Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » AR design and play (split from "NAS vs no NAS")
| AR design and play (split from "NAS vs no NAS") |
Sun, 26 September 2004 10:59  |
|
| Steve1 |
 | Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003
Location: Australia | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Sun, 26 September 2004 13:15 |
Actually i must admit that while NAS is hugely playable i often search points to drop NAS with the AR prt.
It is because AR start building ultras at 2430... and that gives better penscanning than JOAT has same time. Missing points make such AR 20-30% weaker in testbeds but in real game its significally harder to catch me pants down somewhere.
|
The question is how do you afford to not choose NAS with AR. You also need to select En at -50% and desirably at least one war tech (weap or Cons), so your race becomes significantly weaker than it could be.
Kotk, You're regarded as a skilled player, but what I ask is if you enter the same game that I'm in, then please choose AR so that I can claim a win against you 
[Mod edit: detailed quoting after splitting the topic]
[Updated on: Wed, 29 September 2004 03:26] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Sun, 26 September 2004 20:18  |
|
 Strat |
 | Petty Officer 1st Class |
Messages: 62
Registered: March 2004 | |
|
I just played a game with AR Prt, no -50 Energy, NAS, and no ARM. (Kotk helped me design the race too)
The game was BL2004, and one guy who joined had also joined an
Intermediate game a week later. (From that start of the game, his score practically doubled 3rd place down. My AR was 2nd place, keeping the lead close.)
In this game my race performed wonderfully! Once, that Intermediate IT monster left, (He was dying, the game had to be paused, he left during the pause) I was strong enough to take the remaining 3 players with enough MM. It was turn 2480~ at this time. My AR's score was twice the runner up.
This was my first game too though, so playing without certain things(NAS, lower research, and no ARM), I didn't miss anything. But it didn't slow me down either.
So is it possible? I trust Kotk when he says "Yes". I'm taking into account it WAS a begginers game, so I'm 110% sure if game had expert players it coulda gone different.
None-the-less, this race performed, and the LRTs didn't slow it down. 
[Updated on: Tue, 28 September 2004 22:15] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Tue, 28 September 2004 22:24 |
|
| Strat |
| Petty Officer 1st Class |
Messages: 62
Registered: March 2004 | |
|
Arrg.. Is this getting off topic?
Well, I'll let the Moderators take care of it 
Yeah, I was only AR, and Ash was our Host. And I would not be surpised if it was you Ash was emailing all my plentyful questions and ideas.
I ended up with this:
MY AR RACE for BL2004:
LRTs: IFE, IS, NAS, and RS
Hab: Grav Immune; Temp -20 to 140; Rab 38 to 84
Growth: 15%
Resource Devisor: 10
Techs:
--Cheap: Weaps, Con
--Expensive: Prop, Bio, Elec
--Tech 3 Start: Not Checked
I really had fun with it, thanks to all who helped me!
-Strat
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Sat, 09 October 2004 17:48 |
|
|
|
| Strat wrote on Tue, 28 September 2004 19:24 |
Arrg.. <snip>
MY AR RACE for BL2004:
LRTs: IFE, IS, NAS, and RS
Hab: Grav Immune; Temp -20 to 140; Rab 38 to 84
Growth: 15%
Resource Devisor: 10
Techs:
--Cheap: Weaps, Con
--Expensive: Prop, Bio, Elec
--Tech 3 Start: Not Checked
<snip>
|
This design would probably not be viable in any games that I would play. I tend to prefer much more tightly packed conditions. ie. 20 planets/player or fewer.
In my experience, AR is quite sustainable in less friendly conditions, however, you MUST tailor it to an quick start.
This requires several changes.
Suggested design. (not at my home computer, so this is going to be an estimated design). I will explain choices below.
Race: The Conjoiners
AR
IFE,NRSE,ISB,ARM,RS
Grav immune, temp and rad narrow 1/10 overall
15-17% growth (usually 16%)
10 coef.
