Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » HE design and play (split from "Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term")
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Tue, 28 September 2004 15:52   |
|
 mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Tue, 28 September 2004 12:07 |
First... econ @ 2450:
Tech: All designed to have about same tech as 4% HE.
Resources: 4% HE gets ~13K, 5% HE gets ~27K, 6% HE gets ~35K.
Minerals: 5% HE has best minerals, 4% is at second place, 6% has worst minerals.
|
What is your designs for 4% and 5% HE's? I think that is were the problem is, as most people don't design 4% HE's correctly. The 4% should have more minerals and tech than the 5%, by a ton.
| Quote: |
For me it seems that 4% HE lacks the econ to build warships so i dont know why Matt use that thing?
|
Maybe because it works better in many situations.
| Quote: |
At 2435 it has 5-6 colonies at 25% hold 600 res each and rest are just spored places? If neighbour JOAT who decides that HE is not needed has 5-6 colonies at 1K at same time then wtf such tiny guy can do but die? 
|
I'm not disputing that fact, but a 5% would probably fair worse. Alot of diplomacy is necessary for both. One *huge* advantage for the 4%, that I use, is building a couple high tech cruisers in the 20's and making sure that the aggressive neighbors find out the design. "Oops! Sorry about your scout. I didn't mean to nuke it..." and the cruiser is a Colloidal, Bear shield, and Prop 9 motor. All of a sudden, they are falling all over themselves to get tech trading going, and maybe a border ain't so bad after all!
There is alot to be said for having a large tech lead at the begining of the game. Now, that said, you are still dead if your neighbor is an -f, QS, or TT CA. I believe I have stated this in the past, though. The 4% really needs to get to Y50 without war, against high growth races.
| Quote: |
As for 5% HE ... it can have about 40 docks at 2435. Its not easy to stomp it at once.
|
Sure it is!
I got an idea. Let's test which one is better. You take the 5% HE, I'll take the 4% HE, and let's do a duel in a small normal or sparse. Heh?
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Tue, 28 September 2004 19:59 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| iztok wrote on Tue, 28 September 2004 16:48 |
 You're really extremely self-confident.
|
If I was "extremely self-confident", I wouldn't bother posting on the subject. Nor would I suggest a duel, to see what happens. If I knew the outcome, it would be a waste of my time. As it is, I do think that the 4% would win, but am not positive. I know I can't play a 5% as well as you guys are claiming...but I can play a 4% much better than you guys, apparently.
| Quote: |
Did you forget the fact that 4% HE can get about 8k econ at 2450 in dense/packed, and 5% HE 25k? How the h... will you close that gap?
|
Well, you are way off base there. A 4% can hit +12K @ 2450 in a packed universe, and +11K in a dense. From my tests, it gets better tech and minerals than the 5%, too. So, why should I believe your claim on the 5%? Prove it. 
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Wed, 29 September 2004 02:06 |
|
| iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| mlaub wrote on Wed, 29 September 2004 01:59 |
Well, you are way off base there. A 4% can hit +12K @ 2450 in a packed universe, and +11K in a dense.
|
The theorethical max for 4% HE (1/700 pop, 15/x/25 fac's) is 15,787 res (unlimited 8% growth=3.05M pop, all fac's built). In my testbeds I managed to get 7.75% growth (2.4M pop) that would yield 12519 res, but I couldn't buildt all fac's, so I've constantly hit 8k - 8.3k. Obviously I don't know how to play 4% HE properly. 
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Wed, 29 September 2004 10:22 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| iztok wrote on Wed, 29 September 2004 01:06 |
(1/700 pop, 15/x/25 fac's) is 15,787 res (unlimited 8% growth=3.05M pop, all fac's built). In my testbeds I managed to get 7.75% growth (2.4M pop) that would yield 12519 res, but I couldn't buildt all fac's, so I've constantly hit 8k - 8.3k.
BR, Iztok
|
1/700? your nutz. No wonder you only hit 8K. Probably have the worst tech in the game, too.
If you want, I can send you my race files from my last Huge/Packed (which is only 5? planets more than a Huge/Dense). It's a little hard to read the graph from Y2450, but it definately shows that I was around 11K.
| Quote: |
Obviously I don't know how to play 4% HE properly.
|
I agree completely. 
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Wed, 29 September 2004 10:52 |
|
|
|
Iztok was aiming for absolute max resources per pop rather than a real game race I think. His error in aiming for highest score at 2450 is not being spread out enough. Laziest way to get ideal is to spore cloud everything early (at max warp), and 2440 get ALL your planets below 12% so they all grow to at most 25% and max factories on the magic 2450 year. A bit of germ shuffling might be needed to help the pathetic germ planets.
I still need to find time to get Carn's testbed done, to show how more factories can be squeezed out early for a better quick start. (Long term is still same pop limiting eccon).
