Unit ratios?

[Fitz]

I'm curious if you use any sort of unit ratios in your core bases, or if they get tasked to specific priorities. I myself tend not to prioritize core bases, instead making each one perfect. The only real exception to this is usually my HQ, as that is the perfect SSC base. It spends a lot of time making crawlers once the two research enhancing SPs are in place.

By late mid game, this is my typically unit mix in a base, taken from the top of my head.

In the base:
3+ Garrisons. Usually a mix of two special abilities, sometimes 1+clean if I'm worried about support. Tend to be ECM/Trance, AAA/Trance, AAA/ECM. If I have 4-5, the extra have non-leathal/clean (soon to be 1-1-1 upgradeable in the future ).
3+ Terraformers. Clean/Super Rover, Clean/Fungicidal Rover, Clean/Super foil (or extra rover) is my normal setup.
1 artillery. Typically 1-1-1 empath/trance (upgradable) or Spore Launcher.
1 Fighter. Clean/Air Superiority.
Lots of crawlers. I'd say 10 minimum by the end of mid game.

Out and about:
2-4 Attack Infantry. Best/Best. Amphibious (coastal base) or Drop. Second ability depends on need.
2 Attack rover/hovertank. Best Weapon & Drop. or 1 Best Armored Transport (coastal base).
1 Heavy Attack Rover. Best/Best & Drop. or 2 Best/Best Cruiser (coastal base).
1-2 Bombers. Best Weapon, clean, 25%-50% empath, 50%-75% Sopophoric.
2-3 Copters. Best Weapon, clean, 10% empath, 90% Sopophoric.
1 Mindworms or 1 IoD.

It gets more interesting in the late game. The only flaw I have is a tendency to build troops at full strength instead of upgrading them as needed. I also tend to get in a rut for designs.

[NorthSwordsman]

quote: Originally posted by Fitz on 03-02-2001 08:04 PM I'm curious if you use any sort of unit ratios in your core bases, or if they get tasked to specific priorities. I myself tend not to prioritize core bases, instead making each one perfect. By late mid game, this is my typically unit mix in a base, taken from the top of my head. In the base: 3+ Garrisons. Usually a mix of two special abilities, sometimes 1+clean if I'm worried about support. Tend to be ECM/Trance, AAA/Trance, AAA/ECM. If I have 4-5, the extra have non-leathal/clean (soon to be 1-1-1 upgradeable in the future ). 3+ Terraformers. Clean/Super Rover, Clean/Fungicidal Rover, Clean/Super foil (or extra rover) is my normal setup. 1 artillery. Typically 1-1-1 empath/trance (upgradable) or Spore Launcher. 1 Fighter. Clean/Air Superiority. Lots of crawlers. I'd say 10 minimum by the end of mid game. Out and about: 2-4 Attack Infantry. Best/Best. Amphibious (coastal base) or Drop. Second ability depends on need. 2 Attack rover/hovertank. Best Weapon & Drop. or 1 Best Armored Transport (coastal base). 1 Heavy Attack Rover. Best/Best & Drop. or 2 Best/Best Cruiser (coastal base). 1-2 Bombers. Best Weapon, clean, 25%-50% empath, 50%-75% Sopophoric. 2-3 Copters. Best Weapon, clean, 10% empath, 90% Sopophoric. 1 Mindworms or 1 IoD.

Whoa! I usually do not even come close to putting that many into my bases. Usually two units with a probe team works for me, with most of my formers working the outlying areas where needed. I tend to keep 2 or 3 formers in the interior to deal with fungal growths, making bunkers, sensors, airbases, what have you. You have to have a balance... otherwise you pay a great deal in support costs. The interior bases do not need as much coverage as the frontier bases tend to, espeically if you have your bases laid out in an efficient spacing (I.E., 3 squares space inbetween). That allows you to have the 2 garrisons with a probe team, along with some mobile rover/hovertank units, and a few choppers to act as point defense. Being armed for worm-bears (lol) with THAT much firepower is a bit of overkill... but that is just my opinion. .

NS

[lbores]

quote: Originally posted by NorthSwordsman on 03-02-2001 10:34 PM ... an efficient spacing (I.E., 3 squares space inbetween).

Hmmm. You're saying bases every 4th square (3 squares between). I thought it was every 3 squares (2 tiles between) or am I totally confused here?

[Misotu]

No ratios. It depends on the game. But I would consider 3 garrisons to be *heavy* defence. I have played many games in MP - and won - with only 1-2 garrisons and those are only upgraded to something serious towards the end very often. Of course, I could do it earlier if necessary

[NorthSwordsman]

quote: Originally posted by lbores on 03-03-2001 12:55 AM Hmmm. You're saying bases every 4th square (3 squares between). I thought it was every 3 squares (2 tiles between) or am I totally confused here?

