Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 20:06

Sorry about not posting design, thought was obvious intent but you aren't a mindreader. Theory is for a duel where game is over before minerals run out and race to early take out the 5% HE that the following might be viable: HE LRT: IS, UR, OBRM, NAS, RS 3i 4% growth 1/700 pop resources; 15/5/25 factories (checked 1 less germ); 14/2/24 mines Const, Weapons, Energy Cheap; Prop normal; Elect, Bio expensive. UR increases initial startup colony resource growth from 8%+30% to approx 8%+45% (though draws some resources from finished colonies), plus helps compensate for lack of gates in counterdesign war on frontlines. In game where lots of building soon to be obsolete ships can be useful. I use mini-coloniser hull+ISB rather than IFE to give early warp 9 for transports + warfleets.

What about 1/800, 16-20/2/25 mines and prop cheap or elec normal?

I think that would allow to get tech faster and facs same speed, due to cheaper mines.

Carn

Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Fri, 01 October 2004 03:42

Max minerals: 14 x 24 = 336 18 x 18 = 324 around same minerals for length of duel game. mining per resource spent: 14/2 = 7 18/3 = 6 Cost 2 is cheaper, yielding a bit better ramp up.

Yes you are correct i was thinking a bit longer term. On the other hand mines do not compound like factories instead they kinda deplete.
Actually (i ran quick test) the 18/3/18 setting gets ~300kt per mineral more for ~300 resources more spent than 14/2/24 during first 30 years. So ... few DD-s here or few there.

Report message to a moderator

Carn wrote on Fri, 01 October 2004 02:24

multilis wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 20:06 Sorry about not posting design, thought was obvious intent but you aren't a mindreader. Theory is for a duel where game is over before minerals run out and race to early take out the 5% HE that the following might be viable: HE LRT: IS, UR, OBRM, NAS, RS 3i 4% growth 1/700 pop resources; 15/5/25 factories (checked 1 less germ); 14/2/24 mines Const, Weapons, Energy Cheap; Prop normal; Elect, Bio expensive. UR increases initial startup colony resource growth from 8%+30% to approx 8%+45% (though draws some resources from finished colonies), plus helps compensate for lack of gates in counterdesign war on frontlines. In game where lots of building soon to be obsolete ships can be useful. I use mini-coloniser hull+ISB rather than IFE to give early warp 9 for transports + warfleets. What about 1/800, 16-20/2/25 mines and prop cheap or elec normal? I think that would allow to get tech faster and facs same speed, due to cheaper mines. Carn

Answering 2 here.

Personally, I would not point munge on the scanners...The 4% HE is vulnerable enough, IMO, without adding another potential problem.

Iztok is right on on the UR. I don't think it is worth the points. The way UR works, it is advantages to only scrap up to the planets resources, IIRC. That is tough to do quickly without gates. You won't need the metal, either. So, to me it is pointless, and I'd rather have more G coming off my HW and Breeders, to give to new colonies.

IFE is a nobrainer for my version, as it amounts to going from a mine eff of 21 ---> 20. Not that big of deal, and you get the great engine + 15% fuel savings + decent chaff. I still use the mini colonizer hulls, too.

Based on "1/800, 16-20/2/25 mines and prop cheap or elec normal", I am not seeing how you can afford that. I get a negative RP. What else are you chopping?

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 01 October 2004 13:59]

Report message to a moderator

Kotk and I have now completed our duel to Y50. My overall conclusion is that Kotk is correct, I was wrong. There are some points that I don't agree with, and some that were wrong, but overall he was able to field a vastly superior 5% HE than I have ever been able to build. I'll go through the highlights.

Kotk wrote on Tue, 28 September 2004 12:07

First... econ @ 2450: Tech: All designed to have about same tech as 4% HE.

