Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » AR design
Re: AR design Thu, 03 August 2006 10:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 789
Registered: October 2003
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Quote:

minimum min/resource spend is to acheive W9 for 3 years at all times

You can look at minimum 6 years rather than 3 if you reuse transportation and insist on never using gates or spacedocks partway on return trip. Spreadsheet needs to count 1200 extra fuel generated by SFX over 6 years, which is partly offset by MF+SFX weighing more.

Useful to count fuel consumed by empty version over 3-6+ years to notice that sometimes better to leave SFX out there at warp 5-7 doing other work if half full.

Eg: supposing 240 ly in 3 hops: (Double these for full round trip at warp 9)

SFX: 119kt consumes 1286 fuel, but generates 600, so net usage 686.

LF: 133kt consumes 1436 fuel.

MF: 64kt consumes 693 fuel.


100ly over 3 turns, SFX generating fuel while intercepting next load: consumes 109 fuel while generating 600 net gain of 491.

You may get hint that round trips aren't always the best. (SFX consumes more than half of its own fuel doing 240ly round trip at warp 9).


Transport always has to return to a pop surplus centre (stardock or better desirable to drop off iron), sfx can visit any stardock.

Anytime you reduce trip for one component by a turn you reduce minimum round trip for that component by 1/3 meaning less ships needed.

You want to haul small loads of iron to spacedock or better from colonies that won't be having spacedocks for quite a while.

Defense is harder to count in a spreadsheet, but imo important for colonies 240 ly out. Jack of all trade refuel ships like SFX help defense.

...

For ideal colony size calculations:
Mining = SQRT(population)/10

Colonization mission -- leaves 75% of the minerals used in construction on the surface of the planet

Hab doesn't affect mining.


...



[Updated on: Thu, 03 August 2006 11:07]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Fri, 04 August 2006 10:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
multilis wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 17:36

You may get hint that round trips aren't always the best. (SFX consumes more than half of its own fuel doing 240ly round trip at warp 9).


Exactly, so think now of QJ5 MF. SFX got to babysit it most of the time ... alone it can barely carry its own weight. 125kT is max cargo with what it can take 81 ly alone for full fuel. I often want to return the iron from colony to HW with MF... if the colony is far it cant bring 50kT iron on its own ... what a ship. Confused

The sole pop breeder during first 20 years for 15% growth race is HW. So most pop comes from HW and so SFXes need to return there to aid MF-s to take at least first 81 LY in any direction. Nod

But... enough of bla-bla. We have said our opinions and read others. All seems clear. You say MF is better i say 6 MFs built early is plenty and LF is better.

Lets just compare fleets? ... first 20 years are the most critical time for IFE-less race ... after that it has TGFS or at least RHRS ... so fuel is no concern.

My suggestion for 15% IFE-less AR fleet after first 20 years in packed universe is about:
Arrow 15 or so scout built for scouting or boosting Pintaes later generally smooth the fuel situation
Arrow 6 or so MF built during first 10 years
Arrow 6 or so LF built after 2411
Arrow 2 or so SFX ... SFX is sometimes very cost efficent solution. They may also heal warships later, but fuel is barely concern after TGFS.
Arrow 5 or so of 25-35 Pintaes

What is your suggestion for the IFE-less AR fleet size at 2420?

...

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Sat, 05 August 2006 11:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 789
Registered: October 2003
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Quote:

125kT is max cargo with what it can take 81 ly alone for full fuel. I often want to return the iron from colony to HW with MF

Yes, typical transaction may look like: MF meets SFX at my colony 160 ly away from HW. SFX tops up fuel tank. Next turn SFX goes off on different mission at warp 7, MF loads iron and hops towards HW at warp 9 and another SFX meets MF half way. Second SFX then continues drifting out at warp 6 to get into position to be second stage booster for another shipment leaving HW turn after.

