Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » AR design
| Re: AR design |
Tue, 04 July 2006 06:05   |
|
|
|
Hi!
| Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 04 July 2006 05:32 |
Less than 16% PGR is a worry.
|
Yes, 13% is a margin. However, I have had quite successful games with AR with 14% in the past, and currently playing 15% PGR in one of the games. (Well, paying currently 14% too - really successful, but that was a special game rules so I do not count it here).
| Quote: |
Take LSP to buy an extra point of PGR if you can, the sqrt formula makes LSP less of a hinderance to AR.
|
That's not true. I tried LSP in tests really a lot of times in the past and discovered that the same cumulative effect of early Energy research makes this option really bad for AR - such AR is behind of AR without LSP by 2-4 turns despite better growth rate.
| Quote: |
I love ARM for the cheap early miners, but having played an AR with ARM but without ISB, I suspect that ISB would've proved far more usefull of the two (and I have trouble justifing spending the points on both.) Space docks are *really* nice for AR in first 20-30 years, when minerals and resources are still tight.
|
You barely can win with AR without ISB, maybe in special game setups, but in general - not. This is because ultra stations which are really important for mid-game AR economy growth. Without ultra stations your economy would not be able to reach Death Stars in time, and so your AR economy would be far behind by 10 years after the moment you reach Death Stars and build them, maybe even more. Again, cumulative effect comes to play here: Ultra station gives better growth - more resources, more people to colonize new worlds etc. Earlier you have ultra stations - earlier you have more resources, and they would count in your totla research helping you to reach Death Stars earlier.
So if talk about choosing ARM vs ISB, I always use ISB for AR, and rarely ARM, that gives the best results for mid game wich you need survive.
| Quote: |
You NEED at least 2.5 cheap. AR without weapons is dead meat in early game without some excellent diplomacy. Without con cheap you won't get ultras / death stars anywhere near early enough, unless your PGR is appalling. Energy should be at least normal, personally I'd always take it cheap - it's a ramp up tech...
|
REALLY right. Construction - you MUST have it cheap, othewise mid game economy would be much worse than needed. And you would need it for early mining robots - the sooner you get them, the more minerals you would have for the AR "minerals stagnation" mid-game problem. Finally, it is really easy to trade cheap construction with others that is important for AR diplomacy.
Weapons - also must be cheap, otherwise you would be an easy target when phasors and jihads are develped, and your starbase would not be able to even reach attackers by low-range lasers, and torps are too weak.
Energy - well, you do not need it cheap. First thing is that cheap Energy costs more RW points for AR (which you can use elsewhere). Secondly, you need to reach only Energy 10 for mid game survival, and most of mid game you may live well with that (or with Energy 14). Cost of Energy 10 with cheap research and normal research is not much difference in resource points compare to what it costs in RW. However, consider cumulative effect - it pays off only later in the game when better habitability or PGR (or whatever you spend for these RW points you get from normal energy) come into play and shows up.
AR with normal Energy can be very competitive.
| Quote: |
I wish I could find the points for IFE, building all those boosters makes that early mineral crunch all the worse...
|
Again, really true, unless you have special game setup where you can choose propultion cheap. (Currently playing such game - not bad  )
The earlier AR spreads people, the more resources it have, and that is important. Boosters - yes, but you can re-use them, and later in the game they help a lot for AR with NAS option checked - you can spread them out to each world to track who is hiding behind  . AR with no IFE also uses star gates much earlier than others for returning fleets - to re-use transports and boosters quicker (and thus build less of them).
| Quote: |
I wish I could find the points to buy TT for the cheap terra...
|
I tried it in tests and disliked. TT is too expensive, and pays off only much later in the game when you can teraform more than 15% (for what you have to research Bio) and need quickly teraform worlds that you occupy after war to create outposts. Earlier in the game, you cannot use it much. This is because need research for teraforming anyway, almost the same as without TT (or the same if Bio is expensive that is usual for AR which needs a lot of other fields cheap). 70 vs 100 cost is not much when you sacrifice PGR or habitability for having TT - people growth have cumulative effect from game start, while TT could not be used effectively right from the game start. And you cannot use TT at the game start to compensate worse habitability when you choose TT. For mid-game survival, TT is bad option.
| Quote: |
I must say that /25 does have a few things going for it - you can probably afford TT or two immunities. The wider hab means more worlds. More worlds means more minerals without having to build miners. In early game more worlds (if you can afford all the colonisers) might actually prove to be enough to catch the /10 races.
