|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Great stuff. It really is helpful info for inexperienced players (like myself).
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
[ June 10, 2003, 20:48: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Very nice work Stone Mill. Alot of good information is contained in that section that will help not only new ones to the game but also ones that have been around a bit longer. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Do System Robotoid Facilities increase the benefits of remote mining?
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
This is great stuff. Looks like you well on your way to writing the Un-Offical Strategy guide. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Please more.
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
Well written and organized. Hits all the highlights an experienced SEIV player already knows. Instructional Designer, huh? I should have guessed… as a former technical writer. You have been doing such a good job with the strategy articles, I can almost forgive you for living on the wrong side of the Delaware River. Keep up the good work. Gecko</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's a nice compliment coming from a follow tech writer. But now I feel on-guard, as you may notice many more sloppy mistakes and inconsistencies than anyone else! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Unfortunately, I work just as much on troubleshooting technical issues and project management... I don't write as much at work anymore. Maybe that's why I occupy myself with these articles... As for the Delaware river, remember... Washington launched a sneak attack across it once... be careful, it can happen again! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif I love PA; some of my very best friends live in/near Philly and Brandywine valley. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Now, if we are going to bash NJ, I suggest you open another thread!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [ June 10, 2003, 22:06: Message edited by: Stone Mill ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
Great to see another article. Superb as always. (I hope this does not seem too presumptious) Here are a few things I noted... [edit] 17.3.3.c ships are not "scrapped" they are "abandonded". The main difference is that wheh you intentionally scrap a ship, you get a percentage (in settings.txt) of the resources back. Abandoned ships return no resources, any cargo being carried is lost, and the AI certainly won't choose wisely when deciding which ships to abandon. 17.3.6.2 Add prioritizing ruin planets. Personally I prioritize them just after breathables unless there is danger of another empire taking it, in which case ruins are highest priority. If you don't have the colonizing tech for the ruin planet yet, try to defend it to deny it to the enemy. 17.3.6.4 2nd paragraph: note that production & construction rate can drop after you remove population from your homeworld. Advanced Storage Techniques will add more space for population so that you can remove some population without losing your bonuses. 17.3.7.2 treaty % is incorrectly used here. See FAQ 10.6.10 17.3.7.3 solar generators produce minerals, organics and radioactives, not just radioactives. Also under Temporal, the Temporal Shipyard has a higher construction rate than a spaceyard III, but a planet with a spaceyard facility has to scrap it before building a TSY. 17.3.8.1.a Do system-wide facilities benefit planets owned by other empires in that system??? 17.3.10.f 20% of the other empire's income multiplied by your political savvy %. 17.3.13.c Organic races can make some of the best fighters in the game using the Small Electric Discharge weapons. [edit] This, combined with the organic tendency to be able to significantly outproduce others, makes fighters very formidable for organic races. There is also no limit for the number of fighters in a sector. For more on fighters see FAQ section 8.2. 17.3.14.2.f Don't write off a construction queue when it is in "Slow" mode. Slow mode is a great time to build units. 17.3.15 (See also FAQ 4.6) Once again, great work and thanks for covering the areas that I mentioned before. It is great to see another player's perspective and methods. It sure showed me a few good tips, but overall it made me feel that I don't do such a bad job managing my games after all. Slick. [ June 11, 2003, 09:52: Message edited by: Slick ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Thanks to you all, especially Atrocities, sachmo, slick, Rags, gecko. You have made me happy with your high compliments. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Nice feedback...I'll get to some of the edits a bit later. Aslo, I've been thinking a bit about Monoliths and my opinion on their usability... [ June 11, 2003, 18:08: Message edited by: Stone Mill ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
Note: System Robotoid Facilities do not increase the benefits of remote mining. (Imperator Fyron) Quote:
[ June 11, 2003, 20:09: Message edited by: Stone Mill ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
your faq is indeed an impressive accomplishment.
