I look at forgoing IFE w/ AR to be roughly comparable to shooting yourself in the foot for running too slow.



Think of it this way. With a race that looses pop with each year in transit that you actually spend moving through space, do you really want to spend more years travelling at an agonizingly slow rate. Also, consider the fact that in order to stay ahead, you really have to get the planets first. When's the last time you could afford a bomber fleet along w/ warships to take down possible docks as an iron-strapped AR early in the game?

IMO, IFE always. ISB, Almost always. ARM, sometimes. I personally use all 3 ALWAYS. IMO, choose IFE if you want to have planets. Choose ISB if you want to have growth on those planets. Choose ARM if you really want to keep your investments intact (ie. remote miners). Consider the ultimate cost of having your remote miners anihilated.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Yep AR has to get to planets first. What prevents it? In my testbeds it is usually lack of early ironium. IFE does not help against it.

ISB sure helps since you can build pintas/fuelers from your other colonies.

ARM (~70 points) gives you 20 more initial mines. Alternatively bugs can be scrapped for 2 more pintas. So it is also something like solution. Investment into HW concentrations (50 points give +13 +13 +38) seems to help somewhat more in my tests. Best is to have both of course.

As for gateability ... non-ARM miner weights 324kT. It is very gateable. Best to keep them intact is to have normal prop for 300/500 gates early enough and also to avoid taking NAS.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Thu, 08 September 2005 17:10

Yep AR has to get to planets first. What prevents it? In my testbeds it is usually lack of early ironium. IFE does not help against it.

How about the cost of the FM? Consider that the greater warp 9 range means you have your ships cycling back from the frontier much earlier. Therefore you reuse your ships far faster. This means you need to build fewer to keep your worlds at 33% or less. this translates into a FAR larger savings (as a percentage of resources used for early ship construction) in proportion to the LRT's cost. IMO, IFE always unless you're HE, IT (sometimes), JoaT (sometimes), or IS (sometimes).

Quote:

ISB sure helps since you can build pintas/fuelers from your other colonies.

That and you grow better than w/ a fort and WAY cheaper than a SB.

Quote:

ARM (~70 points) gives you 20 more initial mines. Alternatively bugs can be scrapped for 2 more pintas. So it is also something like solution. Investment into HW concentrations (50 points give +13 +13 +38) seems to help somewhat more in my tests. Best is to have both of course.

The 2 potato bugs are worth the equivalent of 20 mines? I was not aware of that. That makes ARM more appealing than I thought, if so. I would probably invest in surface minerals over concentrations. I find short term minerals is more important to AR than long term.

Quote:

As for gateability ... non-ARM miner weights 324kT. It is very gateable. Best to keep them intact is to have normal prop for 300/500 gates early enough and also to avoid taking NAS.

Yeah, I thought of that too late--completele brain fart. I used such a strategy in a game within the last 2 years and ended the game in 2nd, but with the largest fleet in the universe.

For what it's worth, you can't gate those miners more than once IIRC. After that, they really need to rest. ARM allows you to mineral balance for maximal efficiency (produce ONLY the minerals you need and leaving no extras for your opponents to steal).

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

SinicalIdealist wrote on Fri, 09 September 2005 04:20

Kotk wrote on Thu, 08 September 2005 17:10 Yep AR has to get to planets first. What prevents it? In my testbeds it is usually lack of early ironium. IFE does not help against it. How about the cost of the FM? Consider that the greater warp 9 range means you have your ships cycling back from the frontier much earlier. Therefore you reuse your ships far faster...

True in both cases, but:
- FM moves your ships faster --> less ships needed;
- LF with QJ-5 and 800kT freight of pop (2 years of growth) also goes 81 LY far. Having Docks everywhere for refuell that LF, it can go with W-9 far for much less cost of iron than three PVTs or four MFs;
- normal prop gives you 100/250 gates much earlier --> ships return faster.

Both approaches are playable, but IFE gives you speed earlier and for less investment in research, while NO-IFE saves you RW points, starts slower, but has more benefits later.