|
More worlds give more minerals, but would you be able to USE them? Try it out - you would spend most of these minerals for freighters which supposed to transport these minerals to the mining robot building sites Transportation is a problem for AR, you barely would spread colonists in time and barely would upgrade starbases in time, not tell about minerals transportation. With fewer worlds, you can balance AR in such way that tarsnports bringing colonists bring back minerals from child worlds to the main world to have minerals for bulding more transport and mining robots. With more worlds, you would be behind in this process - just because no enough minerals. You would spend minerals for more colonizers. Also, more worlds would cause that process of people spreading and returning minerals back from child worlds would either:
- eat too much minerals (and thus you would have less mining robots that is bad for mid game)
- would be too bad because you would not have enough transports to spread people. In this case you also would not be able to return back all minerals from child worlds, thuis is even worse than previous option.
Look - you end up with poor mid game economy anyway. So do not choose to much habitable worlds for AR, or at least do not colonize all of them before you can afford more colonizers and transport (that means you would not be able to use your good habitability fully at the mid game, and would not have minerals from more worlds).
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Tue, 10 June 2003 07:04 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Sotek on Wed, 03 September 2003 23:33 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Thu, 04 September 2003 02:39 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Fri, 05 September 2003 02:41 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 04 July 2006 13:27 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 04 July 2006 15:53 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Thu, 06 July 2006 02:34 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Thu, 06 July 2006 08:08 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Thu, 06 July 2006 12:49 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Thu, 06 July 2006 17:30 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Fri, 07 July 2006 10:14 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Mon, 10 July 2006 14:35 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Fri, 07 July 2006 09:28 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Mon, 10 July 2006 09:42 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Mon, 10 July 2006 14:03 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Mon, 10 July 2006 15:35 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Tue, 11 July 2006 06:48 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 11 July 2006 16:50 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 11 July 2006 18:33 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Wed, 12 July 2006 03:05 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Staz on Tue, 01 August 2006 14:22 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Marduk on Tue, 01 August 2006 16:50 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Staz on Tue, 01 August 2006 19:08 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Staz on Wed, 02 August 2006 07:49 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Tue, 01 August 2006 11:59 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Tue, 01 August 2006 17:56 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Wed, 02 August 2006 04:39 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Wed, 02 August 2006 07:50 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Wed, 02 August 2006 14:09 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Thu, 03 August 2006 03:59 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: joseph on Thu, 03 August 2006 07:09 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Thu, 03 August 2006 10:36 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Fri, 04 August 2006 10:26 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Sat, 05 August 2006 11:46 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: crr65536 on Wed, 09 August 2006 11:55 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Sat, 12 August 2006 20:05 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Sun, 13 August 2006 01:04 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: crr65536 on Mon, 14 August 2006 01:58 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Mon, 14 August 2006 12:19 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: crr65536 on Mon, 14 August 2006 14:11 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Mon, 14 August 2006 15:45 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Tue, 15 August 2006 04:48 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 15 August 2006 08:51 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Tue, 15 August 2006 09:30 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 15 August 2006 11:59 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Tue, 15 August 2006 13:29 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 15 August 2006 19:51 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Tomasoid on Wed, 16 August 2006 07:46 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Wed, 16 August 2006 12:15 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Wed, 16 August 2006 15:58 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Wed, 02 August 2006 17:17 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Thu, 03 August 2006 00:23 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: multilis on Thu, 03 August 2006 02:37 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Thu, 04 September 2003 07:27 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Thu, 04 September 2003 18:32 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Fri, 05 September 2003 02:12 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Fri, 05 September 2003 02:41 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Fri, 05 September 2003 02:46 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Fri, 05 September 2003 03:13 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Fri, 05 September 2003 08:19 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: freakyboy on Fri, 05 September 2003 22:16 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Steve on Wed, 10 September 2003 09:38 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: iztok on Wed, 10 September 2003 09:55 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: XyliGUN on Mon, 26 June 2006 20:31 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: XyliGUN on Tue, 27 June 2006 20:49 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: Kotk on Tue, 27 June 2006 21:29 |
|
|
Re: AR design
|
|
|
Re: AR design
By: XyliGUN on Wed, 28 June 2006 03:41 |
|
|
Re: AR design
By: XyliGUN on Wed, 28 June 2006 03:59 |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 20 01:29:41 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