[added after] looking at 4% race design, thinking Iztok 700 or 800 pop efficiency might sometimes be ok in real game. 15-5-25 factory settings still possible, the "sacrifice" seems to be having "only" 3.5 techs cheap or "only" semi-efficient mines. For a duel, such things may be less important than the pop productivity boost.
[Updated on: Wed, 29 September 2004 11:45] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Wed, 29 September 2004 15:48 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Wed, 29 September 2004 10:29 |
Yes, it unfortunatelly turns off the free tech from colonies so my usual strategy to spread to ~40 planets quickly might not be the most optimal one, but i can play other strategies as well. 
|
I would do the same thing in this test, and it would probably benifit the race with the cheaper techs, and lower starting resources...
| Quote: |
Main idea is that it will be test of horsepower, not luck so i think both PPS and NRE turn off comets, wormholes and most surprize attack strategies.
|
Yep. Luck is fine in a real game, but here I think we can do without. This is more of a testbed, than anything else.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Wed, 29 September 2004 16:04 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| mlaub wrote on Wed, 29 September 2004 16:22 |
| Quote: |
Obviously I don't know how to play 4% HE properly.
|
I agree completely.
|
I know how to maximize pop, but if I have the wrong race... Just finished a tiny packed testbed with 4% HE: 3-immune, 1/800, 15/5/25, 20/2/20, 4 cheap/prop normal/bio expensive.
Haven't done much other then firing 10k pop from HW each turn after closest 25 planets were hit with single Spore Cloud. 1 LF and 6 cargo for moving excess germ. 2.54M pop and 12.3k res at 2450.
I don't remember what race I had to get 8k, but I'm pretty sure it didn't had fac cost 5 and mines 2. Those grow insanely fast. 
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Wed, 29 September 2004 16:06 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| multilis wrote on Wed, 29 September 2004 09:52 |
Laziest way to get ideal is to spore cloud everything early (at max warp), and 2440 get ALL your planets below 12% so they all grow to at most 25% and max factories on the magic 2450 year. A bit of germ shuffling might be needed to help the pathetic germ planets.
|
Actually, that is the worst way to run a 4% HE. The longer you have pop in the air, early in the game, the worse your resource count later on. Think of compounding interest, on money, for a comparison. I tried explaining the optimal 4% HE expansion technique above. It may not be "the best" choice in a game, but it yeilds the highest resource count.
| Quote: |
looking at 4% race design, thinking Iztok 700 or 800 pop efficiency might sometimes be ok in real game. 15-5-25 factory settings still possible, the "sacrifice" seems to be having "only" 3.5 techs cheap or "only" semi-efficient mines. For a duel, such things may be less important than the pop productivity boost.
|
Nope. You really need to test it to understand. This is when it is most important. Kotk and I are not going to tech trade, so the 1 cheaper tech will be *way* more valuable then the pidly amount of resources I'd get from increased pop eff. Even if we don't tech trade, it is important, as you can't rely on trade. Besides, the 4% is often very close to the tech leader, or they are dead. There really isn't a middle ground here, unless the 4% player has a poor race design, but has been left alone.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Wed, 29 September 2004 17:07 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| iztok wrote on Wed, 29 September 2004 15:04 |
I know how to maximize pop, but if I have the wrong race... Just finished a tiny packed testbed with 4% HE: 3-immune, 1/800, 15/5/25, 20/2/20, 4 cheap/prop normal/bio expensive.
|
If you really want to compare, check your tech, and do it again with 1/1000 eff. Compare both and see how many more resouces you'd need to get the same tech. (I use the same seed #, for tests like this.)
| Quote: |
Haven't done much other then firing 10k pop from HW each turn after closest 25 planets were hit with single Spore Cloud. 1 LF and 6 cargo for moving excess germ. 2.54M pop and 12.3k res at 2450.
|
I think I have been able to hit 12.5 once with a 1/1000, with more MM. So, you might be able to hit 13-14 with yours. IIRC, It still doesn't make up for the .5 tech, but that assumes you aren't trading.
The main issue was the fact/mine settings that were originally posted. I still don't like to spend ~400 rw points on the 1/800 vs cheaper tech, better mines, etc, but that's more of a personal choice.
| Quote: |
I don't remember what race I had to get 8k, but I'm pretty sure it didn't had fac cost 5 and mines 2. Those grow insanely fast. BR, Iztok
|
Yep. Are you understanding what I was talking about now? Since they ramp so fast, you have alot of resources left over for other things.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Wed, 29 September 2004 20:48 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
so the 1 cheaper tech will be *way* more valuable then the pidly amount of resources
|
It is more than piddling, 1/700 is 42% more production than 1/1000, faster initial ramp up. Kind of goofy the way fractions are expressed in the wizard, 1/700 means 1000 colonists produce 1.42 resources. After max out factories means nearly 9% more resources total (almost same boost as OBRM).
