Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » AR - TT vs ARM
| AR - TT vs ARM |
Tue, 26 November 2002 13:58  |
|
|
|
(TT= total terraforming and ARM= Advanced remote mining for the *really* new people)
Sort of relating to the new game idea I posted is a bit of help for new people...
Basically when designing an AR race u get left with the choice of ARM or TT and can only take 1. Taking two costs too much and having neither is just a bad idea.
I'm in favour of TT, not to increase my ability to terraform but to simply make terraforming cheaper.
I mean 30 less resources per 1% difference would suggest you can terraform a planet is 30% less time, but it's actually faster than that.
Since your resources are dependant on the planet value, each time u increase you planet value, the resource output increases. As such your planet will accelerate to optimum for the planet faster than with non-TT races. And with AR the sooner you reach optimum the sooner the planet becomes idle and as such can build lots of warships/miners/new colonisers/or just sit on it's arse and research.
ARM gives you gateable miners, 2 free ones to start and cheaper/better mining robots, but not much else.
I've found that by 2450 with the right AR race I can have 50% more resources with TT and only a touch less minerals than by only taking ARM different.
Thoughts/feelings/abuse/ideas all welcome.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: AR - TT vs ARM |
Wed, 27 November 2002 13:56  |
|
|
|
TT i prefer to ARM. The better mining is good, but we can always hope for the alien miner.
TT allows more planets and more resources.
ARM gives you more minerals per planet for less.
Since AR is a -f race by nature ARM is the obvious choice i suppose. But TT gives a quicker ramp up time - which is nice.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: AR - TT vs ARM |
Wed, 27 November 2002 20:23 |
|
|
|
As a one immune AR, you should always colonise any yellows too, TT expands the total number of planets you'll inhabit. AR can however already get yellows at working speed pretty quickly(as their is a 25% minimum hab value for production and Starbases are the people limit). Hope these tidbits help.
Email me as ----jeffimix@----yahoo.com----
(remove dashes)
The spamatron! run!!!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: AR - TT vs ARM |
Sun, 01 December 2002 10:38 |
|
| BlueTurbit |
 | Lt. Commander
RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 |
Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
A testbed is simply that. A testbed. Remember, the bed you make, you also have to sleep in.  A race that does well in a test bed can and often will do poor in a real game. The game is the ultimate testbed. In a game there are human competitors that change the variables. There is diplomacy and basic human unpredictability to deal with, whereas in a testbed all you compete with is yourself. In a testbed you simply go for all the planets you want, but in a real game you don't have that option as other races are grabbing their planets and territories also.
they set borders they attack unexpectedly, etc. I have played a Ducknoid type AR in testbed that did extremely well, even against expert AI in follow up test, but in a real game this kind of race did poorly. The only thing that saved it in real game was an alliance with a strong IT living next door, that protected the AR.
A good article posted by Leonard Dickens on RGCS Subject: AR Guide.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&a mp;th=b49f527008e0b961&rnum=1
Here is part of it:
Outline
-------
ARs Compared to Normal Races
Game Strategy
Game Parameters
Race Design:
LRTs
Hab and Growth
Coefficient
Research
Playing ARs
Early game
Mid and late game
Special AR problems
Warfare
ARs Compared to Normal Races
----------------------------
ARs work very differently than the other races in Stars. This section touches on each significant difference, and its effect on race design or game play.
** Starbase Habitat: ARs live in starbases. Thus, while they use the planetary compat as do normal races for purposes of determining the growth-rate modification of the pop growth formula, they do *not* have the same planetary maximum populations. Instead, they get a fixed maxpop determined by the starbase type:
orbital fort 250000
space dock 500000
space station 1000000
ultra station 2000000
death star 3000000
** No factories: ARs cannot make factories, but rather, get resources
...
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: AR - TT vs ARM |
Fri, 06 December 2002 13:54 |
|
|
|
I think it's possible for AR to do without TT and ARM. But for this you need a damned good hab range.
bi immune or a slow growth tri immune are your best chances. I have a 12% bi immune race that can handle a lack of TT and ARM. Mainly through rushing towards the packet launchers. Though costly resource to build and maintain it allows you to get away with expensive heavy miners. The tri immune keeps all your planet values really high to ensure not only minimal terraforming but also that despite costing more resources to terraform you start with more resources and require less terraforming.
If you've got a 1 immune 2small hab range then neither ARM nor TT is a bad idea. One or the other, both would be too expensive.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: AR - TT vs ARM |
Sun, 08 December 2002 20:22 |
|
|
|
ZZZs gave me an odd thought:
Tri-immune AR
Colonize the 30 some planets immediately around your home world.
Ignore Min. concentrations, the planets are for resources.
Use colony ships w/ fuel pods to move populations (22KT)
If you see HE buy his freighters .
