Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » AR design
| Re: AR design |
Tue, 04 July 2006 13:27   |
|
| Kotk | 
 | Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
 Base design:
Generally i have experienced that AR must have ISB, 15% growth, one immunity with narrow temperature band, at least 1 in 5 hab, construction cheap to research and energy at least normal to research. Also ... i take always RS with any race and usually i view weapons cheap as normal thing. Some of these things are not so essential for prearranged team game, but all alone AR seems to be hard to play without. So lets try and design AR like that:
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 would spend the 33 points into near 1 in 4 hab and its actually playable AR race more or less. 
Other items of interest:
IFE is desirable, somewhat wider hab is always better, cheaper energy is desirable. Having these things usually FEEL good in testbed results.
Liveable weaknesses. There are not so lot of weaknesses among what i would try some:
NRSE ... gives heavy (you lose more when gating) and expensive IS-10 engine that costs significant iron (AR biggest deficite is iron for long time). TGMS (prop 16 scoop) is 3 times better engine in all aspects and makes your fleet significally cheaper. Because NRSE is very popular trait i anyway take it unless i also have propulsion technology normal. Otherwise it is impossible to buy prop 16 from NRSE races (read "all of them").
NAS ... takes away the nice feature of having all territory and borders covered within free planetary penscanning of Ultras from 2435 or so. That feature has actually quite vital strategy value that people often underestimate. NAS is popular, It is possible that your alliance has no penscanners at all if you take NAS these days and so you cant have cloaked spies all over the place from 2450 or so (it also hurts).
LSP ... you lose about 2 years of development speed early with it, however lack of IFE for example may slow you down LOT more. This is weakness that draws you bit down in testbed too.
Weapons expensive ... you have to import weapons tech, better from someone who gets weapon tech early enough so you are near top with it. You may lose ground quickly if you fail to find such a ally early enough. In testbed, especially in radiation-immune races testbed however it does not feel.
Secondary cool things of interest:
quicker growth rate, ARM, some more cheaper tech, leftover points to minerals or concentrations, TT ... these are all nice, some give differences in testbeds ... i suggest trying something from these only after you have experiments results without.
Weaknesses i would avoid if possible (despite some seem popular):
worse than 1 in 5 hab ... may cause greens being too far with bad hab draw early (when minerals are biggest problem) and you will most likely have weakly defended clusters of your territory.
worse than 15% growth ... liveable results in testbeds but in reality you have too little colonies with low pop on them at start of cruiser era when you should start building Ultras. Everyone see that you are AR, so avoid being too easy to take early.
energy divisor 25 ... you need to colonize/terraform/fill about half more planets with it, it is hard task in games i play, i never take it. It gives lots of RW points and its proven to be OK trait in unplayably large games. 
CE slows expansion randomly down and is generally taking away movement reliability. Some find it fun, i avoid it. 
Things i see no point at all:
No immunity ... just a testbed experience, AR without immunities feels weaker and slower. Similarily weak like one with 2 immunities. I can get near playable results but oh why the pain?
GR and/or BET ... give no much points and are bad weaknesses, both in testbed and in game, i never take these.
OBRM ... AR may never have it unless it is joke contest (noone suggests it).
No RS ... it gives no RW points anyway. Have seen such suggested because AR will have better armored orbitals and takes construction as fast as energy. I think that AR wont have iron anyway for armor on ships. All orbitals are easily defeatable from y 2435 on, so "somewhat harder" is weak argument for me, while RS makes ships lot better.
Non-immune bands with equal width With unequal bands early terraforming has better effect. The partners for intersettling are more perfect. So seems pointless.
 AR got to have at least one ally anyway to be able to win the game. Odd thing for example that most AR-s i see published have NAS and weapons cheap. Ally with weapons expensive is more rare to find while ally with NAS is so common ... so weapons expensive seems better weakness than NAS for AR.
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 06 10:15:09 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
