Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Newb SD design - Feedback wanted.
|
 Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Mon, 11 September 2006 18:07   |
|
 bma53 |
 | Crewman 3rd Class |
Messages: 6
Registered: August 2006 | |
|
Hi All.
It has been great to read all the feedback and see the ideas bouncing around, even with the occasional spark as diiferent concepts interact with one another; but a little disagreement helps broaden the mind eh 
These are the two refined options I have come to at this stage.
Being a newb, I have not had the real-game experience of end-game mineral crunches, but it is one of the most common expressions of difficulty within the posts and material I have read. With that in mind I have wanted to keep my mine efficiency up, at the cost of mines operated, in order to maximise what minerals are available per planet. However, it may be a misjudgement, no sense having huge quantities of minerals at your disposal if you cannot access them quickly enough.
I have also had the freedom to spread my habitability wide, this enables me to take a concentrated approach to territory, minimising the need to disperse amongst other players for territory. A compact empire is much easier to defend, and harmonises well with SD inherent strengths, and logistically easier to manage with the limited SG tech available to a nonIT.
I certainly would not regard the approach of TT and wide habitat as being realistic for most other PRT, the cost would cripple racial design in either productivity or research.
I am also convinced that either IFE or ISb are essential to establish a ‘Monster’ race, without one of these, initial colonisation and logistics would be very difficult. Including IFE into these two designs has been the most worked around LRT, paid for by changing the research options, and/or fiddling around with the productivity options and habitability ranges.
Once again, feedback would be greatly appreciated.
The summary of my goals are: the ability to colonise many planets early on, and quickly amplify this within the early mid-game; attempt to alleviate end-game mineral crunches by increasing mine efficiency; achieve good productivity through planets in closer proximity, rather than planets, spread out over a larger area.
SDHP.
LRT: IFE, TT, OBRM, NAS, RS
G 0.54 – 2.96, T –124 – 84, R 24 – 80. (1n5) 18%.
1/2500, 15, 7, 18 Gbox checked. 12, 4, 15.
En, Prop, Const, El +75% +3 tech checked, Bio –50%, Weap norm’.
0 points remain.
SDHG.
LRT: IFE, TT, OBRM, NAS, RS.
G 0.55 – 3.68, T -128 – 72, R 27 – 83. (1n5) 18%.
1/1000, 11, 9, 13 Gbox checked. 11, 4, 13.
En, Prop, Elec +75%, Bio –50%, rest norm’.
0 points remain.
Thanks again, BMA.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Mon, 11 September 2006 19:30 |
|
| Kotk | 
 | Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| multilis wrote on Mon, 11 September 2006 22:17 |
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.
|
Arent you comparing apples with oranges here.  Let me try to give two illustrating examples? These are not pretending to be ultimate designs just without cheating and mixing with irrelevant crap from other pages, what was invested into hab with one is alternatively invested into hab with other.
(A) 0i Normal:
SD ... ISB, OBRM, NAS, RS
0.20 to 4.88, -148 to 148, 13 to 71, 17%
2500, 15/8/19 [v] 11/3/19
N+75%, W-50%, P+75%, C-50%, L+75%, B+75%
(B) 1i With TT:
SD ... IFE, TT, OBRM, NAS, RS
Immune, -104 to 16, 24 to 52, 17%
2500, 15/8/19 [v] 11/3/19
N+75%, W-50%, P+75%, C-50%, L+75%, B+-0%
Now the habitabilities and average values of habitable planets:(A)
at level Terra 0 Terra 3 Terra 7 Terra 11 Terra 15
hab:avg 41%:39% 53%:43% 69%:49% 81%:57% 87%:66%
(B)
at level TT 0 TT 5 TT 10 TT 15 TT 20 TT 25 TT 30
hab:avg 10%:56% 18%:67% 28%:73% 40%:77% 53%:82% 64%:87% 73%:90%
What i see here is that given (B) 1i TT is mostly occupied with terraforming yellows. Most of its planets are in "pop-drop-me" stage about 30 years in average ... first building factories then terraforming to green. Finally it yep passes (A) at TT 30 but that technology costs like 600k resources itself at Bio normal.
(A) 0i normal has about half of its future planets green immediately and sits quite fine after N/W/P 10/10/10 tech.  
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Mon, 11 September 2006 20:20 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Arent you comparing apples with oranges here
|
Trying to put 1i TT in as comparable a context I can for average person who has never played it.
One can often terraform a red (future yellow) faster than one can aquire the TT tech to take it to the next level, if you start early enough. Once TT 30 rolls out you only have maybe 4 extra years in worst case to get a green.
The TT example has more nearly 100% greens, you will find that your poorest greens flip to become breeders every time you hit another bio terraforming level.
