Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » AR design
| Re: AR design |
Tue, 04 July 2006 14:13   |
|
|
|
Hi!
You seems sum up what was discussed 
I have few notes though:
| Kotk wrote on Tue, 04 July 2006 20:27 |
 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.
|
Well, some of above things only FEEL good, that's right  Some are REALLY good 
IFE - costs a lot, so if you have special game setup where cheap prop tech is really good, use it instead of IFE, have Energy normal and no IFE (and gravity narrow instead of temperature). Otherwise, ALWAYS take IFE if universe size is not too small. Without it, you would not be able to carry people effectively. Every extra turn of pop movement would kill some of pop on transport. And also IFE helps a lot to spread out people and build less transport (which you usually have no minerals for). So my opinion is that IFE is almost essential for AR, except few special cases.
Wider hab - there is a point when teraforming becomes ineffective (200 points spending for 1% teraform is not worth of improvement because you get only 8-20 resources improvement, that pays off in 10 years only), so do not take too wide, or if take, consider calculations and micro-menagement to account wide hab range efficiency of teraforming. Also, too wide hab would cause more spread out of planet habitability % (which you can barely improve), and most of planets you would not be able to use effectively. (See discussion about "more planets" for 2-immune AR - the same applies here ).
Cheaper energy - yes and no - depends on the game. STA game probably worth normal Energy. Game where opponents are far from also worth it (enough time to compensate early loses on normal Energy and it's cumulative effect).
| Quote: |
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).
|
Not much of trouble with NAS, just a lot of MM to put a chaff on every uninhabited planet slightly forward off from border. Red planets inside of territory I usually colonize. MM is needed when you get these flies constantly killed to replenish them. Yes, they cost minerals, but at the moment you actually require them chaff usually already plays.
| Quote: |
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.
|
I tried LSP. Whatever you do, you are behind by 2-4 years compare to most AR designs without LSP.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Tried trading for weapons in the Infight game (even though weapons tech was cheap for me). It is really bad. The problem is that it is hard to exchange techs early in the game even in a crowded place. And without W10 your starbases would not be able to defend themselves effectively against the Colloidal and Jihad cruisers. Any AR without W10 is really easy target. In the Infight game I got IT planet close to my HW, and no way to even backfire to the colloidal cruisers...
| Quote: |
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.
|
Cheaper techs:
AR aready usually selects cheap for construction and weapons. Some more cheaper techs is problematic for AR - more cheap techs cost much more RW points. If select something, choose Electronics normal, no more.
| Quote: |
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? 
|
The only playable AR without immunities that I know about is AR with TT LRT.
| Quote: |
GR and/or BET ... give no much points and are bad weaknesses, both in testbed and in game, i never take these.
|
GR have a bad cumulative effect on Energy (less resources). BET causes you need research one more level to have everything, and that means always 2-3 years behind in having space dock, better transport, mining robots etc. Cumulative effect makes this even worse.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Correct. And add here Energy being researched anyway, that gives really good advantage for AR because it have both stringer shiealds and good resources.
| Quote: |
Non-immune bands with equal width With unequal bands early terraforming has better effect. The partners for intersettling are more perfect. So seems pointless.
|
This have only intersettling effect, and it is usually marginal.
Final AR economy is better for equal bands, but economy at the mid game is slightly worse (and that is really important for AR).
What is good in the 2 non-immune bands equal is that you can use your teraforming possibilities more, so when you get +-15% teraforming, it shows in economy, but this is usually later in the game. This is because slightly wider than narrow band causes more planets "fall" into that range and thus more of them allow 15% of teraforming, while with really narrow range most of good green planets you would have would rarely allow all 15% teraforming (usually 10 is average). Take 2 ARs, one with 2 bands equal and one with temperature narrow. Develop them to year 60, then count how much of planets you have that can teraform all 15%.
I usually use norrow+wide for better early growth.
| Quote: |
 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.
|
See previous comment for weapons. Any IT quickly shuts down AR with weapons expensive (or AR that relies on weapons trade) early in the game. If you survive to have Jihads, BUILD fleets, and that is a moment when trade might be useful. Otherwise, before having Jihads, AR should never tradefor weapons, and thus weapons must be cheap, or at least normal.
Apart from that, I agree about allies. AR usual tactic is attack (even if attacked) - it is not beneficial for AR to defend because lose of starbases. And attack tactic requires to have reliable borders with races around, otherwise starbases would be lost too quickly while you attack.
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: Sat May 04 05:49:48 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
