| Re: Blind colonisation |
Tue, 29 December 2020 08:28   |
|
 Robert |
 | Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 393
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany | |
|
Hmm.... I used to testbed AR a lot 13 years ago...
I think I will pick the answer, which is usually correct in 99% of all things: "it depends".
So... IMO there are some pros:
- you get more resources early (as AR works this way), you benefit twice, because if you invest them into en-research you gain more ressources again.
- you dont need to scout as much (as mentioned above)
- if you get the planet before your neighbour is there, it might be an advantage (if he does want to avoid early wars), because FCFS often works
- ...
Cons:
- you grow much slower than you could, so mid-term you pay for in it terms of total pop.
- you might not be able to build as many remote miners on the HW as you might otherwise
Two things have an impact:
- what is the probability that the worlds you colonze blindly are green? (yellows soon)
- what is your growth rate
AR usually has great growth "later". On Ultrastations the rate effectively doubles, on a deathstar it triples. So... thinking about "much later" this strategy does not hurt as much as it would for "normel" races.
It also depends on the universe. If you can build docks on these planets early and use them to refuel, you might not need IFE because you can do lots of 1-year hops between your docks.
So if the density of the stars allows for it, you save a lot of points in the race wizard. It just depends on the universe settings.
Also in slow start games it might be much better than in AccBBs-games, because the early ressource-gain is much higher for a longer time.
And... if you have wide habs, and if you can live "anywhere" later, then it is not so bad, you can just start terraforming earlier.
So... I would not say that it is total nonsense. I would say that it really depends.
[Updated on: Tue, 29 December 2020 08:29]
2b v !2b -> ?Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