N,W,C cheap
Rest expensive @ 3 checked.
Explanation for features.
IFE: Essential for grabbing those early planets. Early distance and making the most of your very limited early Iron supply is essential.
NRSE: No real reason other than points. Besides, why waste your precious and very limited resources researching past P12 when you need to survive wars.
ISB: IMO idiocy to not take in a real game. Docks on small worlds and ultras as an intermediate step to DSs are essential.
ARM: For more efficient miners? No. For gatable miners? Yes.
Gatability means that you're more tactically flexible. Your miners are far less vulnerable. It's the biggest investment you're going to make in them. You're going to be building over 1000 miners, likely in excess of 1500. You will be keeping them in stacks of 80 miners for maximum efficiency w/ fleets and mineral extraction. Losing a full stack of remote miners is incredibly expensive. Not being able to transport your remote miners from your core out to your periphery where you have high mineral concentrations is tactically and logistically expensive for a race w/ very limited resources mid-game. To take advantage of your advantages, you want to minimize that amount of remote miners you need to build during the mid-game expansion. YOu need to be focusing the bulk of your resources on ship construction. You can cut your remote miner construction in half by shipping all mineral production to yoru periphery, shipping bulk quantities of minerals inward toward your core worlds, exporting new miners and warships out to the front and periphery to take advantages of high concentrations, always keeping your mineral production just barely ahead of your yearly use of minerals (so as not to have vulnerable reserves that your opponents can use should you lose planets).
No NAS OPTIONAL: Preferred. Good initial scanning to save on defense intel costs early once you get US in years 28-35. Also, you have a very useful tradable commodity to the vast majority of players who use NAS as a point mine.
TT/NAS OPTIONAL: TT-useful not for high terraforming abilities. In practice you ignore bio *completely*. Make war not love, is the AR way.  TT-cuts your primary cost to grow resources by 30%. Gives you a big boost. At the same time, you usually pay for this w/ a combination of Pen scanners and hab.
In my experience, I've found that a higher initial hab usually pays off better than a lower hab w/ TT when you need to be able to fend off AT LEAST 1 race by year 15-30. Usually, you need to be able to heavily arm your stations by the early 20s to keep at least 2 off of you.
TECH: Cheap tech: Energy, Weap, Con This is for a combination of early resource growth and immediate hab expansion. IMO, despite the extra cost of N-tech, this is a no-brainer. Research N1-4 in the first 4 years (you may be able to go up to 5 at 1 level per year). This greatly improves resources when you spread pop well early on. Better return than improving your pop-growth-rate by a long shot. Take a couple years off to grab C4. Then grab N7 (by 12). Then W8 (by 15), C6 (by 20), C8 (large freighters) by 20 is best), P5 (b
...
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: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Sat, 09 October 2004 20:36 |
|
| Strat |
| Petty Officer 1st Class |
Messages: 62
Registered: March 2004 | |
|
Please keep in mind, I make this post knowing I am a beginner, so in many thing I speak on the experiences of other, as well as my own few. So if you see the need to correct or enlighten me, please do so.
| SinicalIdealist wrote on Sat, 09 October 2004 14:48 |
This design would probably not be viable in any games that I would play. I tend to prefer much more tightly packed conditions. ie. 20 planets/player or fewer.
|
---
Mabey that is why I faired the way I did (Very good that is), becuase it was a vey large map, and I had over 100 planets to myself by the time it ended.
Also, there is a point worth mentioning about style of play on diplomatic terms. From what I undestand AR can be very weak in vertain periods of the game, and many people like to kill them out right for thier strength later on. Therefore, to make an enemy of yourself to everyone early on does not seem wise. Now I like the idea to make an offense early to those have made it obvious they intend to kill you, but not to a prospective ally, epsecially if they can be an aid for the 'weak' mid-game AR.