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
Great to see another article. Superb as always. (I hope this does not seem too presumptious) Here are a few things I noted... [edit] 17.3.3.c ships are not "scrapped" they are "abandonded". The main difference is that wheh you intentionally scrap a ship, you get a percentage (in settings.txt) of the resources back. Abandoned ships return no resources, any cargo being carried is lost, and the AI certainly won't choose wisely when deciding which ships to abandon. 17.3.6.2 Add prioritizing ruin planets. Personally I prioritize them just after breathables unless there is danger of another empire taking it, in which case ruins are highest priority. If you don't have the colonizing tech for the ruin planet yet, try to defend it to deny it to the enemy. 17.3.6.4 2nd paragraph: note that production & construction rate can drop after you remove population from your homeworld. Advanced Storage Techniques will add more space for population so that you can remove some population without losing your bonuses. 17.3.7.2 treaty % is incorrectly used here. See FAQ 10.6.10 17.3.7.3 solar generators produce minerals, organics and radioactives, not just radioactives. Also under Temporal, the Temporal Shipyard has a higher construction rate than a spaceyard III, but a planet with a spaceyard facility has to scrap it before building a TSY. 17.3.8.1.a Do system-wide facilities benefit planets owned by other empires in that system??? 17.3.10.f 20% of the other empire's income multiplied by your political savvy %. 17.3.13.c Organic races can make some of the best fighters in the game using the Small Electric Discharge weapons. [edit] This, combined with the organic tendency to be able to significantly outproduce others, makes fighters very formidable for organic races. There is also no limit for the number of fighters in a sector. For more on fighters see FAQ section 8.2. 17.3.14.2.f Don't write off a construction queue when it is in "Slow" mode. Slow mode is a great time to build units. 17.3.15 (See also FAQ 4.6) Once again, great work and thanks for covering the areas that I mentioned before. It is great to see another player's perspective and methods. It sure showed me a few good tips, but overall it made me feel that I don't do such a bad job managing my games after all. Slick.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Muchas Gracias! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Edited my original post. |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
I don't blindly build monoliths because there a few factors which makes that process inefficient: a. I never build monoliths in the early game, and find that Monoliths aren't really comparatively desirable until Monolith III is available. The build cost (up to 5 turns) with a regular space yard is too prohibitive. Usually, your empire needs immediate application of resources. If I have better construction % (can build them in 2-3 turns), I will be somewhat more likely to use them. Generally, I can only pump out Monoliths this fast with Temporal yards. Compare: 5 turns to build one Monolith facility(I,II,III; 500,700,900 of each resource, respectively) 5 turns x 5 resource extraction facilities(I,II,III; 800,900,1000 of each resource, respectively) The resources gained by 5 Mineral Miner IIIs (5000) easily surpasses a Monolith III (900 minerals). If you project how many minerals actually applied to your economy in those 5 turns, it's not even close: (5000 + 4000 + 3000 + 2000 + 1000 = 15,000 for the mineral miners) Not to mention that monoliths are quite expensive and tie up your yards for more turns. Monolith growth strategies can be enhanced if a resource converter and lots of extra storage is available, because you are building tons of extra organics and rads. If you don't have a converter, why extract so many organics and rads that won't be used? Because of the resource "rules of thumb," you will generally need 10 : 1 : 3 So, why not just extract what you need, and put it to use quicker? Organic races make Monoliths more desirable because their resources may be something like 10 : 5 : 5 I still look at Monoliths like a luxury item. In a competetive game against humans, I stick with: 1. I usually build monoliths only when I have a planet with good values in all 3 resource types (and there aren't that many of 'em). I may sometimes select a planet with 2 out of 3, if I need those 2 types. 2. If for some reason I am comforatble and don't need the resources immediately, and I don't feel threatened. If I'm playing the AI, I may toy around a bit more, because I certainly don't feel threatened. [ June 14, 2003, 05:16: Message edited by: Stone Mill ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
