Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » AR design
Re: AR design Mon, 10 July 2006 14:17 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, 10 July 2006 21:03

Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 10 July 2006 17:25

I talked about the margin after which wider hab is not good. Either you misunderstood, or I wrote badly.

Yes i misunderstood that you didnt read the post you replied to. Where had i to know that you started to argue with me "no, kotk, things what you never sell for hab are way better than hab." Laughing



Funny thing is that I did not argue at all. Just tried to explain that wider hab is ok, but not too wide... Laughing

Quote:


For fine example what i mean ... the races what you posted to duel me had divisor 13. I dislike increased divisor lot more than want to have wider hab.


Why? SQRT formula makes /13 is not very different from /10.

Quote:


Probably I would take it back to 10 and pay with tech and/or hab not in the other direction.


Yes, I selected more cheap techs and that is why /13 divisor. We may use /10 and have more expensive techs.

So, would you play a duel?



WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Mon, 10 July 2006 14:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1190
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Quote:

that's another point why wide hab is bad, include AR

Erm, I don't quite understand this. By this logic 3-immune HE shouldn't work at all. Wider hab just means more of everything. In most cases (but MM Wink ) that's good.

Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 10 July 2006 13:26

Let's assume that from 9 planets you get 135 mines equivalent (150 from 10 as you said). You can build 3 mining rbots instead and have 108 mines equivalent. And mine minerals 2 turns (or more) earlier! Is that much different? I think YES. What's wrong in this logic?

Noting is wrong. It's just different approach. When I started exploring AR in details I too used to build some mini miners with Maxi-miner robot. However there were two problems I usually met:
1) I could build them only on HW, and it was rarely rich enough to allow those miners pay for themself in the time I got tech for Super-robot miner. If I've built Stations on rich green planets, I created a germ shortage there, that in some cases limited building of Ultras ~8 turns lately.
2) It was also big fuell problem to move those heavy miners to even remotly far planets in reasonable time.

So in my latest games I dropped that concept, because at the time I really needed more minerals I already had tech for Ultrastations and with them the tech for Super robot.

Now I grow pop on Docks, and even allow some moderate crowding there and exporting pop to nearby reds, while "rocketing" for con-12 (sometimes even before en-10). Meanwhile all those yellows/reds provide enough minerals for nearby green planets to easily build there Ultras and Super-robot remotes at the time tech for them is available.

BR, Iztok
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Mon, 10 July 2006 15:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 10 July 2006 21:17

Why? SQRT formula makes /13 is not very different from /10.

Whatever the difference is slight or big ... it seems bad investment where you put the points.
Lets say one invests points from divisor 12 into energy cheap. What it costs to keep up by researching more energy?
10/10 = 12/12 in the very same SQRT formula.
Energy 12 costs 13K with energy cheap and energy 10 costs 10K with energy normal... and so 30% more resources needed into energy to keep up. Confused



Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 11 July 2006 04:27 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, 10 July 2006 22:35

Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 10 July 2006 21:17

Why? SQRT formula makes /13 is not very different from /10.

Whatever the difference is slight or big ... it seems bad investment where you put the points.
Lets say one invests points from divisor 12 into energy cheap. What it costs to keep up by researching more energy?
10/10 = 12/12 in the very same SQRT formula.
Energy 12 costs 13K with energy cheap and energy 10 costs 10K with energy normal... and so 30% more resources needed into energy to keep up. Confused



Makes sense.
Question: with cheap energy, would not we get initial Energy levels quicker? Can such cumulative effect of having Energy researched quicker cover these lost 3K you pointed to?



WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 11 July 2006 05:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 11 July 2006 18:27

Hi!
Kotk wrote on Mon, 10 July 2006 22:35

Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 10 July 2006 21:17

Why? SQRT formula makes /13 is not very different from /10.

