Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Read and comment on our tutorials and user guides here.

Moderator: Support Moderators

Breech Loader
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed 06 Apr, 2016 12:53
Reputation: 0

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Breech Loader » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 01:33

... No, I'm in Frontier, because it was reccommended. Is that an invitation? With four days on the clock, I can restart without feeling too bad. My trade routes kind of suck, because they're such short-distance.

Fleet is far from the be-all-end-all. Rich Dad knows how to manage his area, and to time his buildings to max his intake at the end of the hour. Poor Dad does things like building a level 26 shipyard at every planet and then realising that he can't actually afford to make and fill 10 Death Stars at once, or Terraform his planets more than once when it's cheaper to start his next planet.

Rich Dad also knows that time is just as important as money - if you're spending all your time and money and area building power plants, then how are you going to get around to actually making those Production plants you need? A 4/4 energy Volcanic planet will see you with a power supply that will probably never even rise to the cost of Fusion Plants. Level 7 Fertility will save you a lot on Urban Centers.

Metal is great, but it only matters as long as it's financially viable to make metal refineries. Then you start making Nanite and Android Factories.

User avatar
Vault Boy
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 810
Joined: Sun 13 Jul, 2014 00:00
Reputation: 50
Guild: [TI]
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Vault Boy » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 02:50

I wasnt trying to be a dick, its best you learn the game fast or you simply become some elses farm, better to be the farmer than the farmee right? :lol:

If you wanna learn the game go to alpha, thats a more laid back place to learn to spaceboat, its not the full on tryhard atmosphere you get with pretty much every other server.

Lol at the area/volcanic arguement, fleet is the be all and end all and 3 metals 4 solar preferably rocky are the best astros, settling on volcanics or any other crap like that is going to set your prod caps back 10 fold in the long run.

solace wrote: VBII (Tricky)

Unlucky Colin :dance:
Breech Loader
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed 06 Apr, 2016 12:53
Reputation: 0

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Breech Loader » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 03:51

Maybe I should explain why I think Rocky planets and Metal isn't so great as it's cracked up to be. It kind of takes a while, though...

I wouldn't say that there's an ideal TERRAIN so much as there is an ideal POSITION for any terrain to be at its most useful. This is based a great deal on how you'll power it, because power plants need population too, and of course the cost of power plants and Urban Centers rise with every level. They're Support and so they cost less, but they take up the same amount of space and energy regardless. Area is only really important if you're a Free player because you can do more with less planets. The cost of new planets is also something to take into account.

Magma and Volcanic planets should ALWAYS be in position 1. They're my favourite terrain, in fact. Their greatest advantage is their energy efficiency. Thanks to that 4/4 balance you'll save time, area and money, since the cost of plants won't rise much. Chances are you'll never even need power even as high as a Fusion plant. They also work fairly well in 4 and 5, giving the highest single energy output with gas at 5.

Toxic Terrain is the poor man's Magma - or not. It does everything Magma and Volcanic can do. It's got lower fertility but it's larger. Its energy-efficiency certainly makes it worth-while if size is an issue.

The Rocky terrain... well, it's actually a Jack-Of-All-Trades, which makes it good, but if you don't find it in position 1 then you risk spending too much space on power plants. Also, if you dedicate it to production, which you should do, then it won't be bringing in as much money with Economic Centers. It's like starting with Bulbasaur; it's easy enough but can it go the distance?

Metallic terrain is the poor man's Rocky Terrain, but there's plenty of it around. It should only be taken in position 2, otherwise you'll spend far too much time on Urban Centers and power plants to make good use of that high Metal. The Crystal is wasted on them; never bother with Crystal Mines on a Metallic, it's just not cost, time or area efficient.

Crystalline planets are very good money-makers, and actually worth mining, but I wouldn't recommend them as a starter-planet due to their low fertility. Choose either position 1, for their solar power, or 2, for that slight increase to fertility. They're also fairly small, and a lot of that space will be taken up with Crystal Mines, and people like to hit them, so they'll need defences pretty sharpish.

Gaia and Earthly planets have a huge bonus in their fertility. And to put them to best use, you'll want to make that Fertility even higher by putting it in position 2. I advise using them as trade planets, with Economic Centers and Spaceports. Gaia is preferable if you can find it - it does everything Earthly does, only it's even bigger.

Oceanic is kinda crummy - it has high fertility but that low metal completely spoils it (Oh, okay, Metal does have its place when you're building up), and you have low area too. But at least it's pretty. I'd call it the poor man's Gaia, since it can be turned into a good Trade planet if you find it in Position 1.