17.3.7.2 Planet Values % Pay attention to the mineral, organic, and radioactive value % on a planet’s details. When determining where to build a facility, use a planet close to or exceeding 100% for a given resource type. That percentage is part of the formula used in producing your empire’s total resources: (Extraction Facility value) x (planet’s resource type %) x (empire’s racial %) x (Planet Computer Facility %) x (System Computer Facility %) x (planet’s happiness %) x (population %) x = total mineral resources committed to your empire for that facility. For example, a Mineral Miner I extracts (700) x Planet mineral 120% (1.2) x empire racial bonus 110% (1.1) x Planet Robotoid factory I 110%(1.1) x System Robotoid factory 110% (1.1) x Jubilant happiness 120% (1.2) x 500 population 110% (1.1)<font color=red> x treaty +20% (1.2)<font color=black> = (x) mineral resources committed to your empire for that facility. x treaty +20% ??? What do you mean? 17.3.7.3 Develop Your Planets The key to economic growth is maximizing your planet development. Special facilities can help, but they take a while to build. Therefore, in a small universe or one-on-one game, I rarely use any advanced facilities, unless I’m really comfortable and secure. Medium scope game facilities : a. Planet Robotoid Factory (Computers). I usually build these Last on a planet. Second to Last, I build a space yard to expedite the build time and facility upgrade time (quite often, I set the yard on emergency build for these.) b. System Robotoid Factory (Computers). I usually build these Last on a planet. Second to Last, I build a space yard to expedite the build time and facility upgrade time (quite often, I set the yard on emergency build for these.) Note: System Robotoid Facilities do not increase the benefits of remote mining. (Imperator Fyron) c. Monolith Facilities: only if the planet has good values across all categories, and I feel I can wait 5 turns. d. Scanners: I don’t generally use them because the bonus is applied to only one resource area, rather than all three. <font color=red> And you have to cannot use both <font color=black> Robotoids and Scanners at the same location; only one takes effect. <font color=black> Grammar. 17.3.10 Predict Resource Swings How did this Happen? All new players learn a hard economic lesson when they start using advanced tech and their economic needs change. Players can experiences economic droughts of 10, 20 or more turns trying to compensate for current resource needs. For instance, you start using Phased Polaron Beams on your designs, and find your radioactive reserves drained while you halt all production to build radioactive mining facilities. The best bet is to plan ahead. Most commonly, economic swings are caused by: a. (Mid game) Building and maintaining components with a heavy radioactive cost, such as shields, armor, certain weapons types such as PPBs, and stellar manipulation components (huge!). Rads are most often underestimated. b. (Early game) maintaining too many colony ships en route; building too many non-resource producing facilities at the same time c. Mass building or upgrading of facilities, especially special facilities. d. Losing (or acquiring) fleets and planets. e. Retrofits to your current designs, using new components with a different resource cost. <font color=red> Retrofits are subtracted from your stored resources. When you give the retrofit order, the specific resource cost is displayed. HOT! you must take a mental tally of all retrofits you order in a turn and ensure the total cost does not exceed your storage!<font color=black> If you have a surplus in your resource income/expense, the total cost of the retrofits must be compared to the storage AND predicted income the next turn. You can retrofit with a storage of 0 if you have a turn result of enough positive resources next turn. [ June 14, 2003, 09:44: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Stone Mill, you think too much in the short term. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Of course they are less efficent immediately. That is where the balancing comes in. But in large epic games, going with Monoliths is pretty much always a better idea. Such games often have long periods of peace, and those periods are good for getting Monoliths going. Compare Monolith III with Miner III, 2700 (or 1800 of one resource with converter Is) to 1000 resources. In the long term, Monoliths really pay off.
I never advocated Monoliths in small games or in the early game, btw. And naturally, Monoliths go hand in hand with Resource Converters. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And yes, Monolith I and II are not very useful, which is why I never build them. Also, SY III + HI + 120 const. apt. gets Monoliths in 3 turns on low pop worlds, and in 2 turns on high pop worlds. Take Organic, and you can make all planets high pop worlds (well, large and huge ones, at any rate) in no time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Temporal is not the only way to get fast construction rates. |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Ruatha, good catches, my friend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Edited, save for:
Quote:
Am I incorrect? Can anyone assist to verify this? |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Ok, I was quite certain but I'll await confirmation.. I have been wrong several times in the past http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
