Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » IS » Lowest Viable PGR
Lowest Viable PGR Thu, 28 June 2007 05:23 Go to next message
Captain Maim is currently offline Captain Maim

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 492
Registered: March 2003
Location: USA, Mesa, Arizona

What's the lowest viable growth rate for an IS? Is it 18% the other races? Or can they go lower and still come out ahead?


Rule 1: "Pillage, THEN burn!"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Thu, 28 June 2007 07:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
I have tested 14%. Got over 25K at 2450. Problem is that opponents will detect your growth by observing your freighters and 14% suggests that it is relatively easy early years. Nod

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Thu, 28 June 2007 19:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Captain Maim is currently offline Captain Maim

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 492
Registered: March 2003
Location: USA, Mesa, Arizona

I'm trying out 16% and 1/3 habs with TT.


Rule 1: "Pillage, THEN burn!"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 04:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Soobie

 
Officer Cadet 3rd Year

Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007
Location: Australia
I thought the lowest viable PGR for IS was 20%? Rolling Eyes

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 04:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Captain Maim is currently offline Captain Maim

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 492
Registered: March 2003
Location: USA, Mesa, Arizona

LOL! Boy I do love 10% space growth. Now if only I could make a race that actually used that without being world starved.... Or -f.

<After some tests>


WOW... 1/3rd hab at 16% with TT is HARD to get a pop fountain going.
But 1/6th at 20% with TT, pop fountains are almost impossible to stop!!! *I LIKE IT!*


[Updated on: Fri, 29 June 2007 04:30]




Rule 1: "Pillage, THEN burn!"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 04:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
Captain Maim wrote on Fri, 29 June 2007 18:09

LOL! Boy I do love 10% space growth. Now if only I could make a race that actually used that without being world starved.... Or -f.

<After some tests>


WOW... 1/3rd hab at 16% with TT is HARD to get a pop fountain going.
But 1/6th at 20% with TT, pop fountains are almost impossible to stop!!! *I LIKE IT!*


18% looks good then... Laughing

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 05:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Captain Maim is currently offline Captain Maim

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 492
Registered: March 2003
Location: USA, Mesa, Arizona

Yeah I got 1/4th hab with 18% and TT.

I haven't tested that one out too much... It's on my to do list.



Rule 1: "Pillage, THEN burn!"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 05:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Soobie

 
Officer Cadet 3rd Year

Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007
Location: Australia
Captain Maim wrote on Fri, 29 June 2007 18:47

Yeah I got 1/4th hab with 18% and TT.

I haven't tested that one out too much... It's on my to do list.
How about 18% +1/4 -TT, but no NAS and a bit extra something else (... like 19% PGR) (just for something bit different)? Smile

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 10:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joseph is currently offline joseph

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol
Quote:

(... like 19% PGR) (just for something bit different)?

Due to the grow in space being 1/2 your normal growth you should always use an even number (unless you have a very good reason not to).

As for how low you can go - IS can (comfortably?) go lower than others due to making up some of the growth in transit. However it tends to have higher growth because players normally want to take as much advantage of the growth in space as possible.

One extreme of this is the 20%growth, one world wonder with TT.
It rocks if you are lucky enough to find a green or yellow within 3-4 years travel in the first decade. Its not what I would call a good design - but I have tried to make it work in the past.



Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 11:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
velvetthroat57 is currently offline velvetthroat57

 
Master Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 111
Registered: June 2005
joseph wrote on Fri, 29 June 2007 10:48

Quote:

(... like 19% PGR) (just for something bit different)?

Due to the grow in space being 1/2 your normal growth you should always use an even number (unless you have a very good reason not to).


Why? A 19% growth rate is 9.5% in space.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 12:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Thor is currently offline Thor

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 29
Registered: May 2007
Location: California

joseph wrote on Fri, 29 June 2007 07:48

Due to the grow in space being 1/2 your normal growth you should always use an even number (unless you have a very good reason not to).

Even numbers make the math easier, but not by much. Quick - how many colonists should I put on a 21k medium freighter for a 4 year transit? I don't know - that's what spreadsheets are for. Smile If you're playing IS I highly recommend using Posey's spreadsheet or creating your own for this. Just remember that on a colonising flight you have to take all the years into account (overflow on the last year will be lost, otherwise), whereas for standard pop transport you can use one year less and the overflow will land on the planet when it arrives.

Quote:

As for how low you can go - IS can (comfortably?) go lower than others due to making up some of the growth in transit.

There are two schools of thought on this. One is to use your races advantages to find points on the RW. Here, you can lower an IS's growth rate because you will get growth in transit (which is important in the early years) and you'll get flying orgies later in life.

