Race selection in MOO1 and balance

Well, im not able to write such lengthy posts due to my virtually non-existing english language skills, so ill try to be shorter. Looks like i need to clarify what im fully agree what Alkary sux, i thought it was pretty obvious tho. The point is what Mrrashans sux in comparison to any other race. You point what Mrrasshans can do some early war is correct. The only point you miss is what its the only thing they can do at all. Alkary is simply better in development, becuse they dont have theyr economy hurt by bad construction and by having an exellent fuel tech.

2. If you engage in early warfare all Propulsion research beyond Sub-Light Drives (or Fusion Drives if you don't have access to the former) is virtually irrelevant. - is so deeply wrong, so im not even sure if i really got your point, or its language barrier. Calling propulsion "irrelevant" for early war is simply absurd, as unless you play small - you could easily got a good time researching range 5 fuel simply to colonize, contrary to "Say you need range 6 to make it to your second colony. Sure, then Alkari are better. But this is uncommon." You compare 2 slighly different things here. Cats doesnt need a targeting comp, so they skip research. Alkari need drives as much as others, but they research them faster than others, thus speeding theyr colonization and grow more pop to grab the comp much later, when it actually have some use. And they do it without being hurt by bad construction. So at the beginning both races skip comps, just alkary build coloniships faster due to ok construction, they move further and pop move faster to to more early drives techs. So in result they would have more prod than cats, and would be able to build more ships than they can, even if those ships individually will be weaker.

About 3. - what is wrong with gatling laser without miniaturisation? Its very cheap teach, very powerful and work with comp1 very good.

In summation: If you want to play a strict builders game, yes Alkari are better at that than Mrrshans. - yes, thats exactly i was talked about, as its statistically make a difference. Alkari is not good in economy, but not bad also. Mrasshans can do only early war, but unlike moo2 its not optimal strategy in moo1, due to different combat and eco mechanics, you cant just build one ship and win all AI on any map size here. Alkari will simply outbuild more weaker races, thus will have more poupulation and more research. You ideas about some exploiting of early captured techs from AI's from early war is fine, but its extensive way, simply less reliable than eco development. I hope is more clear now.
 
2. If you engage in early warfare all Propulsion research beyond Sub-Light Drives (or Fusion Drives if you don't have access to the former) is virtually irrelevant. - is so deeply wrong, so im not even sure if i really got your point, or its language barrier.
Sub-Light Drives already is rather expensive for an early game tech.
Any propulsion tech beyond that (with the exception of Fusion Drives, when you don't have Sub-Light in your tech tree) means that you are in the late mid game, like, by definition.
Cats doesnt need a targeting comp, so they skip research. Alkari need drives as much as others, but they research them faster than others, thus speeding theyr colonization and grow more pop to grab the comp much later, when it actually have some use. And they do it without being hurt by bad construction. So at the beginning both races skip comps, just alkary build coloniships faster due to ok construction, they move further and pop move faster to to more early drives techs. So in result they would have more prod than cats, and would be able to build more ships than they can, even if those ships individually will be weaker.
What you are talking about here are wide open games, to the point that you have vastly more space than the AI due to a fortunate starting position.
These games are virtually auto-wins anyway. You can win them any way you want.

I am ready to admit that chances are that i would figure out a way to get a lot of reasonably early warfare into it, even when it's not necessary. :)
About 3. - what is wrong with gatling laser without miniaturisation? Its very cheap teach, very powerful and work with comp1 very good.
You have to make up your mind here how you understand the term "early warfare". If you want to research Sub-Light Drives (let alone more propulsion) you will run into plenty of Class 2 shielding.
Gatling Laser is uber bad against that in comparison to NPGs, Hyper-X or Ion Cannon.
Also: If you want to research Sub-Light Drives (i want to do that, i'm just saying you have to face the consequences) chances are you will run into AIs that have propulsion too or, heck, even Inertial Stabilisers. Stabilisers suck, but they'll have your Battle Comp 1 for breakfast and the AI loves them.