---
| SinicalIdealist wrote on Sat, 09 October 2004 14:48 |
Race: The Conjoiners
AR
IFE,NRSE,ISB,ARM,RS
Grav immune, temp and rad narrow 1/10 overall
15-17% growth (usually 16%)
10 coef.
N,W,C cheap
Rest expensive @ 3 checked.
|
NRSE: The Ram scoop engines were wonderful things to me.. I'm playing a game now in a race that does not have them, a very large difference. I think those ram scoops really helped my speed in spreading my realm of influence. ( colonised more planets Faster) The IFE also helped with that (Fuel Mizer). These engines are also much cheaper.
ARM: With what you said about your reasons for ARM, I agree... As for taking it because of the reason, I disagree...
Gateability was a major importance and a key to the success of my race. However, this can be accomplished WITHOUT ARM. I had ~1500 (if not more) miners by the time the game was over in the 2480's. The design was one Maxi-Miner (I think, largest robot you can get w/o ARM.) on a mini-miner hull. The damage from gating was neglegible, even when overated large distances.
No NAS OPTIONAL: Like I said in my previos post, it would been a plus, but in the end was not nessesary. There are many ways to live without it, but in my case, I was able to get pen-scanners from my ally.
TECH: This is where I relied on the experiences of other AR players. They have said themselves that Energy cheap doesn't give as much a boost as would spending those points elsewhere.
But like I say, your set for a Fast paced game in a small area map, so if it does give you an edge enough on speed, then I guess you need it. I myself do not have the exepricen to say weather or not it gives a significant speed boost on resources by setting En cheap vs normal and putting points elsewhere.
The only thing I wonder about is that fact that my habs in that game were the same as a lot of other races, the rad in particular.. I wonder if it would have been benificial to shift it the other side of the the spectrum.
-Strat
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Sat, 09 October 2004 22:39 |
|
|
|
On larger universes w/ AR.
I find that universes larger than medium normal to be irrelevant at this point. Most advanced+ players realize that it is largely pointless to play games w/ more planets as it does not improve game quality. Rather it simply increases the amount of work per turn and slows down the game. Favorite universe size for some time has been small packed, medium normal, or medium sparse w/ 16 players. Anything else and you're just increasing work and the number of years before you see real action in teh game. Sure you don't see MD nubes @ year 55, but what the hell's the point of that. It's a lot more intertesting when PRT differences are actually accentuated. I'm not interested in a race to arm nubians. If people weren't interested in more tightly packed games, I'd have stopped playing years ago.
g.e.
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: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Sun, 10 October 2004 16:05 |
|
| Carn |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| SinicalIdealist wrote on Sat, 09 October 2004 23:48 |
@3: ALWAYS TAKE THIS. This makes sure you don't have to spend resources on any biotech or prop before 20. This means you can concentrate exclusively on weapons, con, and energy (which encompasses war tech and growth tech). AR will then need to spend only 1 level (at most) on biotech the whole game! Anything additional should be gained through trades. This also helps out a lot w/ early scanning. No need to research Elect(slowing down your resource growth) to gain necessary intel early on either.
g.e./Gakl
|
You have considered the increased cost you have in early en,con and we research due to having prop at 4 and bio, elec at 3?
Getting en6 with @3 costs 980, getting en6 without @3 costs 755 + 263 = 1018 for getting prop from1 to 2 afterwards.
So depending on what techs you need, it might actually slow you down.
Early on there is no need for bio3, bio1 is enough, prop4 is useless prop2 is enough and as AR has no planetary scanners elec0 is as good as elec3.
If i take your race and design it once with @3 and without i'm sligtly faster at en6,prop2,con4,bio1 than @3 is at en6,prop4,con4,elec3,bio3, but it leaves 60 points.
And with further tech research it might be even 2-3 turns faster.
Sending out first colonizers with QJ5 will not hurt that much if good planets is not far, but colonizer building normally starts when some research is done(en3-6).
