Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » -f question
-f question Mon, 02 June 2008 01:13 Go to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
How are -f races any more powerful than ARs, given that ARs tend to have better pop eff from 2415 on?

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f question Mon, 02 June 2008 01:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adacore is currently offline Adacore

 
Chief Warrant Officer 2

Messages: 156
Registered: February 2005
Location: Shanghai
I'd guess there are two points here (but being totally inexperienced in MP, I may be way off the mark): vulnerability and race creation points.

ARs are notoriously vulnerable to attack in the early-mid game - it's a lot easier to get enough of an element of surprise (or simply enough brute force in the mid game)) to take out a starbase than it is to wipe out an entire planetary population, at least until the late game when fleets that can glass planets in one turn are common; plus it can take longer to get the planet up to the same level of development after a freighter evacuation - a -f can just recolonise, popdrop and everything's back up and running instantly even on a large planet, while an AR has to build another big, expensive base to hold all the people. -f races are famous/notorious for being resiliant and very hard to kill, when played correctly - the whole 'let them hit air' tactic, whereas AR races have the opposite reputation.

The other thing is in race creation - a -f race is powerful because it's set the factory settings to the worst possible and, in doing so, got a whole heap of points to play with. An AR doesn't have those points, so can't take as many advantages in the LRT/hab/tech sections as a -f would have. I'm at work now, so can't fire up race creation and look at the exact differences, so I'm not sure exactly how pronounced they are. I do know that AR normally has to take relatively low growth % in order to build a good race, which is the exact opposite of a -f and not good for early-mid game.


[Updated on: Mon, 02 June 2008 01:42]

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f question Mon, 02 June 2008 01:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neilhoward

 
Commander

Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023
1 Harder to kill.
Bombing or pop dropping make invasion fleets more expensive and heavier (reducing fuel efficiency and cloaking effectiveness). F'less can jump ship and can build defenses

2 AR max pop is determined by station type maker it weak in the early game

3 AR planetary resources are Dependant on energy tech as well as population which require them to survive to the mid-late game for full potential

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f question Mon, 02 June 2008 02:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
Adacore wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 15:38

I'd guess there are two points here (but being totally inexperienced in MP, I may be way off the mark): vulnerability and race creation points.

ARs are notoriously vulnerable to attack in the early-mid game - it's a lot easier to get enough of an element of surprise (or simply enough brute force in the mid game)) to take out a starbase than it is to wipe out an entire planetary population, at least until the late game when fleets that can glass planets in one turn are common;


But it's on the other hand easier to pop-drop a planet than to blow up an AR starbase, in the very early game (to 2415 or so), as the latter can be armed very easily, and defenses are hard to make effective early.

Adacore wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 15:38

plus it can take longer to get the planet up to the same level of development after a freighter evacuation - a -f can just recolonise, popdrop and everything's back up and running instantly even on a large planet, while an AR has to build another big, expensive base to hold all the people. -f races are famous/notorious for being resiliant and very hard to kill, when played correctly - the whole 'let them hit air' tactic, whereas AR races have the opposite reputation.


Not true at all. A -f race (non-AR) has to rebuild mines (3300 resources), defs (500 of each min + 1500 resources) and possibly terraforming, if against CA and not CA oneself (500 res+). Getting a DS back up is easy, due to the fact that you just dump 500k, build a dock, dump 2m more, build DS. Takes only about 4 turns total to do that. And then you just stick on a gate and gate in some superbugs, or stick on a driver, and you're back to a full production centre (which has 2.5 times that of a non-AR -f, I might add). Rearming the DS, though, does take time, but then again, the Kill Starbase order means that often you just don't bother.

Adacore wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 15:38

The other thing is in race creation - a -f race is powerful because it's set the factory settings to the worst possible and, in doing so, got a whole heap of points to play with. An AR doesn't have those points, so can't take as many advantages in the LRT/hab/tech sections as a -f would have. I'm at work now, so can't fire up race creation and look at the exact differences, so I'm not sure exactly how pronounced they are. I do know that AR normally has to take relatively low growth % in order to build a good race, which is the exact opposite of a -f and not good for early-mid game.


On the other hand though, an AR gets resources just for spreading his pop out, very different to a -f. Also, ARs aren't swimming in points, but they're not that badly off either. And growth % isn't what is the most important for AR, because they can build better breeders (500,000 grows at full rate on an ultrastation) and don't have the same hab limits on pop as others. I agree that really low growth is bad, but 15% is fine for an AR given that you have far more space to grow pop in, and that your resources spent into terra boost your resources. (Almost a substitute for factories there, come to think of it...)


[Updated on: Mon, 02 June 2008 02:32]

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f question Mon, 02 June 2008 03:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adacore is currently offline Adacore

 
Chief Warrant Officer 2

Messages: 156
Registered: February 2005
Location: Shanghai
magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 02:30

But it's on the other hand easier to pop-drop a planet than to blow up an AR starbase, in the very early game (to 2415 or so), as the latter can be armed very easily, and defenses are hard to make effective early.


Not really - a -f race can pretty easily put up the exact same starbase as an AR at any given planet, the difference being that once the starbase is gone the enemy still has to bomb or invade the planet. Sure, the AR get a (completely undefended) starbase from year 1 while -f don't, but by year 2 or 3 the -f can have exactly the same base up - the only difference is the cost of an empty orbital fort hull, which isn't exactly huge.

magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 02:30

Not true at all. A -f race (non-AR) has to rebuild mines (3300 resources), defs (500 of each min + 1500 resources) and possibly terraforming, if against CA and not CA oneself (500 res+). Getting a DS back up is easy, due to the fact that you just dump 500k, build a dock, dump 2m more, build DS. Takes only about 4 turns total to do that. And then you just stick on a gate and gate in some superbugs, or stick on a driver, and you're back to a full production centre (which has 2.5 times that of a non-AR -f, I might add). Rearming the DS, though, does take time, but then again, the Kill Starbase order means that often you just don't bother.