I think what happened with that is folks didn't specify **exactly** what they meant by the tile separation. . Think about it: If you only have 2 tiles between bases, that gives you a total of 8 tiles to work on if you stick to that 2 tile separation formula. Granted, you can make some nice specialist cities that way... but you will never grow that much. Let me show you:

*= Base
t=tile
ttttttttttttt
*tt*tt*tt*tt*
ttttttttttttt
ttttttttttttt
*tt*tt*tt*tt*
ttttttttttttt

So each base's production radius would only be 8. With some crawlers you could expand that.. certainly makes good defense, but lousy economics. So I honestly think that bases every **4** tiles would be more productive. That way you get 8 to 20 tiles to work on, not counting the central base square. With some overlap, you will have less than 20... but when you can only go up to 14 pre-hab domes (normally).... that kind of overlap is needed for efficient use of resources. Try it out in a game and see what happens.

NS

[cbn]

Ibores

The first thing is that different players have different ideas on best base spacing. It can depend on world size, available resources and most of all, individual playstyles. Many advocate 3 base spacing for quick defense and maximum use of resources but I have never thought of that as an absolute.

Northswordsman

Your analysis appears to be correct if a player spaces bases every 3 squares (2 in between) in a straight horizontal or vertical direction. The overlap is 6 squares with each adjacent base and if there was a base on all 4 sides every square would be overlapped with another base and there would be 4 squares that overlap with 2 other bases.

But the more efficient way to space the bases is diagonal. People use the term "5 on the die" to provide the idea of a central base with a base on each of the 4 diagonal spokes from the hub base. In this set up the hub base has an overlap of only 2 squares with each adjacent base. If available squares are shared equally between adjacent bases then the hub loses only 1 square to each adjacent square or a total of 4. If all bases were treated equally, each one of them would have 16 squares available to work (so an excess of the hab dome limits). Or the "central" base can work 12 squares while outlying bases get to use 20. This pattern can be continued in an interlocking lattice for as far as the terrain allows.

Fungus or oceans may delay building on the optimal square so it might be better to just get the base down and producing away. Also, there can be a lot of good uses for smaller cities. So if diagonally out 3 is impractical you may decide to live with a slightly greater overlap for that base. Three square base spacing aknowledges that each base ultimately has fewer squares to work but this is accepted to obtain the defensive advantage of garrison reinforcements that can get there in a single turn and the possibility of a whole bunch of rovers getting there from 2 bases away.

There are no absolutes here. I will often have closer base spacing in the frontier (for defense) while leaving "gaps" between base radii in the interior. The gaps are for crawlers and also because playing the AI, I couldn't be bothered to administer bunches and bunches of bases.


Unit ratios

I have no absolutes on units. The SSC and a couple of other science centres might have more crawlers than you mention. My interior bases also tend to have a lot fewer units than you list. The science cetres will have produced no offensive units while I have a couple of bases tasked to producing nothing but military.



[This message has been edited by cbn (edited March 03, 2001).]

[RedFred]

No absolutes on number of units seems to be the norm. I play each faction differently. With the Hive's awesome Police and Support rating, I'll have more units knocking around than if I was Morgan.

[Rastapopoulos]

North Swordsman:

Well, now that I know a bit more about your habits concerning unit ratios I might just use that knowledge in ACT 048...
But seriously, I go along with you and consider it kind of a waiste to have that many units at each and every base, rather invest my minerals in some decent facilities...in general I try to build as few units as I can, in fact I build units only if I absolutely have to, keeping of course some surplus defensive units so as not to expose myself too much. A unit that's just hanging around doing nothing is waisting the minerals and time invested into building it, while a facility is always working for you.

Now I've told you just as much about my strategy..


------------------
May the fungus be with you...
[This message has been edited by Rastapopoulos (edited March 03, 2001).]

[NorthSwordsman]

quote: Originally posted by Rastapopoulos on 03-03-2001 06:14 PM North Swordsman: Well, now that I know a bit more about your habits concerning unit ratios I might just use that knowledge in ACT 048... But seriously, I go along with you and consider it kind of a waiste to have that many units at each and every base, rather invest my minerals in some decent facilities...in general I try to build as few units as I can, in fact I build units only if I absolutely have to, keeping of course some surplus defensive units so as not to expose myself too much. A unit that's just hanging around doing nothing is waisting the minerals and time invested into building it, while a facility is always working for you. Now I've told you just as much about my strategy..

One of the drawbacks of forums... everyone else knows your secrets. . Seriously, I have to agree. Why pour resources into something that is just sitting there? If you are a momentum player, that makes sense, as you are always rassling someone... but a builder... waste of resources and time. Depends on the situation, I guess.

NS

P.S. Rasta, now we are even. .

[Fitz]

I have yet to play a LAN game where a defensive unit is just 'sitting there', especially as you get to the later mid-game (post drop pods). Even interior bases tend to be in relatively extreme danger.

Besides, this is in addition to every facility in every base. You crank out a unit between every facility, and by late mid game, that's about the mix I have. BTW, to me late mid game is about the time someone gets advanced space flight or Cloning Vats. I consider it to start once restrictions have been lifted and the first needlejets are entering the field.