Aurora 4x

New Players => The Academy => Topic started by: Deoxy on April 18, 2011, 03:52:10 PM

Title: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Deoxy on April 18, 2011, 03:52:10 PM
I've explored out to approximately 4 star systems' distance in (almost) all directions, yet I haven't actually colonized outside my home system yet (several decent worlds for my race in the home system)... is there any advantage to continuing exploration?  Or is it better to not explore any more than you want to colonize in short order?

I've got invaders turned off - from what I've picked up, with invaders on, you want to explore as quickly as possible to give them more places to randomly show up (other than your home system, where they will wipe you out quickly).

I haven't run into Star Swarm yet (that I know of).

I have plenty of minerals in my home and nearby systems (at least for a while - there's never "enough", is there?).

So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of turtling vs rapid exploration?
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Thiosk on April 18, 2011, 04:01:27 PM
I am 60 years in, and have only contacted one race.  I'm at the back end of a jump chain, so there is really only activity in one direction.  Alpha centauri is STACKED with minerals so I havn't had a pressing need for expansion.  I've focused on acquiring 100 m scientists and creating an enormous production base. I just ordered up 1000 automated mines and set up jump gates towards some very nice colonizable worlds, however I havn't found any more REALLY great mining systems.

After a horrifying defeat at the hands of some precursors, I'm rather hesitant to explore much beyond my current location without new engine, weapon, and sensor  technologies fitted on my vessels.  I have the production capacity to make any ship I should so desire, but not enough research base to make them very good.

Thus, I'm a turtle.  A big honking slow ass turtle.
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Yonder on April 18, 2011, 04:31:54 PM
I am generally fairly turtly as well. I expand until I run into the first hostile ships (generally Precursors). I then stop any expansion and most scouting until I have researched, designed, and built sensor ships that can keep tabs on that class of vessel without being noticed in return.

I then build some of those and scout with them until I have found 2-3 nearby systems with nice minerals and colonization possibilities. At that point I stop all expansion until I have created ships that are faster than the enemy with longer range, I slaughter the enemy ships and move on from there.
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Felius on April 18, 2011, 05:49:18 PM
I explore like a madman, although the actual expanding is slower.   

I'm 41 years into the game, know 49 systems, surveyed 26 of them, have 11 unexplored jump points to send a ship through, found one NPR that I'm on my way of making them an ally, found precursors in 3 systems and I think the swarm in one, destroyed the precursors in one of these systems that was neighbor to Sol (their ships there were colony ships who fought by ramming :P), have colonized mars plus two planets outside Sol (one in the previously mentioned system that I destroyed the precursors, some ruins that I guess they were protecting were of some nice help setting up that colony, and another on a nice system also neighbor to Sol), fully terraformed them all (through a tugged orbital terraformer/habitat), plus some mining colonies.   

For my explorers, I make my survey ships double as explorers.   I make a geosurvey and a gravsurvey class, both with small commercial self only jump drives, with the only difference on them besides the kind of sensors is that the gravsurvey also carriers more engineering and maintenance storage.   If they enter a precursor occupied system they generally are destroyed, but they're pretty cheap, so I just build more.

Edit: Oh, also, I dealt with my colonies getting unrest because of lacking of protection by stationing some ground troops there.  They still complain, but the troops reduce unrest back to zero.  I'll have to actually give them some defense later, but I'll deal with that when I actually establish the colonies instead of just setting some infrastructure and population. 
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Starkiller on April 18, 2011, 09:50:21 PM
I'm a fast explorer, but slow expander. :) Found Precursers next to Sol, in Alpha Centauri, but I was quite
advanced, as I had refused to leave a mineral rich Sol, until I could defend myself. With a defense base on
each of the four warp points, and 4 heavy DDGs as a fast reaction force, I stuck my head into the noose.

Survey Alpha found a mineral rich system next door. Nobody there, but a wrecked ship showed that someone
had been. In Alpha Centauri, Survey Beta ran into Precursers. Fortunately, my survey cruisers have the longest
range sensor suite my tech can provide. They didn't notice us, so I sent in my Destroyers, sucked the Precursers
into range of my waiting ship by activating the survey ships active sensors. It was only the second time I was
able to ambush Precursers, as they usually do it to me.

There are advantages, and disadvantages to either method of play, though I usually turtle until I think my tech
can handle Precursers, at least. But NEVER get cocky. Steve has a nasty inventive mind, and Aurora has a tendency
to swat egos down rather abruptly. :)

Eric
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Deoxy on April 19, 2011, 08:24:49 AM
It seems that there is NO downside to turtling - expand as much as necessary for minerals, then turtle and research until you run out.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

Since there are so few NPRs by default, nothing really happens until you go out and find it...

Hmm.  Invaders seem too aggressive (especially for "conventional" starts), but nothing else really gives any downside to turtling... seems like a weak point.
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 19, 2011, 09:23:18 AM
It really depends on how you setup the game. 

If you have a small universe and start with several AI NPR's turtling could be a bad thing.  If you don't have AI NPR's set for game start you should be OK.  Precursors and Swarm should only generate as new systems are explored. 

Invaders are the wildcard.  Unless Steve has changed this again, they are not triggered until the first time you transit a jumppoint. 
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Rastaman on April 19, 2011, 10:31:32 AM
The downside of turtling is money, you can afford more ships with more population and more trade. Although without a very active colonization effort it takes a long time before the colonies make themselves felt.

But sometimes it doesn't matter. I started a game with 1 NPR and I'm pretty sure that this NPR is one jump from Sol but around 2 secondary stars which orbit the primary at over 1600 billion km, and there are no LPs. So they will never reach a jump point themselves.
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Deoxy on April 19, 2011, 02:05:19 PM
It really depends on how you setup the game. 

If you have a small universe and start with several AI NPR's turtling could be a bad thing.  If you don't have AI NPR's set for game start you should be OK.  Precursors and Swarm should only generate as new systems are explored. 

Invaders are the wildcard.  Unless Steve has changed this again, they are not triggered until the first time you transit a jumppoint. 

That info on Invaders makes me want to give it a try - I just might.

The other point (about starting NPRs) is a good thought... but the game seems to point you starting with only one, or at most a few.  Do "veteran" players often start with several NPRs?  That would seem to make turtling a lot less viable... but then, it would also make "conventional" starts that much less competitive.
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Narmio on April 19, 2011, 07:59:05 PM
I'm currently playing a game with 10 starting NPRs and an NPR-generation chance of 0, just to see what it's like.  I'm about 25 years in now, and while it's not actually that slow to update there are one or two battles a year that take a few hours real-time to resolve using Auto Turns. Luckily I have several computers and typically just throw on a movie when that happens.

I've explored about 30 systems and I have not actually encountered anything but the Swarm and several bunches of what appear to be Precursor wrecks yet.  I'm actually wondering whether most of the battles I'm seeing are Invaders vs NPR and by the time I actually do find their homeworlds there will be nothing left but smoking, twisted glass. Or maybe they've run out of minerals and are dead in space, who knows.
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: dooots on April 19, 2011, 10:49:35 PM
If you turtle you miss out on early ruins and possibly NPRs to conquer both of which can be a great boost but come with danger.
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Deoxy on April 20, 2011, 09:17:28 AM
If you turtle you miss out on early ruins and possibly NPRs to conquer both of which can be a great boost but come with danger.

The effort it takes to take out precursors and exploit ruins seems to be about as much, if not more, as just doing the research yourself, at least from what I've seen so far... but maybe if you get lucky with higher tech ruins it's worth the trouble?

I know there are at least a couple of tech types you can only get from ruins - are they really worth it?  And how likely are you to get them?  Seems pretty low to me, but I've only exploited a couple of ruins so far, so maybe I've just been unlucky.
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Hawkeye on April 20, 2011, 10:01:25 AM
IMO, the beauty of Aurora is, both work.

If I roleplay a race of explorers (and I like to think humanity would fit that bill), turteling when you could explore is simply a no-go.
If, on the other hand, I roleplay a very cautious, self-centered race, turtling is perfectly all right.

In other words, I realy donĀ“t think of it as: "Is it the best way to play?" but as: "Does it fit the race I imagine?"
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: dooots on April 20, 2011, 06:25:51 PM
The effort it takes to take out precursors and exploit ruins seems to be about as much, if not more, as just doing the research yourself, at least from what I've seen so far... but maybe if you get lucky with higher tech ruins it's worth the trouble?

I know there are at least a couple of tech types you can only get from ruins - are they really worth it?  And how likely are you to get them?  Seems pretty low to me, but I've only exploited a couple of ruins so far, so maybe I've just been unlucky.