Am I incorrect? Can anyone assist to verify this?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Stone Mill: You are correct (sorry, Ruatha http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ). You need resources for retrofits in the bank and can't rely on income because the cost of retrofits comes out of your storage before income goes in. If there is not enough in storage, the retrofit fails. Also, I agree with you 100% on the monolith issue. Anyone who has run the numbers can see that monoliths pay back waaaay too far in the future in most cases. I also do use monoliths when it is a good idea, especially when you have a planet with high resources in all 3 areas it does make sense - if this planet is large or huge, it may not be. If anyone wants to prove it to themselves, just do a few case studies and add up the net resources over time: - make sure you subtract the resources you spend on the facilities you build and add in the resources the facility makes on the turn after it is built. Do this for every turn and you will find that building monoliths will create a large resource deficit for many turns - is your other income able to absorb this and still be competetive?, - make sure you account for the time it takes to build the facilities, - you can include a resource converter in the end if you wish, but this really benefits both sides of the argument, - if you build a spaceyard before building facilities to speed up build time, include the resources and time to build it as well as the increased facility construction rate, - if you build value improvement plants, include the resources and time to build and the time to increase resource percentages, - use real game probabilities for planet rescource percentages. It is much easier to find a planet which is > 100% in one resource than to find one that is > 100% in all 3 resources. - consider planet size. no matter what your build rate, it takes far longer to fill a large or huge planet with monoliths than individual resource facilities. - since monoliths I, II, III all cost the same, they all take the same time to build, but the lower level ones produce less. on a standard planet with standard construction rate (2000, 2000, 2000) a single resource facility level II can be built in 1 turn with no spaceyard. When the Last one is built, they all can be upgraded to level III's. This method will fill a planet the quickest and the extra cost for upgrading is made up by having the level II facilites built in 1 turn instead of 2 turns for a level III so you have the income sooner. - finally compare both schemes and see how low your rescource deficits get while building (this will surprise the monolith builders) and how many turns out it takes before a monolith planet exceeds a single resource planet. There is no doubt that a monolith system will eventually outproduce single resource facilities. The real question is at what point and what happens in the meantime? You will find that this time is very long (too many variables to put a discrete number here), but try some case studies yourself and you can see that it will be many many turns. And in the meantime, your enemies are coming... [edit: p.s. let me know when you are done tweaking 17.3 for incorporation into the FAQ.] Slick. [ June 14, 2003, 19:02: Message edited by: Slick ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Live and learn!
Slick, I guess you'll be hearing from Fyron about this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif The monolith economy is very close to his heart I belive! I just like to see those shiny high tech facilities, not spewing enviromental waste as those mineral mines are doing! |
Re: Strategy Articles!
It might be obvious, but no one has explicity mentioned it. If you really wanted to build the monolith economy, but still gain maximum resources as soon as possible. Would you not build the normal economy first, say resource II's. But for the final two facility slots build a space yard for improved build and start the first monolith. As each monolith completes, scrap a normal facility and build another monolith. It is a lot a micromanagement, but it will get you the most resources along the way.
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
Ruatha, of course, I expect it; I am not the kind of person who needs to have the Last word on everything. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything; I am trying to show people how to come up with the answers that are right for themselves and their play style. The people here are smart enough to make up their own minds. If anyone has a play style they like or prefer, then that is the one that is right for them - the game mechanics will always be the same but different play styles can certainly be used effectively. Slick. [ June 14, 2003, 19:59: Message edited by: Slick ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, early on it has all the advantages of the normal economy system expect the one facility per planet you have to leave empty to build the monolith. And later, only 30 turns later on a huge AST world, you start to gain the advantages of the monolith economy. Except for the hassle of micromanagement I would say that is the way to go in the long run. At steady state, you sacrifice 1k of production for 3-5 turns to get 2.7k of production. Thus each monolith III becomes net positive (even with just converter I) 4-6 turns after it is completed. |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, early on it has all the advantages of the normal economy system expect the one facility per planet you have to leave empty to build the monolith. And later, only 30 turns later on a huge AST world, you start to gain the advantages of the monolith economy. Except for the hassle of micromanagement I would say that is the way to go in the long run. At steady state, you sacrifice 1k of production for 3-5 turns to get 2.7k of production. Thus each monolith III becomes net positive (even with just converter I) 4-6 turns after it is completed.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Agreed in principle that it is better than the either/or approach. However don't forget the cost of the Monolith: 10,000 Min; 5000 Org; 5000 Rad. In those 4-6 turns that the previous one starts to turn a small profit, you have started constructing the next monolith which puts your economy as a whole for that planet back into a deficit situation again. Again, I recommend laying out turn by turn a few cases. In each case consider resources spent, made and the time it takes till the next facility is built. Most of the time in this game (as in real life), income now is much more valuable than income later even if it is more because you can put it to work now instead of later. Remember, your enemies might not be courteous enough to wait until you have a huge planet filled with monoliths established long enough to be superior over single facilities before they attack. Slick. [ June 14, 2003, 20:49: Message edited by: Slick ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
