Home World Forum: The Academy » Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Tue, 13 January 2009 13:21

Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 630
Registered: January 2009
Location: new york -5

When creating a race do you guys prefer having a really good planet hab of like 1-3 or 1-4 so you have lots and lots of green planets growing population or do you prefer 1-7 or 1-8 hab and having your population growth like 18 or 20% which is like doubled.

My thoughts....
Now remember Iv never really played online so im just kinda guessing here.
Good hab of 1-4: (guessing with 12 to 15% pop growth)
1-Gives you lots of planets to choose from and spread all over the map.
2-Maybe slow start but once you get so many planets
(alot more higher % green planets), with higher % your pop will grow just as fast or faster than if you had 20% pop rate on a planet that is only around 50% max.
3-More plantes means more resources and minerals, and a more defended galaxy.
4- Higher max population on planets.

20% POP growth:
1. the few planets you do have will grow fast.. well considering if the planets are at 50% they would grow just as fast as someone with a pop growth of 10% in a 100% habitability planet.
2. Even though your growth rate is doubled you will have less planets to colonize and most likely the planets will not be 75% or higher... Those few planets wont reach a very high max population due to planet hab % being so low.
3. You will build POP fast in the beginning on HomeWorld to colonize multiple planets fast.

Well that's what I could come up with from the top of my head. Any experienced guys who have time and wanna enlighten me if im right on the pros and cons?
Personally I would think if i had a race built out with the 20% pop growth and a 1-7 hab and just made the pop growth to 15% it would give me a lot of points extra to give me a 1-4 or 5 planets habitability which would be better.. But im new and i dont really know and those numbers are all guesses just for a close example.

[Updated on: Tue, 13 January 2009 13:52] by Moderator

......
Ranked games: 8-1
Recently won the game Knife Fight.
Looking for a practice duel.
.......

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Tue, 13 January 2009 13:26

Commander

Messages: 2768
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

I'd say 1 in 4 is a good enough hab, but 1 in 3 is better for achieving the effects mentioned. Also, you should consider using one immunity. Cool

Cool

As with everything, you'll be better suited by testbedding these ideas, and see for yourself if you can achieve the desired effects. Twisted Evil

Twisted Evil

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Tue, 13 January 2009 13:36

Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 630
Registered: January 2009
Location: new york -5

I'v sorta did both but only against AI and I'm not experienced enough to come to my own full conclusion. Maybe theres secrets that you dont wanna unleash into the Matrix. But Im going to assume because you said 1-4 is good im going to stay with that being better than high pop growth unless someone else could debate otherwise. thanks for your post

[Updated on: Tue, 13 January 2009 13:51] by Moderator

......
Ranked games: 8-1
Recently won the game Knife Fight.
Looking for a practice duel.
.......

Report message to a moderator

Topic split and moved (Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?)

Tue, 13 January 2009 13:51

Commander

Duel Club Champion 2005

Duel Club Champion 2005

Duel club champion 2004

Duel Club Champion 2004

Messages: 2343
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1

Topic split and moved to the Academy where it should be.

mch,
modaw

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Tue, 13 January 2009 13:54

Commander

Duel Club Champion 2005

Duel Club Champion 2005

Duel club champion 2004

Duel Club Champion 2004

Messages: 2343
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1

slimdrag00n wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 19:36

I'v sorta did both but only against AI and I'm not experienced enough to come to my own full conclusion. Maybe theres secrets that you dont wanna unleash into the Matrix. But Im going to assume because you said 1-4 is good im going to stay with that being better than high pop growth unless someone else could debate otherwise. thanks for your post

1 in 4 is good, but against humans don't go below 18% growth. Special cases like for example a HP IT or HP JoaT could live with 17% ... And a 1i AR can get away with 15%, once it has DS it can grow more than 100.000 pop per turn!

If you go -f you can afford both large habs (with immunity! Don't forget) *and* high growth.

mch

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Tue, 13 January 2009 15:18

Lieutenant

Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA

Quote:

2-Maybe slow start but once you get so many planets
(alot more higher % green planets)...

and

Quote:

2. Even though your growth rate is doubled you will have less planets to colonize and most likely the planets will not be 75% or higher...

I think that your assumption about the quality of the planets;i.e., how green, is incorrect. If you have a 1 in 2 habitability with all three variables set very wide, then the bulk of the green planets will not be very good. OTOH, if you have 1 in 6 with one variable immune and two moderately narrow you'll have less green planets, BUT the ones that you have will be better for you. With narrow hab ranges you'll be able to terraform more of your planets to 100% than with wide ranges. This increases the effectiveness of a high growth rate, because everywhere you colonize is good for you.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Tue, 13 January 2009 17:14

Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 630
Registered: January 2009
Location: new york -5

ok so basically still go for 1-4 planets minimum and a 18% growth rate and just steal points little by little else where because these are very important. So basically you really dont want either or. If you set one at immune what happens to the terraform in your research, would it not be there? what if you kept it 5 clicks from both sides and then terraformed it in game.. wouldnt that make it immune and save a few points?