Whatever the difference is slight or big ... it seems bad investment where you put the points.
Lets say one invests points from divisor 12 into energy cheap. What it costs to keep up by researching more energy?
10/10 = 12/12 in the very same SQRT formula.
Energy 12 costs 13K with energy cheap and energy 10 costs 10K with energy normal... and so 30% more resources needed into energy to keep up. Confused

Makes sense.
Question: with cheap energy, would not we get initial Energy levels quicker? Can such cumulative effect of having Energy researched quicker cover these lost 3K you pointed to?


Answer is... Yes... It's only *after* this point that things start to consistently go against the cheap/12 variant. This area acutally appears to be stunningly well balanced...

5/10 = 6/12
Starting from base of 1/0/0/0/0/0 (marginally favours norm/10 variant, as compared to a 1/0/1/0/0/0 or higher start)
Total costs will be:
En5 normal = 860
En6 cheap = 730

So at those very early levels cheap + divisor 12 is somewhat better on paper...

Lets do a quick testbed... 15% PGR, lets see what happens to resources of norm/10 against cheap/12, starting 2400 with 1/0/0/0/0/0

	NORM 10		CHEAP 12		
2400	1	100	1	92	
2401	2	152	2	139	
2402	3	200	3	182	
2403	3	214	4	226	
2404	4	265	5	270	
2405	5	318	6	318	
2406	5	340	7	368	
2407	6	400	7	394	25%
2408	6	428	8	451	
2409	7	491	8	479	33%
2410	7	518	8	506	
2411	7	544	9	563	
2412	8	607	9	587	
2413	8	630	9	610	
2414	8	651	10	664	
2415	8	670	10	684
2416	9	728	10	701
2417	9	744	10	716
2418	9	759	10	730
2419	9	772	11	779
2420	9	783	11	790
2421	10	836	11	801
2425	10	871	12	871


Interesting facts... Norm/10 has near 10% resource advantage in first 3 years. From this point on it varies from year to year, with Norm/10 coming out with a very slight advantage. If you do nothing but sit tight doing research, 242
...



[Updated on: Tue, 11 July 2006 06:05]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 11 July 2006 06:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1190
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 11 July 2006 11:36


Question: with cheap energy, would not we get initial Energy levels quicker?

The real question is which race will perform better. You'll get answer to that question with answering to: which race will get the "strongest" parameter in resource production formula earlier? And for ARs the parameter with the strongest impact is? Is? Wink

Race with cheap energy will have temp terra-11 6 turns earlier. That means at least a half of planets will be improved by 10-15% and will contribute the 10-15% more resources to research and building ~3 turns earlier. And don't forget that the race with cheap temp will also get the temp terra-15 significantly earlier.

However I have to admit that I have problems with getting more than 25k resources in a tinny packed testbed. I managed 31k only once with a 19% 1-in-7 AR and quite some luck with green planets. So despite my statements look sound, I can not prove them with testbeds. Sad I actually don't know what I'm doing wrong to not achieve 35k Kotk has no problems to get with virtually the same design. Sad

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 11 July 2006 16:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
iztok wrote on Tue, 11 July 2006 13:48

Race with cheap energy will have temp terra-11 6 turns earlier. That means at least a half of planets will be improved by 10-15% and will contribute the 10-15% more resources to research and building ~3 turns earlier. And don't forget that the race with cheap temp will also get the temp terra-15 significantly earlier.

Ahem ... a little note ... AR is no CA. Wink By the time 7 clicks of temperature terraform granted by N5 is done at some colonies, its not so difficult to have N10 for additional 4 clicks. Also the planets that have done 7 clicks of temperature terraforming have usually temperature perfect or very near perfect already. Nod
Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 11 July 2006 12:36

If they still came so close to even in such a testbed, it'd come down to some small preferences:
like building scouts in first 3 years? = norm/10
dare to wait until 2406 to build scouts? = cheap/12

Your numbers show that cheap/12 can add one scout into que at turn 2400 and norm/10 can add 3 scouts into que at 2402. Also he may add other pinta to que at 2405. Nod
funny thing is that just take IFE or change PGR and everything changes. Cool

Its all matter of luck of course ... but lets analyse further?

cheap/12 got to live with that 1 additional scout up to 2406 if he really wants to have energy 7 by then. Blind decision, take or drop it. Nod norm/10 probably got more clear vision at 2405 what is more profitable for him ... to have N6 at 2407 or to switch to C and to start hauling from N5.

