If you can finished the game before Prop 9 tech (and the TGRS) comes, then NRSE is a bonus in RW points without any drawback. But I imagine that's rare in a game.

Rather than the question of whether the race design needs the points from NRSE, I'm wondering about the choice of trading ramscoops for the IS-10. The ramscoops are useful for being cheaper, lighter, and getting fuel back at lower warp speeds. The IS-10 allows you to go Warp 10 without risk of ship loss at Prop 11, but it's a heavy and expensive part.

When you absolutely, positively, have to get there, you go Warp 10 and take the 10% losses. But can doing Warp 10 without that risk before Prop 16 be so important that it calls for NRSE and the IS-10?

Report message to a moderator

Mark Hewitt wrote on Sat, 19 September 2009 12:21

If you can finished the game before Prop 9 tech (and the TGRS) comes, then NRSE is a bonus in RW points without any drawback. But I imagine that's rare in a game. Rather than the question of whether the race design needs the points from NRSE, I'm wondering about the choice of trading ramscoops for the IS-10. The ramscoops are useful for being cheaper, lighter, and getting fuel back at lower warp speeds. The IS-10 allows you to go Warp 10 without risk of ship loss at Prop 11, but it's a heavy and expensive part. When you absolutely, positively, have to get there, you go Warp 10 and take the 10% losses. But can doing Warp 10 without that risk before Prop 16 be so important that it calls for NRSE and the IS-10?

Don't forget the RADRAM. For races without IFE (and with rad immune) it's really a fantastic engine.

Earlier warp 10 is definately a big plus of NRSE, but that said the IS-10 is extremely expensive, and the ship weight a serious drawback if you're trying to choose the range your ships fight at. As you say, you may be better of using a lighter, cheaper engine and just sacrificing 10% of your ships now and then if you really need to.

The main 'problem', on that note, is a psychological one. You have to be ruthless about your decisions to send them warp 10. And you do have to juggle with the possibility your opponent might try to maneuver you into positions where you will need to move at warp 10 just to defend against a feint - losing 10% of your ships, but then not actually managing to get into combat anyway.

I recall one game where I used the FM on nubians instead of the IS10, since I'd calculated I only broke even after I'd lost 20% of that design to engine problems - so it was a worthwhile choice for the gatable ships. I haven't done the math on earlier ship designs... But I think the IS-10 would add even more to a cruiser or battleship design, but the battle speed would be more benefit in those cases, with less slots available for jets.


My opinion is that both -NRSE and +NRSE are valid choices. It's another of the 'razor edge' choices. The longer the game, the better -NRSE is. Factoryless races enjoy -NRSE more than factoried ones, since they have more germ to spend. Ironically, in sparse universes +NRSE looks a bit better to me - since there's going to be more 82 to 100 ly spaces between stars, that the IS10 would be nice for hopping.

[Updated on: Fri, 18 September 2009 22:35]

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Mark Hewitt wrote on Sat, 19 September 2009 04:21

But can doing Warp 10 without that risk before Prop 16 be so important that it calls for NRSE and the IS-10?

My grudge with scoop engines is they all need too much research for:
- decent engine for colony drive (prop-8 SGFS has very similar properties as FM, but its tech costs are way too high to be used for that),
- for good combat speed and
- for W-10 speed.
If I want to expand fast in a wide space, and I'm not playing the HE, nothing beats the Fuel Mizer.
If I want a fast beamer with scoops, is the first good engine the tech-9 scoop, but then there's nothing "revolutionary" until prop-16. Before that it's simply impossible to get a 2.25 battle speed BB, and if a player wants better combat speed, he MUST sacrifice slots on ships for man-jets/OTs, instead for warfaring equipment.

Also, if a player wants scoops, he'll probably chose prop at least normal. However the player with no scoops can take prop expensive, and save ~100 RW points, which can be invested into better econ, that will easily compensate for higher standard-engine costs, and will (likely) make him combat-ready earlier than the player with scoops. The "NRSE+prop expensive" combo is IMO unbalanced versus scoops. That's why I tried to change that in a mod I did some time ago.

In that mod I (among other things) lowered tech requirements for scoops for 1-2 levels (RADRAM at prop-4, SGFS at 6, TGFS at 8, TGSS at 11, TGMS at 14, and GS at 18), and "price" and weight of them for ~10%. IIRC in following testbeds the SGFS still couldn't fully replace the FM (a bit too expensive to research it only with the HW at the start of the game), but the needed research (prop price normal) was doable with 2-3 planets around turn 15. After that I haven't needed better engine for quite a long time, but they were still avalable for less investment, than in original Stars! IIRC the main disapointment was when I still had to wait for prop-16 to get grav terra-15.

Anyway, when I considered the observed performance, and compared it to performance or the "IFE+NRSE+prop expensive" combo, I've felt I've made a viable alternative to it, at least for non-crowded games.

BR, Iztok

[Updated on: Sat, 19 September 2009 07:28]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

FM is great, but it's expensive: IFE costs you upwards of 75 RW points.

Yeah, but IFE also reduce your fuel consumption and give you one free prop level at the start of the game.

You need to be able to compare the whole thing if you wish to decide if it is worth it or not. I clearly remember that having that one prop tech bonus was definitely worth it in certain special cases, like duels for example.

If you plan a race so you can attack your neighbors fast, IFE is a must not only because you don't need to concentrate as much on a non war-mongering tech tree but also because it give you tactical advantages like being able to surprise your ennemie(s) by going warp 10 with low tech engines while they might think that it is impossible because they didn't take into consideration the 15% fuel saving. Which add up in the long runs.

(Being the author of the IFE Wiki entry helps knowing about all those details. )

Report message to a moderator

Oh yeah, there's no doubt IFE is a powerful LRT. Expensive, but fairly priced.

I'm just saying it's not an imbalanced 'automatic pick', in the same way that, for example, NAS is for a JOAT or SS race

Report message to a moderator