Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Newb SD design - Feedback wanted.
| Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Fri, 08 September 2006 00:42  |
|
 bma53 |
 | Crewman 3rd Class |
Messages: 6
Registered: August 2006 | |
|
Hi.
I'm a newb playing my first PBEM. I am working on some new designs for the next game and would love some feedback on this one.
PRT: SD
LRT: IFE, TT, NRSE, OBRM, NAS, RS
Grav:0.52 - 2.96. Temp: -108 - 100. Rad 24 - 76. (1n6). 18% pop.
1/1500, Fact 12,9,17 G box checked, Mine 11, 3, 15.
En, Prop, Elec +75%, Weap, Bio -50%, Const norm.
Advantage Points 0.
Thanks, BMA.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Fri, 08 September 2006 03:07  |
|
| iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| bma53 wrote on Fri, 08 September 2006 06:42 |
I'm a newb playing my first PBEM. I am working on some new designs for the next game and would love some feedback on this one.
|
I'd say pretty good design for a newb. Welcome!
Are you aware that SD PRT requires LOTS of MM to be successfull? Are you ready to do it?
| Quote: |
LRT: IFE, TT, NRSE, OBRM, NAS, RS
|
I'd say too many LRTs, but ... well, nothing really bad here.
| Quote: |
Grav:0.52 - 2.96. Temp: -108 - 100. Rad 24 - 76. (1n6). 18% pop.
|
Looks like you intend to do only TT-20. That (bio level 17) would be doable also with normal price bio. If you intend to use TT-25 (bio 22), then you can shrink your habs by 2-3 clicks and put gained points somewhere else.
| Quote: |
1/1500, Fact 12,9,17 G box checked,
|
Erm, here I have my doubts  . 1/1500 is quite unusuall and also unefficient. You get 200 RW points for 33% performance decrease in pop eff. If you'd decrease pop eff down to 2500 you'd get another 400 RW points for 27% more decrease (60% cummulative), but you could use those points for full HP econ (1/2500, 15/8/20 11/3/18).
For comparisson I put both designs in my ramp-up calculator. With HW with germ conc at 50 and held at 275000 pop your design would finish all installations and mines at turn 18 producing 744 resources and 190 germ, with max econ 2977 res. The HP design would complete all installations on HW at turn 20 producing 935 resources (3740 max) and 230 germ. However it would have at turn 18 797 resources. So if you're concerned with ramp-up speed, they have both about the same, the HP will just have 25% more a bit lately. Also the HP would do terra on those small yellow planets you'd get with TT20/25 significantly faster. Belive me, even with TT-20 you'll do LOTS of terraforming. 
| Quote: |
Mine 11, 3, 15.
En, Prop, Elec +75%, Weap, Bio -50%, Const norm.
|
I wonder what will you trade besides your minelayers? Most players have weap cheap, quite some also con, but only TT CA wants bio really high, and only SS bio 10. IIRC high-end minelayers require high energy, and lots of players (despite not being temp-immune) also chose energy expensive. So you may consider having en normal and con expensive, and trading en-10/14/16... for con 13/16... Trade is a good way to make friends, and having friends helps surviving a lot.  And surviving a lot will keep you in community. 
Have fun!
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Fri, 08 September 2006 05:20] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Fri, 08 September 2006 10:50 |
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong with TT (and Bio cheap), though it is different, one may have to play to understand. You WILL go beyond 20% terraforming with bio cheap, likely all the way to 30% during early nub era (if you live that long)... a matter of turning your existing greens into better greens. (It may take too much time to turn poor yellows into greens)
Bio 13 gives you same terraforming as W15, P15, En15 but with less extra advantages (only minelayers), plot carefully when you make the run for bio, perhaps early jihad era.
Worst case normal race terraforming 3 fields all 15 clicks... 100 x 15 x 3=4500 resources.
TT race terraforming 3 fields 15 clicks 70 x 15 x 3 =3150.
TT race terraforming 3 fields 30 clicks 6300 resources.
...