For 1i TT, Bio cheap may be worth more than W cheap... one can trade or steal W. For eccon it is sort of like Energy for AR, without diminishing returns in the end.
| Quote: |
I am also convinced that either IFE or ISb are essential to establish a ‘Monster’ race, without one of these, initial colonisation and logistics would be very difficult
|
Not essential. Alternative is to spend the points on ramp up speed, rush to Con7 and carefully micromanage lots of super fuel exports. In early years you have time to micromanage.
| Quote: |
with the limited SG tech
|
IMO the only race with really limited SG is HE. 300/500 gates are extremely powerful.
| Quote: |
attempt to alleviate end-game mineral crunches
|
Nubs use less minerals than BBs. So getting nubs faster (cheaper con) may help mineral crunch.
Game is often decided before mineral crunch is even an issue.
[Updated on: Mon, 11 September 2006 20:41] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Mon, 11 September 2006 21:27 |
|
| Kotk |
| Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| bma53 wrote on Tue, 12 September 2006 01:07 |
SDHP.
LRT: IFE, TT, OBRM, NAS, RS
G 0.54 – 2.96, T –124 – 84, R 24 – 80. (1n5) 18%.
1/2500, 15, 7, 18 Gbox checked. 12, 4, 15.
En, Prop, Const, El +75% +3 tech checked, Bio –50%, Weap norm’.
0 points remain.
|
Suggestions to have lower growth rate with HPs are not that bad ones. Less yearly breed leaves more room for germanium in colony fleets, and germanium boosts them (initially not that good hab) colonies quicker than more pop.
Mine settings 11/3/18 i have found to be better at same cost than 12/4/15 for immunityless races.
+3 tech check box mostly wastes rw points. Propulsion you start at 2 anyway as SD so you got your fuel mizer, you dont stick with medium freighters as HP (germanium cost) so you go for construction 4 to have privateers anyway. If you want better scanning then you can research electronics 1 but 3 is unneccessary. Energy 3 is quite useless for HP so early. Maneuver jets and cow shields are for guys with resources for destroyers, HP got to wait with these.
Tech settings are OTOH bad there...  Say drop +3 box take 17% growth and construction + bio cheap, weapons normal rest expensive.
| Quote: |
SDHG.
LRT: IFE, TT, OBRM, NAS, RS.
G 0.55 – 3.68, T -128 – 72, R 27 – 83. (1n5) 18%.
1/1000, 11, 9, 13 Gbox checked. 11, 4, 13.
En, Prop, Elec +75%, Bio –50%, rest norm’.
0 points remain.
|
Again, 10/3/16 are better than 11/4/13 mines.
With only 13 factories operated i suggest to invest that G-box back into ... cheaper construction.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Tue, 12 September 2006 00:33 |
|
| JasonC |
 | Petty Officer 2nd Class
Stars! V.I.P |
Messages: 58
Registered: July 2006
Location: Arlington, MA | |
|
The terra comparisons to wide no i races miss the main strength of either 1i or TT, which is much faster breeders. Yes the wide race with neither is fine at tech 10 in 3 fields, but he doesn't have that instantly and the worlds don't pay for all the terra instantly either. Hab early is worth a lot more than hab late - that is the CA kick after all, and we all know how huge it is.
The fast hab schemes are 1i with 1/6 width, or TT with 1/4-1/5. Or CA PRT (or both, obviously). 1i with 1/10 or TT with 1/8 or neither with 1/4, are adequate to get a game, particularly with an economic PRT - but not in the same league in speed as the monster ones plus an economic PRT.
Average hab is also a poor comparison 1i to no i, because pop growth potential goes as the square of planet value, and also counts high hab to low until crowded. Terra on the best worlds rapidly has a much larger impact that average terra moving average hab value.
As for late minerals, one fellow mentioned the most important point. Beam nubians have about 5-6 times the mineral efficiency of mixed BBs (3 times beam BBs). Also, TT races with no i bring additional worlds on line every decade, "eating" them in mineral terms after they get large. Live everywhere is already a mineral strategy. Con normal is a mineral strategy. SD defense is a mineral strategy (hold terrain with blockade until nubs etc).
In a medium normal game won outright without a single ally as HG TT SD, I have no significant mineral problems through year 2530. I simply "ate" half the galaxy. I didn't start with it, but I washed my mines over all races in the southern half by midgame. My mine settings on that occasion were 10/3/14 with OBRM, which is perfectly adequate for an HG.
If you take an HP with 20+ factories operated, if you take a hab scheme that only lives on half of all world even with full terra and you still take OBRM, if you build 20 missile BBs for midgame wars, then yeah you will have a mineral problem.
At some point resources always go into diminishing returns, because the economy can't take any more invesment and the good tech has been bought, and there is time to assemble fleets to use all the minerals. OK, if that is your problem then you ought to have won already. Particularly as SD - who is going to dislodge one in that situation?
A JOAT HP can afford good mine efficiency. Some HEs can afford good mine efficiency. Most races it is an expensive luxury. If you want better mining take 10/3/15-18 mines.