The other school of thought, to which I subscribe, is to maximize your race's advantages. Make that 19% IS race act like a 21% race and look at the advantages you'll get! I'd be interesting in hearing the philisophical viewpoints of some of our luminaries on this point - play to your race's strength or use those strengths to bolster other aspects of the race?

Cheers,
Thor

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 13:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Traveller is currently offline Traveller

 
Warrant Officer

Messages: 118
Registered: March 2007
Location: Ft Lauderdale, Florida, U...

I made a spread sheet where I just type in the number and type of ships in my fleet and how many turns it takes to arive, and whether the planet is already colonized or not and it works out how many people to load for the trip.

Quote:

The other school of thought, to which I subscribe, is to maximize your race's advantages. Make that 19% IS race act like a 21% race and look at the advantages you'll get! I'd be interesting in hearing the philisophical viewpoints of some of our luminaries on this point - play to your race's strength or use those strengths to bolster other aspects of the race?


I totally agree, you can compound the growth rate even further by taking one imune too. Your ultimate capacity drops a bit, but you also get more play for intersettlent, and MUCH faster pop growth before you run out of space.

I think a 19% one immune is the most logical way to play IS in a non duel enviroment. I never played IS before Basic Training and never really gave it much thought, but the fuel transports + x2 defenses make it a great early fighting race, croby ships make great middle game hordes, and the orgy + overpop make it a great end game race. Tacyons are just the icing on top of a very powerful race.






Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 19:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Captain Maim is currently offline Captain Maim

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 492
Registered: March 2003
Location: USA, Mesa, Arizona

I just use the Stars Calculator. It does all that and everything else I'd want as well.


Rule 1: "Pillage, THEN burn!"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 20:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Traveller is currently offline Traveller

 
Warrant Officer

Messages: 118
Registered: March 2007
Location: Ft Lauderdale, Florida, U...

Ahh cool thanks capt Maim. I missed that feature of starscal.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Fri, 29 June 2007 20:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Captain Maim is currently offline Captain Maim

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 492
Registered: March 2003
Location: USA, Mesa, Arizona

No problem I'm sure you'll use it against me in the game we're playing Rolling Eyes


Rule 1: "Pillage, THEN burn!"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Sat, 30 June 2007 00:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Soobie

 
Officer Cadet 3rd Year

Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007
Location: Australia
After reading this thread, had a play with low growth IS. Here is a race that shocked me at how well it played in a testbed and has low PGR. It has some BIG weaknesses that would NEED to be hidden via correct research focus on croby FF and diplomacy (used DLL7, so bit quicker combat speed to FM but still cheap). While it has early access to gates (which it can build easy and use well) ... sadly, mini croby FF came very late for IS - about 2422 (could be my bad play though) Sad

PRT: IS
LRT: ISB, IFE, NRSE, CE, OBRM, NAS, RS.
(Yes, big lots LRT: RS costs 20 but is must have; Could go without IFE, NRSE, CE but took for start Prop 5 and cheap min engines for later min hungry TG & IS-10. Also, could have given up NRSE, but wanted IS-10. NB: I don't mind CE, others hate it.)
PGR: 17%
12/24/12 (!) No G. (Facs have 20 yr payback for late years when too much G and everything overpopped)
1/1000
10/4/9 Never short on mins even with OK fleets.
Weps: Normal. All else Exp. +3 checked
11 pts to surface mins

And the hab? ...
G imm
T imm
R 80-100 [Also tried Weps normal with rad 0-20; not lot diff)

(OK, lots probs with 2i, but fun Smile )

[31K in 2450 in Small Normal with 2 AIs. Only got about 18K in tiny, packed but had crap hab draw. Tech was OK - not as bad as I expected. Early research in En was hurtful. Limited hab and all 100% means overpop starts a bit early. Started building some facs around 2441. Had a couple of worlds built out around 2448 giving about 2.5K R, which I think is decent for what behaves like a -f early. Started to see mins deplete in the last couple of years when they started building multitple missile BBs. BBs only had bears. Probably a mistake - should have built beamers, but meh.]

The one I felt more comfortable with though was the 18% -f 2i with Con normal. What was more fun was the 19% true -T (all else the same). Only found 1 way to get workable 20% 2i, but it wasn't really usable - too much MM. 16% PGR -f gave 3 cheap techs, so can go more traditional -f, get min
...



[Updated on: Sat, 30 June 2007 01:26]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Sat, 30 June 2007 13:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
Soobie wrote on Sat, 30 June 2007 14:30




-f race with 1 normal rest expensive? HG races will smash you in a real game.

