Home » Primary Racial Traits » IS » IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? |
Sat, 14 May 2005 11:27 |
|
|
I need some help here. I have taken all the planets I can in a game without attacking other players... I am building an 'orgy' so I will have pop to spare soon.
I know red planets can be colonized, and that freighters in orbit can keep adding pop to offset the pop that dies. How much of the pop is effective on a red planet? Is there a cap? Basically I am looking to determine if I can get more resources from pop and factories, and maybe some minerals as well.
If the red planet idea does not work, I could over pop my planets (as described in another post here).
Opinions about which is best?
Thanks for any help.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | |
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? |
Thu, 26 May 2005 20:44 |
|
ForceUser | | | Messages: 383
Registered: January 2004 Location: South Africa | |
|
Ah, but the thing with practically ANY question in stars! is this, It's all theoretical till it grinds it out in a real game
It's true that, theoretically, it's be better to take more greens (However possible) but the most important is to maximise resourse/mins with minimum effort. A war is a rather big effort. Not so much for an IS in relation to an AR but still... By doing just 3 or so turns' worth of MM (Most likely boring turns coz you're not at war ) you can permanently, barring any packets/warfleets, increase your total mining and resource output.
To do this, overpoping Reds is rather easy. You'll need a calculator and a formula to calculate how many people a red can hold for your race, how fast they die, how much pop an overpoped red takes, how fast they die when overpoped, and lastly, how many pop you'll need in transport above the world too replace the killed pop on the planet automatically.
Luckely, you only have to calculate this once. You'll just have to add the max pop and primary growth rate to a fromula.
And viola, you have a few extra resources and mins from seemingly useless Reds
*now for someone to do the hard work, actually making the freaken formula*
ok, made A formulae all on me own
Here's the death toll on an overpoped red red
((MaxHWPop*0.05)*3)/((Red%/10)+8%)
That'd mean, for a OBRM IS Race, overpopping a -25% Red:
((1 100 000 * 0.05) * 3) / ((25/10)+8)
= 165 000/10.5
= 15 700 Deaths
This means you need 165 000 - 15 700 = 149 300 pop on surface and overflow of about 15 700.
Ok, now for someone who actually passed maths to come and show me my gaping flaws in my simple equasion
ForceUser
...
[Updated on: Thu, 26 May 2005 21:23]
"There are two types of people in the world. AR players and non-AR players" Nick Fraser
Working on some new stuff: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/stars-nova/index.php?t itle=Graphics
And the Mentor Database www.groep7.co.za/Mentor/ ZOMGWTFBBQ!! it still works lol!
Check out my old site with old pics at www.groep7.co.za/Stars/
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? |
Wed, 08 June 2005 22:22 |
|
|
Okay, I can add a little more detail now, with actual results.
First... the game I was in was small, with restricted habs, so greens were very limited. The number of players was small, and due to other factors, I was not in a position to attack anyone yet.
I colonized a bunch of reds in well protected space. I did not want to use a superfreighter to supply pop, as I wanted the pop in space to repopulate the planets to the right level, without using any more pop than necessary, and I did not have massive amounts of Bor free to completely fill the SFs the rest of the way. So in theory the planet population would be stable at 165K, without MM every turn.
And since I was trying to keep my number of designs small, I used small freighters (actually freighter chaff) to hold the pop over these planets.
The cost to build a red:
1 colonizer, (plus old MFs and LFs that I was scrapping anyway)
up to 11 freighter chaff.
150000 pop (grows to 165000 in transit)
pop for freighter chaff based on the planet death rate. (to arrive the turn after colonizetion)
The worst planet had a death rate of 4.5%. That percentage of 165K is 7425 deaths. So 75K pop, in 11 small freighters. The rest filled with Bor.
The addition of the red planets increased my resources by about 30%. It took a few years, but the minerals used were also returned and more (minerals not measured). A few programmed Super Freighters picked up the minerals and dumped them on the biggest greens, reducing MM.