On ships by turn 20:
Likely no LF as only Con7, extra invested in Energy to boost research rate. As many MF as needed with each MF almost always moving at max rate. SFX, I will build extra in years that dumping the resources in research yields no gain, so that following year don't have to build SFX and thus dump more into research. Surplus SFX move at slower warp into better position as boosters.

Details vary depending on what I am trying to accomplish, existance of stardocks and if I have need of prop tech for defense. Normally I may try to cloak my prt and colony positions by orbital hops, but that can cost.


[Updated on: Sat, 05 August 2006 11:50]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 09 August 2006 11:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
crr65536 is currently offline crr65536

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005
Hi.

I did not know AR could pull off so many resources, so I was trying to replicate your accomplishments with this race:

AR
ISB, ARM, NRSE, NAS, LSP
Gravity: Immune
Temperature: -64 C to 112 C
Radiation: 16 mR - 54 mR
1 / 5 initially habitable, 18%
1 / 10 Divisor
Energy, Weapons normal, Construction cheap, rest expensive.

I know this race is suboptimal, but I wanted to fit ARM in there, and that led to some of the other changes.

Here's the general strategy I used:
Research En to 5.
Research Con to 8 (achieved 2412)
Research En to 8.
Get some weapons and biotech for terraforming (queue on all planets is max terraform 1%)
Research Con to 12 (achieved 2428)
Build Ultras in place of space docks.
Research En to 12
Research Weapons to 10
Research Con to 17 (not achieved until 2446 Sad )
Build Death Stars and research En until 2450.

It seemed to start out okay, but I only got 23k resources at 2450 (in tiny packed) despite a high iron concentration on the HW. Part of this is because I was reluctant to return iron to the HW as many initially habitable worlds had very low iron concentrations. I also got pretty lazy with pop transfer towards the end. Wink Are there other things I could do to improve this performance?

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Sat, 12 August 2006 20:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
crr65536 wrote on Wed, 09 August 2006 18:55

Are there other things I could do to improve this performance?


What i think your AR had high growth rate and so got to hurry to C12 fast. I usually had N10 before C12.
Take growth down to 16% widen the hab for gained points and try again?

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Sun, 13 August 2006 01:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 789
Registered: October 2003
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Quote:

I was reluctant to return iron to the HW as many initially habitable worlds had very low iron concentrations

Colonise iron rich reds with low pop amounts. You gain minerals and often few resources at cost of slightly lower pop growth.

Quote:

energy normal

while this is acceptable, there is a temptation to go energy cheap... energy is tradeable (for weapons, etc), helps early ramp up and terraforming, and gives you better shields/mass drivers for defense.

I agree with Kotk that your pop growth rate seems too high.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Mon, 14 August 2006 01:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
crr65536 is currently offline crr65536

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005
Alright, I tried again with this race:

AR
ARM, ISB, NRSE, NAS
immune to gravity
-88 C - 88 C
16mR - 60 mR
15%, 1/5 habitable
1/10 divisor
En, Con cheap, Weapons normal, rest expensive

My research went as follows:
En to 5
Con to 8 (2411)
En to 10
Con to 12 (2426)
Bio to 3, Weapons to 5
En to 15
Con to 17 (2443)
Weapons to 10
En to 19 (2450)

Testbed behavior:

Colonized all reds, returned iron, dropped ~20000 colonists on reds, double that on yellows & greens. Built docks (eventually ultras / death stars) at yellows / greens, built nothing at reds.