Depending on your style of warships, 3.5 techs advanced can do quite well. Metamorphs can do without supercomputers for missile ships for a bit quite nicely.
| Quote: |
Actually, that is the worst way to run a 4% HE. The longer you have pop in the air, early in the game, the worse your resource count later on. Think of compounding interest
|
What counts is amount of time pop in air, not when. Order of growing or sending in air doesn't matter to end result.
Eg pop in transit first turn then growing 2 turns: 100% * 108% * 108% is same as 108% * 100% * 108* (pop in transit turn later).
[Updated on: Wed, 29 September 2004 20:50] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Thu, 30 September 2004 00:38 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| multilis wrote on Wed, 29 September 2004 19:48 |
| Quote: |
so the 1 cheaper tech will be *way* more valuable then the pidly amount of resources
|
It is more than piddling, 1/700 is 42% more production than 1/1000, faster initial ramp up.
Kind of goofy the way fractions are expressed in the wizard, 1/700 means 1000 colonists produce 1.42 resources. After max out factories means nearly 9% more resources total (almost same boost as OBRM).
|
I just designed my typical 4% HE with 1/1000 pop eff. I had 15 RP left over. Lowering the pop eff to 1/700 costs 799 more RP...
I designed a 3.5 cheap 1/700 15/5/25 yes 15/3/24
Assume unlimited 8% growth on a world for 20 years. Starting Min cons at 75%
Cumlative Mins mined
resouces research of each in kt
My HE 2,075 9,536 8,851
Your HE 2,262 10,166 6,796
So you have a total of 630 more research and 2055 less of each mineral. I sure hope that 8.26% extra resource count is worth it. Remember, 630 more resources is actually less, if you look at how expensive that extra tech is going to be to research.
If you truly believe this is better, more power to ya. Good luck. Or maybe you have a different design in mind. You definatley have to make a huge cut somewhere to make up that 799 RP loss.
| Quote: |
What counts is amount of time pop in air, not when. Order of growing or sending in air doesn't matter to end result.
Eg pop in transit first turn then growing 2 turns: 100% * 108% * 108% is same as 108% * 100% * 108* (pop in transit turn later).
|
You were talking about scatter shot on the colonists from turn 1. I hardly think all the planets would be 1 jump away. Further, if you can bring along Germ, you can avoid building mines right away. Plus, not all planets will have a good germ count to begin with, which would delay factory production and cumlative research.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Thu, 30 September 2004 02:59 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| mlaub wrote on Wed, 29 September 2004 22:06 |
... so the 1 cheaper tech will be *way* more valuable then the pidly amount of resources I'd get from increased pop eff.
|
Here I strongly agree. My current game (Dark Ages III) tells exactly that thing. My race is current resource leader (and will probably remain for quite some time ), but those 30% more resources can't compete with -50% costs for tech, so my race constantly lags behind leaders for about 10 tech levels. What that means is they're using tech-18 shields, jammers-30, tech 14/15/16 scanners and Dreadnoughts, while I'm using tech-14 shields, jammers-20, tech 11 scanners and BBs. Fortunatelly weap tech is mandatory expensive, so I do have some compensation. Also, I expect that tech-lag will become narrower quite soon. 
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Thu, 30 September 2004 03:02] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Thu, 30 September 2004 04:07 |
|
|
|
I wasn't saying 1/700 WAS the best choice but rather it might be viable/better for some styles+games.
It isn't just the 9% but also the faster QS (faster factories on new colonies) that is useful. Having 100K colonists dumped on a new planet produce 142 resources rather than 100 can be useful.
Being at same level in 3 most important techs and a bit behind in others is not such a big deal imo, just as 9% is not such a big deal.
I've played all techs expensive + BET, and successfully fought wars from 2430 to end of game.
imo Iztok in his Dark Ages game should focus on what he is good at rather than compete on his weaker turf. Rather than focus on tech if it is harder, be willing to be behind, build bigger lower tech hordes and try to steal some techs if at war with higher tech but lower eccon powers.
Yes certain things are really big like nubs, but other things like better battle computers help, but only so much. Matter of knowing how to counter with lower tech.
[Updated on: Thu, 30 September 2004 04:15] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Thu, 30 September 2004 14:06 |
|
|
|
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.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Balancing Quick-Start / Long-Term |
Thu, 30 September 2004 20:42 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
These 14/2/24 mines hit exactly the nail where mine cost 2 lose its attractiveness.
18/3/18 mines simply win them in all fields
|
In a normal longer game yes. But a duel?
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.
My theory is HE 4% needs to really hurt the 5% in early going to win. Game will be decided before 2450, likely much before then, and 18 isn't that much better than 14 in the timeframe.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 05 13:33:58 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
I think small normal is OK. Where i send the race?