I agree with iztok, 1/1500 pop production is wrong, you either want 1/1000 or 1/2500. If you go 1/2500, you need to make factories cheaper with the extra resources or your ramp up will be painful.
With g box checked you can live with your mine settings. You don't need to remote mine because almost every planet will be good green for you if game lasts long enough.
[Updated on: Fri, 08 September 2006 12:05] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Fri, 08 September 2006 22:37 |
|
|
|
SD can afford to be behind a bit with its weapons tech since it can use its minefiled offensively, and if you have something else to trade(and SD mine layers are moderately sought after), almost anyone will have weapons tech to trade with you.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Fri, 08 September 2006 23:57 |
|
| JasonC |
 | Petty Officer 2nd Class
Stars! V.I.P |
Messages: 58
Registered: July 2006
Location: Arlington, MA | |
|
Ignore those telling you to take narrower hab, or that it works fine with TT. It doesn't, other than for CAs. Your idea of combining TT with decently wide initial hab is entirely sound. Over investment in hab and growth is the key to outstanding races, and players who try to take everything else in the race wizard by skimping on it, make broken also-rans.
On LRTs I'd stick to IFE, TT, OBRM, NAS, and RS. Avoid NRSE. It commits you to large hulls for warships because the better standard engines are far too expensive on lots of small ships. FMs can stand in early but are lousy finishers as an engine for all your smaller shipping. Avoid GR also. You need to be able to push bio at some times and weapons at others etc. GR promotes evenly buying all tech rather than specialization. It will slow the bio pushes materially.
Ignore those telling you that you need other techs like energy. The truth of the matter is the best layers are only marginally more useful for the price than moderate tech ones. You can gothe whole game using the heavy 110 layer, for example. The standard 80s or 130s are both fine - as a TT race you will go higher. The energy dampener can be useful but a late TT economy will have no problem buying tech 14 in an expensive field.
The advice to pick between HP and HG is more nearly sound. Modest settings like 1/1100 or 1/1200 are OK if all the points go into better factories. Much below that and your factories need to be monsters, and cost 9 won't cut it. Even HPs with cost 8 are far too slow - 1/2500 needs cost 7.
You might be surprised, though, how good your economy can be if you leave the factories only marginally better than the defaults, but overinvest in the hab screen. Here are some HG examples, then I give HP ones.
In all of these cases, your tech settings are fine. HPs might take con expensive and click the start at 3 box, to avoid any early tech expense for moving (so all of it can go to factories). Later it is great to have normal con to run to nubians faster, faster BBs are also a big help. HG varieties could use either but I strongly prefer your choice of con normal and no start at 3 box for HGs.
Full bore hab approach -
0.29 to 1.92 grav
-92 to 124 temp
20 to 80 rad
1/4 overall
19% pop growth, 1/1000 pop efficiency
10/9/10 factories no G box
10/3/12 mines
marginally faster factories for marginally worse hab (this is probably the most forgiving of the choices for a new player).
-
0.29 to 1.76 grav
-76 to 124 temp
21 to 79 rad
1/5 overall (do not go below 1/5! breaks the race idea)
19% pop growth, 1/1000 pop efficiency
11/9/12 factories no G box
10/3/12 mines
reduced pop efficiency for stronger factories.
0.31 to 1.80 grav
-80 to 120 temp
21 to 79 rad
1/5 overall, but less centered (still fine)
19% pop growth, 1/1200 pop efficiency
12/9/14 factories, no G box
10/3/12 mines
slight G tuning issues, marginally slower, but more typical resources per HG world once done.
Those are the HGs. They are strong under early pressure, readily grab plenty of space, and then pack and fill literally all of it. Lower than average resources per world are no problem at all with 1/4 to 1/5 hab plus TT and cheap bio.
Here are the HPs. There is a full bore HP version which is slow but deadly if left to sit and spin, and a more forgiving version that develops considerably faster. I would not recommend the first (full bore HP) for a new player in his first human game.
Full HP
0.5 to 2.0 grav
-96 to 104 temp
21-79 rad
1/5 overall almost 1/4
16% pop growth, 1/2500 pop efficiency
15/7/21 factories with G box checked
10/3/18 mines
16% PGR is slow, but the capacity with all worlds used it very high.