It depends on how you start and how many and what kind of ships you have to fight.  Some times you get lucky and although they are higher tech it is not all that hard to clear them out other times you are not so lucky.
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 23, 2011, 06:59:21 AM
It depends on how you start and how many and what kind of ships you have to fight.  Some times you get lucky and although they are higher tech it is not all that hard to clear them out other times you are not so lucky.

so, how low tech a player warship can be before starting expansion?

I mean, what's the absolute minimum to search for an attack fleet to have some chance of success in an early expansion centered game?
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Brian Neumann on May 23, 2011, 07:46:44 AM
I would go for Ion engines and missile tech around the 8000 rp mark.  Make sure your missiles have a good chance to hit a target moving at 5000km/s and bring along a lot of point defense, you will need it if you run into a larger precursor fleet.  Other npr races should have tech somewhere around the same as yours so it shouldn't be to bad.  The down side to this is that missile combat uses a LOT of missiles and you are going to need a lot of ordinance factories to keep up with use.  If you don't then you may have a problem with the NPR running you out of ammo and sailing in to destroy you because of this.

Brian
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Father Tim on May 24, 2011, 12:06:54 PM
so, how low tech a player warship can be before starting expansion?

I mean, what's the absolute minimum to search for an attack fleet to have some chance of success in an early expansion centered game?

Zero.  From a non-TN start I've sent out ships with Nuclear Thermal engines and no weapons.  Anything is possible.

Some advice:
Build unarmed exploration ships and troop transports, make friends with higher-tech NPRs, conquer non-TN NPRs, avoid precursors/invaders/swarms, and write off any ships that encounters a hostile until you have an armed navy.

The point is, I don't build armed ships until my 'race' encounters a reason to do so, and I let the enemies I encounter drive my military needs - my opponents' stats determine how fast my ships need to be, how thick their defenses are and how long-ranged their weapons need to be. 
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 24, 2011, 12:30:49 PM
That's pretty much what I'm doing now as a pre TN start will leave you badly in need of resources, so hyper expand and make individual less important making individual unit worth next to nothing.

I was more thinking on actual NPR aggression. But probably one could always build a swarm of icmb drones, making the technology gap less relevant.
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Thiosk on May 24, 2011, 12:54:26 PM


The point is, I don't build armed ships until my 'race' encounters a reason to do so, and I let the enemies I encounter drive my military needs - my opponents' stats determine how fast my ships need to be, how thick their defenses are and how long-ranged their weapons need to be. 

I'm presently surrounded by precursors on three fronts; theres a very long, desolate warp chain I can escape through, but its about 6 jumps to a system interesting enough for a small presence.    As such, my military is getting rather beefy :)  I just hope I can catch them when I get there, my drive tech is only keeping me going at about 6100 km/s right now :/
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Peter Rhodan on May 28, 2011, 08:11:52 PM
you don't need drive tech - just lots of size 1 missiles - my combat group has 14 6kT corvettes with 3 MFCs adn 6 launchers and 300+ missiles....
I then have a similar force of corvettes with size 9 launchers with a long range missile that dows 5 damage - older ones have a 65mk range - my new ones have a 85mk range
I have several Awacs ships with this force - spread around - each has an active R100 sensor with 350mk range so I can see the bastards coming and a R1 with only 20+mk range - the key stat is the size 6 missile or smaller range which is 4.8mk - this is the effective range of my AMM - once incoming missiles are detected I direct half my AMM frigates to open fire (assuming a large incoming group of missiles) with each MFC on each boat targeting a different missile salvo where possible ot improve spread - I have found that 6 missiles from 1 launcher at a salvo might kill 1-2 where as 2 launchers each from different ships will do the same or better...
so then 5 secs later the other half of my AMM frigates open fire - i have 10 second re-load so they can pump out 41 missiles per 5 second round - haven't found any Precursors yet than can get missiles through - helps if you turn away too if there are lots of incoming - lengthens their flight time and allows you more AMM rounds.
14 ships firing 4 Warhead 5 missiles each generally kill even the biggest Precursor ships in two salvos - but I also have a warhead 12 size 9 missile with 14mk range I use to finish any tough nuts off...
Title: Re: Expansion vs turtling
Post by: Peter Rhodan on May 28, 2011, 08:16:03 PM
Sorry - I kept saying Frigates - my 6k tonners are my corvettes - my new 12k tonners are my frigates - build 2 designs too - one is a combo of the above with both AMM and 85mk long range 5 damage missiles - the other is armed with 6 size 9 launchers for the short range 12 damage types missile - I have met a Swarm mother ship with 600 shields ...... sheesh
my poor 3rd Rates only have 75 shields....