-f *has* to be able to fight early and fight hard. Expensive techs don't suit that.

The first thing to give up is the 12/24/12 facs. You'll barely see any benefit from them, I think you'd pretty much always be better off researching or building warships, than putting in a 20 year investment for a factory. If you are willing to wait that long for your resources, you really should look at HP races instead.


[Updated on: Sat, 30 June 2007 13:58]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Sat, 30 June 2007 15:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Soobie

 
Officer Cadet 3rd Year

Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007
Location: Australia
Dogthinkers wrote on Sun, 01 July 2007 03:27

Soobie wrote on Sat, 30 June 2007 14:30




-f race with 1 normal rest expensive? HG races will smash you in a real game.

-f *has* to be able to fight early and fight hard. Expensive techs don't suit that.

The first thing to give up is the 12/24/12 facs. You'll barely see any benefit from them, I think you'd pretty much always be better off researching or building warships, than putting in a 20 year investment for a factory. If you are willing to wait that long for your resources, you really should look at HP races instead.


Agreed. What I found interesting was how the race was another example of how a test bed is just that. I was just trying to get a 2i over 25K in short space of time.

Dropping to -f settings and dropping mines by 1 gave 2 cheap techs (2.5 without the checkbox). 16% -f was 3.5 cheap.


Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Sun, 01 July 2007 13:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joseph is currently offline joseph

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol
If wanting a 2i try something more like this. Its based on what you were trying to achieve with yours - its not fantastic but should defeat your race.

PRT: IS
LRT: ISB, NRSE, CE, OBRM, NAS.
(Reasonable amount of LRTs - Would have liked RS but no points to spare. IS is one of the few races that can easily do without IFE due to their fuel transports)
G imm
T imm
R 68-88 (this will have more than double the yellows your race would have)

PGR: 17%
5/25/5 No G. (a true -f)
1/1000
10/3/9 (means mines will be 25% cheaper than with your race)
Wep&con Cheap. All else Exp. No start at 3

Tech is not as good as it could be - you could try a variant with 16% growth and start at 3 + normal energy.

Build scouts, research con4 as quick as poss, send out surp pop to best worlds (2 pvts +FT a turn). Get W6 after C4 for defence, then bio2 for terraforming, then C6-9. All of your worlds should be good enough to dump pop and send ships back to homeworld to reload.

It would certainly scare the hell out of any HP you started next to. Mad




Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Sun, 01 July 2007 14:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1180
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
joseph wrote on Sun, 01 July 2007 19:23

IS is one of the few races that can easily do without IFE due to their fuel transports)

Yes, they can. But it is VERY expensive. Just try moving 2 QJ-5 PVTs, loaded just to 80% three W-9 jumps far, and you'll see how much fuel you need for that, and how much those supporting 8 FX cost. IMO you better forget that solution with -f race, because they need to move LOTS of pop very early.

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Sun, 01 July 2007 15:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
iztok wrote on Sun, 01 July 2007 13:01

Hi!
joseph wrote on Sun, 01 July 2007 19:23

IS is one of the few races that can easily do without IFE due to their fuel transports)

Yes, they can. But it is VERY expensive. Just try moving 2 QJ-5 PVTs, loaded just to 80% three W-9 jumps far, and you'll see how much fuel you need for that, and how much those supporting 8 FX cost. IMO you better forget that solution with -f race, because they need to move LOTS of pop very early.

BR, Iztok


<shrug> I did it the one time I played a -f IS. I took cheap prop, so was able to get the Alpha drive 8 in the first 9 years, IIRC. However, I didn't use it much more that a few years. Instead, I got the Sub galactic at turn ~12. Got the Trans galactic scoop by turn 15 or 16, IIRC. I did lose some early growth potential, but I think I more than made up for it via more eff motor and less building of supporting ships. With that motor, you can reach out to grab those big breeders, +300ly away, warp 9 both ways. Smile

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Sun, 01 July 2007 15:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Iconian is currently offline Iconian

 
Officer Cadet 2nd Year

Messages: 233
Registered: January 2006
Location: Nevada, USA
Can go for con 8 instead of con 4. LF is much better than privateer. IFE is still nice though.


Yeah, bread too.

Don't Let the Stars! Fade Away

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Sun, 01 July 2007 16:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
iztok wrote on Sun, 01 July 2007 21:01

Just try moving 2 QJ-5 PVTs, loaded just to 80% three W-9 jumps far, and you'll see how much fuel you need for that, and how much those supporting 8 FX cost. IMO you better forget that solution with -f race, because they need to move LOTS of pop very early.