Reduced capacity for better growth version
18 factories operated, 16 mines operated
18% pop growth rate. Move temp a few clicks right (don't narrow it).
If I had to pick one for a new player game, I'd take the 11/9/12, 10/3/12 HG. It finishes development rapidly, gets plenty of worlds, handles all forms of early pressure a
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Sat, 09 September 2006 00:06 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Ignore those telling you to take narrower hab, or that it works fine with TT. It doesn't, other than for CAs
|
Hmmmm, I am in a game where everyone else (intemediate level) is allowed diplomacy and trade and I'm not... and I am still in the race. I have had war pressure for most of the game (mostly others starting wars against me), while many seem at peace, cohabing, etc. I may not be the strongest power, but I can worry even the strongest and their friends.
I can go over details of my race after game is over, but I will say it is a success even now, it works fine despite narrow hab, TT, and not being CA (in this case I am IS).
[Updated on: Sat, 09 September 2006 11:10] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Sat, 09 September 2006 05:51 |
|
| bma53 |
| Crewman 3rd Class |
Messages: 6
Registered: August 2006 | |
|
| JasonC wrote on Sat, 09 September 2006 15:57 |
In expert hands I consider the 18% HP superior to it, but it is much harder to play.
|
Thanks for this lengthy article Jason, I really appreciate the time and effort that went into it 
I would love some authoritative feedback from y'all on why this HP design is so much harder to play. I can only assume that it is vulnerable during the first 40-80 years if threatened by a serious and continuous onslaught.
I am also concerned about setting mine efficiency less than 11, and the development of mineral crunches in the end game.
| Iztok wrote on Fri, 08 September 2006 21:20 |
I wonder what will you trade besides your minelayers?... Trade is a good way to make friends, and having friends helps surviving a lot. And surviving a lot will keep you in community.
|
Thanks Iztok, I appreciate the importance of trade in-game, I had never considered factoring trade into my racial design, thats definitely my paradigm shift for the day.Cheers 
Thanks for all the replies to this post, they're greatly appreciated.
Yours sinc' BMA.
[Updated on: Sat, 09 September 2006 05:54] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Sat, 09 September 2006 11:07 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
y'all on why this HP design is so much harder to play
|
HP is slower than HG. TT is slower starter than non TT. (All those points going into TT rather than techs and cheaper factories and wider hab). You get a really slow/weak race early going if you aren't careful. There are ways to overcome this, from race tweaks to tech trade, to use of minelayers in defense.
[Updated on: Sat, 09 September 2006 11:09] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Sat, 09 September 2006 11:53 |
|
| JasonC |
| Petty Officer 2nd Class
Stars! V.I.P |
Messages: 58
Registered: July 2006
Location: Arlington, MA | |
|
TT HG doesn't need to start slow. The 11/9/12 1/5 width race above will get 3000 resources by year 20 in tiny dense and over 6k econ by year 30, with five breeders on line, 3 of them with finished factories, and tech for W10 cruisers and large freighters, in addition to TT10 (which it has from around year 20). In the 30s it buys TT15 and settles every available world, sending from half a dozen breeders, which all of the decent initial greens have already become.
This is much faster and much more resilient than either TT with narrow 1/8 initial hab but more HG econ, or than similar hab but 1/2500 pop efficiency. The extra points spent on initial hab width are simply a superior investment to marginally better factories, in every conceivable way. In an intermediate game you won't be "still in the running" nor dependent on slowly compounding IS freighter pop (an irrelevant considerations for an SD anyway, but but are good defense races that can try TT) - you will be in the lead.
The reason the 18% HP can be superior in expert hands is it gets 50% more eventual economy from the same controlled planets. If the player knows exactly how to manage early tech buys for moving pop without crowding the HW, how to deal with iron constraints by freighter re-use and retransported iron from colonies to HW, which worlds to settle in what order with how much pop, when to terraform, how to functionally differentiate worlds into breeders and producers, balances pop perfectly, ships all surface G, knows how to defend a sector from one gate fort and HW supplied FFs plus minelayers flown in with the settling fleet, how to avoid early wars by diplomatically isolating potential rivals etc - he may grab approximately similar space in the early going, keep every scrap of it, and thereby cash his eventual higher capacity for a larger econ around years 60-70.
