Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » IT » -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) (Should a -f race monster conventionally?)
Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Mon, 17 September 2012 02:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XAPBob is currently offline XAPBob

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012
Rad immune would mean researching energy for terraforming...

There are as many methods of play and race design as there are Stars! players, and a few spare Smile

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Mon, 17 September 2012 02:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1364
Registered: May 2008
[XAP
Bob wrote on Mon, 17 September 2012 16:17]Rad immune would mean researching energy for terraforming...

There are as many methods of play and race design as there are Stars! players, and a few spare Smile


You need some energy for shields.

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Mon, 17 September 2012 04:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XAPBob is currently offline XAPBob

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012
Not if everyone is dead before they build a fleet Wink

I will do eventually, but I'll have W12 and C10 before N gets above 3 (unless I get some by trade) - so I'd have though that would be quite late TF for a QS?

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Mon, 17 September 2012 05:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1364
Registered: May 2008
1. -f isn't QS. QS is a different paradigm, where you take 15/8/10 or so factories and build them really quickly.

2. Well, I thought you'd be using Wolv shields on your frigate hordes.

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Mon, 17 September 2012 07:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XAPBob is currently offline XAPBob

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012
magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 17 September 2012 05:48
1. -f isn't QS. QS is a different paradigm, where you take 15/8/10 or so factories and build them really quickly.

2. Well, I thought you'd be using Wolv shields on your frigate hordes.


I'd have suggested that -f was a subset of QS. You're not going to go for a long game without factories (AR excepted)

By the time I went to war (i.e. started getting planets anywhere near another race) I had cruisers - I don't recall building nay FF or DD based warships (well, some DDs for monitoring orbits around local red planets)

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Mon, 17 September 2012 20:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LittleEddie is currently offline LittleEddie

 
Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 517
Registered: February 2011
Location: Delaware
RS is not an option! It's a must have.

You can question that as much as you want, but without RS, you are going to lose.

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Mon, 17 September 2012 22:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark Hewitt is currently offline Mark Hewitt

 
Master Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 105
Registered: June 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
LittleEddie wrote on Mon, 17 September 2012 18:32
RS is not an option! It's a must have.

You can question that as much as you want, but without RS, you are going to lose.



Hear, hear!

And -f is a subset of QS.

QS with factories usually means pop 1/1000, factories 12/8/x/3 or 4; or 1/2500 and 15/6/x/3, with mines 10/3/y, where x and y are around 17 or so. Mines have to be cheap and factories have to pay back their cost quickly, with 12/8 that's under 7 years and with 15/6 that's in 4 years. Techs are usually all exp, exp start at 3 (or 4 for JOAT), except Weapons is as cheap as the game allows.

With both QS -f and +f you send out a lot of scouts early, 10+, and grab as much real estate as possible. And you plan to hold on to it.

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Mon, 17 September 2012 23:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altruist is currently offline Altruist

 
Commander

Messages: 1068
Registered: August 2005
Location: Berlin
Mark Hewitt wrote on Tue, 18 September 2012 04:55
LittleEddie wrote on Mon, 17 September 2012 18:32
RS is not an option! It's a must have.

You can question that as much as you want, but without RS, you are going to lose.



Hear, hear!


Hehe, I do like RS and mostly I take it but I never knew I'd be doomed not taking it.

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Tue, 18 September 2012 01:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1364
Registered: May 2008
http://www.starsfaq.com/articles/sru/art226.htm

"QS - Quick start races are a special type of HG race, best used in small and tiny universe. They take very inexpensive factory settings of seven or less. QS races typically have poorer maximum growth potential than a normal HG."

QS takes narrow hab to pay for the quick factories. As such, it's almost the opposite paradigm to -f. Both are fast, but they're fast in very different ways.


[Updated on: Tue, 18 September 2012 02:13]

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Tue, 18 September 2012 01:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

I wouldn't necessarily say that you'd lose without RS, but I would say that it's easily worth 100 RW points.

[Updated on: Tue, 18 September 2012 02:04]

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Tue, 18 September 2012 06:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XAPBob is currently offline XAPBob

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012
Coyote wrote on Tue, 18 September 2012 01:56
I wouldn't necessarily say that you'd lose without RS, but I would say that it's easily worth 100 RW points.


Where from?
And add in the extra research needed as well - so you need to find the 100 points for that, and either alot MORE economy, or more economy and points for a cheaper tech.


