Hi!
When testing an AR design I decided to save some points and buy energy normal. The race performance was only average. When I changed energy to cheap I got much more playable race.

Testbeds for both races were performed in the same tiny packed uni, with 2 breeders and 4 small greens in 162 LY, another 2 breeders and 3 greens within 3 years of travel. In testbeds I tried to simulate an "all AR" game, so I took some actions not needed for testbed (researching Jihads/BBs/better engines, producing more remote miners, "attacking" other player), and quit MM only in last 5 turns. I've also limited myself to closest 40 planets (to reflect expected number of planets), two greens outside the range were taken by "force" - I've sent two beta-torpedo DDs and yak FF with scanner along colonizers and freighters, and two med greens were not settled being "too far in neighbours space". The HW was deliberately iron-poor (MC 41), but has germ at 91. It helped quite some planets with providing germ for Ultras, and quite some planets helped the HW with sending back iron, when HW send them pop. Most greens also had good iron.

The first testbed with energy-normal race ended at 2450 pretty standardly: 19k res, all terra tech researched, some dozens of super-remote robots built, DeathStar 4 turns away. The race was ramping up was nothing shiny: UltraStation reached in 2432, terra-11 in energy in 2435, terra-15 in 2446. Instead of researching energy first to 10 or 16 for more res and better terra I went after weap - since those levels were much cheaper. It did take some levels in en (IIRC it was at 8 when reached con-12 and 12 at weap-16), but severe crowding of breeders made researching US much higher priority. I need to mention that the iron and germ shortage was quite alleviated by a close red planet hit by a large meteor , that brought about 800k of each mineral to the surface. A colony of 20k pop there also mined 20kt of iron and 30kt of germ per turn.

For the next test I decided to take en cheap and pay for that with one tech expensive instead normal and 1% less PGR. It also remained enough points to increase temp width by 1 click.

The second testbed was a pleasure compared to the first one. The research in energy was a priority and changed in other fields only for breakthroughs that were necesary for growth or moving. The research course went in the following order:
- en to 6,
- prop to 2 for FM,
- con-3 for MF, con-4 for dock got from artefact on a new planet,
- bio-2 for temp terra-7 (bio 1 got from artefact),
- weap-5 for rad terra-7,
- en-10 for more res and temp terra-11,
- con to 12 (LF, Ultrastation, super miner robot),
- weap to 10 for rad terra-11,
- elec to 6 for super miner robot,
- (weap to 12 and prop to 6 for Jihads and 100/250 gates - actually not needed in a testbed),
- temp to 16 for more res and temp terra-15,
- con to 13 (BB - not needed),
- mixed weap to 16 and prop to 9 (terra-15 in rad, 300/500 gates, Juggs and better engine - this one also not needed in testbed) and
- con to 17 for Deathstar (got it at turn 50).

Research in cheap energy made most of the difference to the prevous race (smaller pop pressure being the second), as the race was able to research Ultras in 2428 before serious crowding of docks on breeders happened (in first testbed I needed to export quite some excess pop to small yellows/reds to avoid serious overcrowding).

If I wouldn't dedicate 2 years of production on every new ultrastation to building remote miners, and for 300 gates, I'd get DS hull 2-3 years earlier, and about 1k more resources (more growth from DSs).

The end result was almost 25k res (21k free for research), tech 16/16/9/17/9/4, 120 remote miners with single super robot, 25 LFs, 17 ultras, 34 planets settled (9 rich reds with 100-200k pop), 13 breeders, 8 medium or small greens (some still not fully terraformed), and 4 small yellows below 40% max terra.

The only thing I missed with this race was lots of pop after 2430 (when it got US). But that was a consequence of building USs directly from Docks with less that 150k pop. Growing from 150k to 500k with 1% lower PGR is quite different than from 250k. I need to mention that there was less demand for iron than with previous race, as the pop growth was just manageable with first MFs. When first breeders started filling over 125k there was already the US hull just few turns away.

So what the race looks like?

Since I missed the "all-AR" game by few hours I'll not reveal much more of the design, as I intend to use it in an appropriate game, when it comes around. Until then it will remain my secret weapon.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 15 August 2005 19:44]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Please do not forget that it is quite possible to build AR races with normal energy that get 25k economy at 2450.

Even with normal energy I usually do not have points for growth rates that can be lowered by few % without hurting the outcome ... cheap energy does not help enough there.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

In my eyes taking en normal or expensive is kind of like a HP race taking expensive factories ... You'll catch up eventually but you are going to have to work much harder to get there

I suppose if you manage to buy very broad habs you might be able to grow your resources faster in the early years by exploiting the fact that AR gets more resources by spreading their population into many small colonies than to a few big ones. I'm not convinced though that the 40-60 resources from taking en normal instead of cheap is going to make enough of a difference to compensate the additional cost of getting en. I think I'd rather make con normal instead (or are you talking about en-normal rest-expensive? )

It's a big risk, but it could be temping to take con expensive (or en if you are really brave) and trade for it... You won't get Death Stars for a long time, but you should be able to trade for Ultras pretty early. No good for test bedding though

[Updated on: Tue, 16 August 2005 23:45]

Report message to a moderator

One thing worth noting is that, for AR, taking energy cheap is more expensive (in RW points) than taking other fields cheap. For example, taking Weapons cheap costs 43 points (assuming that all other fields are normal) whereas taking Energy cheap costs 76 points.