Arid and Tundra terrain is notable for how it's a large space for building, so that's nice for free players, who have less planets. That space will mostly be used on power plants though. They're at their most useful in position 1.

Radioactive is shaky. Best in position 2 for similar Energy perks to the Magma and Volcanic planets, with the save for its low fertility, and more space to build than either.

Asteroids provide high metal and Crystals, but the area you have is just too low to give to both production and Crystals, especially with its low Fertility. In fact the area you have is too low to dedicate to much of anything. They're worth it late-game, when you have unlocked space and energy-saving technology, and how nobody ever seems interested in hitting them, but by then will the cost of new bases actually be worth setting up? If you really want Crystals, it's much better to just keep looking for a Crystalline planet.

Glacial is the only REALLY bad terrain, in my opinion. It posesses all the failings of Oceanic, with its lower fertility, so the greater area will just be spent on Urban Centers. And it's not as pretty either. Its only good point is its size, but if you really want size to be a factor, it's better to go for Arid or Tundra.

The worst position is Position 3. It gives you that boost in fertility, but your Solar Power is only 2. The fertile planets only have two gas. Everything that can be done in Position 3 can be done in 2, only better.

So all of this states why Metal isn't always as useful as you think. Power plants are required for all that production, and Urban Centers are required for manning the plants and the factories, and area is required for the building of them, so suddenly you're not spending as much time building production plants as you thought. They give you a boost early on but don't forget that fast production just drains your money faster. Still, I do seriously advise using them if you want to make a high-level Shipyard, being as the space-ships are very production-based.

In the end, it all balances itself out, whether in time, money, or space.

User avatar
SilverKnight
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 10352
Joined: Mon 06 Aug, 2007 18:13
Reputation: 205
Guild: Royal
Galaxy: Pegasus
Location: Portland Oregon
Contact:

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby SilverKnight » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 06:21

I use an overall formula of fertility + metal + energy >10 as counting an Astro as acceptable

Crystalline never passes, Rockies always pass, other terrains sometime pass

http://silverknight1966.blogspot.com/
http://silverknightonae.tumblr.com
In before lock doesn't count when you are the one asking for it :neutral2: -Themis
User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19400
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 583
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Wlerin » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 07:46

...

Breech Loader wrote: This is based a great deal on how you'll power it, because power plants need population too, and of course the cost of power plants and Urban Centers rise with every level. They're Support and so they cost less, but they take up the same amount of space and energy regardless.

Energy tech doesn't require Area or Population.

Breech Loader wrote:Area is only really important if you're a Free player because you can do more with less planets.

As already stated multiple times, this is just plain wrong. Area is just as important as Population and Energy, and Metal trumps all of them.

Breech Loader wrote:Magma and Volcanic planets should ALWAYS be in position 1. They're my favourite terrain, in fact. Their greatest advantage is their energy efficiency. Thanks to that 4/4 balance you'll save time, area and money, since the cost of plants won't rise much. Chances are you'll never even need power even as high as a Fusion plant. They also work fairly well in 4 and 5, giving the highest single energy output with gas at 5.

Energy isn't important enough to balance their low area and metal. Also, Magma and Volcanic never occur in orbit 4 or 5 (or 3).

Breech Loader wrote:Toxic Terrain is the poor man's Magma - or not. It does everything Magma and Volcanic can do. It's got lower fertility but it's larger. Its energy-efficiency certainly makes it worth-while if size is an issue.

It's also the only gas 4 terrain that can exist in orbit 4 or 5, and thus the only astro type that can have 5 gas. But gas/solar become less important as energy tech increases and more powerful plants that don't depend on gas/solar become available. They're still a concern, just not enough to outweigh the loss of population, and especially not the loss of metal.

Breech Loader wrote:The Rocky terrain... well, it's actually a Jack-Of-All-Trades, which makes it good, but if you don't find it in position 1 then you risk spending too much space on power plants.

Rocky is fine in any position. Position 1/2 are the inarguably best astros in the game, while 3, 4, and 5 are equal to the next best. How far have you developed your bases? How high have you researched Energy tech? How many bases do you have in total? You're talking like someone who has done very little in all three areas.

Breech Loader wrote:Also, if you dedicate it to production, which you should do, then it won't be bringing in as much money with Economic Centers.

Because of its extra con (from metal 3) and good area/pop it can better afford to keep all structures balanced. And that's what the good players do.