[Updated on: Tue, 18 September 2012 06:17]

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Tue, 18 September 2012 08:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1364
Registered: May 2008
[XAP
Bob wrote on Tue, 18 September 2012 20:16]Coyote wrote on Tue, 18 September 2012 01:56
I wouldn't necessarily say that you'd lose without RS, but I would say that it's easily worth 100 RW points.


Where from?
And add in the extra research needed as well - so you need to find the 100 points for that, and either alot MORE economy, or more economy and points for a cheaper tech.


How does RS require "extra research"? Confused

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Tue, 18 September 2012 08:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XAPBob is currently offline XAPBob

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012
What's the point in RS without any shields to start with - Energy isn't on my primary research schedule at the moment.

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Tue, 18 September 2012 10:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1364
Registered: May 2008
[XAP
Bob wrote on Tue, 18 September 2012 22:44]What's the point in RS without any shields to start with - Energy isn't on my primary research schedule at the moment.


Well, you will be using some shields, and until you get to BBs there is literally NO downside (likewise, it's all-upside once you get to Nubians).

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Tue, 18 September 2012 10:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XAPBob is currently offline XAPBob

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012
With CW cheap, rest expensive I'm not researching shields early - I start with the cow, that's it for a long while (of course that is excluding trade/conquest of tech).

RS do look good - with protection, assuming they're not completely disabled in a given round, all through a fight.

But are they worth 100 points on the hab page? And another line of research (or just stick with Cows?)? And losing armour (when I'll have higher armours pretty fast, and no trouble gating it.

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Tue, 18 September 2012 12:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altruist is currently offline Altruist

 
Commander

Messages: 1068
Registered: August 2005
Location: Berlin
Coyote wrote on Tue, 18 September 2012 07:56
I wouldn't necessarily say that you'd lose without RS, but I would say that it's easily worth 100 RW points.


Luckily RS doesn't cost 100 pts but mostly +/- 10 to 20 pts depending on the number of chosen LRTs.

And I have to admit that I usually take it even with energy expensive. The first CC equipped with bazookas and 4 shields, even with the lowest shields, just looks so much better with RS. And armour is just too expensive and too heavy. The weight leads to 3 disadvantages:
* higher fuel usage
* moving first on the battle board and thus in danger of getting outmanoeuvred
* too heavy for gates (not really an IT-problem, though)
While shields are great: low cost, lowest weight, allows stacked shields, amd damage taken often enough is completly gone after the battle or at least a lot lower than without (stacked) shields.

Early on forts and especially docks rule for defense, they can fence off quite a lot (until fleets get bigger and even stations play only a minor role for defense). RS comes with a mixed blessing early on: absolutely great vs attacks with lasers but with a serious drawback vs torps. Torps are the Achilles' heel of forts and even docks have problems fencing off, let's say, 10 DD with beta-torps (especially when equipped with a RS-shield *grin). But for the fort/dock defense vs torps gets even more problematic with RS.

So, no doubt about RS being a great thing and usually I take it. But I can't remember a game of which I'd say that I had lost it without RS. And if RS would cost 100pts, I'd choose RS only in special cases and nolonger almost always.

Addon: I do like it to play with RS and energy expensive but when other players take it cheap. Just looked it up: My last game I finished with en9 (3 starting techs, 5 conquered, 1 researched).


[Updated on: Tue, 18 September 2012 12:44]

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Tue, 18 September 2012 18:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1364
Registered: May 2008
[XAP
Bob wrote on Wed, 19 September 2012 00:32]With CW cheap, rest expensive I'm not researching shields early - I start with the cow, that's it for a long while (of course that is excluding trade/conquest of tech).

RS do look good - with protection, assuming they're not completely disabled in a given round, all through a fight.

But are they worth 100 points on the hab page? And another line of research (or just stick with Cows?)? And losing armour (when I'll have higher armours pretty fast, and no trouble gating it.



What are you going to put that armour *on*?

(Also, IIRC RS shields continue to regenerate even if they're broken.)


[Updated on: Tue, 18 September 2012 18:39]

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Wed, 19 September 2012 06:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XAPBob is currently offline XAPBob

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012
"http://wiki.starsautohost.org/wiki/Regenerating_Shields"

If the first attack does not drain the shields completely, it will regenerate 10% of what is left.

--8<--

After each round of battle, the shields of surviving ships regenerate by 10% of their original strength, as long as they have not been completely drained. Once the shields on a stack are reduced to zero, they remain at zero for the remainder of the battle.


Slightly conflicting there, but clearly when at zero they stay there.