Quote:

Yep AR has to get to planets first.

Now consider diplomatic results of a FM-based rapid expansion. Taking "best" planets earlier than your neighbours will not help you on popularity, and they already know you're an AR with early iron crunch pending. They can easily declare such an aggressive expansion cassus belli and attack you in the phase your AR is the most vulnerable. Having that in mind I see kotk's no-IFE AR design as a very good race. Unusuall and wide hab for intersettling, less early speed that allows neighbours to take their best planets, but lots of capacity later.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 10 September 2005 03:17] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

The problems you get without IFE is that free range is half of what you want first 15 years. I dont claim it is always liveable. It hurts bad in normal or sparse density universes where having mid-way fuel is problematic. Kids ... play IT there.

Short range you can fly at max warp without IFE:
From turn 0, QJ5 scout + QJ5 pinta, reasonable range with 22kT cargo 120 ly.
From turn 6, QJ5 MF, reasonable range with 200kT cargo 98 ly.
From turn 12, QJ5 LF, reasonable range with 400kT cargo 135 ly.
So in denser universe, with wide hab plus some planning ... it almost does not feel like limit. When needed you can take less cargo or more boosters and refuel from midway docks. By turn 12 i want to have 10-15 colonies and IFE or no IFE it is narrow hab or lack of ironium that actually limits me there. I tell it third time in this thread already.

How IFE helps one to survive a war? About the time AR get gates it can get RHRS LF, reasonable range with 400kT cargo 210 ly. That musterious Long Term when Fuel Mizer is nothing important anymore is reached before turn 20 and before any war.

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Sun, 11 September 2005 00:55

The problems you get without IFE is that free range is half of what you want first 15 years. I dont claim it is always liveable. It hurts bad in normal or sparse density universes where having mid-way fuel is problematic. Kids ... play IT there. Short range you can fly at max warp without IFE: From turn 0, QJ5 scout + QJ5 pinta, reasonable range with 22kT cargo 120 ly. From turn 6, QJ5 MF, reasonable range with 200kT cargo 98 ly. From turn 12, QJ5 LF, reasonable range with 400kT cargo 135 ly. So in denser universe, with wide hab plus some planning ... it almost does not feel like limit. When needed you can take less cargo or more boosters and refuel from midway docks. By turn 12 i want to have 10-15 colonies and IFE or no IFE it is narrow hab or lack of ironium that actually limits me there. I tell it third time in this thread already. How IFE helps one to survive a war? About the time AR get gates it can get RHRS LF, reasonable range with 400kT cargo 210 ly. That musterious Long Term when Fuel Mizer is nothing important anymore is reached before turn 20 and before any war.

But perhaps your Ironium crunch is worse because you have to build so many more freighters to do the same job... FM LF can do 162ly at warp 9 with over 900kt and 192ly at warp 8 with 1200kt. So that's two to three times the number of freighters needed, and with a shorter range to boot...

Also once you hit 2420 FM is still great... It's only really replaced once you reach the warp 10 engines, and even then it's still worth considering as a nice cheap option. I'm not a fan of the RHRS (for freighters) either - AR looses enough pop in transit as it is without losing more.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that IFE is only optional but I strongly disagree that deselecting it does not significantly effect your expansion. I definately agree that it's certainly much less significant in dense and packed universes.


Also, reffering to previous posts - my preferred method for tr

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Sun, 11 September 2005 15:53

FM vs QJ5 is 306 (360*.85) vs 900 fuel ratio tavelling at warp 9. So you are going to need to provide 3 times as much fuel. So comparing a maximum trip for a FM LF you would need to use two super fuel xports for each of your QJ5 LFs, effectively doubling the IR cost and 1.5x the resource cost per kt shipped.

Note that such calculation only matters *if* LF need to *travel far* with *lot of cargo* on board and *no refueling* on the way. It is wrong assumption on all accounts if we talk about wide hab AR in dense universe.

