| QS terminology |
Fri, 14 October 2005 09:36  |
|
|
|
I have been trying to catch up on my reading recently (there are a LOT of posts here!!!!).
I have seen a number of references to QS (Quick Start) races? Is this just another way of saying -f?
I think of the three major play varations as HP, HG, and -f...
RainDancer
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: QS terminology |
Sat, 15 October 2005 23:58  |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I have seen a number of references to QS (Quick Start) races? Is this just another way of saying -f?
|
We all have see things a bit different. I see quick start as meaning focusing more on things that lead to a fast start at sacrifice to longer term strength.
For examples of choices that make race more of a quick start:
fewer but cheaper factories
1i compared to 0i (immunities)
fewer green planets but better greens
IFE (for fuel miser)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: QS terminology |
Thu, 20 October 2005 11:38 |
|
 mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| crr65536 wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 09:51 |
Getting back on topic...
I had been under the impression that a QS race is one that trades hab for cost 6 factories - not necessarily more efficient ones - with the hope of developing the HW and other early colonies during the period where it is where all of the growth is taking place (during scouting and such).
|
I would say that a QS is more aptly defined as enhancing early year potential by crippling some long term potentials.
Cost 6 factories are not necessarily a huge deal if those factories eff don't produce as many resources as another design. You could just as easily make the factory cost higher, and raise the eff to get very close to the results. However, you would be out more Germ with lower eff and higher fact cost.
As for an example, a QS Joat may take high growth (19%), all expensive techs, with a normal to slightly reduced hab so that it can dump those extra points into econ (defined as many fact w/good eff at cheap cost). A strong econ then allows you to reach the critical techs to produce, for example, Bazooka DD/CC's (or croby shamor frigates if you are an IS), or something similar, in great numbers at an early year.
To give you an idea, I have been under seige at Y12 (IIRC) in a medium universe by a QS WM. He had over 100 Yak frigates escorting bombers. He lost because he chose to use frigates, and I reached Delta torps. I was able to put up a beefy SB a couple years in a row. If he had used DD's, I would probably have been dead, and he would have had close to twice the normal expansion room.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: QS terminology |
Fri, 21 October 2005 13:03 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
QS has to be in hurry to enjoy his limited glory
|
If you first don't succeed with a quickstart, suggested you don't give up too quick. There is more than eccon to game of stars. (such as trade, timing and PRT specific advantages)
In TWW (twin world wonder) we had 2 quickstarts that didn't succeed in the beginning, one was -F IS with 1/700 pop settings and lots of minerals (though likely not many cheap techs), and other was:
WM 1/1000 pop, 15/5/16 factory settings, 10/3/14 mine settings, weapons cheap rest expensive.
I took over this race around year 23, 4 skipped turns after it was abandonned after unsuccessful attacks on other players. Managed to make peace with neighbours, and hurry to w17 which I could trade for c16 from other WM. Dreadnaughts and w17 gattlings gave me a second chance at glory. The crazy quickstart meant that when I finally took out another player I could quickly build up his former worlds.
Another plus I had was being in a corner which limited my defensive needs.
Minerals were always tight though I could stockpile some for expected endgame by mineral lean DNs. Others also had tight minerals. IMO the -F IS could have done better by trading his minerals for ships, trying more aggressively to trade for tech, and building more missile boats, even if lower tech ones all he could build.
Wizard made a dangerous SS by having missile boat fleet that would disengage in combat (to hit beamers rather than chaff), the IS could have tried similar.
If your PRT is other than WM, you still may have later golden age to take advantage of even if QS. For example SS can be mean by cleaning out minefields, fooling others of where he will attack so they keep their fleets at home, then robber barron stripping minerals allowing him to have largest missile horde. IS can sell tachs for good profit (have read game review where it was done). IT can use mobillity and timing. SD can make a minefield mess and slow down combat to his advantage... and so on.
When you are behind with QS you have nothing to lose so can play more risky. And if you win, you can grow into new territory faster than others.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: QS terminology |
Sat, 05 November 2005 14:06 |
|
| Orca |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
There are essentially two "typical" types of QS. The old Renegades style QS which has extreme factories - 15/5/xg - and the newer "Blitz" style with essentially heightened HG factories. Typically from 14/9/16g to 15/8/16g. Both types are tuned for performance, with growth rates of 19 to 20% and low hab (around 1/7), typically IFE and a number of negative LRTS (NRSE, OBRM and NAS are common). 1 to 2 cheap techs are common.
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Lets first see factory cost 7 versus 8. 