If you've got deathstars then it's mid, if not late game, by my book. Certainly not 2415. But anyway - your weaponless deathstar is, surely, exactly the same as a -f without defences and, if your opponent is (for some reason) not using scorched earth tactics, the mines can simply be recaptured. I'd personally worry a little about the vulnerability of remote miners as well - all well and good if you can predict attacks, but if anyone gets the element of surprise both your pop and your miners are toast.

magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 02:30

On the other hand though, an AR gets resources just for spreading his pop out, very different to a -f. Also, ARs aren't swimming in points, but they're not that badly off either. And growth % isn't what is the most important for AR, because they can build better breeders (500,000 grows at full rate on an ultrastation) and don't have the same hab limits on pop as others. I agree that really low growth is bad, but 15% is fine for an AR given that you have far more space to grow pop in, and that your resources spent into terra boost your resources. (Almost a substitute for factories there, come to think of it...)


And spreading the pop out makes them harder to defend and slower to grow (arguably, anyway).

What this will keep coming back to is that blowing up bases is pretty easy, even if they've got 500k pop in them. Capturing planets with 500k pop on them is not (so) easy, and the lost pop will grow back a lot quicker for a -f as well.


[Updated on: Mon, 02 June 2008 03:28]

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f question Mon, 02 June 2008 05:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
Adacore wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 17:22

magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 02:30

But it's on the other hand easier to pop-drop a planet than to blow up an AR starbase, in the very early game (to 2415 or so), as the latter can be armed very easily, and defenses are hard to make effective early.


Not really - a -f race can pretty easily put up the exact same starbase as an AR at any given planet, the difference being that once the starbase is gone the enemy still has to bomb or invade the planet. Sure, the AR get a (completely undefended) starbase from year 1 while -f don't, but by year 2 or 3 the -f can have exactly the same base up - the only difference is the cost of an empty orbital fort hull, which isn't exactly huge.


Crap. I totally forget about that, why was I stupid enough to forget that... 2 Guns Going insane Whip

Adacore wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 17:22

magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 02:30

Not true at all. A -f race (non-AR) has to rebuild mines (3300 resources), defs (500 of each min + 1500 resources) and possibly terraforming, if against CA and not CA oneself (500 res+). Getting a DS back up is easy, due to the fact that you just dump 500k, build a dock, dump 2m more, build DS. Takes only about 4 turns total to do that. And then you just stick on a gate and gate in some superbugs, or stick on a driver, and you're back to a full production centre (which has 2.5 times that of a non-AR -f, I might add). Rearming the DS, though, does take time, but then again, the Kill Starbase order means that often you just don't bother.


If you've got deathstars then it's mid, if not late game, by my book. Certainly not 2415. But anyway - your weaponless deathstar is, surely, exactly the same as a -f without defences and, if your opponent is (for some reason) not using scorched earth tactics, the mines can simply be recaptured. I'd personally worry a little about the vulnerability of remote miners as well - all well and good if you can predict attacks, but if anyone gets the element of surprise both your pop and your miners are toast.


You were talking about big, expensive bases, don't see much else around that's as expensive as those. Of course you can do the same with USs. My point is that even if you lose a DS, you can have it back up again fast.

Adacore wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 17:22

magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 02:30

On the other hand though, an AR gets resources just for spreading his pop out, very different to a -f. Also, ARs aren't swimming in points, but they're not that badly off either. And growth % isn't what is the most important for AR, because they can build better breeders (500,000 grows at full rate on an ultrastation) and don't have the same hab limits on pop as others. I agree that really low growth is bad, but 15% is fine for an AR given that you have far more space to grow pop in, and that your resources spent into terra boost your resources. (Almost a substitute for factories there, come to think of it...)


And spreading the pop out makes them harder to defend and slower to grow (arguably, anyway).

What this will keep coming back to is that blowing up bases is pretty easy, even if they've got 500k pop in them. Capturing planets with 500k pop on them is not (so) easy, and the lost pop will grow back a lot quicker for a -f as well.


True, but your lack of needing to build mines and/or defs means faster to recover. Also, AR can strip pop from other worlds easily and not lose much resources. They can also have much greater resources on an outpost colony with few people than a -f. Good during wartime.
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f question Mon, 02 June 2008 08:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 02 June 2008 07:13

How are -f races any more powerful than ARs, given that ARs tend to have better pop eff from 2415 on?

1) In early game -f have minerals, AR doesn't.
2) For killing AR you don't need bombers (that can also be intercepted).

In late game is the situation quite different. The AR's the fastest rebuilder of destroyed planets, because he doesn't need ANYTHING on the surface:
Turn 1: just a colonizer, several LFs of pop and ~200k of each mineral.
Turn 2: orbital (Dock or Ultra) with gates and 500-1000 res output.
Turn 3: gated-in robo-miners (that mine on arrival!), improve orbital / produce ships / do research / whatever. Thumbs Up

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f question Mon, 02 June 2008 12:40 Go to previous message
neilhoward

 
Commander

Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023
It really is a matter of early game versus late game. I think an AR has more potential if it can survive.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: BB question
Next Topic: chaff question
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon May 06 01:58:39 EDT 2024