Nearby pintaed green adds 10-30 resources to econ, and that may matter. Very Happy It seems there is slight advantage for norm/10 in that light too. QJ5 pinta quite sucks without scout booster and norm/10 got more scouts.

...



[Updated on: Tue, 11 July 2006 21:52]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 11 July 2006 18:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
iztok wrote on Tue, 11 July 2006 13:48

However I have to admit that I have problems with getting more than 25k resources in a tinny packed testbed. I managed 31k only once with a 19% 1-in-7 AR and quite some luck with green planets.

Maybe i haul pop more heavily? Little hint ... if you have colonized all 60 planets by 2450 then F3 reveals underdeveloped places where you did not carry pop timely. Very Happy

For example lifestory of wrongly pop-managed AR planet:
1) Its 2430, 85% planet with dock put Ultra into que.
2) Its 2432 Ultra is up. 150K pop grows to 500K at 12.8% growth (85% planet of 15% race) 10 years.
3) Its 2442 Deathstar tech! Deathstar grows another 3 years to 750K of pop.
4) Its 2445. Probably too late to carry pop from now 100% planet?
5) Its 2450. Our planet has juicy 1.5 mil of pop.
But why again only 25K resources. Confused

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 11 July 2006 22:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
I hadn't considered the edge of earlier terra tech... That certainly makes cheap/12 look better to my eyes.

I'd normally go cheap/10 anyway, and make my sacrifices elsewhere anyway, so I don't know why I'm spending time on this, Laughing

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 12 July 2006 03:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1190
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Kotk wrote on Wed, 12 July 2006 00:33

Maybe i haul pop more heavily? Little hint ... if you have colonized all 60 planets by 2450 then F3 reveals underdeveloped places where you did not carry pop timely. Very Happy

That must be the case. I usually let my pop grow on new ultras to 500k+ before exporting them in numbers (full LFs) to nearby smaller greens/yellows. In all my games I'm highly concerned with the pop growth - seems that with AR I shouldn't be so much. Just a quick test with calculator proved my "highest growth" approach wrong: 400k pop on 90% planet gives at en-10 569 res. 300k pop on 90% and 100k on 40% gives 621 res. Sad

Thanks for pointing that out.

BR, Iztok


[Updated on: Wed, 12 July 2006 07:35]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 01 August 2006 11:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1190
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Kotk wrote on Tue, 04 July 2006 19:27

Deal Base (AR) design:
...
ISB, RS;
0.60 to 4.64/24 to 144/immune; 15%
divisor 10
energy standard, construction and weapons -50%, rest +75%
Base design is there, there are still 33 points to spend, all essential strengths present and no weaknesses taken.

I just did two testbeds in small packed uni with that race. A big problem I faced in both was pop transportation. How do you cope with it with no-IFE & prop-expensive combo? In first game I did it with 30%-50% filled QJ-5 LFs coupled with 1-3 SFX for 3 W-9 jumps, but that's an expensive solution that doesn't work with iron and/or germ poor greens. So - if that's not a bussiness secret Wink - what's your recipie?

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 01 August 2006 14:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Staz is currently offline Staz

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 514
Registered: November 2003
Location: UK
iztok wrote on Wed, 12 July 2006 08:05

400k pop on 90% planet gives at en-10 569 res. 300k pop on 90% and 100k on 40% gives 621 res. Sad


At 15% PGR and assuming no crowding (Ultras), 400+0 will give you 54k growth. 300+100 will give you 46.5K growth.