The one minor problem was that the pop in the freighters would grow (and overflow to the planets) before the deaths on the planets, so the actual amount that died on the reds was a slightly higher amount than I had originally calculated.
The biggest real cost for me was up to 225K pop for each of these red planets. This had a serious impact on the growth rate of my orgies.
There was also one turn where I wanted to push to a specific tech level, so I overpopped my HW. I go the tech I wanted but was VERY surprised to lose 300000 pop that turn! I did not look at the death rates due to overpop on a green, but it is more severe than for a red.
Raindancer
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? |
Mon, 22 January 2007 12:34 |
|
tgellan | | Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 75
Registered: May 2006 Location: Luxembourg | |
|
There is another slight advantage on colonizing red planets not mentioned here... The biggest benefit needs a bit of timing though.
The idea is, though it does cost a certain amount of res to build the colonizers, this is countered by the tec gain on colonized planets due to found artifacts. In my recent game, I started to colonize reds due to the simple fact that I wanted to advance faster in tec. I guess I was somewhere around 30-40 tecs and still used plain QJ-5 Santa Marias. The res for building a Santa Maria was something about 10-20% of the expected gains from artifacts, so if only each 5th planet gave me an artifact, I got my investment back. I don't know the probability for an artifact, but I felt it higher than 1/5. Well, the results seemed to prove that, as I actually advanced faster in research that way, as if I had done plain research. Thus giving me the colonies for "free".
Ok, this setup should only be used in secure areas, as the planets did only hold some 2500 colonists, and it decreased each year, else it's an invitation to any neighbour... But then the colonies didn't cost anything, you still have about 25 turns for follow up colonists.
If you don't refill those planets, you may still use those planets with your ally to actually exchange tec through invasion. The planets are already colonised, so just take advantage of it
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? |
Mon, 22 January 2007 15:10 |
|
|
Quote: | They would've been much happier reproducing aboard your ships and then taking a juicy green planet from your curious neighbour
|
I wouldn't be so sure about this - something tells me that there would be an awful lot of pop in those freighters that wouldn't be looking forwards to the bloody 1.1 to 1 death rate on the invasion.
Populating reds does make sense - especially if you are keeping privateers. There are 2 reasons for setting up the red planets. One is, of course, the minerals that will be returned. The second is that they build up fairly quick to the max resource level and then, all those extra resources fall into research. I did this in a game where my max resources on a red planet was around 300. I chose the lower reds with high minerals first then worked onwards. A privateer in orbit supplied the exact pop growth per year on each planet usually with a 100 or 200 surplus. When all the mines were built, I did simply pick up minerals and I would check periodically to see if there was now a thousand or so pop that should be moved off with the minerals.
The research resources were excellent. With 20+ red planets producing, that was 6k resources per turn in research + left over from full greens.
Be sure to build the defenses on those reds. They are attractive for enemies to drop on. Having defenses built and with the IS defense bonus, the enemies that drop on them were hemorraging troops. Not only that, with ISB, each red planet eventually had a space dock capable of doing damage and a gate vastly improving mobility and minelaying.
Another item to remember, is that when those fringe reds are getting attacked, the enemy is losing ships trying to take them. If he does manage to take a planet, the resource loss is insignificant.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Mon, 22 January 2007 15:12]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? |
Sun, 11 February 2007 11:35 |
|
velvetthroat57 | | Master Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 111
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 22 January 2007 15:10 | I did this in a game where my max resources on a red planet was around 300.
|
A red is basically a 5% world. If you had 300 resources on a 5% world, that would mean 6000 resources on a 100% world??!
I am curious what your race looked like to do this. HP factory settings while keeping 1/1000 pop efficiency is my guess but paying for that is rough. You either have a lot of reds or really low pop growth.
Quote: | Be sure to build the defenses on those reds.
|
You can only build 10 defenses and if someone is pop-dropping an IS red with 165k on the ground without the aid of bombers, they are insane. You will kill 300k (nonWM) even without the defenses and nobody other than IS can afford that. If they brought bombers, then the defenses won't do much.