Breech Loader wrote:It's like starting with Bulbasaur; it's easy enough but can it go the distance?

Yes. A Rocky Planet will take you much further than any other terrain type.

Breech Loader wrote:Metallic terrain is the poor man's Rocky Terrain, but there's plenty of it around. It should only be taken in position 2, otherwise you'll spend far too much time on Urban Centers and power plants to make good use of that high Metal.

You didn't mention Craters here for some reason but it's the same deal as Metallic (except only 1 gas). Position 1/2 Craters/Metallics are equivalent to Rocky Position 4/5 (Pos 2 is statistically identical). Position 3 will do in a pinch, just don't bother with gas or solar plants. Neither should be taken in outer positions, though I suppose Metallic isn't too bad.

Breech Loader wrote:The Crystal is wasted on them; never bother with Crystal Mines on a Metallic, it's just not cost, time or area efficient.

It's fine early on but you should disband them to free up area once you start having to terraform.

Breech Loader wrote:Crystalline planets are very good money-makers, and actually worth mining, but I wouldn't recommend them as a starter-planet due to their low fertility. Choose either position 1, for their solar power, or 2, for that slight increase to fertility.

You can't start on a Crystalline. If you mean, you wouldn't recommend them as one of your first bases, then you're out of your mind. That is the ONLY time you should EVER take a crystalline, because at that early stage of the game econ is your primary limiting factor. Whether you disband it later or hold onto the investment depends on your specific situation, but taking one later on when there are other choices is ludicrous.

Breech Loader wrote:They're also fairly small, and a lot of that space will be taken up with Crystal Mines, and people like to hit them, so they'll need defences pretty sharpish.

If you develop them properly they're impossible to defend with turrets. If you don't, you shouldn't have one in the first place.

Breech Loader wrote:Gaia and Earthly planets have a huge bonus in their fertility. And to put them to best use, you'll want to make that Fertility even higher by putting it in position 2.

Position 1 and 2 are fine as usual, though Earthly's lower area makes it less attractive. You shouldn't grab too many of these as the reduced construction and production will hurt.

Breech Loader wrote:I advise using them as trade planets, with Economic Centers and Spaceports. Gaia is preferable if you can find it - it does everything Earthly does, only it's even bigger.

Don't specialise your bases like this, it's not efficient. Building all bases to SP 25 is cheaper and vastly more profitable than pushing a few bases to SP 30 while the others are at SP 20. Same goes with Econ centers. The only specialisation that you should be doing on most bases is "is this a research base or a normal (econ/prod) base?" And even research bases are econ/prod bases they just lag a bit. There are a couple of other niche base types (JG bases for example) but the core structures get built the same on all of them. Every base should be an econ base, and every base a production base.

Breech Loader wrote:Arid and Tundra terrain is notable for how it's a large space for building, so that's nice for free players, who have less planets. That space will mostly be used on power plants though. They're at their most useful in position 1.

Why would they need any more power plants than usual? Did you mean urban centers? They're fine in position 1 and 2.


Breech Loader wrote:Asteroids provide high metal and Crystals, but the area you have is just too low to give to both production and Crystals, especially with its low Fertility. In fact the area you have is too low to dedicate to much of anything. They're worth it late-game...

They're generally not worth it outside of the very early game for an econ boost, or certain extremely situational cases I'm not going to enumerate here because you're not at a point you should be worrying about them yet.

Breech Loader wrote:Radioactive is shaky. Best in position 2 for similar Energy perks to the Magma and Volcanic planets, with the save for its low fertility, and more space to build than either.

Third worst terrain type. 2 metal, 4 fertility. The 3 gas is meaningless noise. Area isn't high enough to balance its negatives.

Breech Loader wrote:Oceanic is kinda crummy - it has high fertility but that low metal completely spoils it (Oh, okay, Metal does have its place when you're building up), and you have low area too. But at least it's pretty. I'd call it the poor man's Gaia, since it can be turned into a good Trade planet if you find it in Position 1.

"kinda crummy"

It's unequivocably terrible. Just as bad if not worse than Glacial.

Breech Loader wrote:Glacial is the only REALLY bad terrain, in my opinion. It posesses all the failings of Oceanic, with its lower fertility, so the greater area will just be spent on Urban Centers.

You are aware that Orbital Bases and Biosphere Modifications exist, right?

Breech Loader wrote:The worst position is Position 3. It gives you that boost in fertility, but your Solar Power is only 2. The fertile planets only have two gas. Everything that can be done in Position 3 can be done in 2, only better.