So you are trading 9% more resources (621v569) against 16% better growth (54v46.5).

Is that a good trade?

Also, if you look at worst case (a 100% world and a 25% world) the most resources seem to come from a 94% / 6% split. And even that is only 3% more resources than having all the pop on the 100% planet.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 01 August 2006 16:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Marduk is currently offline Marduk

 
Ensign

Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Staz wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 14:22

iztok wrote on Wed, 12 July 2006 08:05

400k pop on 90% planet gives at en-10 569 res. 300k pop on 90% and 100k on 40% gives 621 res. Sad


At 15% PGR and assuming no crowding (Ultras), 400+0 will give you 54k growth. 300+100 will give you 46.5K growth.

So you are trading 9% more resources (621v569) against 16% better growth (54v46.5).

Is that a good trade?

Also, if you look at worst case (a 100% world and a 25% world) the most resources seem to come from a 94% / 6% split. And even that is only 3% more resources than having all the pop on the 100% planet.


Purely for purposes of generating more resources sooner, it is a good trade. The number of 'bonus' resources declines slightly year by year until the breeder starts crowding, and then begins to increase again. In the example given (the 40% second world), you'll always have gained more resources because of splitting your population sooner.

However, presumably you will keep your breeder at a level where you aren't suffering from crowding. Either 25% for the maximum relative pop growth or the 33% level for maximum absolute pop growth in that system. Your 'bonus' resources will cap at that point and decline from there because of reduced population growth at and following the initial split. Eventually this may (depending on hab values for any given system) result in a reduction in resources produced relative to having maximized your population growth instead of splitting early.

But it isn't likely that the newly capped breeder will be exporting all of it's population to other 90% worlds. The lower the average value of the developing worlds (after the first 100k seed), the better (or at least less worse) the decision to split early looks.

Then you need to consider the costs of the initial split. Splitting at lower values implies splitting more often, occupying more systems. Good so far, but the more systems you are occupying, the more resources and minerals you are spending (transports, defending war
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 01 August 2006 17:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

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

So - if that's not a bussiness secret - what's your recipie?

Kotk seems to be missing after his nailbiting duel loss to backblast, so I will try to answer. Hopefully he comes back.

From your description it appears Medium transport+extra SFX would work better, and starts one const level sooner.

At con3 it would have been medium freighters+scouts.

Lots of early micromanagement with sending booster ships home to starbase/stardock early, so that they can help next transport.

Keep in mind you have ISB and AR can work with small pop levels on reds reasonably well if given time compared to normal race. Return trips transport minerals, even a red with a small pop produces suprisingly well.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Tue, 01 August 2006 19:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Staz is currently offline Staz

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 514
Registered: November 2003
Location: UK
Marduk wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 21:50


Purely for purposes of generating more resources sooner, it is a good trade. The number of 'bonus' resources declines slightly year by year until the breeder starts crowding, and then begins to increase again. In the example given (the 40% second world), you'll always have gained more resources because of splitting your population sooner.


Too tired now, can't think straight. Tomorrow I'm going to try the 400+0 and 300+100, and see what the resource numbers come out to over 2 turns (taking into account the resources from the extra pop you grew the previous turn).



Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 02 August 2006 04:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1190
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
multilis wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 23:56

From your description it appears Medium transport+extra SFX would work better, and starts one const level sooner.

At con3 it would have been medium freighters+scouts.

Thanks for trying, but for 3 W-9 jumps a fully loaded QJ-5 MF needs about 3000mg fuel Shocked . To export all grown pop (~39k) from my HW I'd need 2 of them. A single QJ-5 LF costs about the same iron as two MFs, 30% less germ and 30% more resources, but gives three times the cargo space and (currently most importantly) more than twice the fuel Thumbs Up . At distances to two W-8 jumps I've been able to export all the growth just with those LFs without boosters. I faced the real fuel problem when exporting pop further than 2 W-9 jumps, as those SFX boosters costed as much iron as MFs. The second testbed was really criticall, as my greens were quite iron-poor, and most of unsettled greens/yellows was in 150LY-230LY distance. Thanks good it was just a testbed.