Use Packets and remote mining at home to keep any bad planets set up. AR with death star can have triple growth(1million at 33%)
So early game hurts (after initial colonizations of like 100 people)
Mid Game, at-least you are very compact so you can be less valuable a takeover than other races(I could conquer you but he's got less defense/planet and more planets. So I'll bother you.... until its too late if you're good at diplomacy)
The home world builds up min-font until about 200-300 fleets (or more) exist. It can start pretty early with this design, advantages of the design being compact empires.
AR can definitely recover low growth most easily of all stars! PRTs. (Maybe excluding CA)
Almost forgot, The tool of diplomacy: Hey, want 30,000 Kt Boranium to not kill me? People won't right away and later they'll love you since (for tech mebbe) you give out minerals like theres no end. And you can use packet flingers for freight(small empire+W10 packets because of Energy research of the AR means possibly W13 freight)
[Updated on: Sun, 08 December 2002 20:25]
Email me as ----jeffimix@----yahoo.com----
(remove dashes)
The spamatron! run!!!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: AR - TT vs ARM |
Thu, 12 December 2002 04:15 |
|
 zoid |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
ZZZ, all this discussion about AR's has got me designing and testing one AR race after another, but darned if I can see what you all see in that PRT. Everyone I perceive to be expert Stars players seem all aglow about AR's, but to me AR seems absolutely the most hopeless of any PRT by a huge margin.
Please don't tell me it's because I'm ignorant and don't know how to play Stars (I already know that). 
Obviously, not having to build factories and mines is nice, but I've seen races that seem to be monsters by comparison that can mitigate the time and resources needed to build those mines and factories to the point where that is inconsequential, and have a booming economy from the start, and only growing stronger with time. The formula used to determine the resource production of AR's seems so weak, I feel like ANY PRT without factories and mines is just about as capable. I've tried various settings of the ONE factor you're allowed to adjust, and it makes little difference that I can tell. Same with the Energy tech, it just doesn't seem to have that much affect on the formula. I also know that planet habitability is a factor, and population is a factor, but NOTHING seems to have any SIGNIFICANT affect for producing resources.
Please don't tell me it's because I'm a mathematical IDIOT who can't work the formula (I already know that).
While it's apparent to me that this race is no quick starter in any form, I can find little benefit in the long run either, aside from the oft-mentioned "mineral fountain". Surely that is not what makes people (the same who think HE is the worst PRT) speak kindly of the AR PRT, because some have disparaged the 3% tri-immune HE's and we know they have plenty of minerals too, more than enough for the end of a huge game. Strangely absent from all this discourse (which often points out that AR saves lots of resources and minerals by not building factories and mines) is the fact that lots of minerals and resources are used up building scads of remote miners. One mig
...
[Updated on: Thu, 12 December 2002 04:18]
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math? Ummm, sure!  I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: AR - TT vs ARM |
Thu, 12 December 2002 14:02 |
|
|
|
All of your points are fairly valid. However you miss a few great reasons in favour of AR.
1. You are not dependant on Geranium. Ironium is quite essential for miners but excluding that you are dependant on very little. This lack of need for Geranium means you can trade it with other races. Lets face it you need it, AR has it... in abundance.
2. Losing a planet is not such a huge cost. It may seem that way but it's not. Enemy sends in the cavalry and you rip all but the very last unit of your population. If you lose the planet you lose the starbase, defensive ships and one unit of people. If you were any other PRT you lose your factories, mines, defenses, any terraforming (if CA which is likely from beginners), defending ships, starbase, etc... In other words you have more to lose.
3. The further spread your population the better resources. The resource formula is based on square root. The higher your pop the more you lose out. This is not the same for other races. Once again, losing 1 planet from hundreds is minor compared 1 from 20.
4. Miners can rip a planet dry of minerals and move on. Mines on planets cant. They just sit there and try to bleed the last drop of minerals out.
5. Max population growth is achieved at 33% capacity, i.e. 333,300 on a none ORBM none JOAT race. With AR and a death star it's 1,000,000 - basically you can export 3 times MORE population per turn from major worlds. Nifty eh?
6. Total immunity from mass packets - I'd like to see a mass packet kill AR populus - if it does then something MAJOR went wrong
7. Faster research. Since you can donate easily 50-80% of your resources from fully terraformed planets without losing out you can research much faster. AR can have the technology for Juggernaught BB's with Gorilla sheilds and Valanium armour by 2450. 25k by 2450 is impressive, but those BB's are something entirely different.
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: AR - TT vs ARM |
Sat, 14 December 2002 14:33 |
|
|
|
There's the best performing AR race I have built thus far.
PRT - AR
LRT's - IFE, TT, ARM, IS and NAS
Growth - 19%
hab range
grav: 0.56 to 1.84
temp: -76 to 84
rad: 31 to 71
annual resources sum - 10
Cheap tech - energy, construction and bio tech
Expensive - weapons, propulsion and electronics.