And in saying thatyou want to research a Battle computer later you are essentially insisting that you want to and that you are still able to play a builders game, that you can outproduce the AI and/or there are still open systems for you to grab.
You are refusing to accept the premise: You want to wage war now, not later. Or worse: you have to wage war now, not later.

but unlike moo2 its not optimal strategy in moo1, due to different combat and eco mechanics, you cant just build one ship and win all AI on any map size here.
Sure, you can't build one ship and win with it like in MoO2. You have to build many ships to succeed with an early war. That means you have to be efficient with that. And Mrrshans are good at that and Alkaris are less good at it.
You ideas about some exploiting of early captured techs from AI's from early war is fine, but its extensive way, simply less reliable than eco development. I hope is more clear now.
No, i'm not trying to get specific techs. That would be way to unreliable.
All i'm saying is that i can completely abandon one tech field and in executing my early war i will likely get that compensated somewhat cause it's the tech field the AI prioritises the most. I still don't really need the techs all that much. It's just that this fixes my low Comp tech level, so i don't get screwed by covert ops.
 
1. Then looks like it was a misunderstanding about sublights. I was talking about fuel techs, what are simply cheaper for Alkary. You need fuel for initial developmen, you got it cheaper in one case, got at regular price in other. In what way it make regular price more good for initial development?

2. Of course. So the whole point was what on smaller maps extencive combat races are better than in big maps? Of course again. Rating given is simply statistical, from various map sizes, in bigger map sizes you could outcolonize AI, in smaller you went to war. I peekd at other topic about "humans in average" - its a wide open map, i got it right (obviously its auto-winned just by difficulty settings, but its other story)?

3. - "You have to make up your mind here how you understand the term "early warfare". If you want to research Sub-Light Drives (let alone more propulsion) you will run into plenty of Class 2 shielding. Gatling Laser is uber bad against that in comparison to NPGs, Hyper-X or Ion Cannon." - weird comparison. Whats the point to compare very early tech of gatling with later staples? Of course gatling is weaker later, so it used in early warfare, pre NPG etc. But looks like its rooted from misunderstandement of "sublight as early warfare" stuff.

4. "You are refusing to accept the premise: You want to wage war now, not later. Or worse: you have to wage war now, not later." - very possible, as im definitely not considering myself to be any good in moo1. Would be interested to get any info about timestamps considering early war tho. As far as i got by now idea is to get early fuel and be able to colonize and build enough even from 2.5 planets to contact enemy for early war? Or only good starts are considered?
 
1. Then looks like it was a misunderstanding about sublights. I was talking about fuel techs, what are simply cheaper for Alkary. You need fuel for initial developmen, you got it cheaper in one case, got at regular price in other. In what way it make regular price more good for initial development?

2. Of course. So the whole point was what on smaller maps extencive combat races are better than in big maps? Of course again. Rating given is simply statistical, from various map sizes, in bigger map sizes you could outcolonize AI, in smaller you went to war. I peekd at other topic about "humans in average" - its a wide open map, i got it right (obviously its auto-winned just by difficulty settings, but its other story)?

3. - "You have to make up your mind here how you understand the term "early warfare". If you want to research Sub-Light Drives (let alone more propulsion) you will run into plenty of Class 2 shielding. Gatling Laser is uber bad against that in comparison to NPGs, Hyper-X or Ion Cannon." - weird comparison. Whats the point to compare very early tech of gatling with later staples? Of course gatling is weaker later, so it used in early warfare, pre NPG etc. But looks like its rooted from misunderstandement of "sublight as early warfare" stuff.

4. "You are refusing to accept the premise: You want to wage war now, not later. Or worse: you have to wage war now, not later." - very possible, as im definitely not considering myself to be any good in moo1. Would be interested to get any info about timestamps considering early war tho. As far as i got by now idea is to get early fuel and be able to colonize and build enough even from 2.5 planets to contact enemy for early war? Or only good starts are considered?

1.& 2:
I see Sub-Lighs as a military tech, not as an economic tech. It just comes too late to affect early population movements. The economic factor is only relevant if you have such a starting position that you can cover huge areas and an above average number of planets.
If you don't have that you are simply done colonising and moving people around once the tech comes.
For early mid game warfare however the faster troop movement is essential and Sub-Light Drives (or Fusion Drives) or extremely powerful as a result. I'm talking large scale campaigns here. If it's just about taking one planet or crucially crippling one direct neighbor the whole debate is moot, cause you can do that with or without any number of technologies depending on the circumstances.
And, yes, that you get Sub-Light Drives faster if you are Alkari (and have a bigger chance of having them in your tech tree in the first place) is a big advantage. What i'm saying is that it's not enough and that past that point Propulsion research becomes increasingly less important compared to weapons.

I mean not necessarily "good starts" but ok-ish starts on huge or large maps, where you get some decent planets (maybe 5 or 6 or 7) but not enough to have an easy win by playing the economy alone.


3. & 4.
I mean initiating large scale campaigns around tech level 8-12 and permanently shifting the game into a militaristic style, abandoning multiple research fiels (or all of them) in the process (that doesn't exclude researching one or two crucial military upgrades later).
Gatling Lasers are no good for that. And crappy targetting is no good for that. And Nuclear Bombs are, well, less dangerous but still somewhat problematic. If the AI taps into the right technology at the wrong time your whole fleet becomes utterly useless from one turn to the next.
A fleet with level 2 or 3 comps (or the cat bonus), Neutron Pellet Guns and Fusion Bombs on the other hand carry you deep into the mid game and essentially win you the game. The AI can come up with whatever technology they want. You may suffer slightly more casualties as a result but your offensive can continue. You don't have to start over with entirely new ships (you may of course add new ships if you get fancy new technoly through conquest or because you maintained weapons research, but the older ships are still contributing to the campaign).
This is what i call "early warfare".
That doesn't mean that Gatling Lasers are useless. They are for, well, "very early warfare" or a "gambit". Limitied campaigns about a few very specific goals, where you are careful not to build any more ships than necessary for the task and immedietly switch back to a builder playstyle. Like, say, quarreling with a direct neighbor over one or two border planets. Or say, you have one AI extremely close to you and you've gotten a ground combat tech from an artifacts planet (or you happen to be Bulrathi) - so there you are with that tech and Hand Lasers at a +15 to +0 advantage - now you could opt for building some simple bombers and just rush that neighbor completely.

PS:
I'd like to make one point for your side of the argument. Industrial Tech 8 is can actually become a crucial tech in some games because it allows you to set up tech levels for a Colony Base and Reserve Fuel Tanks (in a large ship) in a relatively efficient way. You need some Planetology too of course (minor things, cheaper than Ind. Tech 8 anyway).
This is very convenient compared to the alternatives. (Battle Suits and Duralloy have no economic benefit on the one hand and Ind Tech 9 needs so much Planetology that you'll like sooner get the necessary range through Propulsion research).
Now Mrrshans are of course at a disadvantage because they have to pay a few hundred points extra for that.
 
It would be much more informative if you will provide approximating timestamps still. By now it looks as "neutron pellet is better than gating" etc, whats is surely true, but little of infomation. And again, dunno how else to explain it - i see early propulsion as a crucial for fuel tech, not sublight, they are not early game. You often need a fuel even for you first built CS, so if you pay for it less - you land it faster and develop faster later. And AI is so weak in war, so i hardly can see any special weapon techs as crucial at all, you could beat it badly on impossible even with basic lasers with powerful race in the beginning of game. So could you please provide some at least vaguely timestamps for "early war"? Its 40-th, 70-th, etc. Otherwise its really looks as "autoblaster is better than gatling, and compX better than comp1".
 
It would be much more informative if you will provide approximating timestamps still. By now it looks as "neutron pellet is better than gating" etc, whats is surely true, but little of infomation.
[...]
Otherwise its really looks as "autoblaster is better than gatling, and compX better than comp1".
Stop bringing that damn Auto-Blaster into this. :rolleyes:

Look, fleets with Fusion Bombs and a decent weapon (NPG or Ion Cannon or if you attack later even Hard Beam) are relatively immune to the kind of tech upgrades the AI may get in a reasonable time (like better engines or Stabilizers, Class 3 Shields or Class 5 Planetary Shields).
If you have a fleet of say 200 medium ships with Gatling Laser, Computer Mark 1 and Nuclear Bombs, these techs can shut your entire operation down.
It's not that your oppenents are somewhat stronger now, no, your entire fleet has turned into complete horse manure in an instant.
If you set up your fleet with decent basic weaponry and a furry equivalent to a Mark 4 Computer that won't happen. The AI can get new techs but your offensive continues.
That's a fundamental difference. All these techs are cheaper than Sub-Light Drives. So they're hardly comparable with Auto-Blasters.
The point is that they're not goddamn Propulsion or Construction techs.

If you don't want to appreciate this and if you want to tech to Battle Suits and Fusion Drives and then build a fleet with Mark 1 comps and Gatling Lasers, fine. Do so.
It's a bad plan but i'm not keeping you from it.

You often need a fuel even for you first built CS, so if you pay for it less - you land it faster and develop faster later. And AI is so weak in war, so i hardly can see any special weapon techs as crucial at all,
Yes, and every bit counts. But the 110 points or whatever difference on Hydrogen will not make or break my game and it will not compensate for the comparative weakness of the Alkari.
Those points are easily compensated for later.

With the Alkari you lose thousands of points on the Mrrshans later.
Now think about it this way: Suppose i lose an entire turn on those Hydrogen fuel cells or even two. Imagine my empire would just freeze for a turn and the AI would get one extra turn.
Of course that's not what's happing i can manage my ressources and mitigate the damage the tech delay is doing.
The question is: Can you make up thousands of points in the one turn (maybe two) you have gained in say 2370?
So could you please provide some at least vaguely timestamps for "early war"? Its 40-th, 70-th, etc.
Between 2385 and 2425 as a start date. Depends on the circumstances.
As i said: I don't mean limited wars but shifting the whole game in a military direction. 80 or 90% of your output is ships and population growth for an indefinite time (ideally until the game is won), next to no research, next to no refitting, no more bs colonising of Inferno planets etc.
For example,since Sub-Light Drives is so expensive, i often find myself attacking with Nuclear Drives and have the more remote planets (like 25% of my output) research Sub-Light drives while i'm attacking (only that, nothing else, 100% Propulsion). That way it's ready when the first row of enemy planets are taken (troops for that can be sent in advance so the speed is less of an issue) and faster transports are necessary.
Another setup would be slightly later: Attacking with Sub-Light Drives and researching something else that automatically upgrades during the first few years of war (like a ground combat tech).
 
"Between 2385 and 2425 as a start date. Depends on the circumstances." - Hm? 85-125 turns for "early war"? You could start pounder with gatling huges around t70 and continue to add next generations of them later. All its done pre-sublights and on fusion drives game is obviously over no matter what. Im honestly cant see other explanation than my awful english to get me as proposing to wait till sublights to start some war with some mark1 lasers.

But lest clarify things - are you win with mrasshans at huge impossible under any besides most extreme circumstations (no planet for first colony ship for example)?

"Yes, and every bit counts. But the 110 points or whatever difference on Hydrogen will not make or break my game and it will not compensate for the comparative weakness of the Alkari. Those points are easily compensated for later." - thats exactly im talking about - some discount on the field what needed after initial development is easily compensating by better economics. Btw - you wrote something about 1.4 version. Must confess im not having any idea about changes in it too, and talking merely about 1.3.

"The question is: Can you make up thousands of points in the one turn (maybe two) you have gained in say 2370?" - i could try to answer on it if you will rephrase it in more basic way, im not sure i can get this right way.
 
Sure you can do war earlier. It's possible that it fizzles, as i pointed out, but that's not the point.
The point is that we got to talking about Sub-Light based warfare based on my claim that Propulsion tech becomes all but irrelevant after Sub-Light Drives (or Fusion if you can't get the former).

:mischief:
 
So I should hurry up and finish my Human game and start a Mrrshan game?

I would see winning with the Mrrshan at a given level (Average) as a sign of graduating from that level into the next level. I am not sure if the Alkari are marginally better or not.

I think the benefit is more military than economic. However, if we are grabbing a planet in a system that can be reached by an opponents transports, the Alkari and Mrrshan might be able to delay building the Planetary Missile bases.

Here is one item I have not seen here - What about Orion? How many Fighter Ships do the Mrrshan need to build to take Orion compared to other races?

Regarding stages of the game, I will have to look at the last one and make a guess as to how to define the game stages. It also depends on the galaxy size.