You are aware that Fusion Plants, Antimatter Plants, and Orbital Plants exist, right? Position 3 is a pain to get going but it's fine later on. Equivalent to orbit 4/5.

Breech Loader wrote:So all of this states why Metal isn't always as useful as you think. Power plants are required for all that production, and Urban Centers are required for manning the plants and the factories, and area is required for the building of them, so suddenly you're not spending as much time building production plants as you thought. They give you a boost early on but don't forget that fast production just drains your money faster. Still, I do seriously advise using them if you want to make a high-level Shipyard, being as the space-ships are very production-based.

You haven't said one thing about why Metal isn't as useful. You've just blabbed on a lot about Population and Energy and how Area isn't important, and completely ignored how critical Metal is for the entire lifetime of an account.

Breech Loader wrote:In the end, it all balances itself out, whether in time, money, or space.

Yes, which is why Rockies are King.



-----------------


If you look at some of the older guides on here, you will see them saying much the same things you are (with some critical differences: I don't think any guide writer has been misguided enough for think Oceanics were acceptable). However, those guides were written when gameplay was much less well-researched, when servers were more populated (and thus ideal astros harder to secure), and certain less well-thought out and inefficient tactics were still commonplace (such as separate bases for different tasks). Newer guides value Metal above any other stat, as it should be.
Last edited by Wlerin on Mon 11 Apr, 2016 09:01, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19400
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 583
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Wlerin » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 08:44

SilverKnight wrote:I use an overall formula of fertility + metal + energy >10 as counting an Astro as acceptable

Crystalline never passes, Rockies always pass, other terrains sometime pass

If I had to use a numerical rating system, I'd probably compare against a baseline of RP1 (or RP2, doesn't matter which).

Perhaps something like:
Score = (4 + ((highest energy - 4) + (fertility - 5) + floor(Crystals/2) + (Area - 85)/5) + (Metal - 3) * 4)

First Position:

Code: Select all

Rocky Planet    4
Metal Planet    3
Gaia Planet     3
Rocky Moon      2
Arid Planet     2
Earthly Planet  1
Toxic Planet    1 (+1 for 4 solar and gas)
Asteroid        0
Magma Planet    0 (+1 for 4 solar and gas)
Radioactive P   0
Crystalline P  -1
Glacial Planet -2
Oceanic Planet -4

Position 2 is identical (Toxic/Magma/Volcanic lose their "bonus" but gain a fert). For moons, subtract 2. As mentioned earlier, a Rocky 4/5 is statistically identical to Metal Planet 1/2, so it would be a 3. Outer position Toxic would still be 1. Rest probably aren't worth considering in outer positions.

It's not perfect... but to do better you'd likely need to run sims.

Ice Pick
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 2206
Joined: Wed 17 Sep, 2008 22:50
Reputation: 166
Guild: [CRUEL]
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Ice Pick » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 12:18

Stop trying so hard Wlerin.

Rockys iz best that's all there is to it.

In order of importance: Metal 3, Area, Energy, Fertility last 2 are maybe arguable and very early on you do want solar 4 but in the long run area hurts the most with metal as well not having that 1 extra metal = 500-2000~ production lost depending on how many bases you build.

Breech Loader
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed 06 Apr, 2016 12:53
Reputation: 0

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Breech Loader » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 13:36

I have 5 bases. And Ion turrests on 4 of them. Funny how people think I'm so poor.

User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19400
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 583
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Wlerin » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 14:39

Do you have trade routes on every base? How many?

Breech Loader wrote:I have 5 bases. And Ion turrests on 4 of them. Funny how people think I'm so poor.

This is exactly the point. You haven't even begun to play the game and you're trying to correct strategies that have been refined over more than a decade. It is not impossible for a newcomer to provide valuable, fresh input, but it's extremely difficult, and unlikely. And it's not what you're doing.

Have you read this guide? It basically still applies to 2.0 servers, only relevant changes are that base costs are higher and economy centers more valuable. That in turn was a refinement of the old 10 bases in 7 days guide (no longer viable, and even back then it was wrong on many counts). The title of that guide should give you some idea whether your base count is impressive or not, though admittedly on a 2.0 server it's more like 8 bases in 7 days unless you can get some plunder or pillage.


All that said I did quite enjoy theorycrafting back in the day, so maybe I shouldn't discourage you too much.

