Mk I strategy

[Octus Imperium]

Interesting tangent, the guy with the bashful fingers, origin of ethnic Russians and the disucssion of Russian winters before there were Russians. Very interesting and rather educational.

 

Now back to the topic. Thanks for the input about the topic. Does anyone have insights who has researched all MK I's and either found it of value or didn't?

 

I agree with morale and experience, but the current limits of taking advantage of these attributes makes the discussion moot in SN terms. At least for now, that is.

 

Octus

[System Lord Ra]

There was some discussion by MadMartinB about how space combat worked. As well as ground combat. If I remember it right it was based on pretty heavy multiples as tech advanced.

 

Not sure. Maybe someone can ask him. If we resolve Sesi well then I will pose the question.

[Krelnett_of_Kraan]

We've got MMB's e-mail; we'll write him tomorrow to see if we can get him to come back on and discuss this.

[octagon999]

Interesting tangent, the guy with the bashful fingers, origin of ethnic Russians and the disucssion of Russian winters before there were Russians. Very interesting and rather educational.

The benefits of a classical education.

 

Seriously, though, most of us don't have enough data to support much beyond conjecture. Hopefully, basing things on logical, real-world models will result in something reasonable, even if not optimal.

 

And unseriously, you guys are a hoot, and half the fun of the game.

[Krelnett_of_Kraan]

Our theory (seriously) is that the tech tree is so broad it really behooves us to specialize in one or two areas of research. That way when we meet other sentients, we have something worthwhile to trade. This will be especially true since two neighboring empires will almost certainly not have specialized in all of the same things.

[Laserwolf]

Because the majority of MK I techs are low amounts of RC's to acquire, the research investment is relatively small, therefore the theory is sound. However, as your MK I's open new MK I's, things change. 1st Generation Social Engineering, although really impressive, is a bit of a research sink and MK I Antimatter Engines will set you back 8 months of 9 committed research centers.

 

But the theory is still sound.

[Lord Xaar]

And the Swedes. Specifically the Swedish tribe called the Rus who started a little trading post along the Moskva River. We call that place Moscow now, and the Rus interbred with the local Slavs to make Russians.

Isn't the "species engineering" stuff in a different thread?

[KOTEC]

Maybe there is something in this.

 

That something is Mk I is not to mean that it is low tech. For example a Mk II Standard Missile is rated as Fair, whereas a Mk I Standoff Missile is rated as Adequate.

 

But it still takes you as many researchs to get to Adequate with a Standoff Missile (Mk I Standard Missile, Mk I Heavy Missile, Mk I Standoff Missile) as it would going via the Standard path (Mk I, Mk II and Mk III Standard Missile).

[WKE235]

The real question is how much do you specialize -versus- how much broad based research do you do.

 

One school of thought is you can specialize into certain areas, follow the tree as far as it will go, and then, back track to other areas or branches once completed. So, pick a type of ships weapon, some type of defense or two, and a couple of other items. Use 4 RC per turn for 6 paths (use the extra 1 for doing Saved SRP research at start for key techs to get things like NTWD or 2nd Gen Industrial, or other such items, then for cheap POOR class items not on your main paths to broaden your tech base). In twenty six turns you can be pretty well off with good class weapons and defenses and on your way to Superior class. At that point, does it really matter if you missed a cool tech branch?

[Krelnett_of_Kraan]

From MadMartinB via e-mail (he won't return to the boards):

I thought I discussed weapons ages ago. The easiest way to understand them is as follows:

All grades of weapons do the same damage x tonnage. If the curve is as steep

as ground weapons you would have:

Poor  10 x tonnage

Fair  30 x tonnage

Adequate 100 x tonnage

Weapons do a fixed amount of damage for each impulse (for lack of a better name). They also have an intrinsic range (long Range v. Short Range Torpedoes). You could put them on a x/y/z grid where X is range and y is damage. The z axis would apply to generations and impact the % hit ratio.

Weapons are countered by their specific defense and then secondary defenses.

Example: [sPECULATION]

100 fighters (poor & 100 tons) come in and have say a 30% chance of hitting and do 1000 damage.

CIDS open up (depending on level etc.. they have a % chance to hit and reduce fighters by a % say 30%).

Now 700 damage inbound

MK I Force Shields come into play and the player has enough to get adequate coverage (say 30% reduction).