Are they allowed to be so nasty? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif Whatever happened to Peace, loving and understanding? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif [ June 14, 2003, 23:38: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
I never once advocated building solely monoliths right off the bat... I only start building them after my economy is well off and can support the deficits incured with Monolith construction without problems (and I start off slowly; I don't just suddenly have 50 worlds start on Monoliths all at once). Also, absorbing a few minor empires early on helps cover those deficits too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
It is a good idea to build a SY as the first facility on new worlds in general because if you need to use them, you now have a bunch of SYs available to build colony ships, warships, and whatever else you want. The cost to build monoliths is immaterial (esp. when you wait until you get a strong economy going before building them). What else are you going to do with those resources, build more ships than you need? Also, keep in mind that once my Monolith economy is going, I build them on all resource worlds. A 100/30/30 planet produces more with Monoliths than just Mineral Miners, after all. Will it take longer to even out? Sure, a few more turns. Big deal. Furthermore, Monoliths are not for small empires. They are for large empires (100s of planets). Starting to build Monoliths when you only have a few dozen planets (and esp. when there is still a lot left to colonize) will only get you killed. Building a Robotoid Factory III after the 4th Monolith often takes just one more turn than a Monolith, and gives many more resources than a Robotoid on a planet with normal miners does (as there is much more base production). The fact that monoliths take longer to build can work to your advantage. Normal economies max out a lot sooner than a Monolith economy (and a proper Monolith economy will not be too far behind the normal one when this happens), while the Monolith economy still has a lot of growth left. I would have to disagree with the statement that some resources now are better than more resources later. In most situations, waiting a dozen turns or so is well worth the investment. If you are being destroyed, then of course building Monoliths is not going to help much. Emergency situations call for normal miners. Keep in mind that it is rather easy to get Monoliths built in 3 turns a piece on all worlds with more than a few facility slots (HI, 120 const, SY III, Jubilant pop). Again, the resources to build them are only an issue if you are engaged in a losing war. If you are in no wars or in a winning war, then the high cost to build Monoliths is a null issue. And by the way, I know how to do algebra. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Here are some numbers for a PBW game I am in: Huge (255 system) map, 17 players, turn 142 1st: 8.7 M points, 299 planets, 4.2 M resources 2nd: 4.5 M points, 142 planets, 1.1 M resources 3rd: 4.1 M points, 117 planets, 387.5 K resources 4th: 3.7 M points, 158 planets, 507.5 K resources Guess what the 1st place player did? You guessed it, Monoliths. 2nd place has been building Monoliths recently, but is very far behind. 1st place can not get enough ships built to use up resources, so many 100k of them get wasted each turn (he lost something like 140 ships in an ongoing war thanks to those damned Talismans). And, 1st place doesn't even have HI in this game (he was a PBW newbie when it began, afterall). There was another empire that was in 2nd for the whole game, and using normal miners. He managed to destroy several empires too. He surpassed 1st place player for about 20 turns, but his unrelenting aggression forced the peace loving races of the galaxy to go to war to stop him. He is in 8th now. When (current) 1st place entered the war, each of them was producing about 1.0 M resources, and he had more planets than (current) 1st place did. This was some 50 turns ago. So in summation: Short term: Monoliths = bad Medium term: Monoliths = roughly equivalent (with only low net loss) Long term: Monoliths = super good If you only care about short term gains (such as early game, small maps, early wars), go with normal miners. If you care about long term gains (large maps, mid-game, no early wars that are not resulting in you steamrolling over a minor empire), go with Monoliths. -===- About Remote Miners: Again, using them is only good in the short term. In the long term, it is much better to build planets out of asteroids and build normal miners or Monoliths on them (as the situation dictates). |
Re: Strategy Articles!
I'll have to side with Fyron on this one. In PBW games with 20 players I try to get monoliths early.
