Tech rush & the fundamental conflict.

[Meebleborp]

The original statement you were responding to was :

Now, 'impossible' is a strong word, but it's true that research costs CGs, and if you focus heavily on research you will need a solid CG production sooner or later. It looks like your definition of "tech rush" only involves the start of the game, whereas @ImaTomato appears to be looking at least at mid game levels of research:

When you look at an extremely early state of tech rush, then of course it isn't hard to cover most of your CG needs with purchases and other means. That is what you are looking at.

But when you consider the state of a tech-rushing empire around 2040 or later, then I'm fully with @ImaTomato: none of the steps you suggested will provide a meaningful amount of CGs at that time - you actually need to produce most of them. That is what @ImaTomato sees.

I'm sorry, but this is really grasping at straws. Not much about tech in 2040 can really be considered a "rush". By that point so many variables exist that talking about something this specific is nearly impossible. How far did you expand? How rich is your space? How many colonies do you have? Did you complete your precursor? Which one was it? How many minor artifacts did you get? Were you attacked early? Did you conquer several AIs? Even using the exact same empire build, positions 40 years in will vary wildly depending on these factors.

The point of tech rushing is that it's very consistent - if you do it correctly, you can be successful regardless of your spawn position, space, planet count, etc. But what the strategy does is provide quick tech-based solutions to dealing with each of these variables - not an exact blueprint for the entire game. Quite often, the best play while tech rushing is actually not to continue ramping up tech and cg into the 2030s and 40s, but to start producing a ton of alloys and prepare for conquest well before then. In these cases, what sense does it make to talk about needing "a massive CG industry" for tech rushing?

In fact, in basically every other example I can think of, the same thing holds true - even in fanatic pacifist tech-focused ones. You actually just don't need a massive CG industry... ever. Artisans become more and more efficient as the game goes on and you specialize your economy, and the ratio of artisans to researchers needed remains low. Once the galactic market opens up, you can even start buying a large percentage of your CGs again!

Both of you are right within the frame that each of you is looking at. But given that tech rush doesn't simply end by 2020, I'd say that @ImaTomato has a point, and you havent answered it.

My original reply clearly addresses this:

"Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually think this is a real problem. After all, you can only buy so many CG before prices tank; you have to transition into producing them eventually."

 

[Franton]

I'm sorry, but this is really grasping at straws. Not much about tech in 2040 can really be considered a "rush". By that point so many variables exist that talking about something this specific is nearly impossible

Then I may just be slow in my games. Also I'm wondering if you play Multiplayer? I play SP only, and unless I get attacked, very little happens in my games before 2050, unless I start doing something.

It probably doesn't help that I used to play mostly at x3 or even x5 tech and tradition cost: for that reason I almost always use Marketplace of Ideas rather than CG benefit, simply because you get more bonuses to producing the former.

Quite often, the best play while tech rushing is actually not to continue ramping up tech and cg into the 2030s and 40s

I still need to get used to the new industry districts. Given the way industry districts work, once you start mass producing alloys, I don't see any reason to not also pump up CG output. Admittedly that may not be the most efficient way, I simply like sticking with one goal in an attempt to reduce micromanagement

what sense does it make to talk about needing "a massive CG industry" for tech rushing?

I agree that 'massive' may not be an appropriate term. But as stated above I'm not in favor of all the suggested steps to reduce the amount that needs producing, although that depends very much on the individual game (and settings). At least up to the point where I see the need to start mass-producing alloys I tend to produce a lot more CGs than alloys.

Once the galactic market opens up, you can even start buying a large percentage of your CGs again!

I don't know how you buikld your economy, but I consistently find it more efficient to build CGs myself rather than buying them: whatever resource I might be selling, I can typically build more CGs with the pops needed otherwise to produce that resource.

I much prefer trading directly with AIs, and after food, CGs are valued extremely high by AIs. Therefore I tend to produce a lot more food, and later CGs. Of course that has little to do with the CG need of tech rush - just explaining why in my view a solid CG production makes a lot of sense: early on because I need it, then for trading, and late game simply because i SP I keep ramping up tech in preparation to face the crisis, and that again takes lots of CGs.

tl;dr. I don't think we disagree, we just look at differnt play styles, preferred game settings, and possibly the difference between SP and MP

 

[TGK72]

You're not wrong, but that's also not the whole story. The problem is as follows,

