> > A while ago I posted the testbed results for a fairly simple JOAT HP
> >race that got 28k resources in 2450, alone in small packed, with
> >standard minerals (30 G on the HW). The race got that with no MM after
> >year 30 and using relatively few planets.
> Would that be the following race?
> PRT: JoaT
> LRT: IFE NRSE OBRM NAS LSP
> HAB: 1 in 11
> Grav .67 to 1.56
> Temp -52 to 52
> Rad Immune
> GR: 19%
> Eff: 1 per 1300
> Fac: 12/8/21/G
> Mines: 12/3/18
> All tech +75% exc Weapons, start at 4
Um, no, that one I consider an HG race. Granted it gets more from
factories than most. No, the JOAT I was talking about had 1/3 hab, no
immunity, 15/9/21 factories, 12/3/17 mines, 15% pop growth, and 1/2500
pop efficiency. A standard HP - low pop eff for good factories, etc.
But it still got 28k in 2450. And that is faster ramp-up than most HPs
seem to get (straight, 1/2500 pop efficiency HPs I mean, with 15-16% pop
growth or so - not 1/2500 and 19% blends).
The question is - what is the cause of the 2x performance by year 50,
compared to most HPs? I mean, I find decent designs can get 15-18k, but
faster ramp-up for HPs is hard. I think the wider hab and G
discrimination helped - I mean with like 1/3 hab. HPs can work with hab
around 1/5 to 1/8, but those get the 12-18k range in my experience (2450
I mean). They are still playable because they grow fast right after
that - they can get 40k's by year 70 for example (and 60k by year 80,
with no continuing work). But they are vunerable for a while to early
HG attacks by advanced battlefleets. So the idea is - figure out how to
get HP designs (1/2500 pop, moderate pop growth) to around 25k
consistently (in 2450), then the vunerability should be a lot less.
Most ways of raising HP growth rates I have seen discussed focus on the
econ variable screen - the mine eff and cost, lower factory cost, ways
of managing and generating extra G (max out HW, when to hold planets, IT
gating for G balancing). I just think the hab and discrimination idea
is another thing to try, and the scale of the effect seems larger. I
get factors of 1.2 by year 50 for things like a little better mine eff,
for example, but more like 1.5 times to 2.0 times for the
hab-discriminate idea.
Of course it costs points and there are trade-offs. The idea is to pin
down where the effect comes from and how much needs to be spent, so that
the design can trade off things like wider hab for better mine eff (or
more expensive tech) and things like that.
And I am trying to enlist other HP experts in the search :-)
My experience with HP's has completely
> convinced me that without at least normal weapons tech, they *cannot*,
> I repeat, absolutely *cannot* defend themselves adequately against an
> aggressive early attack by a HG.
Well, cheap weapons is better. But SD and IT have other defensive
advantages, too. It isn't hard to make weapons cheap for an HP, though.
> This race is really a HG, because of the good pop efficiency.
Yep. I was talking about a different JOAT with 1/3 no immune.
> After playing the above JoaT race in a test bed, the ease of play and
> smooth growth with very low MM impressed me tremendously, but it was
> hindered by the lack of planets.
Well, it can remote mine. That was part of the idea. And 3946 capacity
per 100% planet -> don't need that many worlds. IFE gets you to them.
But of course I was talking about a different race...
I'm beginning to see some tell-tale
> signs that a 1-imm/2n hab isn't so great for HP's.
I agree - except maybe for CA "monster" blends - 1/2500, HP factories,
19% pop. The point of one-immune two narrow is high average planet
value and cheap pop growth. If you take it without the pop growth you
do give up part of the point. And to get the number of planets, CA
(with TT esp) helps a lot. I also find that being able to remote mine
(no OBRM or ARM) helps a lot with the one-immune two-narrows that use
lots of factories. But the one-immune two narrow hab scheme is more
thematic for HGs - cheap pop, high acheived pop growth, faster ramp up -
all HG themes, and work best with reasonably high pop efficiency.
> Once found, another decision has to be made with an HP breeder: do we
> ramp up the factories now, delaying full usefulness as a breeder until
> they reach the 33% pop max for factories, or do we just start dumping
> the growth on the surrounding colonies and ramp up the factories
> later?
