Tech Pace and Player Spacing

[President Guztov]

Might you be impling that a a new supplemement or perhaps a new rulebook be uploaded to the RTG board with all the changes incorporated from the last year? There are many many changes

I think enough to warrant a new rulebook myself.

[Hiver]

Count me in as one of those people who think that races with high research bonuses have been given a raw deal. I for one don't see much of technological advantage from choosing to spend a lot of setup points on research bonuses. It seems that we all have relatively the same technology, no matter what we do!

 

And those of us who spent all of our setup points even seem behind the races who saved a chunk of them for a huge head start in tech - even though our research bonuses are much higher!

 

This to me kills some of the flavor of the game. I think we might have sacrificed a great deal of logic (and a little bit of fun) in the name of balanced game play. If I start another race, I certainly won't be putting a lot of points into research bonuses.

[ShadowKitsune]

Hopefully, the newest version of the Rulebook will be more clear on how saved racial points [sRPs] and Research interact. I, like Ur Lord Tedric, mistakenly assumed it was like Raw Resources and basic materials - 10 SRPs earned you 1 Research Point - not a 1:1 correlation.

 

It seems, to me, that the design premise was that the vast majority of the races would be built with 1000-1500 of the 2000 points available, leaving 500-1000 SRPs for a "quick boost" in Tech at the beginning.

 

It is my fervent hope that the break even point between the races that spent all of their 2000 racial build points and those that saved 600+ points is a lot sooner than most people predict. Otherwise its going to be a long and boring game for us "smart" races.

[Emanon]

Ah! SK

 

Rember "It is not how you start smart or thick headed, but how you finish!"

 

You don't need to be the best race at the begining, but may finish that way via say something like species engineering Now Lord Emanon we can build a brewmaster, just drink this. Wrong flack try this one.

 

Well perhaps perfection is only in the eyes of the beholder.

 

Long

Live Emanon

[ShadowKitsune]

Emanon,

 

Good Luck with your Enhanced Mutation Through Inebriation (EMTI) project! :lol: It can't be any less efficient than Species Engineering ...

 

-SK

[Emanon]

I'll drink to that pass the

 

Consumito Ergo Sum.

 

The best thoughts come when your relaxed. A lot don't pass mustard when you come to the next day, but a few do.

 

Long

Live Emanon

[RTGPete]

Count me in as one of those people who think that races with high research bonuses have been given a raw deal. I for one don't see much of technological advantage from choosing to spend a lot of setup points on research bonuses.

This is an interesting point - certainly saving setup points is valuable for the early technology, as slot 1-ing items makes for some rapid advances. That, after all, was the whole idea behind saving points.

 

The relatively slow pace of research later on, when things get more expensive (and as noted in the rules, when you cannot slot 1 an item no matter how many saved points you have) is where the brainy races have the edge over saved point guys. There is simply no way for the non-brainy races to remain at the same pace when slot 1-ing doesn't work on that tech item.

 

If technology came faster, investment in brain power would be lessened because anybody could get tech fast and brain wouldn't matter as much. Slower tech advancement extends the difference, making the brain investment more valuable for items that cost more. As an example, if a particular high technology advance took 30 turns to achieve with just 1 no-brain research center...that's a long time to wait. What if it only took you 23 turns because you bought some lifeform research bonuses? Furthermore, suppose you really wanted some high-end item. In that case you might want to put more than just 1 center on it. You'd suffer diminishing returns, but so would the non-brainy race. This is his way of trying to close the gap (forcing inefficiency on both of you). However, as tech advances get even more expensive, even if you both put all 25 centers on something...the brainy race cannot be equalled and remains ahead. Whether those advances are worth the effort, and how many research centers you want to devote to each, would of course depend entirely on your particular situation.

 

There's no question that using slot 1 for a while to get certain key tech advances rapidly is really nice. Once you run up a particular tech tree and can no longer slot 1 those items, the guys who still have saved points will have to go after other lower technology items. The higher advances take a long time to achieve, but the brains have a significant edge in that area.

 

I might add that the various other lifeform bonuses such as exploration, ground combat and colonization are pretty significant in their own right. All are fairly expensive to purchase (with points that could have been saved or put into brain/sensors), and they grant you pretty hefty bonuses in their respective areas.