I do build M1 and M2 though, mainly to stake in those slots and to get fast upgrades to M3 later. In late games I really use alot of Rads and organics too as I put atmosphere converters on 100+ planets in NGC2 and also built some Null-space weapons. PPB's are the base weapon in my fleet. In networks I've converted alot (not 100 though) planets, those atm converters cost alot! Mineral shortage is something I seldom experiance but early in the game I can get a lack of orgs and rads. Even though they take time to build, I do them on my ringworlds aswell, the ringworlds will never be completed before the game finishes but my income will continue to rise along with my fleet size. [ June 14, 2003, 12:08: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Stone Mill,
Excellent piece, lots of interesting stuff. The only thing I was surprised by was your (and others) negative view of Remote Mining. While I'd never remote mine a planet - unless future colonisation was completely impossible - I find asteroids very useful, especially because of their very high resource percentages. One can build, relatively early in the game, a Light Cruiser with three mineral RM components that will cost around 1500 minerals in maintenance, and mine around 6000 minerals on a 200%+ asteroid. Something that takes 4-5 turns to build and returns an income of 4500 a turn is as good an investment as a mineral mine (unless you're thinking very long term when the degradation of the asteroid mineral percentage becomes an issue). And a key benefit, which no one has yet mentioned, is that asteroid mining is (obviously) not prone to rioting. So it's a guarranteed source of income even during a major war when you're suffering damage. This saved my neck in a very recent game, when a large number of my planets had been glassed, and two thirds or more of the rest were rioting. My asteroid mining income kept my fleet alive and the empire operating. |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Great Posts on both sides, which both deserve mention... I will do my best to try and summarize some of the points made and expand the monolith section.
Oh sure, there may be some butchery as always. But I'll try to get it right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Mark- on remote mining, it is something I tried at first and never really found a handle on how to do it efficiently. After reading your Posts and those of others, I see how it can make sense. I may try it out again, and re-draw my initial impression of remote mining... [ June 15, 2003, 03:17: Message edited by: Stone Mill ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
Emergency Resupply solves this problem of course, but that's not really "early game" tech. Actually, my solution has been to ignore the problem. They may be out of fuel, but they go on happily mining. And if eventually you want to replace them, just move them off their asteroids, send in a warship, and blow them up! It's not a completely optimum use of resources, but they paid for their investment cost a long time ago. |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Supplies have nothing to do with it. Remote Mining is an inneficient waste of resources in the long run (esp. in larger games). Just a few resource facilities on a planet built form the asteroids produce more than your ships will.
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
I think remote mining can be very usefull given the right circumstances. ie: You've pretty much colonized all the planets, the game is not likely to Last long enough to use planet making tech. Given this, why would you not remote mine that asteroid that has 300% minerals?
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
i do not like to use remote mining because of 2 things:
1. the ai doesn't use it so i consider it to be an unfair advantage. 2. it's too much micromanagement. [ June 18, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: minipol ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Remote mining is more desirable when you play a game where you have restricted colonization and cannot colonize every type of planet. Although in the long haul, you may still be better off destroying the planet and recreating it until you get the right type, but that is a very expensive process.
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Slick, It's all yours to add anything else you deem useful...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Added: 17.3.7.4 The Monolith Economy Some players rely more heavily on monoliths than others. The Monolith Economy includes them as a key component (used with a resource converter). Included herein are the arguments for and against: Factors For: a. It is generally accepted monoliths aren’t efficient in small games or in the early game. If you only care about short term gains (such as early game, small maps, early wars), go with normal miners. If you care about long term gains (large maps, mid-game, no early wars that are not resulting in you steamrolling over a minor empire), go with Monoliths. But in large epic games, going with Monoliths is pretty much always a better idea. Such games often have long periods of peace, and those periods are good for getting Monoliths going. Compare Monolith III with Miner III, 2700 (or 1800 of one resource with converter Is) to 1000 resources. In the long term, Monoliths really pay off. (Imperator Fyron) b. Build time: Also, SY III + HI + 120 const. apt. gets Monoliths in 3 turns on low pop worlds, and in 2 turns on high pop worlds. Take Organic, and you can make all planets high pop worlds (well, large and huge ones, at any rate) in no time. Temporal is not the only way to get fast construction rates. (Imperator Fyron) c. Gradual introduction: If you really wanted to build the monolith economy, but still gain maximum resources as soon as possible. Would you not build the normal economy first, say resource II's. But for the final two facility slots build a space yard