Breech Loader
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed 06 Apr, 2016 12:53
Reputation: 0

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Breech Loader » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 18:17

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'll be wrong and I'll accept I'm wrong and I'll just have to start over in a new galaxy. But you said it yourself, theories continue to gradually change. I haven't been using the same theory for a decade, so my empire will probably look pretty different to that of others. At this moment, Production is nothing without the cash to back it up. Expansion is making me very poor indeed right now.

Shipyards are a little like Research Labs - there's no point in having 20 of them spread around the galaxy; you need to find a way to stack them high on selected planets. High production just means you turn off your fleet fast; it doesn't make your fleet better.

Check your trade routes. Rich Dad has good trade routes.

Ice Pick
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 2206
Joined: Wed 17 Sep, 2008 22:50
Reputation: 166
Guild: [CRUEL]
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Ice Pick » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 20:40

So you are one of those people that likes to act like a know it all when you lack experience and ''credentials''

''Theories change'' no not really 98% of all relevant strategy in this game has been the same for 5+ years if not 7+.

This is an utterly simplistic game there is nothing revolutionary to be discovered or done here and there is nothing at all to be discovered or changed about building up bases in the most effective manner.

User avatar
SEWI
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 779
Joined: Thu 10 Sep, 2015 01:30
Reputation: 43
Guild: ASAE
Location: AE

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby SEWI » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 21:33

Think of the words economy and ae economy...

Its the same....there are thoze who create a econ bulb which then....OFFCOARSE implodes....they usually cry victory just before and move to the next server....

And them there are those who just keep on turrtling forever untill they have an economy those above can only dream of....

Take your pick....

There is something for everybodies like in this game...

Wha you DONT want to be is the vicitim of the first kinda players....

Dont feed them...means...dont play like them.

Same name...same guild...all servers... :biglaugh:
Breech Loader
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed 06 Apr, 2016 12:53
Reputation: 0

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Breech Loader » Mon 11 Apr, 2016 21:47

Oooh, forget what I said about no farms, there's this guy in my system who has set up his second base in the same system as his first (probably to rush the Tutorial). It's an ARID terrain. Even I say that's a bad call. He's definitely a Newbie because there's a Rocky planet in 4th. And he's using Laser Turrets. Tomorrow my Protection expires, so it'll be time to start stuffing half a dozen Frigates with Fighters and prepping the five-minute-drive to Money-Town.

Both ways.

That'll teach him to name his planets after locations in Lord Of The Rings.

User avatar
Winchester
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 17646
Joined: Tue 24 Mar, 2009 00:44
Reputation: 762
Location: The World Wide Cesspool

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby Winchester » Tue 12 Apr, 2016 15:15

Re: non-metal 3 choices.

Each metal is one production per metal refinery. Five refineries = five production. Ten refineries = ten production. So on and so on. If we're limiting ourselves to fairly early game, assume twenty refineries - that's twenty production. Now multiply that by sixteen, and you get 320. Add in level 10 cybernetics and you're at 480. That's 480 credits of production per hour that you're missing if you're using a metal 2 option. That's 11,520 a day, 345,600 a month, and 4,147,200 a year. Meanwhile, your construction slows down, because metal refineries also add to construction. Everything slows down, because you can't get research labs up as fast, or terraforms, or spaceports, or android factories. Your entire account slows down. Even if it's minor at first, it adds up. In a side-by-side comparison, with all else equal, who do you think pulls ahead? The person with that extra four million fleet at the end of the second year, or the person who had to build three fewer fusion plants?

QED, mother*beep*er.

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things."
User avatar
JigokuShoujo
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 4089
Joined: Mon 28 Oct, 2013 21:26
Reputation: 62
Guild: A: Ni/MIN
O:ADHD/OFATE
Andro: MJ
Galaxy: Alpha
Location: right behind you
Contact:

Re: Rich dad, Poor dad (AE version)

Postby JigokuShoujo » Tue 12 Apr, 2016 15:56

Ice Pick wrote:So you are one of those people that likes to act like a know it all when you lack experience and ''credentials''

''Theories change'' no not really 98% of all relevant strategy in this game has been the same for 5+ years if not 7+.

This is an utterly simplistic game there is nothing revolutionary to be discovered or done here and there is nothing at all to be discovered or changed about building up bases in the most effective manner.

to newb finding the relevant strategy you already know must seem like revolutionary discovery. on account they not reading the knowledge available and insist on try many fail theories to start.

You make me violate you, no matter who you are!
Alpha and Omega. when in doubt i blame Grover.
JokeySmurf wrote:you guys i have a feeling you are not going to win against this one. Jig seems, Determined.

Return to “Tutorials & Guides”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests