to mass packets is:
Waypoint 0 load tasks
In-space packets move and decay
PP packets (de)terraform
Packets cause damage
Mass Packets still in space and Salvage decay
Production (incl. research, packet launch, fleet/starbase construction)
Population grows/dies
Packets that just launched and reach their destination cause damage
Fleet battles (w/possible tech gain)
Bombing
Waypoint 1 unload tasks
Remote Terraforming
I hope this helps clear up the subject of packets for you.
--
Rules are written for those who lack the ability to truly reason,
But for those who can, the rules become nothing more than guidelines,
And live their lives governed not by rules but by reason.
- James McGuigan
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: PP Packet terraforming - 10 rules |
Mon, 26 September 2005 10:39 |
|
|
|
Yes, I am aware of all this. I can not stress enough though the necessity of being extremely mine efficient and having ARM when playing PP. All those minerals for packets need to come from somewhere.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: PP Packet terraforming - 10 rules |
Mon, 26 September 2005 13:09 |
|
|
|
I will grant that ARM isn't absolutely necessary, however, since there are midget miners provided at the start of the game, these ships produce a good flow of early minerals for scanning packets. Additionally, since a large amount of remote miners are going to be needed, it is much better to use the much cheaper Robo Ultra Miner. I have spent a fair amount of time working on viable PP races and there are only a few that will consistently reach the magic 50 year number of resources in a random, small normal universe with 2 or 3 expert AI's thrown in. Add to this that any viable race MUST have plenty of minerals.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: PP Packet terraforming - 10 rules |
Wed, 28 September 2005 18:11 |
|
|
|
I have some experience fielding a PP relying on early Terror-forming as a tactic. However, I found in the particular case where I used the PRT, I had better success using it for pre-terraforming colonies I would use.
I fielded a -F PP and had chosen to take *SOME* factories (at max cost) to exploit factories from packet attacks + invasions.
Of course, much to my chagrin 3 out of 4 opponents I faced throughout the early part of the game either did not use or underused their factories and gave me virtually no boost at expensive of a great many resources and minerals to cripple them...
In theory the plan should work great!
[edit] forgot to include the benefits and reason behind a -F PP.
Wide hab and many planets is key. More planets=more minerals. You keep up a decent growth and stay on cutting edge of tech. If you're playing versus many opponents where you could potentially trade for technology, I would recommend taking fewer than 3 cheap and boost hab or PGR to 20%. 1 immune is necessary. I recommend bora for offensive terraforming. I recommend a low near-extreme grav and extreme rad (1 way or another). I might even suggest taking W expensive. Problem w/ -Fs is that they are resource poor. Might as well focus on the tradables to keep you ahead of the opposition. -F PP can't afford to take on everyone at once like most other -Fs.
[Updated on: Wed, 28 September 2005 18:32]
g.e.
====
"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. DickReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: PP Packet terraforming - 10 rules |
Wed, 28 September 2005 22:16 |
|
| vonKreedon |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
I came in second in a large game in which I played a PP that did not remote mine to any strategically significant level. I had excellent mine settings and a very wide hab. Off topic really as I did not reveal myself a PP until the mid-game and so did not do any packet terraforming except as collateral damage.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Apr 28 15:13:17 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: PP Packet terraforming - odd effect II