Of course it depends highly on what to research when, but still the extra cost should be not ignored.
It might even be(didn't test it), that without @3 techs are cheap enough that you can go to en normal without speed loss, that would save lots of points.
Carn
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Sun, 10 October 2004 19:26 |
|
|
|
| Carn wrote on Sun, 10 October 2004 13:05 |
You have considered the increased cost you have in early en,con and we research due to having prop at 4 and bio, elec at 3?
Getting en6 with @3 costs 980, getting en6 without @3 costs 755 + 263 = 1018 for getting prop from1 to 2 afterwards.
So depending on what techs you need, it might actually slow you down.
|
Cost increase? What cost increase? Where are you getting this from? N,W,C, are still cheap. The cost to get to N6,C4 don't change. I fail to see where you're getting this. The only thing that makes sense is that you're playing around w/ slow tech and reading costs incorrectly
@3 makes expensive techs start at 3. It has no affect on anything else. The primary reason to take @ 3, IMO, is for FM w/out research (ie. so you don't take away from researching those first 4-6 levels of N in the first 4 years, and so you can get the first 4 levels of C w/out sacrificing pop growth at all (ie. being able to start moving pop w/ FM privs as soon as you hit 25%, then 33%) to maximize pop growth and spread it fast.
And what it comes down to, you would need to research up to bio 2 before 20 to immediately start using terraforming, which as AR, you WILL need to do. IIRC, it's something like 900 resources to bio 3 if it's expensive. You'll need to spend that much before 30, no matter what. That's a significant chunk of early resources that otherwise would go into energy.
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: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Mon, 11 October 2004 05:40 |
|
| Carn |
| Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| SinicalIdealist wrote on Mon, 11 October 2004 01:26 |
| Carn wrote on Sun, 10 October 2004 13:05 |
You have considered the increased cost you have in early en,con and we research due to having prop at 4 and bio, elec at 3?
Getting en6 with @3 costs 980, getting en6 without @3 costs 755 + 263 = 1018 for getting prop from1 to 2 afterwards.
So depending on what techs you need, it might actually slow you down.
|
Cost increase? What cost increase? Where are you getting this from? N,W,C, are still cheap. The cost to get to N6,C4 don't change. I fail to see where you're getting this. The only thing that makes sense is that you're playing around w/ slow tech and reading costs incorrectly
|
The formula for cost to reasearch a tech level also has the number of techs you already have in it. I think its on Stars FAQ, but i cannot find the page and this formula was also in some thread on this forum(free stars?), but ask those trying to develop free stars, i think they know exact one.
If you do not believe me start a game with your race and an identical one without @3, cost from 1 to 2 is 50 without @3 and 95 with @3, i tested it yeasterday.
Also you can compare the cost shown in tech browser between otherwise identical JOAT and HE without any tech affecting SRT, and compare the costs to research from con 3 to 4(between MF and PRIV), there is a difference.
| Quote: |
@3 makes expensive techs start at 3. It has no affect on anything else. The primary reason to take @ 3, IMO, is for FM w/out research (ie. so you don't take away from researching those first 4-6 levels of N in the first 4 years, and so you can get the first 4 levels of C w/out sacrificing pop growth at all (ie. being able to start moving pop w/ FM privs as soon as you hit 25%, then 33%) to maximize pop growth and spread it fast.
|
Therefore i said it depends on lot, if you have not a very fast growth rate, you do not lose any pop growth by researching prop2, and what you lose on resources for not researching en you get might get back by having 60 points more and slightly cheaper en and con research cost.
| Quote: |
And what it comes down to, you would need to research up to bio 2 before 20 to immediately start using terraforming, which as AR, you WILL need to do. IIRC, it's something like 900 resources to bio 3 if it's expensive. You'll need to spend that much before 30, no matter what. That's a significant chunk of early resources that otherwise would go into energy.
|
Depends on choosing TT and habs/density, with TT you have little need for extra terraform in first 15 years or if habs/density are not to bad for you, then bio 1 is enough as it already allows 600 resources to spend on terraforming, which is also enough for first 15 years.