Default Queue:
1% terraforming, became 100% terraforming at 2445
Cleared at reds (no production at red planets)

Behavior that would have been different in a real game:
Got a comet at a yellow planet near the HW - couple 100kT more minerals.
No prop or elec research
Weapons is at 10 at the end of testbed (most likely would have researched weapons before con 12 in a game)

Things that may have worsened testbed performance:
Built some remote miners (Potato Bugs)
Bad pop management (would appreciate advice on this one Wink )

However, at the end I only have 25k resources! Sad Mad


Now I think that I'm not doing the pop distribution right. Only the HW and three planets near it got to 25% on Ultras (HW was the only planet to ever have a space station) so those planets were the only breeders. Some of the other planets built Pintas, SFX's, etc., but didn't export pop. Confused

With colonizing, do you colonize the closest planets first or the ones with the highest hab first? I colonized highest hab planets first, so all greens were colonized before starting on reds, etc. Is this incorrect? Also I only sent one freighter to each planet (tried to distribute pop evenly so maximize sqrt effect). Maybe I should have done that differently?
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Mon, 14 August 2006 12:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Hi!

crr65536 wrote on Mon, 14 August 2006 08:58

Default Queue:
1% terraforming, became 100% terraforming at 2445
Cleared at reds (no production at red planets)


Kagemm, am I understood correctly - you used 1% auto teraforming at start for all planets? If yes, then no wonder you got that result - teraforming is a main thing AR should do on greens, andgreen poanets quite often have more than 100 resources (so can teraform more than 1%).

Quote:


Now I think that I'm not doing the pop distribution right. Only the HW and three planets near it got to 25% on Ultras (HW was the only planet to ever have a space station) so those planets were the only breeders. Some of the other planets built Pintas, SFX's, etc., but didn't export pop. Confused

With colonizing, do you colonize the closest planets first or the ones with the highest hab first? I colonized highest hab planets first, so all greens were colonized before starting on reds, etc. Is this incorrect? Also I only sent one freighter to each planet (tried to distribute pop evenly so maximize sqrt effect). Maybe I should have done that differently?



This depends on your tech research needs. If you need a lot of early tech research, you probably can sacrifice some economy like you did for that purpose and have better spread-outr of people. I guess this is quite essential for AR in crowded games. Otherwise, instead of spread out, you should care more about quicker breeding, and thus you should fill in big greens first rather than spreading out. More people on big green - more growth, quicker teraforming, you would be able to export pop from there quicker etc. Try another tactic: teraform to max, export pop to big greens first, establish solid bases, then spread pop from such bases. You should have few such sites at year 30, so at year 50 you should have a lot of child of child planets around such sites and spreed up effect (but with a bit more pop than in your test).

Few tricks also:
- pop grows after building, so you need to upgrade starbase only for the year
...




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Mon, 14 August 2006 14:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
crr65536 is currently offline crr65536

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005
Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 14 August 2006 12:19

Hi!
Kagemm, am I understood correctly - you used 1% auto teraforming at start for all planets? If yes, then no wonder you got that result - teraforming is a main thing AR should do on greens, andgreen poanets quite often have more than 100 resources (so can teraform more than 1%).



Yes, I had a queue of 1% auto-terraform for all greens & yellows for the first 45 turns. Should this be auto-terraform 100% all the time? Very Happy I only did 1% so I'd do lots of research, but that probably wasn't the right move. Laughing

Quote:


This depends on your tech research needs. If you need a lot of early tech research, you probably can sacrifice some economy like you did for that purpose and have better spread-outr of people. I guess this is quite essential for AR in crowded games. Otherwise, instead of spread out, you should care more about quicker breeding, and thus you should fill in big greens first rather than spreading out. More people on big green - more growth, quicker teraforming, you would be able to export pop from there quicker etc. Try another tactic: teraform to max, export pop to big greens first, establish solid bases, then spread pop from such bases. You should have few such sites at year 30, so at year 50 you should have a lot of child of child planets around such sites and spreed up effect (but with a bit more pop than in your test).



Okay, thanks, I'll try that. Smile

Quote:


- you mentioned that you built SFX - did you try to avoid that? Wink Refuleling docks (even on reds) may help here a lot. Sfx costs a lot, so I usually try avoid use of it.



No, not really - at end of testbed I had 36 SFXs. Seems like without it I can't go warp 9 for distances - maybe this was a bad move? I could have done with less, but built extra because they make fuel management so much simpler. Very Happy It miniaturizes a lot by the time I have Ultras, so I didn't find it to be expensive, probably I should reconsider.