This was almost correct. Technically Kotk was ahead of me in tech. However, as Bio doesn't really mean much to a HE past 4...he was functionally 1 tech behind at the end. To acomplish this, he had to take GR. I suspected as much when I saw a few of his designs. That, in combination with expensive Con was a killer for him. While I started fielding Cap ships, he just acheived cruisers. Eliminating the GR would prove interesting, as the research bonus was what was keeping him "ahead" in the tech department.

Quote:

Resources: 4% HE gets ~13K, 5% HE gets ~27K, 6% HE gets ~35K.

This one I have to take a bow. Kotk hit 26K @ Y50, I hit 11K. In a denser universe, we both would have done a bit better. Kotk needed 41 planets to make these #'s, and everyone of his planets were over the 25% cap mark at Y50. I only had 13 planets over the 10% cap mark.

It turns out that my inflexibility in race design is what made this performance seem impossible. Kotk took NAS, GR, and 12/3/21 for mine settings. This allowed him to afford cost 6 factories. I have serious issues with all three choices, but without them I could never make the 5% perform to this level.

Quote:

Minerals: 5% HE has best minerals, 4% is at second place, 6% has worst minerals.

My 4% had the most minerals @Y50, 50000 iron, 55000 bora, 36000 germ
Kotk's 5% had 44000 iron, 32000 bora, 21000 germ.

Mining rate told a different story. The 5% was on top there, at about 7.5K each min per year. The 4% was at about 5K. However, the 4% was just getting started...

Quote:

For me it seems that 4% HE lacks the econ to build warships so i dont know why Matt use that thing?

I think Kotk and I still disagree on this. At Y50 Kotk had 200+ colloidal destroyers I had Meta and BB jihad boats. Coupled with a fully decked out US, I had a distinct advantage for defense. Without GR, the 5% would have had to put more into research, and therefore would have had less warships, IMO.

Continuing the duel seemed pointless, since the 5% had so many more planets it could expand into, and the pop to do so. Even if Kotk made a mistake, and somehow lost, he still made his point. The 5% was creating a huge econ, that would overcome any shortcomings to the design. It would be able to crush the 4% in a duel, all things being equal.

This brings us to my conclusion. All things are never equal in a multiplayer game. As I mentioned, the 4% has it's place. I still believe that is true. The 5% will make enemies much quicker than the 4%, as it must take so many planets. The question is, can the 5% player overcome this difficulty, and maintain it's dominating growth? In retrospect, I see that my use of the 4% is actually the reverse. It probably seems insignificant, compared to other threats to surrounding players. That makes diplomacy a breeze. Why not let the little guy, with good tech and a willingness to trade it, live? What harm could it do? I have this other neighbor that is gobling up all the planets over here, and he looks like the real threat...

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

mlaub wrote on Wed, 13 October 2004 18:08

... in combination with expensive Con was a killer for him. While I started fielding Cap ships, he just acheived cruisers.

UGH!!!! Expensive con with 5% HE?? IMO Kotk again did a weird experiment.

Quote:

Kotk took NAS, GR, and 12/3/21 for mine settings. This allowed him to afford cost 6 factories...

Definitely an experiment. I usually manage to get about the same res with fac 8, but better mines and con cheap. 've learned the value of cheap fields in my current Dark ages game. Will probably never again trade two normal fields for one cheap.

Quote:

...That makes diplomacy a breeze. Why not let the little guy, with good tech and a willingness to trade it, live? What harm could it do?

... but to grow anywhere, for much longer then me, getting 200% of my minerals? Kill him now when he's still weak!

Frankly, I expected 4% to lose. 5% goes twice as fast and is ready to attack much earlier, with much bigger fleet. 4% HE (maybe) has a place in a team game as an equivalent of AR, but it's slowness is still hard to overcome.
Just my .
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Thu, 14 October 2004 10:43]

Report message to a moderator

iztok wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 08:13

Quote: ...That makes diplomacy a breeze. Why not let the little guy, with good tech and a willingness to trade it, live? What harm could it do? ... but to grow anywhere, for much longer then me, getting 200% of my minerals? Kill him now when he's still weak!

I don't disagree. The simple fact is that this has only happened to me once, though.