And also(i know somebody will reject this idea) sometimes it might be more efficient to not terraform worlds that already have high habs, as the additinal growth and resources due to terraforming are not that high and instead get con 8 quicker, which is a huge resouce and mineral saver.
I just object your rule that taking @3 is always right with quickstarting AR, it depends on when you need bio 1,2,3 and 4, just for prop2 with low growth rate (not 19%) its not worth the points and even slows tech research down slightly early.
Carn
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Mon, 11 October 2004 07:37 |
|
|
|
| Carn wrote on Mon, 11 October 2004 10:40 |
The formula for cost to reasearch a tech level also has the number of techs you already have in it. I think its on Stars FAQ, but i cannot find the page and this formula was also in some thread on this forum(free stars?), but ask those trying to develop free stars, i think they know exact one.
|
http://www.starsfaq.com/advfaq/guts1.htm#4.3
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Tue, 12 October 2004 02:05 |
|
|
|
Huh...interesting. I wasn't aware of that one facet of guts. My slackerly level of attention to the guts over the past 8 years of playing this game could have some detrimental effect to my playing.
Just ran a test (however massively bungled by leaving OBRM checked w/ my standard ARM, NAS, no TT AR). Did minimal MM--only colonized 10 planets w/ each race. Both races were equally disadvantaged, having OBRM checked.
Races did just about even up till 25. @3 race was marginally more successful overall due to getting gates at year 21 vs. 24 or 25. @3 race could ahve them by 15 w/out sacrificing growth.
w/out @3 gates are considerably more expensive so you need to wait for more resources. However, this is offset by fewer resources to get to C7/8. This increased ability to gain ground. @3 race, however gains territory distance much earlier up to year 10 or so. This is important if you are playing in tightly packed conditions, as it can mean the difference between life and death by armed ships targetting SB for an early nuke.
w/out @3 definitely performed better overall, able to get to C12 on year 29 (w/ only 10 planets). @3 got C12 a year later. on 30. W/out @3 had W16 in 3 fields on year 50. @3 was a bit behind in construction by then--though I did bungle some tech levels pretty badly when I started forcing the game ahead to speed the test to 50.
In retrospect, for a more tightly packed universe w/ many players few planets (15-20 planets/player). Around 20 planets.player, the 3.5 cheap w/out @3 race probably has the advantage. But more tightly packed than that, the ability to throw up gates earlier and quicker research to C7/El4 miners probably has the advantage in survivability.
g.e./Gakl
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: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Tue, 12 October 2004 04:10 |
|
|
|
This would explain those annoying times when I've temporarily raised my research from 0 to whatever % is needed to gain a tech level in two fields and found that somehow I'd miscalculated by a small amount and bolloxed up my perfect plan by having to wait an extra year doing a measly 3 resources worth of research for the second tech. 
Also the choice of whether or not to choose @3 becomes balanced against what order you plan to do your researching in since the 1.75/0.5 multiplier is applied to the total techs component along with the base cost.
ie from all tech L0 researching:(without rounding)
L1 exp then L1 cheap would cost 87.5 + 30 = 117.5
vs L1 cheap then L1 exp would cost 25 + 105 = 130
At higher tech levels this can only get worse.
[Updated on: Tue, 12 October 2004 04:22] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: NAS vs no NAS (split from "What to do ???") |
Tue, 12 October 2004 05:13 |
|
| mazda |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 655
Registered: April 2003
Location: Reading, UK | |
|
I thought it was well known that if there is no specific need to research one particular tech then you always research the expensive level(s) first.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 05 15:20:58 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
SS of course is pain in all cases. 
... so i doubt i will enter something with AR too soon.