Quote:


- when you upgrade starbase, see if you can upgrade to a larger one r
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Mon, 14 August 2006 15:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
crr65536 wrote on Mon, 14 August 2006 08:58

Alright, I tried again with this race:
That race should get 30k+ resources most of the time in tiny packed.

If you want short comment ... from your description it seems you held back with terraforming ability and terraforming in general. Instead you grabbed C12 early, did grow 4 good places to 500 000, and rest of places did not manage to develop timely. If you hold back with pop management of terraforming you get multiple penalties with AR:
1) pop that is spread better produces more resources
2) terraforming takes time so the earlier you start the earlier you are done.
3) later you got to carry large amounts, 500 000 grows 75 000 per year that is not so easy to carry at propulsion 0.
4) planet value is outside SQRT in resource formula so improving it gives often better results than researching energy. Wink
Quote:

My research went as follows:

Energy cheap? So go after N7 first.
Then C8.
Then you have some places where to terraform so B1, W1, B2.
After then N10, B3, W5, not neccessarily in that order, take the order that maxes resources in given universe. Wink
I would also take P5 before 2425 in real game, but for maxing grav immune its useless. If there is time until 2425 research energy ... say to N13.
Then take C12. Your C12 at 2426 was way too early for 15% growth, say 2431 is OK.
After that W10. Its clearly best investment both in real game and in testbed.
In real game also L7, P9, C13 are needed after W10 but for squeezing max out of a race these are not needed. Very Happy
Then N16, B4 these take for sure before C17.
Then comes question what to take ... C17, W16 or energy and if and in what order. With max resource aim just take C17 and then energy.
Quote:

Bad pop management (would appreciate advice on this one Wink )

Close enough pop management boils down to trick that you should not grow planet bigger if somewhere else is less than 1/4 of it. Wink You may ignore the places that are reds or below 40% value at N16 and W10 max terra (or P10 if its rad immune), but re
...



[Updated on: Mon, 14 August 2006 15:50]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 15 August 2006 04:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Hi!

Kotk wrote on Mon, 14 August 2006 22:45


Close enough pop management boils down to trick that you should not grow planet bigger if somewhere else is less than 1/4 of it. Wink You may ignore the places that are reds or below 40% value at N16 and W10 max terra (or P10 if its rad immune), but rest should have at least 1/4. Nod



Well, just to add to above: 1/4 is not for bad greens. (With 1/5 of habitable planets, you probably would have little of good green planets.)

There is a trick here that you should think about well too: if planet is bad green, but could be teraformed to a quite good green (80-100%), it is often worth to bring there slightly more than 1/4 of pop, teraform it quickly and get it's growth _much_ better, as well as much better resources -> one more breeding site for pop exporting. Around 30th I get few such planets too together with others.

Personally, I think that spreading out should not be equal for all greens, but depend on the hab% of planet and hab% after teraforming.

Quote:


Similarily ultrastation is no excuse to grow above 240 000 somewhere unless you have 60 000 everywhere.



Ultra can hold 2,000,000, so you probably meant here 500,000? If actually 240,000, than what is a point here in hanging pop in space instead of growing with full rate on the breeder planet with cap below 25%??? That's something new for me Wink Does better spreading out covers such pop growth loses?

Quote:


If you play further then keep greens 1 500 000 hold, Reds keep at at 250 000; fill 100% planets to 3 000 000; then fill all 90%+ planets to 3 000 000; then keep below 90% greens at 1 500 000 and just collect pop from there. Does not matter if you win or lose on warfronts, both ways you need fresh pop now and then. Wink



One more new thing for me! Why you fill 100% to 3,000,000 first? Is not it better to fill in worse planets to 3,000,000 first? By that, 100% planets would give much better growth so you would end with more pop afterall. Well, this gives less resources, but pays off in the long
...




