Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » HE » Why 3%?
Why 3%? Thu, 14 August 2008 07:38 Go to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
How does it have any advantages over the 4% save slightly more pop resources and slightly faster factories? And how can that even hope to make up for the 25% reduced growth rate?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Thu, 14 August 2008 11:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joseph is currently offline joseph

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol
The answer is probably that you wouldnt. The State of the Art low grow HEs are normally 4-5% these days.
I remember reading a thread that compared the 4% and 5% (but I cant find it now) and I think the 5% was considered the best.

However lets assume you are going for a 3% and want to know what advantages it has.

First the growth disadvantage is not as stark as you think for 2 reasons.
One pop in transit doesnt grow and having a higher growth rate means that more pop will be in transit at all times.
So lets say its 23% less rather than 25%.
Second when your borders clash with other players and you need to stop expanding #Assuming the same number of planets#
the 4% will hit 25% pop level first and will then be growing slower.
Assuming he is just that bit further up the curve than you at all times we can say that once crowding has hit he will only be preforming 15-20% better than you at growth.

Second think about why you chose a low growth HE and what you need to win.
So a LG HE needs a bit of peace and quiet to get going and have all that low growth start compounding to where 3% (or 4%) of the growth of the total pop is quite a large figure.
What you want is to claim a small bit of the universe and then colonise with 200kT pop all 20 to 30 worlds fence it off with minefeilds and get all the worlds to greenline their queues just before you hit 25% levels and need to expand.

Here lets say that with the points from the move of 4% down to 3% all you did was drop your factory costs by 1 (so from 7 to 6 OR 6 to 5).
So your factory costs are (roughly) 15% less and a 200kT world will be reaching its 1300kT holding level several years later (30 rather than 25 years).
This means you will greenline earlier and be getting the tech you need in order to fuel your expansion.
(Oh and the 15% less cost compares quite well with the 23% less free pop resources as your factories make up more than 60% of your total resources when you industialise)

In summary the 4% HE will come out of "hibernation"
...




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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Thu, 14 August 2008 22:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
Hmm. Is the higher mine eff and lower cost good as well?

Tell me what should be tweaked about these.

4%
HE
ISB, OBRM, RS
3i, 4%
1/800
15/7/25/3g
17/3/25
Bio expensive, rest cheap

3%
HE
IFE, ISB, UR, MA, OBRM, RS
3i, 3%
1/700
15/5/25/3g
25/2/25
Bio expensive, rest cheap.

I'm thinking about GR for the 3%, seeing as it'll help you a bit maxing all tech a bit faster. Thoughts?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Thu, 14 August 2008 23:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ccmaster is currently offline ccmaster

 
Lt. Commander
Dueling Club Administrator

Messages: 985
Registered: November 2002
Location: Germany

Hi ,

if you tell us why you want to play a such low grow HE we could answere you better .
And if you want to play a 3-4% growing HE you will normaly killed early .

And i would never take 1/800 or even 1/700 for a HE . It brings only a minimun better Resources for the planet at the cost of hundreds of Points in the Race Wizard .
I would go for a 6% maybe even a 7 % 3i race . Will to a much much better job in most games .


ccmaster

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Fri, 15 August 2008 04:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
AlexTheGreat is currently offline AlexTheGreat

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 661
Registered: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
I totally agree with CCMaster.

A 4% or worse HE is very unlikely to survive the early years &, though you will probably be #1 some time in the first 20 years, you will also probably be ranked last by 2450-60 even if you managed to NAP everyone. If you survive until late in the 2nd century you will be in a strong position but few games even last that long.

IMO 6% is the lowest viable growth rate for a 3i HE.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Wed, 03 December 2008 14:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neilhoward

 
Commander

Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023
Better pop efficiency and lower factory costs both argue for 3% in my book. This helps on both ends. Faster factory compounding and better max resources per planet. Lower growth rate helps justify having a larger percent of total pop in transit each year afaic. If you are willing to go as low as 4%, you might as well take 3%.

[Updated on: Wed, 03 December 2008 14:08]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Wed, 03 December 2008 21:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
neilhoward wrote on Wed, 03 December 2008 13:00

Better pop efficiency and lower factory costs both argue for 3% in my book. This helps on both ends. Faster factory compounding and better max resources per planet. Lower growth rate helps justify having a larger percent of total pop in transit each year afaic. If you are willing to go as low as 4%, you might as well take 3%.


Wow. Old thread...

3% is to slow for pop growth.

