2113+ base placement

[AndiD]

Both our bases will grow and produce (rushed) colony pods within a few turns. Question is: where to place our next two bases?

Kudos to Micha for this image:


The white numbers indicate the spot FOP (factors of production) value
One yellow dot is spot #1, two yellow dots are spot #2, three yellow dots are spot #3.

Please be sure to write-in your opinion after voting.

Previous discussion is to be found
here: http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...hreadid=118870
and
here: http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...hreadid=118934

General base spacing discussion: http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...hreadid=117922

edited by Micha to fix the image link
edited by Andi to add some links and info

[Micha]

Voted #3, #1

---

I think at this stage we shouldn´t think of our bases as giant metropoli, but rather as many little assessments that allow us to support many formers later on. When the game progresses, it´s perfectly fine to rearrange the base placement, i.e. dissolve some of the smaller bases in order to gain space for the expansion of more promising ones. (The Hive did that in ACDG2 )

That´s why I´m supporting the mineral-exploitation placement plan. Most productive bases first!

One thing we need to be aware of is that, in case we crawl the rocky squares on Mt. Drogue as suggested in the turn thread, we´d lose all this energy up there! A mountain as high as this one should be worked, not crawled for mins.

#3 over #2 because of two reasons:
First, #3 can work all beneficial tiles that #2 can, assuming we will later crawl nuts to that base.
Second, as pointed out before, #3 won´t take to many tiles away from other bases. It also fits better with the placement of a fourth base near the monolith at the eastern coast...

NOTE:
A base on #3 should be allowed to work the 2 nuts river tile east of Morgan Metallurgy... Then the net production of nuts was equal to #1, while both mins and energy production was superior to #1

[#endgame]

CwMicha, his explanation needs no improvements.

[Chaunk]

My views on this have been "radicallised" in a post lower down this thread. Feel free to read this post, but my more thought out views are below. Thank you!

I think 1&3 as I've said before. I'd like to clarify somewhat though.

We need to maximise our production in all three resources at this point. Nuts are critical as are minerals. Our current SE allowes us to almost ignore energy as that will happen anyway.

Therefore we should plant at 1&3, using this formula. Both bases produce their CP's in 2113 (Growth next turn, then rushing to completion for the following turn as growth happens after mins.) The MorMet CP heads to position #1, whilst the MorInd CP heads to pos #3.

Then in 2114 we found the base on #1. We also rehome MorInd's CP to MorMet and continue to #3. MorMet has a better mineral output compared to MorInd by virtue of the monolith and so is better able to support the CP. The base at #3 would be founded then in 2116. Whilst this rehoming doesn't save any mins, it does move the min cost and so MorInd will get to 10 min faster to make a former.

The alternative is to send MorMet's CP to #3 and MorInd to #1. In this case we get 2 bases in 2115 and we have one fewer min in MorInd and one more in MorMet.

[-SafaN-]

agree witch chaunk

[CEO Aaron]

I fail to see how placing at position 3 (as opposed to 2) changes our income in minerals or nuts in anyway, since we'll only be able to work 1 square for quite a while (At least until we get HGP, or something else to relieve the inevitable doctors from their duties).

The ONLY thing that position 3 offers over 2 is the guaranteed worm-free pod, at the cost of a single turn of base production (3 nuts, 3 minerals, 5 energy, and an additional mineral if support winds up being an issue. And then there's the less quantifiable matter of lost time).

As such, I'm voting for 1 and 2. Crowded? Sure. Ugly? Perhaps. Efficient? Definitely.

[Chaunk]

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
I fail to see how placing at position 3 (as opposed to 2) changes our income in minerals or nuts in anyway, since we'll only be able to work 1 square for quite a while (At least until we get HGP, or something else to relieve the inevitable doctors from their duties).

The ONLY thing that position 3 offers over 2 is the guaranteed worm-free pod, at the cost of a single turn of base production (3 nuts, 3 minerals, 5 energy, and an additional mineral if support winds up being an issue. And then there's the less quantifiable matter of lost time).

As such, I'm voting for 1 and 2. Crowded? Sure. Ugly? Perhaps. Efficient? Definitely.

That's certainly a passionate and eloquant reasoning there ceo

I do have one other reason for wanting 3 over 2, but again it's certainly not quantifyable alas.

Let me first start with a two premises:

Pods take time to move. The further the movement, the longer the time. Duh.

As Morgan, these pods are a (reletivly) large drain on our faction due to our low support.