......
Ranked games: 8-1
Recently won the game Knife Fight.
Looking for a practice duel.
.......

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Tue, 13 January 2009 17:26

Lt. Commander
Dueling Club Administrator

Messages: 994
Registered: November 2002
Location: Germany

Hi ,

this would only mean that you could kolonize all the planets but have to terraform them .
This costs a lot of resources what you could spend somewhere else .
Immunity also makes the planet better you have not to terraform this hab and is always the best for your race . This weans your green planets are better so you have also better grow on it .

ccmaster

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Tue, 13 January 2009 18:44

Commander

Messages: 2768
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

slimdrag00n wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 23:14

If you set one at immune what happens to the terraform in your research, would it not be there?

Since you won't need to terraform the hab where you're immune, yeah, that terraforming won't be available to you. Rolling Eyes

Rolling Eyes

Quote:

what if you kept it 5 clicks from both sides and then terraformed it in game.. wouldnt that make it immune and save a few points?

Immune = hab is perfect for you.
Wide hab = hab is livable, but can be high or low.

What you really need is run a testbed. Aim for 25k res by 2450, which is a known benchmark. If you don't reach it don't worry, but it is a common enough goal for many race designs. Make a few tries with each design until you get the hang of them and their differences. (Some races don't need to reach 25k to be competitive) Twisted Evil

Twisted Evil

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Tue, 13 January 2009 20:19

Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 630
Registered: January 2009
Location: new york -5

Thanks now i understand how good immunity is. Gosh its expensive lol.. ill try to do that test.

......
Ranked games: 8-1
Recently won the game Knife Fight.
Looking for a practice duel.
.......

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Wed, 14 January 2009 01:54

Commander

Messages: 1369
Registered: May 2008

Both, usually. The exceptions are AR and HE. HE shouldn't go over 10% unless it's -f HE, because it's too expensive and you'll fill up your space too quickly.

AR doesn't need a high growth rate partially because of Death Stars, and partially because of their resource formula. Because the "population" term is inside the square root, the effect of growth rate is made smaller, while at the same time, hab affects resources as ^(3/2), because hab affects population as well as directly affeting resources proportionally. There's also the fact that AR can afford to hold most worlds at 25-33% cap because 25% pop = 50% resources.

Enough ranting. Basically, you want 1 in 4 or better hab no immune, or 1 in 10 or better one immune. The exceptions are HE, which if +f should always be bi- or tri-immune, and AR, which likes 1 in 4-5 hab one immune.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Wed, 14 January 2009 12:07

Commander

Messages: 1070
Registered: August 2005
Location: Berlin

slimdrag00n wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 19:21

20% POP growth:

About race design here some very helpful links:
* Stars! Official Strategy Guide: Basic Race Design (especially the info about breakpoints at the end after which, I bet, you won't take 20% pop growth)
* Basic Race Design by Art Lathrop
* Stars-R-Us Collection: Race Design/Strategy (within the Stars! Wiki)

Micha wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 19:54

1 in 4 is good, but against humans don't go below 18% growth. Special cases like for example a HP IT or HP JoaT could live with 17% ... And a 1i AR can get away with 15% [...]

A hab of 1 in 4 is surely fine but for some PRTs not affordable together with factories: ITs can cope with as bad habs as 1 in 7.

ccmaster wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 23:26

Immunity also makes the planet better you have not to terraform this hab and is always the best for your race [...]

One immunity is surely a fine thing. Usually even your worst green planets are at least 30% or better, with the other 2 bandwidth probably rather small (to pay for the costs of 1 immunity), mostly each terraform yields several procents better hab. The immunity is often bought with a smaller hab of around 1 in 10 which gets much much better when taking into account terraforming the yellows.

It depends on the game, though (as always), wether an immunity is a good choice: Terraformig costs not only time but yellow planets are also quite vulnerable. In games which you expect to be very fast paced and crowded you might not be able to afford this disadvantages.

[Updated on: Wed, 14 January 2009 12:11]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Wed, 14 January 2009 12:58

Lieutenant

Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA

An excellent point from Altruist that you need to design your race for the game parameters and your strategy for playing within those parameters.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Sat, 31 January 2009 16:26

Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 39
Registered: January 2004

Has Anyone out there ever put together a program that would allow you to punch in your races six Hab values & Growth rate and then spit out your races Overall average growth rate on All planets (Reds Included).
Ex: 1)tri-immune with 12% growth would obviously give you 12%.
2)A 1in4 Hab assuming 50% on all greens with growth at 15% should give you an overall growth of 1.875% (.25 x .50)x .15=X
I'd love to assign a number of race design points to Habitability and then be able to combine Hab and growth to optimize my overall growth %.
Unfortunately I don't have the computer 'stuff' to do it.
Any takers?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Sat, 31 January 2009 19:45