Why to carry above 400kT pop to dock? On one hand dock grows full too fast and on other hand AR has tens of docks to populate with wide hab. With 400kt pop on board fuel mizer LF can fly about 400ly. Such range is clearly wasteful since AR dont get to rule 600x600 ly empires early in real game. Also, I said, I have about 10-15 colonies by LF tech at 2412. Where that LF flies if it cant still get fuel nowhere?

So ... where is that mystical more iron to pay??? LF cost is about the same as of 2 MFs. IFE AR continue building two MFs per year after year 12 (because it didnt hurry with con 8 ) and IFE-less AR build one LF. The docks are also 16% cheaper to build at con 8.

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 11:52

Note that such calculation only matters *if* LF need to *travel far* with *lot of cargo* on board and *no refueling* on the way. It is wrong assumption on all accounts if we talk about wide hab AR in dense universe. Why to carry above 400kT pop to dock? On one hand dock grows full too fast and on other hand AR has tens of docks to populate with wide hab. With 400kt pop on board fuel mizer LF can fly about 400ly. Such range is clearly wasteful since AR dont get to rule 600x600 ly empires early in real game. Also, I said, I have about 10-15 colonies by LF tech at 2412. Where that LF flies if it cant still get fuel nowhere?

So if your nearest colonies are full, you are not going to bother shipping colonists out from HW to more distant colonies? And if you do, you don't mind taking a longer route (to stop at docks), and likely at lower warps? And if for some reason you still only want to shift 400kt at a time, then the FM LF can go huge distances at warp 9, minimising your deaths from transit.

Quote:

So ... where is that mystical more iron to pay??? LF cost is about the same as of 2 MFs. IFE AR continue building two MFs per year after year 12 (because it didnt hurry with con 8 ) and IFE-less AR build one LF. The docks are also 16% cheaper to build at con 8.

(Splutters on coffee)

My point was that the IFE race will get to higher levels of con QUICKER because it's early shipping costs were lower (and it doesn't risk getting distracted with prop research either.) But now you say that the IFE player is lazy and somehow researches slower? Such a crazy player will certainly not do well...

There is no doubt at all that IFE leads to faster, easier and cheaper expansion (at a price in RW points.) It's not absolutely necessary, but it is certainly not something you should disregard. As I said before, I've done very well without it, but will probably take it next time I play AR.

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 06:24

And if for some reason you still only want to shift 400kt at a time, then the FM LF can go huge distances at warp 9, minimising your deaths from transit.

You are too emotional there. Dry facts? Longer routes ultimately mean 3% pop more lost on transit. 1 year lost growth in colonies say 8% (for average 50% colony) and so you get 11% less pop in colonies. Colony pop 11% less means SQRT(1.11)-SQRT(1)=5% less econ in colonies. Since HW is major contributor of resources early and is unaffected by IFE it sums up as 3-4% less overall econ at year 15.

Quote:

My point was that the IFE race will get to higher levels of con QUICKER because it's early shipping costs were lower (and it doesn't risk getting distracted with prop research either.)

How lot lower? We are talking of resources here. I see 14% more shipping cost and shipping costs is only 36% of overall shipbuilding (major there is colonization cost) so that 14% turns into only 5% of overall shipbuilding. That shipbuilding budget is about 2K during first 15 years so what we talk about here is 100 resources!!! Especially quirky since you mentioned P research? It is IFE player who usually takes P 2 (263 resources ) before he even starts to take C 4. IFE-less is happy with P 0 up to C 8 (that makes C 8 80 resources cheaper).

Quote:

But now you say that the IFE player is lazy and somehow researches slower? Such a crazy player will certainly not do well...

Lazy? Certainly IFE = lazy! Crazy? I have played and won multiple games with various sorts of AR. Their technology goals and breakpoints differ somewhat. Con 8 is no absolute must to have early if you got IFE. So ... taking something else for the resources spent may make more sense. Like W, more N and/or B instead of C from 4 to 8. Gakl already said somewhere in this thread that MF is sufficient for most IFE ARs shipping tasks for a while and i fully agree with him. Why to boost that C research if you got IFE? Or am i crazy?