Therefore, the closer the base, the less time cost, the more efficiency and the less gain.

However, as we can see from this proposed base placing issue, even a small distance can have large effects. MorInd cannot place a base in any likeable spot in less than 3 turns. Indeed, if it weren't for the river, then that'd be longer.

As the faction grows, this effect gets more and more pronounced. Pods have to travel further to get to their destination, and as such, they travel longer and are an increased drain on their home bases. Roads alliviate this effect somewhat but not much.

One of the best ways to avoid this effect is to, paradoxically, spread out your first few bases so that you have a larger initial spread. Any subsequent pods then have less distance to move to get to a suitable base location. Although the drain on the first few bases is great, it then gets less for subsequent bases.

In fact, because of this effect, we may be better served by a base by the volcano in position 2, and our second base on the energy bonus. The worker in MorMet would then be moved to the southern monolith, base @ 2 works the other monolith and energy base works the monolith next to it. We would then be well set for a northerly or southerly expansion from all bases, each taking very little time indeed to build. The proposed site at 1 has little chance for future expansion.

Glad I didn't vote before. My vote is for write in, space 2 and the energy square.

If that post is confusing then sorry. I'm tired and it's time for bed. I may clear it up in the morning, I may not. I also should probably make a diagram to show what I mean, but I'm feeling lazy. Hopefully you can work it out

[Mead]

Originally posted by Chaunk
One of the best ways to avoid this effect is to, paradoxically, spread out your first few bases so that you have a larger initial spread. Any subsequent pods then have less distance to move to get to a suitable base location. Although the drain on the first few bases is great, it then gets less for subsequent bases.

Chaunk is correct in that spreading out you first few pods helps for latter expansion because the following pods don't have to move so far.

Despite that, in this case I prefer to go with locations 1 and 2. Both these locations are on the river system speeding transportation of units (including new pods).

Developing location 3, as Aaron notes, will result in lost production.

Planting a Pod in location 1 first will greatly enhance our expansion to the west, AND, to the south (a lot more than a Pod in location 3). If we plant a Pod in location 2 then we will already be positioned to colonize the eastern frontier with pods from that new base.

Planting in location 1 and 2 first will make for a more rapid growth, particuarly in the more fertile western regions, AND for land grabbing to the south towards Yang.


Mead


PS

Please note that the system is not accepting my vote in the poll, so please add my vote to the location 1 then 2 vote (or any vote that includes both 1 and 2 before 3).

[arginine]

2, because it is on the river. Building a road at square 2 will take 4 turns. Building a road at square 3 will take one turn. Otherwise they are identical. Yes, square 3 is less crowded, but this base can always be moved later, or used as a ****ty support base.

[Chaunk]

Currently, posted votes seem to run as:

#1 & #2: 3 votes.
#1 & #3: 3 votes.
Other: #2 + energy bonus: 1 vote.

Remember Morganites, only posted votes count, so please post your vote!

[Mead]

Originally posted by Chaunk
Currently, posted votes seem to run as:

#1 & #2: 3 votes.
#1 & #3: 3 votes.
Other: #2 + energy bonus: 1 vote.

Remember Morganites, only posted votes count, so please post your vote!

Does my vote count?


Mead

[Chaunk]

1 & 2: Aaron, Mead & arginine.
1 & 3: Micha, SafaN & #endgame.
2 & other: Chaunk.

[Mead]

Originally posted by Chaunk
Currently, posted votes seem to run as:

#1 & #2: 3 votes.
#1 & #3: 3 votes.
Other: #2 + energy bonus: 1 vote.

Remember Morganites, only posted votes count, so please post your vote!

So it looks like location 1 is the clear leader.


This is very good. Location 1 is on the river system allowing early establishment, plus rapid expansion from that location. It will allow us to colonize towards both the west and south quickly.


It also looks like 2 is the runner up. This is also good. It allows expansion towards the east AND it is still on the river system allowing early establishment plus rapid lines of communication.


Based upon the votes it looks like we will be establishing a base at location 1 followed by location 2.


Mead

[jtsisyoda]

I voted 2, then 1. The base square has to be King. The river has to be taken advantage of. It also lets us put a base on the energy bonus, working the eastern monolith. Working monoliths while also getting bonuses on the base square is a best case scenario. The pod-pop advantage is too small and transient compared to the extra energy we get every turn of the game using the river and energy bonus sites.

[jtsisyoda]

I think if we're going to do 1 and 2, 2 has an extra mineral and energy, so it should definitely be first.