|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats? |
Tue, 13 January 2009 17:26   |
|
|
|
Hi ,
this would only mean that you could kolonize all the planets but have to terraform them .
This costs a lot of resources what you could spend somewhere else .
Immunity also makes the planet better you have not to terraform this hab and is always the best for your race . This weans your green planets are better so you have also better grow on it .
ccmaster
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats? |
Wed, 14 January 2009 01:54 |
|
 magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Both, usually. The exceptions are AR and HE. HE shouldn't go over 10% unless it's -f HE, because it's too expensive and you'll fill up your space too quickly.
AR doesn't need a high growth rate partially because of Death Stars, and partially because of their resource formula. Because the "population" term is inside the square root, the effect of growth rate is made smaller, while at the same time, hab affects resources as ^(3/2), because hab affects population as well as directly affeting resources proportionally. There's also the fact that AR can afford to hold most worlds at 25-33% cap because 25% pop = 50% resources.
Enough ranting. Basically, you want 1 in 4 or better hab no immune, or 1 in 10 or better one immune. The exceptions are HE, which if +f should always be bi- or tri-immune, and AR, which likes 1 in 4-5 hab one immune.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats? |
Wed, 14 January 2009 12:07 |
|
|
|
| slimdrag00n wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 19:21 |
20% POP growth:
|
About race design here some very helpful links:
* Stars! Official Strategy Guide: Basic Race Design (especially the info about breakpoints at the end after which, I bet, you won't take 20% pop growth)
* Basic Race Design by Art Lathrop
* Stars-R-Us Collection: Race Design/Strategy (within the Stars! Wiki)
| Micha wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 19:54 |
1 in 4 is good, but against humans don't go below 18% growth. Special cases like for example a HP IT or HP JoaT could live with 17% ... And a 1i AR can get away with 15% [...]
|
A hab of 1 in 4 is surely fine but for some PRTs not affordable together with factories: ITs can cope with as bad habs as 1 in 7.
| ccmaster wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 23:26 |
Immunity also makes the planet better you have not to terraform this hab and is always the best for your race [...]
|
One immunity is surely a fine thing. Usually even your worst green planets are at least 30% or better, with the other 2 bandwidth probably rather small (to pay for the costs of 1 immunity), mostly each terraform yields several procents better hab. The immunity is often bought with a smaller hab of around 1 in 10 which gets much much better when taking into account terraforming the yellows.
It depends on the game, though (as always), wether an immunity is a good choice: Terraformig costs not only time but yellow planets are also quite vulnerable. In games which you expect to be very fast paced and crowded you might not be able to afford this disadvantages.
[Updated on: Wed, 14 January 2009 12:11] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats? |
Wed, 11 February 2009 08:58 |
|
| Sully |
 | Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 39
Registered: January 2004 | |
|
Thank You for pointing me in the right direction.
I took a look at that 'Hab Calculator' and it seems to have everything I'm looking for.
It gives the % of green planets & the average % Hab that your race would have on those
planets.
So: (% greens)x(average %Hab)x(%growth of your race)=overall growth on a universal scale.
I’m just not sure if I'm interpreting my data correctly.
Example: Race A: Grav : 031/3.2 Temp: -120/120 Rad: 20/80 with 19% growth
This gives me 28.3% of all planets being green before terraforming.
The average growth on those planets would be 38.8%.
(0.283)x(0.388)x(0.19)= giving me an overall growth of 2.086%
Race B is the same as A but I reduced the growth rate to 18% and used the points to increase all
three hab widths by a click. This gave me:
(0.312)x(0.388)x(0.18)=Overall growth of 2.179%
So : Before Terraforming, a wider Hab could pay off more then a higher growth %?!
Example 2: Same two races but -/+ 15 Terra forming was used.
Race A: (0.879)x(0.595)x(0.19)= 9.937%
Race B: (0.915)x(0.599)x(0.18)= 9.866%
Once Terra forming has been taken into account: The high growth race (A) now has the upper
hand. Not by much but the differences aren’t that great.
Does this make any sense?
[Updated on: Wed, 11 February 2009 08:59] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats? |
Thu, 12 February 2009 04:22 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Quote: |
'Hab Calculator' ...
So: (% greens)x(average %Hab)x(%growth of your race)=overall growth on a universal scale.
I’m just not sure if I'm interpreting my data correctly.
|
If you're intrested just in obtaining the average growth the race will have, you can use the average hab, calculated with Hab Calc (in text below the hab graph). In the case of Humanoids it's 38.9%. Now just multiply that number with the humanoids' PGR (15%) and you'll get the expected growth, ofc. without the HW. WRT my tests the HW adds about 0.6 points to it, so I can expect "standard" Humanoids to grow at about 6.5% in a non-terraformed uni.
| Quote: |
Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?
|
What matters is what you want to achieve. Generaly speaking PGR gives speed and hab gives capacity. Too much PGR without planets to put that pop on is counter-productive. Too many planets without pop to make the capacity is also counter-productive.
The current rule of the thumb for non-3-immune races, generated in many many games played is:
- PGR 17%-19%, and
- the initial hab from 1-in-4 (you can't afford better most of the time) to 1-in-8/10 (the lower you get, the bigger the risk you'll get bad hab draw).
Those are margins, within whose you can experiment quite safely. Going outside them is a task for advanced players. For noobs it's just asking for trouble.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Thu, 12 February 2009 04:31] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats? |
Thu, 12 February 2009 12:50 |
|
|
|
| iztok wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 04:22 |
... Generaly speaking PGR gives speed and hab gives capacity. Too much PGR without planets to put that pop on is counter-productive. Too many planets without pop to make the capacity is also counter-productive. ...
|
This is exactly the point.
The topic if this thread is growth rate or hab. This is an incorrect question.
Hab should be matched with growth rate. Too much of either without the other is a waste.
The question really is how much Hab and Growth (= expansion) do you want versus everything else.
naz
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?
