| Re: SS race design critique |
Thu, 10 September 2009 02:30   |
|
|
|
| Micha wrote on Wed, 09 September 2009 21:38 |
Rule of thumb: same number of mines operated as factories operated if you keep efficiency at 10.
|
Your rule of thumb. Mine is different, I've found myself building well under the maximum I had available too many times, following guides like that one 
As for all-expensive... Depends on your econ and playstyle. In this case, weapons is forced expensive... So the most important field is already slow-tech-expensive.
| Quote: |
No econ setting can make up for the huge extra cost.
|
Strongly disagree I've been a tech leader with all-expensive, facing races which didn't. (In a game with weap forced expensive, like in the OP's game.) Didn't win that game in the end, but tech wasn't the problem.
Still, you certainly have to be getting a lot for your points to make it worthwhile. I wouldn't take it with the race described above, but it's one avenue that could be explored if the player favoured raw econ over tech.
[Updated on: Thu, 10 September 2009 02:57] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
