Home » Primary Racial Traits » HE » Why 3%?
Why 3%? |
Thu, 14 August 2008 07:38 |
|
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 22:36 |
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 08:25 |
|
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 17:20 |
|
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%? |
Sat, 06 December 2008 13:31 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1207
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.
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Why 3%? |
Sun, 07 December 2008 11:36 |
|
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.
|
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.
-Matt
...
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 14 22:58:15 EDT 2024
|