[Updated on: Tue, 12 September 2006 00:37] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Tue, 12 September 2006 00:48 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
So ... 52 years to get ahead of such a crap
|
Kotk, I am playing in a real game, the growth curve is good all game. Sorry, but we will have to wait till after my game is over for to compare details including my ramp up and tech settings.
Late game it will likely be a race to get mines up rather than factories on the last poor greens.
As JC brings out, average hab is poor way to judge.
Suppose:
one race has a 100% green and 2 x 25% greens (or a bunch of 5% hab reds)
another has 70% and 2 x 40% greens.
Same average for 3 planets. But, since you fill the poor hab planets first, one guy is growing pop on a 100% breeder, while the other guy has to do with 70% breeder. The point... the best greens, your breeders decide your pop growth rate (and 1i races have more breeders).
[Updated on: Tue, 12 September 2006 00:56] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Tue, 12 September 2006 02:26 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
With reasonably quick growth rate like 18% my 0-immune tests end up having all non-breeders fully terraformed and filled full at 2470 and adequate 1-immune has about 66% resources and minerals on same territory. So nothing that sweet?
|
How cheap is your bio tech in this test? (In my case game is non-accbbs which also makes a difference)
A 0i race and a 1i race are tuned differently. For example 1i will tend to have lower growth rate and throw points into something else such as hab or ramp up.
I suspect using your logic I might find case where AR 1i is 66% resources of AR 0i 'in same territory' at year 70. Yet I doubt that would convince you of much.
[Updated on: Tue, 12 September 2006 02:29] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Thu, 14 September 2006 22:20 |
|
| JasonC |
| Petty Officer 2nd Class
Stars! V.I.P |
Messages: 58
Registered: July 2006
Location: Arlington, MA | |
|
Kotk - 1i races with sufficient hab investment eventually live on half of all worlds. And that "eventually" is PDQ. The breeders are all done very fast and buy everything else. Yes you want to use that speed to grab more LY^2.
In my experience nobody gets to sit and spin to year 70. The only long run issue tends to be minerals, lower from eating only half of all planets. But 1i's that can remote mine have no problem, and several PRTs have work arounds (CA permaforming, JOAT and IS red "mining" colonies, etc).
Also one can always intersettle etc.
On combining TT with 1i, I rarely try it, and I think CA is the one that can most easily do it and gets the most out of it. (Because narrow initial is much less debilitating for them etc). You do not need bio cheap for it, however. Normal will serve. You buy tech as a 1i does until 11 points of one narrow field and 7 of the other, typically. Then you can hit bio. A typical tech setting is weapons cheap, con and bio normal, rest expensive, no box.
Another race type that benefits from TT and uses only bio normal is 0i TT JOAT HP. Those tech settings, growth can be as low as 16% when going purely for capacity. 4000-4500 resource planets plus live everywhere readily buys tech 25-6 in normal fields.
Sincerely,
Jason Cawley
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Newb SD design - Feedback wanted. |
Fri, 15 September 2006 01:40 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
[1i TT]A typical tech setting is weapons cheap, con and bio normal, rest expensive
|
Yes one can get by with bio 2x as expensive, even if bio is key to your ecconomic growth.
Can one also get by with w tech being behind others? IMO yes. Every w design has a lower w tech cheapo counter than can do the job. If you wish we can debate this in another thread, eg suggest a ship design and I will look for a lower tech counter. This is not saying tech doesn't help, it does... but rather you can survive tech behind. In extreme case I have won several games with all techs expensive, and others have done well too.
In my current game they risk giving me tech if they meet my spread out forces in open space. For example we skirmish over minelayers and sweepers. Sometimes their beamer kills my beamer if we both set trap at same spot. But sometimes I win, especially if I throw in a missile boat. Perhaps I gain some tech, as even older beamers have fairly good tech in lots of fields, I might be behind in at least one.
If they hover over their planets, they lose initiative and still carry small risk of suprise attack by cloakers. Suprise attack may allow pop drop tech stealing.
If they lump everything into one big attack, then they accomplish less work than my many spread out fleets and still risk cloaked ambush by cheapo hordes.
If they only use low tech stuff on attack, they have lost most of the advantage of their higher tech.
My warships average 2-4 levels behind theirs in w tech and other fields, and I am overall ahead in war exchanges especially when you count the tech levels stolen.
The point of all this is ecconomic investment is sometimes worth more than warship improving tech.
[Updated on: Fri, 15 September 2006 02:27] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 03 14:54:04 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
That effect does also show in testbed as TT -F has slightly better tech in 2415-2430 range, resources are more or less similar. In real game and in good hands ... such free spare bucks in 2415-2430 usually mean bigger territory under control, not slightly better tech. 
The TRUELY DEEPS of TT take 40 years to terraform for -F so ... if colonized at say 2440 these can be viewed as inner reserve that kicks in about 2480. Usually games are decided by that time however. 
. My somewhat plainer wide-habs usually get better "luck" in hab draw, faster ramp-up, better tech, bigger fleets, easier finding of strategically-located greens... 