• Tech wins the game ultimately. Namely, Cruisers, Proton Launchers, and Battleships are key techs which massively increase a player's combat potential disproportionate to their pre-existing fleet size. It's a Dreadnaught problem; once one player has Battleships with Proton Launchers really the only thing that matters is how many Battleships with Proton Launchers each player has.
• There's minimal incentives to break up fleets and many incentives to keep them as concentrated as possible. Practically an infinite fleet size can be present in a system, so even if those fleets are technically organized as separate units it makes more sense for a player to pile as many eggs into one basket as possible. Chokepoints, reliable angles of attack, and the overall slow speed of fleets all encourage massing units.
• Fleets are extremely expensive and staying at fleet cap consumes a significant percentage of one's economy. The build up is especially expensive, but the later it begins the more efficient that build up will end up being. There are specific techs that make this relationship, but really it boils down to how pop needs are balanced. Once you have an efficient source of Consumer Goods & Food, all additional pops can be pumped into Alloys/Science. A sudden breakthrough, such as Cruisers or Proton Launchers, can be rapidly exploited by just swapping pops from Research jobs to Alloy jobs.
• Fleet & Starbase build up is only required in proportion to your neighbor's build up. This is the problem you are discussing, but as you can probably see it's only once piece of the puzzle. It's a prisoner's dilemma, especially in multiplayer; the longer you and your neighbors go without building up, the more efficient & powerful that build up will end up being. Unless there's a serious aggressor nearby, there's thus no reason to build up until Proton Launchers.

Suggestions,

1. Fleet speed is tied to ship class & percentage of max fleet size used. 50% max fleet size units of pure Corvettes should be significantly faster than 100% size units of pure Battleships. This would encourage raiding forces of Corvettes that can slip in and deal economic damage, without being easily pinned down without a FTL blocker. Additionally when fleets travel down a hyperlane they leave being "hyperlane interference" that prevents other units from jumping as quickly. Stacking a ton of fleets and moving them down the same path should be super slow compared to more, sub-max fleets with varied ship classes each on their own missions.
2. Ships can freely path through any nation's territory pre-FTL blockers, regardless of open/closed borders. If a nation has closed borders, they get a massive defensive combat bonus and will be automatically hostile, allowing for minimal defences on chokepoints to effectively provide the existing effect. Entering a the borders of a state with closed borders with military units will result in a massive opinion penalty that takes a long time to go away. This system would have several advantages, 1) it allows for shadow/grey conflicts between new neighbors encouraging fleet building early, 2) it rewards investment in defensive structures early since the alloys spent will be as efficient as late game thanks to the closed border combat bonus, 3) it allows science ships to properly path through the galaxy encouraging more First Contacts. The end result should be that it is much, much harder to protect your borders and much, much harder to close borders and tech rush than ever before.
3. Starbases with Shipyards gain a "constant employment" bonus that scales up when they build ships, only decreasing slowly if ships aren't built for a long time. Keep a trickle of ships constantly being produced and it will be faster & easier to build up later on. This bonus would also make losing key shipyards a big blow (the bonus disappears completely if the starbase is captured), something which right now really isn't anything more than a nuisance.
4. Planets without some kind of in-system regular military presence will steadily gain "independence agitation". This only accumulates after the planet grows out of being a colony, but the end result should be that players are required to invest alloys in starbases & fleets to secure their developing worlds. When one planet rebels or goes independent for any reason, all other Agitated worlds should gain a significant boost to their Agitation. This should cause chains of independence movements that will be difficult to put down, resulting in empire-wide rebellions rather than single planet wastes of time.
5. Troops can land even if engaged by enemy fleets. Casualties will be high, but the potential of being able to rush in waves of armies to attack planets in otherwise well-defended star systems would be exciting. In other words, give us the option to actually attack our opponent's economy. Planetary Shields would prevent landings of any kind unless the planet is under bombardment by an enemy fleet, incentivizing their construction and still allowing for the current balance.
6. A Corvette module that massively cuts down the efficiency of Proton Launchers. Some kind of interference & laser gatling system that allows smaller ships to blow up the Launchers early, thus taking minimal damage overall. This would create a counter to Proton Launchers for nations behind on tech, instead of being unable to win 50k versus 5k fights.

The downvote brigade seems particularly unenlightened today.

In my opinion I find your suggestions pretty brilliant.

 

[Meebleborp]

Then I may just be slow in my games. Also I'm wondering if you play Multiplayer? I play SP only, and unless I get attacked, very little happens in my games before 2050, unless I start doing something.

I was mostly speaking about SP when I said it's often best to be aggressive after tech rushing. Once you get an advantage, you should press it to further snowball out of control. Even GA Starnet cannot handle a properly executed tech rush into conquest around 2225-2235; the vanilla AI completely folds.

As for MP, most competitive games have peace years well before 2040-50, and as a result there is even more focus on transitioning to alloys after an early tech rush.

It probably doesn't help that I used to play mostly at x3 or even x5 tech and tradition cost: for that reason I almost always use Marketplace of Ideas rather than CG benefit, simply because you get more bonuses to producing the former.