I do agree that taking reds is the way to go. The main advantage is denying planets to your neighbors. Later you can trade some possibly for greens in their space and in the meantime they provide resources for research as well as minerals at little cost to the IS.
CAL
{mod edit: fixed quote}
[Updated on: Mon, 12 February 2007 03:56] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? |
Sun, 11 February 2007 18:45 |
|
Kotk | | Commander | Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
velvetthroat57 wrote on Sun, 11 February 2007 18:35 | A red is basically a 5% world. If you had 300 resources on a 5% world, that would mean 6000 resources on a 100% world??!
|
Probably the reds had say 275 resources. (it may be called "around 300")
Race like IS
OBRM, NAS, RS
.21 to .86; -144 to -16; 75 to 95. (1 in 38) 19%
1000;15/9/20/[v];10/3/21
3 cheap technologies.
Santa maria a red, send full LF to orbit and in 15 years or so its 275 resources planet.
At technology 10,10,10,?,?,3 it has about 1 in 8 planets habitable. At 40 planet territory it ceils at ~35k resources ... so QS on one hand and can well wait with military on other hand.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? |
Sun, 11 February 2007 20:08 |
|
|
And that is pretty much exactly what I did. Though, I think the hab range was a 1 in 5 close to 1 in 6. Kotk is correct - resources for reds were something like 275 - "around 300". Resources at 2450 were 31k if I remember correct though, I didn't use LF's to keep them populated, I used privateers. I had plenty enough built to do so. It also meant needing to keep less minerals in the ships to keep the pop at a 'just' negative growth of like 100 per year with the planet overpopulated by 200%. Every few years I'd take a run around the planets and adjust the pop back up to the full 200% overpop. With a few of the reds producing a slight surplus from the orbital pop, I had a couple privateers making rounds and picking up excessses.
The main enemy did indeed pop drop on several of the farther reds when they only had 65-100k on them - his pop losses were tremendous.
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: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? |
Sat, 15 November 2008 02:52 |
|
Marduk | | Ensign | Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
I started wondering why so many people use a privateer for maintaining overpop on a red world. It seems to me (now, and I wonder why I hadn't thought of this when I was playing an IS) that red worlds make excellent breeders with SFs. The overflow population from space accumulates on the planet, even if it doesn't contribute to anything it also doesn't die off at any significant rate. Just send some SFs buzzing around to collect up the excess population periodically, or put up a shipyard and have the red build its own SFs. If you are willing to micromanage the system pop (so at to limit unproductive deaths) it will breed even faster. You could do the same thing with large freighters, and start it up earlier (it is certainly easier to part with a LF of pop earlier), though with somewhat reduced effect since the annual losses are higher relative to the LF production.
Once you get a couple of these started, they can provide all the pop you need for lots more red worlds with minimal investment from your 'real' planets. Put up an orbital capable of building your favorite Love Boat design at each red, toss a few dozen or so in each queue, come back every three or four years to do some merging and a little pop lifting and before long every red system has a full-fledged orgy over it. In a decade the planet has more pop than the fleet. You can pull out however many orgy fleets you want, add some more Love Boats to the queues and replace the space-borne breeding population from the planets. The low death rate on even the worst red means you've got plenty of time to replace the ships.
It doesn't cost much to start up, you are paying the same amount of minerals and resources for the same number of orgy ships, but you don't have to worry so much about MM and the minerals and resources are coming from worlds that can't produce much anyway. Think of it as saving the MM effort of shipping those minerals out. Whenever a red does build up a significant amount of minerals, build more freighters to carry them somewhere with decent resources.
Aside from occasionally checking for lots of minerals or stealing an orgy fleet or ten, just forget about the reds. When done building whatever they are going to, the worlds research and slowly mine, staying useful without MM.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 23 10:12:29 EDT 2024
|