Quote:

Frankly, I expected 4% to lose. 5% goes twice as fast and is ready to attack much earlier, with much bigger fleet.

Not true. 4% actually better till mid-late 20's? Better tech, more mins, 25-30% less resources IIRC. 5% doesn't take off till Y35. If Kotk had cheap con, he would have been able to hurt me earlier. As it was, at Y50, he still could not take out one of my major planets. I would have won. Jihad BB's and Metas against DD's is usually onesided victory.

Quote:

4% HE (maybe) has a place in a team game as an equivalent of AR, but it's slowness is still hard to overcome.

I have done this. Works very well, especially for early tech exchange. Almost worked in a Medium Universe, with other teams having AR's. We could not kill last team fast enough, though. They had enough time to ramp min fountain. No contest at that point.

In a non AR team game (teams start in same area), it would be the first race picked on my side.

-Matt

[Mod edit: fixed quote]

[Updated on: Fri, 15 October 2004 03:37] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

multilis wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 16:40

As I do the math the 4% pop grows at nearly 8%, while the 5% grows at nearly 10% ...

All my 5% HEs usually grow by about 11% in first 50 turns (dense/packed uni). I really do a heavy pop MM.

Quote:

...a 2% difference.

10 / 8 = 2% or 25% ?

Quote:

Meanwhile all those points can mean that factories for 4% race grow 10+% faster per turn than for the 5% race or the 4%'s pop can drive many more factories/resources.

... but it lacks the pop to operate those fac's to get resources. 15/5/X fac's grow by 30%, 4% HE with 8%.

Quote:

Of course the guy with the higher pop wins the pop drop wars, the guy with less pop has to build bombers.

The guy with 5% HE operates 41 planets @ 25% pop capacity, the guy with 4% HE operates 13. The 5% guy produces minerals from 41 planets at 1.2 rate = 50, the 4% guy from 13 planets at 2.0 = 26 - only half the amount. That's the real advantage, not pop-drop. I'd rather save my pop to grow more pop, then to waste it on his. Besides, if I'm able to bring freighters with pop to his planets, I'm also able to bring bombers - a much cheaper way to harm him.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

mlaub wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 19:41

Quote: Frankly, I expected 4% to lose. 5% goes twice as fast and is ready to attack much earlier, with much bigger fleet. Not true. 4% actually better till mid-late 20's? Better tech, more mins, 25-30% less resources IIRC. 5% doesn't take off till Y35.

Eh, 4% HE has 3 green-queue planets at 25% hold and one closing to it. 5% HE has 2 green-queue planets and 6 in various stages (from almost all (25%-hold) installations to just a few. I wouldn't call that a real advantage.

Quote:

If Kotk had cheap con, he would have been able to hurt me earlier. As it was, at Y50, he still could not take out one of my major planets. I would have won. Jihad BB's and Metas against DD's is usually onesided victory.

No objection here. But IIRC there was a word about testing HEs with the approximately the same tech settings. Con expensive just doesn't fit here IMO. Let's wait for Kotk. He'll probably say something too.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

iztok wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 13:16

All my 5% HEs usually grow by about 11% in first 50 turns (dense/packed uni). I really do a heavy pop MM.

Wow...and i thought Multi math was funky. 11%??? from a 5% HE???

Quote:

... but it lacks the pop to operate those fac's to get resources.

...the real issue for the 4%.

Quote:

The guy with 5% HE operates 41 planets @ 25% pop capacity, the guy with 4% HE operates 13. The 5% guy produces minerals from 41 planets at 1.2 rate = 50, the 4% guy from 13 planets at 2.0 = 26 - only half the amount.

It's not so clear cut, except in a duel like this. There is no reason to expect that the 5% will be able to grab that many planets without war, in most games. The 4% can easily grab more than it needs in most universes.