Yes, these settings are dramatically different from the baseline. I always assume x1 tech cost in these discussions, because not only is that the default, it is what most people seem to play on (outside of the MP community which trends to .75x). All of the examples I use are on x1. If you are on x3-x5, obviously 2040 is going to seem like a lot earlier in the game...

I still need to get used to the new industry districts. Given the way industry districts work, once you start mass producing alloys, I don't see any reason to not also pump up CG output. Admittedly that may not be the most efficient way, I simply like sticking with one goal in an attempt to reduce micromanagement

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're saying you produce both alloys and CGs from the same districts on the same planets, this is not a good idea outside of your capital early in the game. It's much better to set planet designations so they only produce the one you're boosting, and fully specialize with buildings from there.

Also, because of the strength of the Civilian/Militarized Economy policies, and the fact alloys are far more valuable than CGs, it's not a good idea to try to produce a similar amount of both.

I don't know how you buikld your economy, but I consistently find it more efficient to build CGs myself rather than buying them: whatever resource I might be selling, I can typically build more CGs with the pops needed otherwise to produce that resource.

This varies a bit depending on the empire, but early on it's almost always more efficient to buy CGs than to expand your current production of them. Minerals are the main bottleneck to building up your economy at this point, while Energy is flexible and much easier to come by. A Technician with an Energy Grid and Capacity Subsidies produces at least 4-5 CGs worth of Energy, and does so requiring zero Mineral upkeep. This Technician is a worker and consumes less CG upkeep for most empires than an Artisan (specialist) would, and can even be a servile, robot, or chattel slave on top of that.

I much prefer trading directly with AIs, and after food, CGs are valued extremely high by AIs. Therefore I tend to produce a lot more food, and later CGs. Of course that has little to do with the CG need of tech rush - just explaining why in my view a solid CG production makes a lot of sense: early on because I need it, then for trading, and late game simply because i SP I keep ramping up tech in preparation to face the crisis, and that again takes lots of CGs.

The problem with bringing AI trading into the mix is that it's unreliable and leads to incredibly skewed outcomes. If I end up in a galaxy with mostly friendly empires, and I'm able to trade away resources the AI prefers as well as all of my favors, the game is over on the spot. I can get so many alloys (among other things) this way that it becomes completely unrealistic when compared to worse starting positions. That's why when trying to prove a point or exhibit a reliable strategy, I never include this kind of tactic.

 

[Franton]

@Meebleborp : Thanks for your thoughts. As it seems I have been too focused on my experience with my non-standard settings. Also, what you said made a lot of sense and even though I've been playing for hundreds of hours there may ba a couple of things I simply didn't do well, e. g. producing alloys and CGs mostly on my homeworld (where I can't focus on one or the other)

As for AI trading, yes, you can't rely on it 100%, but as I usually play with max # AIs (oops, I did it again ) I've found there is always *someone* willing to trade at much better rates than the market, and even if not, bribing hostile neighbours with food and CGs to keep them off your hide while building up is so much more efficient than trying the same with other types of resources.

 

[Ferrus Animus]

Thanks for your thoughts. As it seems I have been too focused on my experience with my non-standard settings.

Here's one thing: The AI really can't handle scarcity and works much much better with more resources. Play a gasme on a huge galaxy with max. habitable planets, few spread out AIs, no marauders, FEs or anything, reduced tech and tradition costs and you'll see the AI do much better than on a small, full galaxy that has all of those, with minimum habitable planets and increased tech costs.

The "harder" you make ther galaxy, the more the AI struggles.

 

[ZeeHero]

Just balancing fleets so that being behind on tech can be overcome with sheer numbers and production capacity would help.

If you're using sticks and stones compared to the enemy beam cannons, you should not have any chance of winning. but if its muskets vs assault rifles, if you have 100x more musket men and can bring out more indefinitely, you should have a chance if your generals are smart.

it'd be like the Sherman tanks vs the Panzers in WW2. the sherman was the inferior tank by far, but it was very easily mass produced and less costly, for every panzer made, the US could produce several shermans.

 

[Jman5]

Just balancing fleets so that being behind on tech can be overcome with sheer numbers and production capacity would help.

If you're using sticks and stones compared to the enemy beam cannons, you should not have any chance of winning. but if its muskets vs assault rifles, if you have 100x more musket men and can bring out more indefinitely, you should have a chance if your generals are smart.

it'd be like the Sherman tanks vs the Panzers in WW2. the sherman was the inferior tank by far, but it was very easily mass produced and less costly, for every panzer made, the US could produce several shermans.

I'd like it if they opened up salvageable debris tech a little more. If Ship and Starbase techs were salvagable that would really help non-tech rushers keep up on the military side of things.