[MadMartinB]

I would have to agree with Pete and maybe disagree a bit :-)

 

AGREE SIDE: I have maxed out certain paths and am now spending RCs on that tech (many RCs) in fact. I will eventually get it.

 

DISAGREE SIDE: If I spend all my lifeform points on making my race COOL I then am in a world of hurt. let's say I jump out of my system and now am in a Warp Nexus or two or three with Cs or Ds. (very probable).

 

My race now has 25 items in slots to be efficient. I could do it faster but let's go with that.

 

10 turns later I get MK II JSS. About that time 2G Space Science pops in so I slot MK III JSS. That takes anywhere from 5-20 turns depending on what % of my RCs I allocate. So in 15-25 turns I now have MK III JSS. The issue is the person with saved points has had them since turn 4.

 

Another example:

Saved Points buys: Fighter, Strike Fighter, Attack Fighter and then tries for Bomber but realizes hew can't buy it. Maybe he runs out of points now. He then dedicates 1 slot to this research.

 

if we go with something like (and this is a wild guess) 12 points, 18 points, 24 points, 36 points in terms of research (GUESS GUESS GUESS) then it will take that player 36 turns to get bomber + 3 turns for the predecessors.

39 turns total

 

The Person without spare points and say a 50% Research bonus (wildly high maybe) would take: 6 turns for fighter, 9 turns for Strike Fighter, 12 turns for attack fighter and 18 turns for Bomber.

45 turns total

 

In effect somewhere down the path of 2 years of play the research bonus will even out. A long term play!

 

Not sure if I helped or caused more chaos....

[EternusIV]

Chaos: 50%

Clarity: 50%

 

But doesn't that happen with all good questions?

 

There is some psychology at play, too.

 

Watching your neigbor race up the tech tree in the early stages is not very encouraging if you are one of the natural eggheads (read: spent SRPs on brain stuff)

 

And yes - it is a long term wait until you start seeing the advantages.

 

I can tell you for certain that 3rd Gen stuff without SRPs takes about 24 turns for an average intel race.....exploration results can shave maybe a turn or two off of that (can't really tell yet because I think its % based rather than SRP based)....

 

so yes - from what I can see, the tech tree is a long-term program akin to a marathon and those that spent their SRP's on intelligence etc. will eventually be the Kenyans who leave the rest of us in the dust.

[MadMartinB]

24 turns seems an eternity but it does control the pace. I have bumped several times against the top end of the spectrum and truthfully MK II Fusion is not that much better than MK I Fusion or MK I Nuke. You need to many to make a difference on big war ships.

 

Now MK IV Fusions of MK VI is a different story and those have to be bought the hard way.

[RTGPete]

Another example:

Saved Points buys: Fighter, Strike Fighter, Attack Fighter and then tries for Bomber but realizes hew can't buy it. Maybe he runs out of points now. He then dedicates 1 slot to this research.

 

if we go with something like (and this is a wild guess) 12 points, 18 points, 24 points, 36 points in terms of research (GUESS GUESS GUESS) then it will take that player 36 turns to get bomber + 3 turns for the predecessors.

39 turns total

 

The Person without spare points and say a 50% Research bonus (wildly high maybe) would take: 6 turns for fighter, 9 turns for Strike Fighter, 12 turns for attack fighter and 18 turns for Bomber.

45 turns total

 

In effect somewhere down the path of 2 years of play the research bonus will even out. A long term play!

 

Not sure if I helped or caused more chaos....

Only going to the first item that cannot be slot-1'd to make a stab at a break-even between saving points and spending on brain heavily favors the saved points strategy by definition. Since SNROTE is a long term game, suppose you stretch it out to the second or third item after saved points no longer work on slot 1. That makes a big difference. In any event it's not all about break-even points: you either have a tech item or you don't. At the high end, if saved points cannot be spent on something, and you shave off 12 turns per item researched because of your research bonus, I'd say that's a pretty big deal no matter what the brain vs saved-point calculations might say.

 

Also, the high technology items aren't horribly hard to research. They will certainly take a long time to gain, but research bonus helps a lot, and of course only putting only a single research center on something that's high tech will take a lot of patience. At that point it might be time to assign multiple centers and forget about research center efficiency calculations: ...must...have...Mk VI Atom Blaster...must...have...

