Home » Primary Racial Traits » IS » IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? |
Mon, 22 January 2007 15:10 |
|
|
Quote: | They would've been much happier reproducing aboard your ships and then taking a juicy green planet from your curious neighbour
|
I wouldn't be so sure about this - something tells me that there would be an awful lot of pop in those freighters that wouldn't be looking forwards to the bloody 1.1 to 1 death rate on the invasion.
Populating reds does make sense - especially if you are keeping privateers. There are 2 reasons for setting up the red planets. One is, of course, the minerals that will be returned. The second is that they build up fairly quick to the max resource level and then, all those extra resources fall into research. I did this in a game where my max resources on a red planet was around 300. I chose the lower reds with high minerals first then worked onwards. A privateer in orbit supplied the exact pop growth per year on each planet usually with a 100 or 200 surplus. When all the mines were built, I did simply pick up minerals and I would check periodically to see if there was now a thousand or so pop that should be moved off with the minerals.
The research resources were excellent. With 20+ red planets producing, that was 6k resources per turn in research + left over from full greens.
Be sure to build the defenses on those reds. They are attractive for enemies to drop on. Having defenses built and with the IS defense bonus, the enemies that drop on them were hemorraging troops. Not only that, with ISB, each red planet eventually had a space dock capable of doing damage and a gate vastly improving mobility and minelaying.
Another item to remember, is that when those fringe reds are getting attacked, the enemy is losing ships trying to take them. If he does manage to take a planet, the resource loss is insignificant.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Mon, 22 January 2007 15:12]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: Wreck on Sat, 14 May 2005 20:25
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: iztok on Sun, 15 May 2005 05:09
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: Robert on Wed, 18 May 2005 11:54
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: Kotk on Fri, 27 May 2005 10:30
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: Wreck on Sat, 28 May 2005 22:51
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: Kotk on Sun, 29 May 2005 04:29
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: mazda on Fri, 27 May 2005 05:44
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: LEit on Mon, 13 June 2005 12:10
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: tgellan on Mon, 22 January 2007 12:34
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: Ptolemy on Mon, 22 January 2007 15:10
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: Kotk on Sun, 11 February 2007 18:45
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: Ptolemy on Sun, 11 February 2007 20:08
|
|
|
Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
By: Marduk on Sat, 15 November 2008 02:52
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 05 10:36:02 EDT 2024
|