for improved build and start the first monolith. As each monolith completes, scrap a normal facility and build another monolith. It is a lot a micromanagement, but it will get you the most resources along the way. (cybersol) d. Building a Robotoid Factory III after the 4th Monolith often takes just one more turn than a Monolith, and gives many more resources than a Robotoid on a planet with normal miners does (as there is much more base production). Factors Against: a. I never build monoliths in the early game, and find that Monoliths aren't really comparatively desirable until Monolith III is available. The early build cost (up to 5 turns) with a regular space yard is too prohibitive. Usually, your empire needs immediate application of resources. They also set your economy back because of the high build cost. If I have better construction % (can build them in 2-3 turns), I will be somewhat more likely to use them. Generally, I can only pump out Monoliths this fast with Temporal yards, or when a planet has been eventually groomed to SY III, jubilant, high population. (Stone Mill) b. I still look at Monoliths like a luxury item. In a competitive game against humans, I stick with: -- I usually build monoliths only when I have a planet with good values in all 3 resource types (and there aren't that many of 'em). I may sometimes select a planet with 2 out of 3, if I need those 2 types. -- If for some reason I am comfortable and don't need the resources immediately, and I don't feel threatened (which is rare). If I'm playing the AI, I may toy around a bit more, because I certainly don't feel as threatened. (Stone Mill) c. If anyone wants to prove it to themselves, just do a few case studies and add up the net resources over time: - make sure you subtract the resources you spend on the facilities you build and add in the resources the facility makes on the turn after it is built. Do this for every turn and you will find that building monoliths will create a large resource deficit for many turns - is your other income able to absorb this and still be competitive? - make sure you account for the time it takes to build the facilities, - you can include a resource converter in the end if you wish, but this really benefits both sides of the argument, - if you build a spaceyard before building facilities to speed up build time, include the resources and time to build it as well as the increased facility construction rate, - if you build value improvement plants, include the resources and time to build and the time to increase resource percentages, - use real game probabilities for planet resource percentages. It is much easier to find a planet which is > 100% in one resource than to find one that is > 100% in all 3 resources. - consider planet size. no matter what your build rate, it takes far longer to fill a large or huge planet with monoliths than individual resource facilities. - since monoliths I, II, III all cost the same, they all take the same time to build, but the lower level ones produce less. on a standard planet with standard construction rate (2000, 2000, 2000) a single resource facility level II can be built in 1 turn with no spaceyard. When the Last one is built, they all can be upgraded to level III's. This method will fill a planet the quickest and the extra cost for upgrading is made up by having the level II facilities built in 1 turn instead of 2 turns for a level III so you have the income sooner. - finally compare both schemes and see how low your resource deficits get while building (this will surprise the monolith builders) and how many turns out it takes before a monolith planet exceeds a single resource planet. There is no doubt that a monolith system will eventually outproduce single resource facilities. The real question is at what point and what happens in the meantime? You will find that this time is very long (too many variables to put a discrete number here), but try some case studies yourself and you can see that it will be many many turns. And in the meantime, your enemies are coming... (Slick) [ June 25, 2003, 23:08: Message edited by: Stone Mill ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
I have the football. Thanks!
Slick. |
Re: Strategy Articles!
I saw this mentioned several times earlier in this thread, but don't understand how it works. How does building a space yard help with constructing facilities that take 2+ turns? I haven't seen it increase the construction rate of planets.
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
SY II and III have higher build rates (2500 and 3000). Also, building a SY allows you to get racial SY bonuses to production, such as from Hardy Industrialists and Construction Aptitude. You do not get these bonuses without a SY on the planet.
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Thanks IF. So SY I's don't really help (other than receiving those racial characteristics)?
[ July 01, 2003, 06:39: Message edited by: Ares ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Paging Professor Stone Mill. Please report to your word processor. Your fans are getting restless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Slick. |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Yeah, Stoney, BUMP! I can't wait for one more of your 'Extasy' pills to swallow http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
[ July 17, 2003, 19:43: Message edited by: Loser ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Perhaps this page is something for you Stone Mill;
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/academy/ [ July 23, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
|
Re: Strategy Articles!
From another thread:
Quote:
Anyway, Stoney, you are absolutely killing me with anticipation of your next article. Do we have to wait till your daughter gets married off or what??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Slick. |
Re: Strategy Articles!
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.