You don't need the extra pop growth for resources, you need it to control all the factories you can build. 3% just gives to many extra points, but you can only go up to 15/x/25 on factories. What most fail to figure out is that you are better off putting your rw points to 15 eff factories, and all 25 per 1000 pop, rather than 1/700 pop eff.

Also, it's alot like playing an AR early game. You need strong diplomacy to survive. However, If you make it to ~Y2475 intact, you can really inflict some damage.

-Matt



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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Thu, 04 December 2008 03:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1202
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
mlaub wrote on Thu, 04 December 2008 03:59

If you make it to ~Y2475 intact, you can really inflict some damage.


IMO that's not valid even for a 4% HE. Assuming 7.4% achieved growth (my best with 3-imune 4% HE at turn 50) that HE would have about 11M pop. That's only 22 full planets, or 44 planets at 50% pop. I had more pop with non-immune races in real games at turn 50.

WRT the 3% HE: with the same growth it would have hard time to even grow 3M pop at turn 75. Shocked

The answer to original question "Why 3%?" is for me very clear: if it isn't mandatory, then never Exclamation

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Thu, 04 December 2008 08:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
I'm currently testbedding a 4% HE, and you can definitely achieve good pop growth if you take full MM and use an "incubator" colonising strategy. That is, at the start of the game, you choose what year you want your planets to hit 25%, and then stick to that, sending at first low amounts of pop to colonise, e.g. if the coloniser is going to get to its destination at 2420, and you want to "finish incubation" at 2460, then send 6400 pop (=137500 * (1 / 1.08) ^ 40, rounded UP, not down). This way, all pop moves only once, which boosts growth. Your worlds will all greenline their queues at around 2430-2440 if you calculate your loads to 2460. Problem with this is: you can't change the plan once you've started. You're locked in. But this will give 12k+ by 2450, not bad for what is really an HP, and you'll have good tech by the time your colonies all hit 25% and you need to expand. This approach also has the nice advantage that you can establish your territory early, since with loads starting small and going up, most of your colonisation will occur towards the start, not the end.

EDIT: I now, after having testbedded, support the view that 3% HE is inferior to 4% HE, due to the fact that the 4% is limited by pop, not by anything else.


[Updated on: Thu, 04 December 2008 08:26]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Thu, 04 December 2008 10:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1202
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
magic9mushroom wrote on Thu, 04 December 2008 14:25

This approach also has the nice advantage that you can establish your territory early

I'm afraid this aproach will rather give a nearby HG or a -f a lot of free tech and colonies. Shocked

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Thu, 04 December 2008 10:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
Not really a lot of free tech, unless for some reason they don't have con-4 or prop-2. Rolling Eyes Yes, a HG or -f can make itself a PITA for any HP including 3i HE. I know. But any other colonisation strategy will lose more pop in transit, and will be easier to lockdown.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Thu, 04 December 2008 14:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
johng316 is currently offline johng316

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 177
Registered: November 2002
Location: Indiana, USA
Yes, there is no real reason to take 3% over 4% 3i. Both can have 1/1000 colonist efficiency with maxed factory settings (cost 5). The 4% HE economy is therefore constrained solely by pop growth.

The 4% to 5% 3i tradeoffs become more interesting. To go to 5%, you have to sacrifice some mine and factory settings, but this gives a much faster start at the expense of needing more turf and *maybe* plateauing economically sooner. Which is better depends entirely on the game situation and playing style.

3% IMO is way too slow to be viable, you gain nothing in econ over 4% and don't have enough pop to operate all those wonderful factories. The only thing you might gain is a few LRTs and maybe ALL cheap tech. Any gain in pop efficiency is marginal at best because of lower POP overall. There are many advantages to lots of population.



All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Thu, 04 December 2008 17:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
iztok wrote on Thu, 04 December 2008 02:15

Hi!
mlaub wrote on Thu, 04 December 2008 03:59

If you make it to ~Y2475 intact, you can really inflict some damage.


IMO that's not valid even for a 4% HE. Assuming 7.4% achieved growth (my best with 3-imune 4% HE at turn 50) that HE would have about 11M pop. That's only 22 full planets, or 44 planets at 50% pop. I had more pop with non-immune races in real games at turn 50.
BR, Iztok


I think you are missing something Iztok. I am taking this from real game experience. I'll see if I can dig up one of my 4% HE games where I won.

If IIRC, the Huge game I played a 4% HE, everyone quit in the early 2500's, because I had more nubs than all the remaining players combined. I remember that game specifically because:

1. I had a extremely difficult time finding anyone to tech trade with for the entire game, and eventually gave up looking after I was called a liar at around 2460? From my memory, I advertised to one neighbor all my tech, asking for trades, and his response was something along the lines of "Bullsh*t, I am allied with the #1 player, and even he doesn't have that good of tech".