But despite the higher capacity even the 18% cost 7 factory HP will be behind the HG for the whole first part of the game. Population resources come without upfront investment. A race with wide hab plus rapid terra to get lots of breeders up quickly, gets an enourmous income stream from pop. An HP cuts that stream by 60%. No race can spend everything on factories, so its higher factory compounding rate takes well more than the theoretical 5 years extra to make up the ground. A higher early free resource integral means more bio sooner, more terra on the early greens and therefore higher achieved pop growth, lower crowding, easier shipping and base development, etc.
New players should play HGs with high pop growth and very strong investments in hab. They are far and away the most forgiving race type to play. If you don't have 3.5 million pop by year 30 you are doing something wrong. And it is darn hard to be in the bottom of the standings in an intermediate game with that kind of force behind SD fighting advantages and the ability to usefully live everywhere.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Sat, 09 September 2006 14:14 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
In an intermediate game you won't be "still in the running"
|
It is non accbbs game, 11 players in medium normal, little war, lots of cohab.
You claim your race works better than mine but you haven't seen my tweaks or proven anything. IMO all sorts of designs have potential to work.
From what I can see your HG may have gotten choked in this game with less eccon than mine, being in a corner surrounded by 2 fellow IS... you can only bomb or pop drop so fast early while at risk from mineral packets on the frontier and your agressiveness may get you extra wars from the 2-4 other cohabbing races sooner on top of your nearest neighbour IS races.
You WILL be behind in tech. They have perhaps 3 trading partners you have none except what you can steal.
On plus side they are intermediates so they aren't as good at tactical war/ship design.
[Updated on: Sat, 09 September 2006 14:20] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Sat, 09 September 2006 15:09 |
|
| JasonC |
| Petty Officer 2nd Class
Stars! V.I.P |
Messages: 58
Registered: July 2006
Location: Arlington, MA | |
|
Just nonsense.
Faster races are stronger diplomatically in the opener, not weaker.
SD doesn't need to win pop-drop wars, it stops the shipments themselves in the air with exploding mines. Nobody skirmishes better at low tech, not even WM. And a 1/8 hab race isn't going to beat 3.5 million total pop by year 30 in a pop-drop war anyway.
Tech is 3-10-5-9-3-9 by year 30. Skirmishers are beam CAs and MMLs with exploding fields, population is moving from 5 breeders in large freighters. Free resources for tech or warships, from already finished worlds, are ~3000 per year.
The reason narrow hab TT sucks for non CA is that the time it takes to make anything of the yellows is far too long. If a newish player finds himself at all contained geographically, he can easily find himself with only 2 rapid worlds and a handful of yellows with 10-30 year development times, pathetic in the meantime.
With nearly 1/4 width there are plenty of greens and all the future breeders are both green and decent initial hab value. They can therefore be settled right away with 100k pop and will grow rapidly to 350 resources and terra themselves completely. At which point they are 80-90% or better, produce 1000 free resources plus G, and colonize a yellow a year each.
Incidentally, this point is wider than TT races or TT SD in particular. One immune hab schemes with initial widths close to what -f races use, crush both 1/10 one immune HGs with better factories and wide hab no immune, no TT races that spend hundreds fewer points on the hab screen. One immune HPs also work perfectly if they buy sufficient initial width, trading down on pop growth rate in return for it. A JOAT HP with one immune can go as low as 16% and be perfectly competitive.
The classic newbie mistake is to instead try to take way too many things, cheap tech in too many fields, and too many unnecessary LRTs. And the one thing even most advanced players still need to learn is that the efficiency balance between spending on hab and spending on the factory screen, is much more heavily weighted toward the hab screen than most suppose.
That is why -f races can work - but the point can be realized without paying for it in the -f way. The key is not that they take points out of factories but that they buy 200 points more of hab screen setting that typical standard races.
