| Economic and growth effect of CE? |
Thu, 01 March 2007 05:27  |
|
 Carn |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
Has anyone ever tested, what the economic and growth impact of CE is?
I'm interested in the pure effect, so the extra points from CE are spend not on growth or econ effecting things(e.g. techs, RS, removing LSP or NAS)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Economic and growth effect of CE? |
Thu, 01 March 2007 11:52  |
|
|
|
I played a game with CE once - and only once. I will never play with it again unless everyone in the game has to have it.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Economic and growth effect of CE? |
Thu, 01 March 2007 17:59 |
|
|
|
As mentioned, the direct economic effect is minimal:
The cost in terms of needing extra unarmed ships (freighters etc.) is fairly well countered by the cost saving.
The cost in terms of lost colonist growth (it takes a little longer to reach your destination and start growing again) at first looks more painfull, but CE also gives you a lot of points - often comparable to an extra point of growth rate, which can turn that loss around. IT and IS both cope with this aspect very well...
The cost in terms of losing planets because you had a strategic 'hassle'... Well, that's the kicker. Personally I like CE because it lets me have ~10% more warships - I think the strategic advantage given by numbers can more than counter the disadvantage of unreliable movement. You *do* have to make changes to the way you play, and plan ahead further. I won't go into more detail now - there is another CE thread here that I have written much more in.
[Updated on: Thu, 01 March 2007 18:00] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Economic and growth effect of CE? |
Tue, 06 March 2007 05:50 |
|
| Carn |
| Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Thu, 01 March 2007 17:17 |
War. that is funny. If you want just something to be attacked in hurry target with 2 fleets each able to kill it and then pray they dont both break. If you are outnumbered you sometimes fail to flee. Confused Losing a battle because engines failed as first thing affects your mood and then opponent fleets afffect your economy too. In bad direction! Laughing
|
| velvetthroat57 wrote on Thu, 01 March 2007 20:27 |
IT doesn't feel it as much since once his colonies are planted, all the pop goes via gate and CE doesn't matter then.
|
This gives me the thought, that an IT or any other race, that can gat around a lot, that for some reason is mainly defensive(e.g. HP, just survive long enough and you have a big advantage), CE is nearly as a must have as NAS is for JOAT, because it hurts little and gives good points.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Economic and growth effect of CE? |
Tue, 06 March 2007 09:52 |
|
| Kotk | 
 | Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| Carn wrote on Tue, 06 March 2007 12:50 |
This gives me the thought, that an IT or any other race, that can gat around a lot, that for some reason is mainly defensive(e.g. HP, just survive long enough and you have a big advantage), CE is nearly as a must have as NAS is for JOAT, because it hurts little and gives good points.
|
CE makes fighting and skirmishing harder on any case even if for that IT the econ affect is minimal. With lots of econ you get "monster" tag and others gang up ... real pain with CE race. 
CE is good trick to have with economy oriented races in a team game where majority of fighting is planned to be done by other, war oriented team member. Most good fighting PRTs are SD, WM and SS. The teams fighter may concentrate his econ on research and building PRT special ships while others will build and transfer large fleets of generic warships to them. Cheap to build with CE, gift ships leave less salvage and their engines also do not break in fighters hands. 
[Updated on: Tue, 06 March 2007 09:54] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Economic and growth effect of CE? |
Tue, 06 March 2007 10:51 |
|
| velvetthroat57 |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 111
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
| Carn wrote on Tue, 06 March 2007 05:50 |
This gives me the thought, that an IT or any other race, that can gat around a lot, that for some reason is mainly defensive(e.g. HP, just survive long enough and you have a big advantage), CE is nearly as a must have as NAS is for JOAT, because it hurts little and gives good points.
|
CE doesn't really hurt on offensives either. If you have lined up to attack a planet from more than 36 lys away, 90% of the time you will still do it while 10% of the time you won't. In most of the 10% cases the only thing lost is a year while you wait for the engines to engage.
Occasionally, the enemy will be able to reinforce the planet because of the delay but occasionally the enemy was able to reinforce anyway and instead of losing your fleet, you see a large armada sitting at the planet you were about to attack.
CE hurts most I think in skirmishing where lots of small fleets are jumping around and being targeted. Inevitably you will lose a few fleets to engine failure. I think this is a fair trade for shaving 120 points off the cost of BBs.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Only part of your plan may engage and that means your loss where you planned to win or even worse diplomatically ... your allys loss. 