Could it be the case, however, that taking energy normal would work for an AR with TT and Bio cheap? Since resources are directly proportional to planet value, but vary with the square root of the energy tech, it seems like this could work . Of course, I'm just speculating though.

Report message to a moderator

crr65536 wrote on Wed, 17 August 2005 13:59

One thing worth noting is that, for AR, taking energy cheap is more expensive (in RW points) than taking other fields cheap. For example, taking Weapons cheap costs 43 points (assuming that all other fields are normal) whereas taking Energy cheap costs 76 points. Could it be the case, however, that taking energy normal would work for an AR with TT and Bio cheap? Since resources are directly proportional to planet value, but vary with the square root of the energy tech, it seems like this could work . Of course, I'm just speculating though.

Hmmm, hadn't noticed that... With that knowledge I'll certainly reconsider EN normal next time I plot a race.

TT is definately worth thinking about just for the cheaper terraforming. Consider taking bio expensive anyway as you are probably still going to want to focus your spare resources into en and con.

The main problem TT is that AR has a strong desire for a variety of +ve LRTs - ARM, ISB, TT, IFE are all really useful - I generally try to limit myself to 2 of these 4. But which two...?!?!

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Kotk wrote on Tue, 16 August 2005 18:57

Please do not forget that it is quite possible to build AR races with normal energy that get 25k economy at 2450.

I'm not forgetting. I'm just trying to show that taking energy cheap gives better results for an AR than taking en normal.

Quote:

Even with normal energy I usually do not have points for growth rates that can be lowered by few % without hurting the outcome ... cheap energy does not help enough there.

I decreased PGR by only 1%. I admit I got less pop, but that pop was more productive with higher average energy level. Besides, the AR resources are produced from square root of pop, so 20% more pop gives only sqrt(1.2)=1.095 more res. But 20% better en tech (level 10 instead 8, level 16 instead 12) gives those resources back, while providing additional bonus with better terra tech, that improves res output linearily. And cheap en tech allows getting those critical tech levels faster --> less pop pressure, less freighters built, less minerals needed for that and saved for better remotes.

Cheap en is also more safe. You ALWAYS get it, while there's always a gamble with planet draw. Try with 1_in_9 hab and 17% PGR and get in the 1_in_12 uni with only 2 small greens in 2 W-9 jumps and you're in trouble. Not only you have to export more pop (and use more res and minerals for freighters), you need to invest lots more resources in terra tech that will make those small planets better. And those resouces are taken away from researching Ultrastation. Building Space Station gives a 4 year relief from exporting pop, but uses germ for that new US.

Regarding all that I still claim that having energy normal and saving 30-40 RW points (making cheap another one field) isn't worth all the troubles you got as a consequence to that saving. I have to admit that I NEVER played an AR in PBEM game (they were too weak for my taste), but as my knowledge if them increases I'm nearing the time I'll field a strong enough AR design to stand the test of a real game.
BR,

[Updated on: Wed, 17 August 2005 03:41]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Yeah, I tend to go 1-immume, 1-narrow(est), 1-aswideasIcanafford so terraforming is better...

But we probably shouldn't get into the 1imm vs 2imm discussion - I seem to remember doing that one to death a couple of years ago (in fact, I think that discussion is what started the all-AR game I played before... )

Report message to a moderator

iztok wrote on Wed, 17 August 2005 09:52

Besides, the AR resources are produced from square root of pop, so 20% more pop gives only sqrt(1.2)=1.095 more res. But 20% better en tech (level 10 instead 8, level 16 instead 12) gives those resources back, while providing additional bonus with better terra tech, that improves res output linearily.

Your pop math is right, however not sure of the rest. I have always felt you get only like 15% more levels with cheap energy. Normal seems not so expensive for researching energy as you describe. See: Energy 16 with cheap energy costs 54K. Energy 13 costs only 41K with normal.

Quote:

Cheap en is also more safe. You ALWAYS get it, while there's always a gamble with planet draw. Try with 1_in_9 hab and 17% PGR and get in the 1_in_12 uni with only 2 small greens in 2 W-9 jumps and you're in trouble. Not only you have to export more pop (and use more res and minerals for freighters), you need to invest lots more resources in terra tech that will make those small planets better.

You describe race that i havent taken into real game after few tries long ago. This AR needs too lot of room on any case. I have had best results with ARs that got 1 in 5 hab or so. If i take energy cheap and pay with hab then it turns the hab into 1 in 7. Is it more safe?
You are probably correct of course that you did good changes to the race that you had. That does not prove that cheap energy is ultimate must ... only that it was better than the goodies that you paid for it. For example lowering construction to normal + growth from 14% to 13% to get cheap energy is certainly not so bright idea.

Report message to a moderator