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 15 August 2006 08:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 15 August 2006 11:48

Personally, I think that spreading out should not be equal for all greens, but depend on the hab% of planet and hab% after teraforming.

You forget that i just cannot spread the 265 900 HW pop at 2407 in the way that at 2408 HW has 24 000 pop and 40 future OK greens have 6 000 pop. Nod

However ... if it was possible then i would do it immediately!!! Twisted Evil 6 000 greens have 40 resources in average say 17 greens = 680 res, 23 yellows do 18 resources each ... 414 res, hw does 130 res. So that operation would cause the 432 resources at 2407 to raise to 1224 resources at 2408, pushing my race half decade ahead of time. Also it means i have 335 mines instead of 51 immediately, bye-bye mineral troubles! Very Happy I have no need to spread pop further before 2420, can concentrate on other things.
Unfortunatelly i am limited with pintaes, freighters and distances right from the start. So i got to carry as lot i can to as good places i can to and as far i can, and 1300 resources i reach only around 2414 and the first ones i colonized get up and start to breed while there are still some not colonized places. Wink
Quote:

Quote:

Similarily ultrastation is no excuse to grow above 240 000 somewhere unless you have 60 000 everywhere.

Ultra can hold 2,000,000, so you probably meant here 500,000? If actually 240,000, than what is a point here in hanging pop in space instead of growing with full rate on the breeder planet with cap below 25%??? That's something new for me Wink Does better spreading out covers such pop growth loses?
I mean what i say. I have tried various ways ... other strategies are weaker. The point of having cap at 12% instead of 25% is that it takes bloody 5 years of valuable spreading time to grow from 12% to 25%. Its dumb thing to mushroom your pop with other place underpopulated!
Quote:

One more new thing for me! Why you fill 100% to 3,000,000 first? Is not it better...

No it is not better. Options: You trust me or you testbed it out like i did? Wink Why to argue without testing it?
Quo
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 15 August 2006 09:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Hi!

Kotk wrote on Tue, 15 August 2006 15:51

Quote:

Quote:

Similarily ultrastation is no excuse to grow above 240 000 somewhere unless you have 60 000 everywhere.

Ultra can hold 2,000,000, so you probably meant here 500,000? If actually 240,000, than what is a point here in hanging pop in space instead of growing with full rate on the breeder planet with cap below 25%??? That's something new for me Wink Does better spreading out covers such pop growth loses?
I mean what i say. I have tried various ways ... other strategies are weaker. The point of having cap at 12% instead of 25% is that it takes bloody 5 years of valuable spreading time to grow from 12% to 25%. Its dumb thing to mushroom your pop with other place underpopulated!



Will try it. You may be right if consider quicker teraforming. However, there is a travel time as well and need in research. Razz Will see how research requiremets fit into such economy model...

Quote:


Quote:

One more new thing for me! Why you fill 100% to 3,000,000 first? Is not it better...

No it is not better. Options: You trust me or you testbed it out like i did? Wink Why to argue without testing it?



I do not argue Very Happy. Just want to know why it's better without testbed Wink Anyway, if you wish to do not explain your POV in detail, I will just do one more testbed as you suggested. Cool

Quote:


Quote:

43k is cool! I got 44k only once, and it was in small packed (do not have backup though...)

Two topics below we had discussion with you about hab ranges ... there you clamed your race did make 40k in medium packed. Rolling Eyes Trust me ... 43k in tiny packed with AR is FAR from usual result. It took me long time of trying various sorts of ARs.



I trust you - I know what you mean Smile That's why I said that its cool.

Quote:


Quote:

Well, your race have completely different playing strategy than the one that crr65536 used.

Are you sure...? My race has 17 greens in tiny packed in average while his race has 13 greens. Both have about 25 yellows 5-10 of whose may be ignored without much affect to
...




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 15 August 2006 11:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 15 August 2006 16:30

Kotk wrote on Tue, 15 August 2006 15:51

The point of having cap at 12% instead of 25% is that it takes bloody 5 years of valuable spreading time to grow from 12% to 25%.