The main purpose to the duel, at least for me, was to see if Kotk could hit +25K@Y50. He did. If his performance would have been near my best for a 5%, I would have stomped him so bad, you would have felt it. It was a learning experience for me, and I thank him for it. Realistically, a 4% has no business in any game that you are expected to fight early, and not so good for normal races. Figure a medium at smallest universe size, and average planet take in the 20-30 range. Sparse is very good for a 4%.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

iztok wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 13:48

Eh, 4% HE has 3 green-queue planets at 25% hold and one closing to it. 5% HE has 2 green-queue planets and 6 in various stages (from almost all (25%-hold) installations to just a few. I wouldn't call that a real advantage.

Didn't mean it that way. You were stating that the 5% "had" the advantage at that time period. I was just correcting you. However, no matter how small the advantage the 4% has in that time frame, it is still "an advantage". I was not implying that the 4% could engage in successful war at that time.

Quote:

But IIRC there was a word about testing HEs with the approximately the same tech settings. Con expensive just doesn't fit here IMO.

Actually, the killer was GR, not con expensive. Although, I would have chosen Con cheap, over Energy cheap. No, without GR, and using the spectacular amount of resources he had in the 40's, he could have gotten Cruisers much earlier.

I think I was most surprised a the growth curve from about 10K up. I have never been able to acheive that, or I gave up before it started taking off.

Up to the early 30's, it looked like he was growing slightly faster than me, but nothing to be concerned about.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

I would have won. Jihad BB's and Metas against DD's is usually onesided victory.

You didn't win, sounds like you conceeded, surrendered, lost.

With the numbers you posted I don't see you winning, I see you as toast. One can fight lower tech with superior numbers and win. One can steal techs.

Kotk did not need to take out your worlds yet, time is on his side as long as his eccon is outgrowing yours and minerals are enough... you needed to stop him and you failed.

25K per turn... how long till metamorphs even with con tech expensive (which gives ok low tech missile platform)?

Given twice the resources+minerals I would be happy to fight your "Jihad BB's and Metas" with a nice lower tech horde mix. First strike isn't going to save you.

[Updated on: Thu, 14 October 2004 19:08]

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

I would have won. Jihad BB's and Metas against DD's is usually onesided victory.

Quote:

You didn't win, sounds like you conceeded, surrendered, lost.

Just that particular battle. Overall, I would have lost. Sorry I didn't make that more clear. I thought it would have been obvious, even to you, since I posted that I had conceded, and:

Quote:

If Kotk had cheap con, he would have been able to hurt me earlier.

However, I guess you have surprised me yet again.

Sheesh, you can be dense, thick, thickheaded, blockish,....

-Matt

Fixed quote.

[Updated on: Thu, 14 October 2004 21:02]

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

...thickheaded...

Takes one to know one.

On first read, the "I would have won" thread sounded to me like you were saying you lost what was an ecconomic challenge to 2450 but could have won millitarilly. Not so clear that your intent was describing defence of your planets if he tried to attack.

(Grown used to others 'would have won if...' claims)

....

Some more numbers might be useful such as max resources per planet compared between your designs and resource counts every 10 years (ideally with an estimate of free resources at each point). Such could help show others how your 4% does outperform the 5% in the earliest part.

[Updated on: Fri, 15 October 2004 00:24]

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

mlaub wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 22:24

iztok wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 13:16 All my 5% HEs usually grow by about 11% in first 50 turns (dense/packed uni). I really do a heavy pop MM. Wow...and i thought Multi math was funky. 11%??? from a 5% HE???

Will not correct related post. Let's others have some fun too.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

probably just mad at my previous comment

Not mad. I laugh at myself and others, don't mind if others laugh at me. Had a like in your post to show jokingly rather than annoyed. In previous one had to show was poking fun.

Not everyone realises how strong the 4% race is in the first few years which is why I suggested posting numbers, but ok if you don't have time.

I don't need to testbed, I can come up with fairly close numbers with pen and calculator and really close with a spreadsheet. Others may not go for my math though.

[Updated on: Fri, 15 October 2004 20:31]

Report message to a moderator