IMO the race needs prop normal. That would go well with scoops and non-immune gravity. IFE is less usefull, as it is more expensive and still doesn't solve the high costs of grav terra.

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 02 August 2006 07:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Staz is currently offline Staz

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 514
Registered: November 2003
Location: UK
Staz wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 00:08

Too tired now, can't think straight. Tomorrow I'm going to try the 400+0 and 300+100, and see what the resource numbers come out to over 2 turns (taking into account the resources from the extra pop you grew the previous turn).


OK, I admit defeat Laughing

With the 90% and 40% planets as mentioned, and assuming en10 and coeff 10, I get the following resource figures.

300K + 100K; first turn 619 resources, second turn 655 resources
400K + 0K; first turn 569 resources, second turn 606 resources

On the third turn the 400+0 strategy hits crowding.

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 02 August 2006 07:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Hi!

iztok wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 11:39

Hi!
multilis wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 23:56

From your description it appears Medium transport+extra SFX would work better, and starts one const level sooner.

At con3 it would have been medium freighters+scouts.

Thanks for trying, but for 3 W-9 jumps a fully loaded QJ-5 MF needs about 3000mg fuel Shocked . To export all grown pop (~39k) from my HW I'd need 2 of them. A single QJ-5 LF costs about the same iron as two MFs, 30% less germ and 30% more resources, but gives three times the cargo space and (currently most importantly) more than twice the fuel Thumbs Up . At distances to two W-8 jumps I've been able to export all the growth just with those LFs without boosters. I faced the real fuel problem when exporting pop further than 2 W-9 jumps, as those SFX boosters costed as much iron as MFs. The second testbed was really criticall, as my greens were quite iron-poor, and most of unsettled greens/yellows was in 150LY-230LY distance. Thanks good it was just a testbed.

IMO the race needs prop normal. That would go well with scoops and non-immune gravity. IFE is less usefull, as it is more expensive and still doesn't solve the high costs of grav terra.



You're right, from all tests I did with AR with no IFE the best AR is the one with cheap or at least normal prop. Sometimes, you might develop prop earlier, so it may be good to have gravity field non-immune and rad immune - to have more teraforming possibilities earlier.

Also, I rarely use SFX. Just right at start of pop export, you would be able to use only MFs and scout or FFs fuel boosters. New colonies should build docks at the key points for refueling to progress pop further. Also, build gates so your transport and boosters return quicker to HW. -IFE AR needs early gates more than +IFE AR: need to return not only transports, but also fuel boosters in addition. -IFE AR also likes to have a bit wider hab ranges than usual - more planets - more refueling points and more possibilities for optimal "key refuelin
...




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 02 August 2006 14:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
iztok wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 18:59

So - if that's not a bussiness secret Wink - what's your recipie?

Recipe? There are no wonder recipes. I take full MM with IFE-less if needed.
Generally ... IFE is wasted 95 rw points with AR in packed universes, in dense IFE is quite OK investment, in normal its must to have and in sparse ... AR itself is quite masochistic pleasure. Very Happy
Say ... fleet got to fly 195.98ly. It does not mean its 81+81+33.98 ... it is really something like 49.65+64.88+81.54, Some cargo dies otw, so leave biggest jumps into end. OTOH QJ5 Pinta cant take over 51 ly alone so for not colonized place (say you just scouted it, didnt see before) use separate fleet for colonizing where 49.65 step is last or sacrifice some booster scout. Wink Part of the fleet returns after going first step, part after second step, additional fuel may be possibly got from third place etc. Cool Ships can be built anywhere where are minerals not only at HW. Any ship moving in any direction can be used for anything (fuel,mineral or pop transport). Such milligram-splitting cargo management is not always needed in testbed but it makes first 30 years of a real game lot less boring.
If you are starting in iron-dry corner with AR then it is pain anyway and it should be pain. No need to win every game... Just duelled in a galaxy with "19% are expected to be greens" race and HW had 30/30/30 conc and from first 30 planets that i scouted only 1 was green. In normal! Laughing That was tons of enjoyment despite non AR with IFE. I stayed competive majorly thanks to training with IFEless AR-s. Wink
iztok wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 11:39