Commander

Messages: 2768
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

The Hab Calculator doesn't do exactly that, but you can get max achievable values for your econ, depending on race & universe params. You should give it a try. Deal

Deal

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Wed, 11 February 2009 08:58

Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 39
Registered: January 2004

Thank You for pointing me in the right direction.
I took a look at that 'Hab Calculator' and it seems to have everything I'm looking for.
It gives the % of green planets & the average % Hab that your race would have on those
planets.
So: (% greens)x(average %Hab)x(%growth of your race)=overall growth on a universal scale.
I�m just not sure if I'm interpreting my data correctly.
Example: Race A: Grav : 031/3.2 Temp: -120/120 Rad: 20/80 with 19% growth

This gives me 28.3% of all planets being green before terraforming.
The average growth on those planets would be 38.8%.
(0.283)x(0.388)x(0.19)= giving me an overall growth of 2.086%

Race B is the same as A but I reduced the growth rate to 18% and used the points to increase all
three hab widths by a click. This gave me:
(0.312)x(0.388)x(0.18)=Overall growth of 2.179%

So : Before Terraforming, a wider Hab could pay off more then a higher growth %?!

Example 2: Same two races but -/+ 15 Terra forming was used.

Race A: (0.879)x(0.595)x(0.19)= 9.937%
Race B: (0.915)x(0.599)x(0.18)= 9.866%

Once Terra forming has been taken into account: The high growth race (A) now has the upper
hand. Not by much but the differences aren�t that great.

Does this make any sense?

[Updated on: Wed, 11 February 2009 08:59]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Wed, 11 February 2009 12:28

Commander

Messages: 2768
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

I'm not entirely sure that average hab as shown by the tool can be used for the calculations you're attempting. Sherlock

Sherlock

At any rate, these habs you're checking are narrow enough that a couple clicks could make a noticeable difference.

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Thu, 12 February 2009 04:22

Commander

Messages: 1219
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe

Hi!

Quote:

'Hab Calculator' ...
So: (% greens)x(average %Hab)x(%growth of your race)=overall growth on a universal scale.
I�m just not sure if I'm interpreting my data correctly.

If you're intrested just in obtaining the average growth the race will have, you can use the average hab, calculated with Hab Calc (in text below the hab graph). In the case of Humanoids it's 38.9%. Now just multiply that number with the humanoids' PGR (15%) and you'll get the expected growth, ofc. without the HW. WRT my tests the HW adds about 0.6 points to it, so I can expect "standard" Humanoids to grow at about 6.5% in a non-terraformed uni.

Quote:

Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

What matters is what you want to achieve. Generaly speaking PGR gives speed and hab gives capacity. Too much PGR without planets to put that pop on is counter-productive. Too many planets without pop to make the capacity is also counter-productive.

The current rule of the thumb for non-3-immune races, generated in many many games played is:
- PGR 17%-19%, and
- the initial hab from 1-in-4 (you can't afford better most of the time) to 1-in-8/10 (the lower you get, the bigger the risk you'll get bad hab draw).

Those are margins, within whose you can experiment quite safely. Going outside them is a task for advanced players. For noobs it's just asking for trouble.

BR, Iztok

[Updated on: Thu, 12 February 2009 04:31]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Thu, 12 February 2009 04:44

Commander

Messages: 2768
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

Gee, I had forgotten that bit about the HW. Embarassed

Embarassed

Whip

The Habcalc tool can give you a fair idea of what a race can reach. But it doesn't calculate how fast it reaches its projected econ & share of planets. You'll need to do a proper testbed to see if (and when!) you manage to reach the theoretical limits. Deal

Deal

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Thu, 12 February 2009 08:16

Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 630
Registered: January 2009
Location: new york -5

thank you guys.

......
Ranked games: 8-1
Recently won the game Knife Fight.
Looking for a practice duel.
.......

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Thu, 12 February 2009 12:50

Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 205
Registered: July 2004

iztok wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 04:22

... Generaly speaking PGR gives speed and hab gives capacity. Too much PGR without planets to put that pop on is counter-productive. Too many planets without pop to make the capacity is also counter-productive. ...

This is exactly the point.

The topic if this thread is growth rate or hab. This is an incorrect question.

Hab should be matched with growth rate. Too much of either without the other is a waste.

The question really is how much Hab and Growth (= expansion) do you want versus everything else.

naz

Report message to a moderator

Re: Whats better high pop growth or better habitats?

Fri, 13 February 2009 08:32

Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 630
Registered: January 2009
Location: new york -5

Very true. thanks i got it now thanks

......
Ranked games: 8-1
Recently won the game Knife Fight.
Looking for a practice duel.
.......

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	quite crowded starter colony
Next Topic:	loaded freighter battle board movement

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Wed Dec 11 23:21:33 GMT-5 2024