Re: Galactic Leadership Style
 

If you produce more than you can use, you need more space yards.

Converters eliminate surplus in one or 2 areas problems. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Galactic Leadership Style
 

Against the AI:
I like to play Proportions from a one planet, low tech start. I'll get as interesting a quadrant as I can, with NOT all warp points connected, empires allowed to start in the same system, NOT all player planets equal and warp points anywhere in the system.

I'll concentrate on a few key breathables (you sort of have to in proportions), and in my latest game I've taken the 80% planetary capacity trait which really adds challenge: It makes tiny non-breathables practically (but not quite) useless. My goal in this game is to build a ringworld.

I expand quietly, slowly and peacefully, concentrating on infrastructure in order to give the AIs plenty of time to develop the kind of economy/ weaponry that will provide me with a challenge later in the game.

If I find myself trapped in an isolated part of the galaxy with no AIs and no choice but to develop WP openers then so much the better:-) By the time I "break out" there will (hopefully) be a wonderfully advanced alien warmonger on the other side just waiting to give me a decent run for my money. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

In these games I don't develop weapons tech at all until first contact or even first combat, and I try not to start wars (but usually finish them=-)

Re: Galactic Leadership Style
 

Against the AI
Never settle in a neutrals system
Never trade for more than resourses
Never build traning facilties
Only use Intel in "counter" mode
Never start a war.
When attacked push the AI back two systems and try to hold it there.
Accept any treaty
Only settle one planet type

[ January 15, 2003, 22:10: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

Re: Galactic Leadership Style
 

I certainly agree that if you need minerals NOW, mineral miners are the way to go. At least until you have enough minerals/organics/radioactives to build monoliths.

But the 1,000 mineral production of Mineral Miners and the 900 minerals/organics/radioactives production of monoliths can be improved upon.

I may not have the whole picture, so maybe you guys can help me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Assuming the planetary values of minerals/organics/radioactives are each set at 100, a Mineral Miner3 should be able to produce:

Mineral miners III.............1,000 minerals
Mineral scanner III.............300 minerals
Robotoid Factory III...........300 minerals
Sys robotoid Factory III......300 minerals
Total............................1,900 mineral per facility

Since a monolith produces equal amounts of minerals, organics and radioactives, I will use the acronym MOR to denote the equal production of minerals/organics/radioactives. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Monolith III....................900 MOR
Robotoid Factory III.........270 MOR
Sys robotoid Factory III....270 MOR
Total..........................1,440 MOR per facility

Would this be accurate? Or are there other 'facilities' which will increase resource production.

I understand that racial bonuses and population bonuses will have an effect, but at this point I am just wondering if the above catches all the 'facilities' which a player can construct to increase his resourse production.

[ January 23, 2003, 01:09: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Re: Galactic Leadership Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First, I don't think the Mineral Scanner stacks with the Robotoid.

Second, yes, those are all the facilities for non-racial techs. BUT the Crystalurgy guys get some facilities the generate resources based on number of stars in the system.

But regarding the whole discussion, the math is generally right, but don't forget to figure in cost and constuction time. Example: if you want to fill a planet with Miner III's, you can build 1 every 2 turns. Yes, you can build 1 Miner II every turn and upgrade later, but let's keep it simple. In the time it takes to build 2 Monolith III's (10 turns at default constuction rate), you could have built 5 Miner III's and the first 3 have already broken even and are making a profit.

If the planet can hold 10 facilities, you can fill it with Miner III's in 20 turns and at that time all but the Last few will have turned a profit. It would take 50 turns to fill it with Monolith III's before your math comparison would be valid. That gives the Miner III planet 30 turns at full production even before the Last Monolith is completed!

Now don't get me wrong, I do use Monoliths, but I plan them properly and build them when I have the time and resources to expect the profit will work for my overall game plan.

Other things to think about:
- Miner II's can be built in 1 turn and upgraded later as discussed.
- A Resource Converter will benefit any empire and is slightly more beneficial to the Monolith, but there is a delay time till profit as discussed.
- There are ways to plan ahead for a construction bonus to make your particular plan better. Like selecting construction bonus, quickly piling on the population, making the population Jubilant quickly, etc, etc.
- Building the system-wide facility on another planet so you get the bonus in parallel with construction.

Slick.

Re: Galactic Leadership Style
 

You only get 2 resource bonuses from facilities. You get the best planet increasing ability, and the best system increasing facility. 2 Robotoids give you as much bonus as you will be able to get. You could use a System Robotoid and then a Planet Mineral Scanner, and they stack. But, a Planet Robotoid and Planet Mineral Scanner do not stack; only the best available bonus is used.

Re: Galactic Leadership Style
 

Fyron and Slick thanks for the correction re mineral scanners. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slick, you have gone into the relative benefits in conjunction with the time line very well. You have made a complex subject more comprehensible.

But most of us do not have degrees in mathematics. Even if we did, I wonder if we can render it into a simple (or even complex) formuala. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The question is how to translate what you have said into a feasible construction strategy?

These are my thoughts.
1) If you have lots of MOR, build monoliths.
2) If you do not, build Mineral Miners (and Farms and Colliders as needed).
3) Planetary Robotoid Factories are preferred over Mineral scanners since Planetary Robotoid Factories can be used by Mineral Miners (and Farms and Colliders) as well as Monoliths.
4) Build Planetary Robotoid Factories and Sytem Robotoid Factories where is it economically feasible.
5) When a surplus of minerals, organics and radioactives has occurred or when you are running out of places to build Mineral Miners, consider building Monoliths and even consider scrapping Mineral Miners to build Monoliths.

With all said and done, it is the creation of a surplus which is the difficulty. Any possible surplus can dissipate rapidly with the building of ships.

So, one should consider carefully and ask the question, "Do I really need this ship or can I use the resources to build a Monolith."

Where there is a huge planet with a compatible atmosphere, the answer for some will be "Yes, it makes sense to build a colony ship to colonize it."

Where there is no obvious outside military threat, the answer for some may be "No, it is an acceptable risk to delay building the battle cruiser."

Re: Galactic Leadership Style
 

It really can't be compressed to an end-all, beat-all formula. There are way too many variables in any one game for any such formula to work well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Galactic Leadership Style
 

Right. It is the fact that this game has so many variables and does NOT have an uber-strategy that guarantees a victory that makes it fun. If there were a formula for victory, this game would hold nobody's interest.

Slick.

PS - I do not have a degree in mathematics... Nuclear & Mechanical Engineering, yes; mathematics, no. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Galactic Leadership Style
 

Yes, I agree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Which is why I tried to formulate an overall strategy.

A persons knowledge, preferences, racial characteristics and a multitude of other factors will result in a different implementation of the "overall strategy".