To export all grown pop (~39k) from my HW I'd need 2 of them.

HW grows 377kT at 250,900 hold with 15% growth. Otherwise you are right, LF rocks. Costs same as MF+SFX, weights less and has same fuel. It can fit abovementioned 377kT. I dont build SFX, i build other LF to boost my LF for a year if needed. Wink As for 250,900 hold ... i see no reason to hold it... go below it if you have fuel at hand or travel with l
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 02 August 2006 17:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

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

3 W-9 jumps a fully loaded QJ-5 MF needs about 3000mg fuel

You said a lf + sfx, with average load of 1/3 to 1/4 full (I consider that a bit large). So I countered with medium freighter + extra sfx, in other words up to 2 sfx per trip, knowing that often you can get by with one. IMO AR often prefers small loads early, more planets means more mining given same pop to work with.

Large freighter has to go all 3 turns away from HW, then return 3 turns. It weighs more empty then MF, which makes biggest difference on return trip home. In contrast you can sometimes get second SFX to return home early or if half full, help another transport (or warship) after turn 2.

You already in theory have the medium freighters from the early spread at Con3. The scouts from that era are now scouting your borders, looking for danger.

When you eventually hit Con8 you build a few LF for big loads, and keep using the MF for the small stuff... by that time you likely have built 100/250 gates and MF works the nicest... overgate on regular basis and losses add up.

I've played mostly without IFE in my games, lightly loaded LF is overrated IMO if you are willing to micromanage. SFX is underrated... SFX network allows your warships to keep at warp 9 if needed.



[Updated on: Wed, 02 August 2006 17:32]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Wed, 02 August 2006 21:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
Staz: When I've got time (i.e. hopefully later today) I'll modify my population opimisation model to optimise the integral of AR resources instead of the integral of population over time... That will put this question to rest for good - for a few minutes work I can give you some stats on total and final resources for the two approaches over say 30 years. Should be fun Wink

Multilis: I agree with you on this one - boosters work extremely well with AR, thanks partly to the desire to ship smaller amounts of pop to many worlds rather than larger amounts to fewer worlds. To take it slightly further - remember the boosters don't have to be SFX - frigate boosters are effective too and available much earlier. I won an AR game with a race that had CE and neither IFE nor ISB - in other words the absolute most horrific transport nightmare you can devise. Boosters worked fine for me, although I do remember being extremely happy when I was finally able to build LFs. I wouldn't play that race again in a hurry though, the early transport MM was excruciating.


[Updated on: Wed, 02 August 2006 21:59]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Thu, 03 August 2006 00:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
multilis wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 00:17

Quote:

3 W-9 jumps a fully loaded QJ-5 MF needs about 3000mg fuel

You said a lf + sfx, with average load of 1/3 to 1/4 full (I consider that a bit large).