Now before anyone screams "expensive weapons!!!!", I know.
This race requires diplomacy. The idea behind the race is to research construction and energy which ensures that your race grows on a planetary level and on a resource level. Bio to allow you to expand that short hab range and improve your planets.
Like most games you reach a point where borders crop up - TT and cheap biotech allows you to make use of planets you missed earlier. I got 22k from 20 planets - tech 17 for energy, bio and construction. All planets had mines and 10 bb's in orbit.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: AR - TT vs ARM |
Sun, 15 December 2002 07:17 |
|
|
|
There is no test bed standard. Barry Kearns had the best idea for a standardised test. It didn't involved resources of planets or anything - just how long it took to build 100 of X type ship. Armageddon BB's I think.
The idea being that races like AR that have half the minerals of monster races still stand a chance because AR has technology advantages.
-F races get technology and mineral advantages.
Normal standard races get resource advantages.
As such each type should get an equal chance.
As for AR growth tactics I've found these points to be the best idea...
1. scout like crazy - the minute you fond someone get friendly quick and negotiate as large an empire as u can be keeping other races borders back. If they don't get friendly then attack. You have more spare resources in the early game than ANYONE else.
2. I've found while launching loads and loads of colonisers an effective way of expanding it's a bad way of keeping territory.
3. With a high growth race let the pop grow to 1/3 max of the current starbase. Before it reaches that point make sure you've got a fair few freighters, medium if you don't have large. You'll also need to have colonised the biggest green planet you've found and then keep exporting population over the 1/3. Once you've developed that nice fat green the process starts again - but now you're developing 2 planets with those 2. once done develop 4 planets with 4 developed and so on and so forth.
4. tech - research to tech 2 in prop FIRST (fuel mizer... essential). Then pump into energy upto tech 6 (a break point for cost vs gain on research). Construction upto tech 8 (large freighters and super fuel). Energy to 10 (break point/bear neutrino). Construction to 12 (ultra station). From this point onwards depends on your goals and galactic state. If war looms - weapons, if borders are strangling you - Bio, if still wanting more pop/resources then construction/energy. If minerals are shy then electronics.
5. Minefields. I didn't mention bio tech 4 but it's one
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: AR - TT vs ARM |
Sun, 15 December 2002 12:51 |
|
| Apelord |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 99
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
Wrt point four: Early tech management is critical for an AR. There are some very things to shoot for with most AR designs. Here's the basics but bear in mind some of this changes depending on your race design, particularly if you don't take ISB (which I do not recommend, but I have seen AR's do well without it, just not any I have ever designed).
First: Energy tech determines your resource per pop output and the first levels of energy produce large % gains in resources.
Second: If you took IFE (again nearly a must for most games), then prop 2 for the fuel mizer is vital.
Third: If you took ISB, then con 4 otherwise con 3. Con 4 gives you Space Docks which double the max size of your colonies.
Fourth: Con 7 elec 4 for the first decent miners.
What I typically do is manage my research input such that I get an Energy level each turn and switch feilds to Prop. This pools resources into prop and by 2404-05 typically gives me energy 5 and prop 2 + some con. My early target is energy 6, con 4 prop 2. After that it depends. You need to evaluate your mineral situation and your planetary situation. You will eventually need con 7 and elec 4, but some terraforming may give you substantial boosts as well. I really like to get a feild and switch since it allows you to avoid spending extra for a level and does help to speed up.
By 2412 you should have energy 6/7, large freighters, and be working on some weapons. By 2420 you should be able to build colloidial cruisers and be on your way to the tech 12 miner. This requires getting additional levels of energy, maybe terraforming, etc. What is important is to use technology to get more mineral efficient ships. I.e. large freighters insstead of mediums (I rarely use privateers with AR's unless needed for that early jump to a good world). By 2425 at the very LATEST (earlier if possible) you need to be building frigate minelayers. Good minefeilds go a long ways towards helping you survive, no minefeilds make you a sitting duck. Lay lots lay consta
...
[Updated on: Fri, 26 January 2007 06:10] by Moderator
"The object of war is not to die
for your country but to make
the other bastard die for his" -George PattonReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: AR - TT vs ARM |
Mon, 23 December 2002 13:04 |
|
| Apelord |
| Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 99
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
It doesn't exclude you from getting the standard terraorming technologies. They will not show up in the research pane however (another small bug) but you do get them. Hence taking bio to 4 for mines and weapons/prop/energy to 16 will give you terraforming +-15%.
"The object of war is not to die
for your country but to make
the other bastard die for his" -George PattonReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 20 05:45:23 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: AR - TT vs ARM
Re: AR - TT vs ARM