It would cost me 23 points to go to 6 LRTs, I'd probably get back 9 of those from taking RS (this is all from the wiki) - so I'd need to get 12 points from the hab page.
I'd still only use cow hide shields for a good while, but could buy firepower with Shielded FF a couple of turns before I can buy cruisers (particularly for beam ships by the look of it - Jihads need the elec slots in the cruiser).

Basically beam cruisers seem like a poor deal - although the higher level of base armour would still be a factor against missiles...
Maybe I should be looking at stacking frigates with beams and cruisers with missiles - those of course require a base or station rather than just a dock - but I should probably be upgrading my central planets base defences anyway...

Designs and counter-designs are the order of the day clearly - and RS seems to be "recommended" for early fighting (which this race is designed for - I was looking at the tech requirements for shields and the penalty for many LRTs).

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Wed, 19 September 2012 06:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1364
Registered: May 2008
Well, basically, what are you going to be attacking with early? Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers. Only Destroyers have a dedicated armour slot, and if you're using beams (which, pre-Jihads, you are) it's still going to slow them down unacceptably if you use it. And if you're not using armour slabs, then RS is an extra 40% shields for no downside. For cruisers and especially frigates, that's also known as "frigging awesome".

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Wed, 19 September 2012 09:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XAPBob is currently offline XAPBob

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012
OK - so taking all of the above, and ignoring the generic advice about not taking too many LRTs Wink (frankly the penalty isn't as severe as I'd thought it was)

IT (D'Uh)
IFE,ISB,RS,NRSE,OBRM,NAS Shocked
1/4 @19% (as before, T immune)
1/1000
5/25/5/4
10/3/10
WC Cheap
NPLB Expensive @3

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Wed, 19 September 2012 13:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altruist is currently offline Altruist

 
Commander

Messages: 1068
Registered: August 2005
Location: Berlin
[XAP
[mines:] 10/3/10


To lower the number of mines isn't a good idea. 13 was on the edge. 10 results in mineral shortage early on... probably you will have problems to build bombers.

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Wed, 19 September 2012 21:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark Hewitt is currently offline Mark Hewitt

 
Master Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 105
Registered: June 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Altruist wrote on Wed, 19 September 2012 11:51
[XAP
[mines:] 10/3/10


To lower the number of mines isn't a good idea. 13 was on the edge. 10 results in mineral shortage early on... probably you will have problems to build bombers.


I remember reading a post by Micha in which (as far as I can recall) he said from experience a -f with 10/3/13 was okay and he could have gotten away with 10/3/12, but he would go no lower.

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Wed, 19 September 2012 22:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1364
Registered: May 2008
Altruist wrote on Thu, 20 September 2012 03:51
[XAP
[mines:] 10/3/10


To lower the number of mines isn't a good idea. 13 was on the edge. 10 results in mineral shortage early on... probably you will have problems to build bombers.


I've seen people claim you can get away with 10/3/8.

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Wed, 19 September 2012 23:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark Hewitt is currently offline Mark Hewitt

 
Master Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 105
Registered: June 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 19 September 2012 20:40
Altruist wrote on Thu, 20 September 2012 03:51
[XAP
[mines:] 10/3/10


To lower the number of mines isn't a good idea. 13 was on the edge. 10 results in mineral shortage early on... probably you will have problems to build bombers.


I've seen people claim you can get away with 10/3/8.


Under what conditions? If you spread wide enough and work to get enough mines built and balance the minerals around...but what happens when you can't do those well enough? And what happens when you're on deep yellow/red worlds and you can only build mines for 5% or 50,000 / 55,000 if OBRM ?

Report message to a moderator

Re: -f benchmarks (IT or ithers) Thu, 20 September 2012 01:21 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1364
Registered: May 2008
Mark Hewitt wrote on Thu, 20 September 2012 13:31
Under what conditions?


ccmaster wrote on Fri, 29 June 2007 03:37
Would change some settings of the race before playing .
1/900 if for a HE Race to expensive the 1/1000 should do .

10/3/13 Mines is a good setting for "normal" races but for a HE -f with only 550 Res. you dont need so much minerals 10/3/8 should do.

MAybe you should think of one more tech cheap and for this not check the 3 at start. So you can faster research the Kon.3 you need for your pop-grow .

ccmaster


Not sure I agree with it myself.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Anti-Matter Generator?
Next Topic: IT without Fuel Mizer, IFE ?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Jul 21 21:07:14 EDT 2024