Maybe it is not that bad? Rolling Eyes
Has 17% PGR so starts later and expands with less?
It is 2-immune so below 6-7 greens in 190 ly range should be quite unlucky draw?
For 2-immune it is rarely a winner to take 2 years longer trip to 2 clicks greener hab colony?
Unlike AR -f does not want to spread thinly so it may carry 2 years to each closer green?
It may have LF long before most of closer greens are populated?
It may actually need about 0.5K res into (all together) fuel transports but that is hardly a biggie since it invests about 0.7K res less into (each and every) colonies terraforming?
If it needs to fly farther than 190 ly it probably has some docks OTW too?
IS does not lose as lot as others by arriving one year later since it grows OTW?

What i dont like there that most of the 2-immune speed advantage is taken back by more research needed, clumsy expansion and fight (CE) plus bigger fleet needed (no RS). Also it has no scoops so fueling the early attack fleets is expensive. I dont think it comes out of it all as winner above standard 1-immune -F IS.


[Updated on: Sun, 01 July 2007 17:05]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Sun, 01 July 2007 18:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Micha

 

Messages: 2340
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1
Seems this is turning into a 2i IS thread. Smile

I do have some experience to share since I took one into a real game once, it did perform very good, held it's own against 2 other races for 50 years during which it was in first rank for most of the time (which told me my -f had more resources than the factory based enemies). But 1 against 2 was a down hill struggle especially since they were SD+IT, two masters in defense ... and I did fail to play aggressive enough in the early years Sad which was mainly because I did not want to start fighting a potential ally (only 1 ally allowed, made me too careful) and it was my first IS race and I did not really think of starting a croby horde ... Oh, I did find an ally but did not get *any* help from him ... and worse: we shared almost the same rad band so there were only very few planets I could take in his space ...

Game ended somewhat later than 2450 I had AD8 bear weap16 beamer BBs fighting the IT's jihad BBs ... Out of 16 greens 15 were 100% and also almost 100% filled with pop and mines. The 16th green was 94% and there was one yellow of 41% ...


This race is a spin-off from my 2i -f duel JoaT (which won most of the duels I brought it in ... hm, maybe all, except the last one versus Dogthinkers that never ended ... and in which I was on the losing side)

PRT: IS
LRT: IFE, ISB, NRSE, OBRM, NAS, RS (yes a lot)
habs: grav immune, temp immune, rad 80-100, 1 in 5
growth: 18%
econ: 1/1000, 5/25/5, 10/4/10
tech: weap cheap, con normal, rest expensive, no start at 3
6 points left to mineral concentrations

Things to say about this race ... in the future I would drop IFE take con cheap and race for LFs ASAP (as I did with my JoaT), they fly very well with QJ5 and the small FX make things even easier. Being more lazy these days I'd try to drop NAS but than you need to find +/- 100 RW points elsewhere. Finding points to drop NRSE might be easier. Start at 3 would be nice since IS start with nothing but that makes the early con8 research more expensive.
I'd also go
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: Lowest Viable PGR Sun, 01 July 2007 21:19 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
Yeah IS can definately live just fine without IFE, as can many races, in the appropriate environments.

Sure fuel xports cost a bit of resoures, but don't forget they act like boosters - returning faster than the freighters they support. Also don't forget that they generate 200mg of fuel each every year.

It actually only takes 5 fuel xports to move 2 privateers three jumps (assuming the 'typical' 3 fuel pod priv design) Two of the fuel xports are only needed for the first jump. The other three need to go to the second jump before they can also turn back (able to provide 600mg of fuel to another fleet on the way home, too.) Given how quickly the fuel xports are coming home, they are far from a crippling expense.

To set up a continuous flow of privateers, two per year, all going three warp 9 jumps, you'd need 12 privateers and 16 fuel xports. By making use of the fuel generated by the returning xports that went two jumps out, you could probably shave one or two more fuel xports from the system.

This is 'worst case' scenario too... In practice you'd use less privateers and even less (proportionally) fuel xports, as a lot of your trips will actually be substanially shorter, or can refuel part way. Consider that almost any -f will want ISB (for consutruction purposes.) Docks are cheap and a few well placed ones (on reds even, if the position is usefull enough) can do wonders for your mobility. If I had to choose, I'd take ISB over IFE in most situations with IS. And with ISB, IFE seems of questionable value for IS.


[Updated on: Sun, 01 July 2007 22:12]

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: New Tachyon Detectors (TD) Question
Next Topic: FF
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Dec 18 09:43:02 EST 2017