Now 590 damage

Armor takes over based on strucutral integrity...absorbs damage and then off we go again.

Bridge impacts fire control (as in number of ships to hit). This is very important for large fighter/drone ships which need to spread the fighter wings out.

I've done about a dozen battles but have not seen anything too big. I had much better tech than the Mindshpere home defense fleet and smeared him.

[Locklyn]

At least not in his Eyre form if I know him correctly...

 

 

/Locklyn

[Octus Imperium]

Maybe there is something in this.

 

That something is Mk I is not to mean that it is low tech. For example a Mk II Standard Missile is rated as Fair, whereas a Mk I Standoff Missile is rated as Adequate.

 

But it still takes you as many researchs to get to Adequate with a Standoff Missile (Mk I Standard Missile, Mk I Heavy Missile, Mk I Standoff Missile) as it would going via the Standard path (Mk I, Mk II and Mk III Standard Missile).

Very interesting observation. Many thanks for your (and others) insights.

 

Cycling back to another comment about mutiple RC's per tech, I wonder if placing 8 RC's on one tech is a good, long term strategy. Given the diminishing returns of multiple RC's, one would be much better off in the long haul with fewer, optimally one RC per advance. Of course, one will get any particular advance much more slowly and some techs may be viewed as critical (and justify the 'piling on'). Just more speculation after a dozen turns.

 

Octus Imperium

[T'Lariss]

Cycling back to another comment about mutiple RC's per tech, I wonder if placing 8 RC's on one tech is a good, long term strategy. Given the diminishing returns of multiple RC's, one would be much better off in the long haul with fewer, optimally one RC per advance. Of course, one will get any particular advance much more slowly and some techs may be viewed as critical (and justify the 'piling on'). Just more speculation after a dozen turns.

 

Octus Imperium

 

 

You are quite corect that is far more efficient to work set only 1 research center per tech area however some tech's require 48 turns worth of research at one research center per and there are rumors of some tech requireng many more than that. The higher level tech will almost require multiple research centers to achive the wanted tech in a reasonable time. It may be ineffecient but someties you gotta do what ya gotta do

 

T'Lariss

[WKE235]

This was discussed in another thread (wish I could remember the name). There was a discussion of weapon effectiveness (poor, fair, adequate,...) versus weight versus R&D. The question was how much better is the next advance in a tech over the previous tech.

 

Using Autocannons, 20cm autocannons are rated Fair at 200 tons, 10cm Autocannons are rated Poor at 100 tons. In this case, the 20cm Autocannon must be at least twice as effective firepower wise as the 10cm. Otherwise it would not make sense to research the more advanced weapon. Some of the discussion int the thread was around how much more effective was the Fair versus Poor rating for this weapon (and other groups like Adequate versus Fair, etc..).

 

That is the key to spending multiple RC's on higher level techs. If these differences / improvements in weapons and defenses were (after considering weight, rating, and the like) marginal, then a policy of 1 RC per turn of research per tech would leave you with a disadvantage in the game, but not a great one. But the overall feeling was the improvements were better than that, far better. In that case, an opponent spending multiple RC's compared to 1 RC per turn research would have great advantages in battle and other aspects of the game. Sure they would be more limited in their breadth of their tech. But the advanced tech would allow them to run over the 1 RC per turn player.

[Octus Imperium]

Cycling back to another comment about mutiple RC's per tech, I wonder if placing 8 RC's on one tech is a good, long term strategy. Given the diminishing returns of multiple RC's, one would be much better off in the long haul with fewer, optimally one RC per advance. Of course, one will get any particular advance much more slowly and some techs may be viewed as critical (and justify the 'piling on'). Just more speculation after a dozen turns.

 

Octus Imperium

 

 

You are quite corect that is far more efficient to work set only 1 research center per tech area however some tech's require 48 turns worth of research at one research center per and there are rumors of some tech requireng many more than that. The higher level tech will almost require multiple research centers to achive the wanted tech in a reasonable time. It may be ineffecient but someties you gotta do what ya gotta do

 

T'Lariss

The Octus Imperium is very patient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But perhaps not 96 weeks (48 * 2 weeks) patient.

 

 

 

 

 

Alas, the days when the research scientists will collaborate over caffeine and carbohydrates instead of brain cases huddled over their favorite research bench. Scientists get soooo distracted when they have to work together on a long project. The inefficiencies.....