Iztok is right there ... QJ5 MF-s is sad ... it cant fly alone unless almost empty or very short distances. Confused Sure, marry SFX to existing pair of them and so you have something like QJ5 LF, just avoid building more MF-s if possible because LF costs less than that combo. Nod Similarily QJ5 Pinta sucks on its own. Its the only way to colonize for AR so no alternatives. SFX is overkill for boosting a Pinta so AR got to have more scout boosters around than you might think at first with experience of other PRT-s.
Quote:

IMO AR often prefers small loads early, more planets means more mining given same pop to work with.
Yes, you are right. MF-s built in first decade (5-7 of them) are often plenty for fine-duning most of such a tiny quirks. LF is quite OK on its own while MF needs booster for carrying real cargoes to real distances. SFX+MF are worse than LF but cost same, SFX+2MFs are as good as LF but cost significally more and so LF is the backbone of IFE-less AR life, but the MF-s got plenty of work to do. Wink
Quote:

When you eventually hit Con8 ...

Turn 11 is ok C8 target for AR. Even if AR got IFE (and so it may stick with MF-s longer for spreading more thinly) it still wants iron miniaturization of anything it builds.
It may be different with other PRTs but for AR its all about saving iron, privateer costs more iron than LF so ... no privateer but LF. Who cares that LF got more fuel and cargo space than privateer, think of it as cheaper privateer because it costs less iron. Wink Less important things like energy 8 or terraforming can wait, who needs resources without iron? So to C8 asap. Wink
...



[Updated on: Thu, 03 August 2006 00:28]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Thu, 03 August 2006 02:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 789
Registered: October 2003
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Apples and oranges: Kotk apparently thinks you need 30-40K loads where I think <20K for most loads yields better AR (more iron mining with same pop growth)

MF+SFX micromanagement:

Split up ships and meet/share fuel with others, often going other way. Send my freighter home with just enough fuel, while half tank full sfx intercepts next load to boost at warp 5/6/7.

MF can go alone for 1 turn if can divide trip into 81ly+81ly+small hop.

Gates help MF return and warships get out. SFX helps move warships. LF is painful to gate and painful as warship booster.

If you go without ISB, gating becomes much more important.

Quote:

frigate boosters are effective too and available much earlier

SFX is much better for originally mentioned >162ly trips (or fuel boosting warship with mission length)... that 200 fuel per turn becomes more valuable with distance. Original SFX design may last all game. SFX less than half iron spent for boost.

Frigate boosters gate better. Frigate cheap on resources, flexible, light. As mentioned Con6 rather than Con7.





[Updated on: Thu, 03 August 2006 03:13]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Thu, 03 August 2006 03:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1190
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 20:09

iztok wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 18:59

So - if that's not a bussiness secret Wink - what's your recipie?

Recipe? There are no wonder recipes. I take full MM with IFE-less if needed.

Eh, I know the later ( Work at computer Hit Computer Work at computer Hit Computer Puke, hurl, vomit, gag Dead ), but I hoped for the former. Angel

Obviously there's no such thing as a free lunch in the Stars! universe either. Crying or Very Sad
Wink

BR, Iztok



[Updated on: Thu, 03 August 2006 07:23]

Report message to a moderator

Re: AR design Thu, 03 August 2006 07:09 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
joseph is currently offline joseph

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol
Its not a huge help in reducing the MM
BUT
- You know what your current best ships for boost & transport are.
- You know how much pop you want to export every turn.

Work out how much you need to build to travel at warp 9 for 2 years. Your export fleet - you will need to build 1 of these each turn until some get home later.

Work out what you need to build to move an export fleet at W9 for one year (and still have enough fuel to return in one year). Your Booster Fleet - you will need to build 2 of these.

Then get out a spreadsheet.
Work it out for the various ship breaks (MF, Frigate, SFX/LF)
Work it out based on 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% world (alternately weight of pop say 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500).
Save spreadsheet.

You now have an at a glance guide for what you need to build at the planet to acheive the 3year W9 trip.

In fact if you can wait a day or so I will post a spreadsheet as I have just realised I would like one so I am going to make one tonight.

(and yes I know, you all know about boosters etc - my idea is all about knowing what the minimum min/resource spend is to acheive W9 for 3 years at all times)




Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"

Report message to a moderator

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


Current Time: Tue Dec 10 11:30:56 EST 2019