TT with 1/4 is a reasonable alternative to this. One immune with 1/5 to 1/6 initial width is the standard way. Even CAs benefit from putting more RW points into one immune hab, instead of taking them out to pay for relatively useless side items.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Sun, 10 September 2006 03:18 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Faster races are stronger diplomatically in the opener, not weaker.
|
Of course, but the question is how much extra territory you might gain. If HG doesn't grow much faster than HP then HP ends up being stronger in endgame. If HG was always better, none of us would play HP.
If you are choked by NOT getting enough extra territory to compensate your HG loses to my more HPish race.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Sun, 10 September 2006 12:42 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| JasonC wrote on Sun, 10 September 2006 15:57 |
... when an expert stars race designer tells you there is a significant new advance in race design best practices - here, overinvest in the hab screen compared to what almost everyone does...
|
I'm sorry, but that's not exactly a new advance. Maybe it was not so clearly stated as you did, but from some games of top players, where I had opportunity to check end positions and race designs, and from posts here on AH, it is quite obvious that as wide hab as possible is quite common practice, and that's with races with factories. As wide as possible means usually hab 1 in 4-6, and quite some posters also warned against too narrow habs (me included ).
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Sun, 10 September 2006 14:28 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| bma53 wrote on Sat, 09 September 2006 11:51 |
I would love some authoritative feedback from y'all on why this HP design is so much harder to play. I can only assume that it is vulnerable during the first 40-80 years if threatened by a serious and continuous onslaught.
I am also concerned about setting mine efficiency less than 11, and the development of mineral crunches in the end game.
|
 Because HPs start more slowly than HG or -f races they are more vulnerable to an early attack in their development period of the game (turns 20-50).
Also you're right about mine settings and mineral crunch - germ crunch in HP's case. IMO even eff. 11 is a bit low, because you'd need for your average planet ~4000kT of germ to produce all factories, and that's about 1/4 of all germ you can expect to mine.
And those factories will vanish without a trace if only 20 hostile B-52 bombers with 12 LBUs-72 and 4 Cherries would come in orbit (OFC they'd need to destroy your orbital first), regardless of defenses you'd have there.
Well, that's the bad part of HPs. However they are not really bad, they just don't fit in quick cut-throat games.
Where there's time/space to develop in relative peace in first 50 turns, and where one'd need lots of resources (slow-tech games, most-tech-expensive games), there they shine. When at turn 60 resource curves of most races start bending below linear, HP's line turns vertical . 180,000 resources for Battle Nexus? Bah, 2 turns  . 380,000 resurces for planetary shield? 4 turns . Opponent closing with 200 BBs? 3 turns to build perfect counter for those ships.
| Quote: |
Thanks Iztok, I appreciate the importance of trade in-game, I had never considered factoring trade into my racial design, thats definitely my paradigm shift for the day. Cheers
|
You're welcome!
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Sun, 10 September 2006 14:32] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Sun, 10 September 2006 21:36 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
As for SD... without immunities it is sound idea
|
But with an immunity, what hab ranges may work?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Mon, 11 September 2006 15:17 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I never consider it with a non -f. Just way to many points IMO.
|
Of course, HP and narrower hab do free up points. 1i and narrow hab suggest lower growth rate, especially in acc-bbs game which also gives points. (HP can live with lower growth rate than HG)
Worst case costs:
A normal race 0i max terraforming 3 fields 15x100x3=4500 resources
A TT race with 1i max terraforming 2 fields 30x70x2=4200 resources.
An HP race can terraform a poor yellow faster than an HG.
To get a future poor yellow terraformed in reasonable time in either case, one would have to start ahead of time (before one had the tech to turn it green).
...
Hab shift: You can opt for good cohabing with these extremes, or for deliberate conflict. Good cohabing will find you untapped minerals in and game, while conflict will allow you to use the terraforming of your enemies.
[Updated on: Mon, 11 September 2006 15:42] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 03 13:53:55 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
). And regarding weapons research, I had felt it was a neccessity to have it at -50 cost to ensure that offensive capacities are always competitive?