Will try it. You may be right if consider quicker teraforming. However, there is a travel time as well and need in research. Razz Will see how research requiremets fit into such economy model...
Travel time is actually shorter because the lower you hold the sooner you breed from multiple places.
Quote:

I do not argue Very Happy. Just want to know why it's better without testbed Wink Anyway, if you wish to do not explain your POV in detail, I will just do one more testbed as you suggested. Cool

I am no math teacher, but okay i try... Laughing
Simple example situation: you have 32 planets. 20 are 60% planets and 12 are 100% planets, all planets are fully terraformed and 1 500 000 full, max energy. Now the QUESTIONZ:

How many all 60% planets grow per year together?
How many all 100% planets generate resources per turn?
If you fill all 100% planets up how many they generate resources?
How many LF of pop you need to fill up all 100% planets?

How many all 100% planets grow per year?
How many all 60% planets generate resources?
If you fill all 60% planets up how many they generate resources?
How many LF of pop you need to fill up all 60% planets?

So what strategy you suggest for faster ramp-up and why? Cool

Quote:

Well, I forget that you use tiny universe that makes such limitations. Shocked Will try it by self and see.
Yes ... most hard is to get good resources on reasonably sized territory with AR. Good opponents avoid games with more than 30-40 planets per player, so if you aim for good game then train with little territory. Wink
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 15 August 2006 13:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Kotk wrote on Tue, 15 August 2006 18:59

I am no math teacher, but okay i try... Laughing
Simple example situation: you have 32 planets. 20 are 60% planets and 12 are 100% planets, all planets are fully terraformed and 1 500 000 full, max energy. Now the QUESTIONZ:

How many all 60% planets grow per year together?
How many all 100% planets generate resources per turn?
If you fill all 100% planets up how many they generate resources?
How many LF of pop you need to fill up all 100% planets?

How many all 100% planets grow per year?
How many all 60% planets generate resources?
If you fill all 60% planets up how many they generate resources?
How many LF of pop you need to fill up all 60% planets?

So what strategy you suggest for faster ramp-up and why? Cool



Well, tried to calculate and here is what I got:

Assume we have En22, /10 divisor and 15% growth rate. Assume also that we have 15 100% planets and 25 60% (for simpler math). Assume we move all pop in 2 years (average).

100% planet generates 1816 resources.
60% generates 1089.
At 3M of pop:
100% planet generates 2569 resources.
60% generates 1541.
So, if we fill in one 100% planet instead of one 60% to 3M of people, we get (2569 - 1816) - (1541 - 1089) = 301 resource more. It looks like packing of 100% planets first is better.

Now, 100% planet at 1.5M grows with rate 100,000 pop. 15 planets give 1,500,000 of pop. Other 60% planets also grow with rate 60,000, that gives additional 1,500,000 of pop. This allows fill in 2 planets at the first year.

Now, strategies to compare:
1. 100% first strategy.
First 3 years we just grow and pick up pop.
- year 3: we pack 2 100% planets, so we get more resources there, but no growth. Now we have 1,300,000 each year off from 100% planets. 6M of pop in flight.
- year 4: 4 planets packed, 100% planets give 1,100,000 each year 5.8M of pop in flight.
- year 5: 6 planets packed, 5.4M in flight, 100% grow by 900,000
- year 6: 7 packed + one almost packed (ignoring here), 5M in flight, 100% planets grow
...




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 15 August 2006 19:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 15 August 2006 20:29


CONCLUSION: packing 100% first is better if you are critical in techs research for next 30 years. Otherwise, if you can wait, after 30 years or so, you will end up in more total resources invested into reasearch/building than with strategy 1, as well as in 15 years you get better resources output than withs trategy 1.