It might come down to whether you are building Colony Ships, Missile Bases, Fighter Ships, or Battleships.
 
Sure you can do war earlier. It's possible that it fizzles, as i pointed out, but that's not the point.
The point is that we got to talking about Sub-Light based warfare based on my claim that Propulsion tech becomes all but irrelevant after Sub-Light Drives (or Fusion if you can't get the former). :mischief:
I would definitly sign under it. Because as i sayd i see main importance of propulsion as boost at beginning of game what fix most maps. Thus letting you to colonize faster, so move population faster, i guess its my writing "skillz" derailed you into mere idea of "fast sublight-driven war".

Harv, so could you send a t1 save, if its of no real bother for you?
 
Sure you can do war earlier. If you can deal with all the issues we talked about.
Sometimes that's feasable, sometimes it's impractical. *shrug*
 
The reason i asked about sure win with Mrasshans is exactly because i need to understand, if those practical measures make the mentioned difference or not. Because if you able to achieve that - then it surely make a real difference. Personally i cant do it reliably with them, very possibly i do alotta mistakes in process, but at least in my hands alkary have statistically better performance above them. If you just win from getting some starts with 4-6 great planets with them - its other story.
 
No i meant 4 to 6 planets in general (on a large or huge map). Not "great" ones.
You know, starts where you don't need Iridium Fuel Cells. You get some planets, just not that many. Because you are surrounded by multiple enemies that start close to you.
That's a rather common situation.

I'm not really sure what you are talking about with that impossible business. I wouldn't be comfortable claiming to reliably beat impossible with any race.
The question rather seems to be: If i were to play 10 random games on impossible (huge, 5 oppenents) which race would i rather play.
 
Now im really puzzled. You mean you cant reliably win impossible huge even with, say, Klackons? And you mean what you will prefer Mrrasshans to Klackons or say Sakkras for such game (dont get meaning of "random" in this context). As it impossible with your knowledge of game - im pretty sure its damn language barrier again.
 
Now im really puzzled. You mean you cant reliably win impossible huge even with, say, Klackons? And you mean what you will prefer Mrrasshans to Klackons or say Sakkras for such game (dont get meaning of "random" in this context). As it impossible with your knowledge of game - im pretty sure its damn language barrier again.
Yeah, i have no idea what you are talking about anymore (with the random thing). :D

But no, i'd obviously not prefer Mrrshans over Klackons. The Mrrshans are horrible compared to any decent race. All i'm saying that the Alkari are even slightly worse.
And i have no idea if i could reliably beat impossible with Klackons.
 
I was talking about "The question rather seems to be: If i were to play 10 random games on impossible (huge, 5 oppenents) which race would i rather play."
upd. Looked at the saves at average difficulty. As im not used to research costs at this difficulty i wasnt sure about actual quality of performance there. Now i think there is no actual need to trying to beat damn language barrier for such unimportant issue as Mrasshans vs. Alkary.
 
Looked at the saves at average difficulty. As im not used to research costs at this difficulty i wasnt sure about actual quality of performance there. Now i think there is no actual need to trying to beat damn language barrier for such unimportant issue as Mrasshans vs. Alkary.
So you're saying Harv and i suck? :D
 
No, why? But as you are not answer actual questions, its too hard to actually talk. And looks like this habit not justified by some sky-high game technique of you also.
 
Average Difficulty Level research cost:

C = 30 * L ^ 2

So Level 2 is 120, Level 3 is 270, Level 4 is 480, and Level 5 is 750. This is adjusted for race bonus, of course.

There are several reasons I posted games online. One is that I have trouble finishing them and this gives me motivation to finish. Also I get feedback and therefore learn how to improve my game.

When I finish this game I will compare how well executed it was compared to the Klackon game I did a couple of years ago. Hindsight says the Klackon Game is painful to watch.

EDIT: Added link

Going from Average to Hard will also mean my starting population changes from 50 to 40.
 
I can reliably beat impossible with klacks or psilon, medium size, 3 or 4 opponents, it's not that difficult. It's very difficult with other races though.

I could see mrrshans being better if you play a small or medium size with 5 opponents since each race will be limited to 3-4 intial planets and you can swoop in and take a couple early. Otherwise, alkaris are probably better.
 
Back
Top Bottom