[hobknob]

The best thing about all of this is that my position is now over 1 year old so I must be getting closer to showing the benefit of high RB's.

 

In the end it is all a trade off. In 5 years I may really wish that I had taken a few more brain celss, but today I wish I had a few more saved points to buy buildiong block technology. Once you have the building blocks it is much easier to sit around and wait 20-30 turns for an advance. It is even esier now that we can actually find stuff. My entire navy armament may wind up being what I find since tech iin that area seems slow.

Edited September 23, 2003 by hobknob

[MadMartinB]

I can sympathize with you Hobnob. I could have armed a fleet with the things I dropped. Instead I got 1 good engine lots of Improved Food C, Radioactives, Gaseous elements...

 

Oh the desire to have some more cargo space..

 

I am supposing I am going to run out of points soon.

 

pete - your comments on 2/3/4 past a max Slot 1 makes sense.....On the other hand I still have some Improved Materials to get (what the ?*&%*( do I do with Improved Consumer Goods).

 

arghhh

 

[woolfe99]

Max RB costs 2050 setup points. Assuming, arguendo, it provides a 50% bonus, that means each RC produces 1.5 in a single assignment turn (multiple assignments can be ignored for this purpose because as Pete said it affects those with and without SRP's. However, the bonus is diminished when you use multiple RC's if it is in fact a percentage add to the RC output, whereas this problem does not affect techs "bought" by SRP's). In any event, assuming you go at 1 RC per tech, in theory, max RB gives you 12.5 points per turn (25 RC's x .5 each). According to that calculation, the break-even is 160 turns (2050 SRP's/12.5), or a little over 6 years. Two things counterbalance the equation. First is that you cannot buy techs beyond like 4th gen, and second is you get pretty hefty combat bonuses along with the senses and intelligence. Those things are tough to quantify.

 

Personally, knowing what I know, I would always opt for SRP's because there are techs that give a significant early game advantage that are buyable in the first 10 turns. Those who have to wait 20, 30 or 40 turns for those techs will suffer a compounded economic disadvantage from not having them.

 

Then again, who knows how hefty the combat bonuses you get with the RB really are? If max RB gives you combat bonuses equal to say five 4th generation techs, that would counter-balance things quite a bit.

 

I did vote in the poll, but now that I think about it I can't really answer to whether the research is correctly paced. If it is linear, e.g. 12, 24, 36, 48 etc. then I think it's just right. If it is geometric, e.g. 12, 24, 48, 96, 192, then it's absurd. I will most likely drop if it turns out that way.

 

Either way, I will never agree with the tradeoff balance between SRP's and RB.

 

- Woolfe

[EternusIV]

Well I don't think the SRP v RB balance is out of whack.

 

I'm confident in the balance that Pete and Russ have given us. However, the scale of the game seems to be the underlying irritant for research.

 

Its clear from Pete's explanation that RBs are much better in the long run; and I'm not so sure thats a bad thing. What are the odds that you'll get wiped out by an empire who brilliantly used SRPs? I think its moot! You aren't likely to get wiped out by anybody for the first two years of play unless you roll out the red carpet for them.

 

I have those early economic bonuses - and they aren't enough to decisively out-produce an opponent. Its one thing to have that boost in production; its another thing to find someone else and have the right combination of ships/troops in the vicinity to wipe them out.

 

The way I see it, positioning is 90% of this game, strategically. Location, location, location

 

I'm sorry, but my elder position couldn't wipe out my Turn 14 starting position with ease; despite the elder position's economic and technological superiority.

 

Anyway -- back to the SRP v RB thing....

 

I think most angst might arise from the expectation of scale involved with the game. How many of us expected a ten year campaign? I don't know the answer to that one, but judging by the poll, it seems that 66% of the players are impatient as to either tech or spacing. (Yup - I'm one of those impatient bastards who wants a faster pace overall )

 

Perhaps we wish the pace of the game were faster.....one week turnarounds with half the cost per turn sheet....

 

but I don't see any glaring balance issues.

 

A faster pace would encourage the empires that spent RBs on tech skills because they would "see" them "faster" At the current pace, the Woolfe's of the game have a decision to make (especially if the advancement is geometric)