Strange conclusion. Confused Okay ... so during first 13 years the strategy 1 collected 21k more resources. Then 22 500 000 pop of strategy 2 was in flight during 2 years (188 LFs in action!!!) strategy 1 collected another 21k more during these 2 years. Was it all worth for 2 to get .9k more resources? Very Happy Also where you took 30 years? .9k pays 42k that was lost ... ~46 years. Nod If noone grows nothing nowhere they are even again after 60 years from start of experiment. Surprised Laughing
Quote:

So the right path would be filling in 100% planets first, unless you have allies that you trust or unless it is a team game Wink
Hmm... but hurting yourself hurts your alliance also. So why to do it?


[Updated on: Tue, 15 August 2006 19:53]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 16 August 2006 07:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Hi!

Kotk wrote on Wed, 16 August 2006 02:51

Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 15 August 2006 20:29


CONCLUSION: packing 100% first is better if you are critical in techs research for next 30 years. Otherwise, if you can wait, after 30 years or so, you will end up in more total resources invested into reasearch/building than with strategy 1, as well as in 15 years you get better resources output than with strategy 1.

Strange conclusion. Confused Okay ... so during first 13 years the strategy 1 collected 21k more resources. Then 22 500 000 pop of strategy 2 was in flight during 2 years (188 LFs in action!!!) strategy 1 collected another 21k more during these 2 years. Was it all worth for 2 to get .9k more resources? Very Happy Also where you took 30 years? .9k pays 42k that was lost ... ~46 years. Nod If noone grows nothing nowhere they are even again after 60 years from start of experiment. Surprised Laughing



Well, actually few things improve above Deal :
- if you do nto stop at year 13, few more years of growth of 100% planets that gives more than 904 resources/year of improvement.
- growth of planets during the 2-year trip to fill 100% planets (with strategy 1 you would not have it)
- above process is very rough. In real game you would fill in worse planets first and there would be 80% planets that you would fill a bit later - this gives even better overall number of pop you can use for packing.
- above process is very rough - assumed average flying time is 2 years. In actual game you would not try to fill in 2 planets each year. Instead, you would fill the closest planets through several years. Average time in space would be less than 2 years. So, when moving pop from 60% planets to 100% planets, some of 100% planets will be filled in in 1 year, not in 2.

If account all above, things are not that bad Cool. Anyway, strategy 2 gives benefit after too long time of waiting. Its up to your choice and situation in the game Smile

Quote:


Quote:

So the right path would be filling in 100% planets first, unless you have allies that you trust or unless it is a
...




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 16 August 2006 12:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 16 August 2006 14:46

Well, actually few things improve above Deal :

Okay i failed to teach you mathematics. Sad You did all calculations ok, but you do not see what matters, the area below curve.

For home lesson there is strategy 3 for you: hold all planets at 50% for 20 years, then drop. All is maxed. Is it best strategy or is it worst strategy? Rolling Eyes

None of these strategies i use in real game. In real game i use the strategy that i posted, where at year 11 my 100% planets are full. I dont fill them 60% planets. Rest of the pop i use at captured or recaptured planets. Its wargame not fill-all-up game.
Confused Razz Cool

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 16 August 2006 15:58 Go to previous message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 789
Registered: October 2003
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Quote:

AR
ARM, ISB, NRSE, NAS
immune to gravity
-88 C - 88 C
16mR - 60 mR
15%, 1/5 habitable
1/10 divisor
En, Con cheap, Weapons normal, rest expensive

Rather than 2 medium width habs, 1 wide and 1 narrow gives you quicker initial terraforming/good breeders.

Specialise your planets, some are best as breeders (terraform), some are good position for stardock, some are best left focusing on research. You don't spread evenly, you only have so many breeders so they get more filled, but you can can spread thin (as lots to choose) on reds/poor greens to get more minerals from less pop.

If iron is your bottleneck then you likely aren't harvesting from iron rich reds early enough.


[Updated on: Wed, 16 August 2006 16:02]

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Iperithon's AR
Next Topic: colonizing reds
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Aug 19 19:15:50 EDT 2019