Quote:

There is no doubt at all that IFE

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

You are too emotional there

I hope you aren't under the impression I am flaming you or something, I just enjoy working through this stuff.

Quote:

Dry facts? Longer routes ultimately mean 3% pop more lost on transit. 1 year lost growth in colonies say 8% (for average 50% colony) and so you get 11% less pop in colonies. Colony pop 11% less means SQRT(1.11)-SQRT(1)=5% less econ in colonies. Since HW is major contributor of resources early and is unaffected by IFE it sums up as 3-4% less overall econ at year 15.

Population growth is a key limiter in all economy strategies in Stars, so I don't think a 11% population hit is something to ignore. At 2415 you may only have 11% less, but at 2450 you will *still* have 11% less as those lost population has not been growing either, unless you usually manage to max out your population before then.

Quote:

How lot lower? We are talking of resources here. I see 14% more shipping cost and shipping costs is only 36% of overall shipbuilding (major there is colonization cost) so that 14% turns into only 5% of overall shipbuilding. That shipbuilding budget is about 2K during first 15 years so what we talk about here is 100 resources!!! Especially quirky since you mentioned P research? It is IFE player who usually takes P 2 (263 resources Laughing) before he even starts to take C 4. IFE-less is happy with P 0 up to C 8 (that makes C 8 80 resources cheaper).

How did you decide on these percentages? I think the cost is significantly more than 14% increased shipping cost - IMHO this figure is closer to 100%. I mentioned P research only because RHRS had been suggested as an alternative to FM.

Quote:

Lazy? Certainly IFE = lazy! Crazy? Surprised Laughing I have played and won multiple games with various sorts of AR. Their technology goals and breakpoints differ somewhat. Con 8 is no absolute must to have early if you got IFE. So ... taking something else for the resources spent may make more sense. Like W, more N and/or B instead of C from 4 to 8. Gakl already said s

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 03:32

I hope you aren't under the impression I am flaming you or something, I just enjoy working through this stuff.

Nope... with "emotional" i was under impression ... in the sense that its like rule of life there for you. With IFE one can move and without IFE he cant or has to pay tons extra. No checks needed to be made with the reality and with actual costs involved in actual circumstances or testbeds.

Quote:

At 2415 you may only have 11% less, but at 2450 you will *still* have 11% less as those lost population has not been growing either, unless you usually manage to max out your population before then. ... IMHO this figure is closer to 100%.

Like i said for AR extra 11% pop on one planet gives extra 5% resources on that planet so that whats IFE-s ultimately worth on the cases when it helps getting somehere 1 years quicker. In packed or dense IFE-less *is no way* 1 year slower to each planet. Easy to prove.
Also that "emotional" was about your talks about that huge pop-lifting prices that affect your iron supply, ability to colonize and ability to research. +100%
FM-MF costs 53 res, FM-priv costs 73 res, FM-LF costs 130 resources.
QJ5-MF costs 45 res, QJ5-LF costs 114 resources, QJ5-SFX costs 73 resources.
So draw your budgets please.
For me IFE AR builds ~12 pop-moving vessels 10 MFs and 2 privs. Say 676 resources. Enough for averagely 3 years there and 3 years back trips. Maybe 2-4 more are needed within 25 first years but then the prices start to miniaturize, minerals matter less and keeping in mind soon to come ultras LF-s are better option.
My experiense is that IFE-less uses about 770 res for smooth enough early pop lifting (number of planets where additional year of travel is needed is not 0 but minimal enough) so 14% more or ~100 res. When more LF-s are needed later then these can be built with rad rams already (one anyway wants gate tech if he got decent sized empire). Where you think he puts additional 100% or 676 res

[Updated on: Tue, 13 September 2005 14:52]

Report message to a moderator