2. I was considered insignificant for the first 65 years, as I only grabbed 30-40? planets, all close to my HW. I played some of my best diplo, and for some reason no one considered me a threat.

3. I wiped out a neighboring race, essentially doubling my space (actually more space than I could use right away). This alerted several neighbors that I was not a warm fuzzy race, and IIRC, 5 races declared war on me. After some good border fights, I had eliminated most of the enemy fleets attacking me, and was expanding as explosively as a 4% HE can grow.

Not sure why you think I am wrong...

-Matt


...




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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Fri, 05 December 2008 11:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neilhoward

 
Commander

Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023
mlaub wrote on Thu, 04 December 2008 02:59



Wow. Old thread...



Not in 3% 3i HE time.

zoid wrote on Fri, 21 February 2003 06:06


Not me. I've sworn off of HE; As soon as I finish the game I'm playing an HE in, I'm off the HE for good.

And playing an all HE game would take the fun out of being an HE, for me. I like the 3% tri-immune variety, and in a game like this the universe size would likely be medium-sized at best, and someone if not everyone would play a high growth -f design and ruin all my fun. Heck, I'd be dead before it ever got good! Very Happy My 3% tri-immune needs lots of space and 900 years or so to get going. Laughing As for playing the aforementioned HG -f HE, that just doesn't appeal to me.

The Zoid is so awesome.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Sat, 06 December 2008 13:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1202
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
mlaub wrote on Thu, 04 December 2008 23:20

Not sure why you think I am wrong...

Please don't feel offended. The 11M pop _IS_ a limit to resources, but the 3.5 or more cheap techs really make an impact in any stage of the game. Especially when one doesn't need to dump zilion resources into terraforming.

I fully belive your story is true, but one statement bothers me:
Quote:

I advertised to one neighbor all my tech, asking for trades, and his response was something along the lines of "Bullsh*t, I am allied with the #1 player, and even he doesn't have that good of tech".

What person can say that, when the proof in the form of scrappers is just 2 turs away? I refuse to belive that Stars! is played by such silly persons. Wink

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Sat, 06 December 2008 20:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Marduk is currently offline Marduk

 
Ensign

Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
iztok wrote on Sat, 06 December 2008 13:31

What person can say that, when the proof in the form of scrappers is just 2 turs away? I refuse to belive that Stars! is played by such silly persons.

Believe it. I played a game off autohost, and since I didn't know the skill levels of any players involved I played all out. They accused me of cheating because I was winning as an IT in a war with a JoaT, an IS, a CA and I think the other was a WM. The 'host' said it was impossible and refused to look at the turn files to confirm that I wasn't cheating... and the cheat I was supposedly doing was adding population to empty ships, which is quite simple to check for if a bit time-consuming.

I think they didn't know an IT can gate population. Or ships... they made no effort to coordinate and so I just gated the same fleet around wiping out every attacking fleet while all my shipbuilding went into my own attack fleets.



One out of five dentists recommends occasional random executions to keep the peasants cowed and servile.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why 3%? Sun, 07 December 2008 11:36 Go to previous message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
iztok wrote on Sat, 06 December 2008 12:31

Hi!
mlaub wrote on Thu, 04 December 2008 23:20

Not sure why you think I am wrong...

Quote:

Please don't feel offended.



I'm not. I find it amusing when people argue point, that I have real game experience contradicting.

Quote:

The 11M pop _IS_ a limit to resources, but the 3.5 or more cheap techs really make an impact in any stage of the game. Especially when one doesn't need to dump zilion resources into terraforming.


Yep, it is a tough limit. I probably did worse than you are saying, would like you to check. I pulled up the stats. Game ended at Y2511:

Cap ships= 3466
tech levels = 134 (24,26,23,26,24,11)
Resources = 218k
score = 11k

Check to see how I did mathematically.

Quote:

I fully belive your story is true, but one statement bothers me:
Quote:

I advertised to one neighbor all my tech, asking for trades, and his response was something along the lines of "Bullsh*t, I am allied with the #1 player, and even he doesn't have that good of tech".

What person can say that, when the proof in the form of scrappers is just 2 turs away? I refuse to belive that Stars! is played by such silly persons. Wink


LOL. He wasn't the only silly person in that game...

2 turns away, if he let me prove it, and I was so inclined. After his message, I saw no reason to prove it. Wink

-Matt



...




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

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Cool HE
Next Topic: 4% HE tutorial
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Mar 29 09:17:34 EDT 2024