Here is what I find with that issue. With HPs, 1/2500 pop eff, removing
pop not *currently* needed to operate factories makes almost no
difference to the econ. You do need 100k pop or so for the first 40
resources of income. After that you just let them double along on their
own. But once the factories are 100+, you don't need the pop to hang
around there while the factories are compouding up to the level that can
be operated.
On the other hand, if you hold a breeder e.g. at 33 or 45% of cap, not
building factories you could be building, the hit to your econ growth is
severe. E.g. 1.5/x/21 factories gives 35.5 resources max per 10000 pop
with 1/2500 eff. The pop is only 4 of that. If you hold the planet and
send the pop elsewhere, you get the 4 resources. If you leave it and
let the planet go up, you get the 35.5 - a huge difference. The point
is that the pop can do a lot more work on a planet already developed to
the point where it can build all the operable factories every turn.
Just is terms of current income, then, it is *much* better to leave the
pop on the developed world *once factories have caught pop*. But of
course only pop exports are going to get you new worlds that become full
producers later. That pop has to come from somewhere.
What I do is this. I take ISB (thematic for low pop efficiency since
you can get them up a lot faster). A new world gets 100k pop or so,
compounds a little, then it can afford a dock in a year. A little later
it crosses 100 factories up. At that point the factories are bringing
in most of the income. Well, then I export all the pop over 25% or 33%,
or just all of it over 150-250k or so. They move on to get a new world
it's first 100 factories :-)
This lets me rely a lot less on the HW or a few "held" breeders.
So the HP planet life-cycle winds up looking like this -
New world - 100k pop, few resources
Partially developed - dock, 100 factories, 100<pop<250
Producer - factories have caught pop/factory line green
Being Filled - going up to 100% of pop, factories and mines all done (or
will be soon).
New worlds import pop and G.
Partially developed worlds *export pop* and import G
Producers keep pop and export G
Being Filled export G and import pop until filled.
The whole burden of growing the pop exports falls on the partially
developed worlds.
This works quite well, but sometimes doesn't get quite enough pop for
exports. Well, the Producers can "hold" for a very brief period to help
out in this regard (also gets resources for tech research and raises G
exports). But I never hold an HP world more than 5 years after the
factories have caught the pop - just give up way too much current income
(4 vs. 35.5+) that way.
The point is that HP pop is most useful for two different functions -
operating factories on worlds where factories have caught pop and
putting up the first 100 factories or so on new worlds. They aren't
needed for the period between these two functions and are much more
useful elsewhere.
In addition, I'm using fewer, much more efficient mines. I
> like some of Paul Hager's IT races he posted a couple days ago.
> Excellent factories and excellent mines make for much faster
> compounding.
True. But 15 mine efficiency is horrifically expensive. 15/5/15 no G
box (Paul's prefered settings, but for IT who can move G around more
easily) costs 340 advantage points. 12/3/18 with the G box costs 307 -
33 points less, with the mineral cost (eff/mine cost) lower by 6 to 5,
the mineral capacity 96% as good and put up for 72% of the cost, and
makes 28% more factories from that capacity (.96 rate /.75 G cost). For
a little higher depletion and slightly less iron/bora it is true. Even
12/3/15 and the G box, which costs 272 or 68 points less than 15/5/15 no
G box (a full point of pop growth or extra cheaper tech field easily),
gives 6 to 5 lower cost and 6.67% more factories buildable from the G
mined at capacity.
Mines cost 3 are just a great deal, advantage point wise. You can take
it and add one extra mine for the cost of 1 point of mine eff. The G
box costs about the same as 1 point of mine eff, and it raises the
factories buildable by 1/3rd not 1/10th or less. The better depletion
of very eff mines is just very expensive compared to other things you
can get for the same points, for the same purposes.
Now, with Paul's ITs able to get all the minerals wherever needed fast,
maybe that's ok - and maybe the 25% more iron mined compared to 12/3/x
is a big edge once the question is how many cap missle BBs you can
build. But it isn't the best way to gun the compounding/econ for an HP,
IMO. It's is a seperate expenditure on a seperate advantage - more iron
later on.
> Hope the above is useful.
Twas indeed. :-)
I thought this might turn into a meaty thread. Looks good so far...
Sincerely,
Jason Cawley
|