My take on base spacing

[Velociryx]

Two notes here, if you're gonna use the Yang-style spacing (which I TOTALLY recommend!)

First, get ready for drone troubles on account of having so many bases. Two primary means of countering this are: HGP/VW (if you can snag them both, you essentially double the number of bases you can have before drones really become much of an issue, and by that point, you've got other means--cool specialists or more advanced drone control facilities--to deal with them). Second means of dealing with the issue is Police/Nerve Stapling, but if you're playing a Builder's game, then those options won't be open to you.

Second, Og said it best. Turn advantage! In the early game, I'm really anal about roadbuilding. One of the first missions of my formers is to plant trees and bulild roads to new base sites. The other thing I'm anal about is building sensor arrays ON base sites, to net that "un-snipable 25% defensive bonus...not to mention that it's a great place-holder).

An infantry based colony pod, following the road, can be in position at the new base site in 1-2 turns, with the actual base build coming the turn after that. If you want speedy development, you can't get much better than that (also note here, that when your interior bases can no longer provide colony pods to a new base site in a timely fashion, it may be time to consider pulling them off of pod duty--relegating that to your next "ring" of outlying bases--and get those core bases working on other projects...developing or honing their initial mineral crawler suites, SP's, advanced infrastructure, etc..

Summary of base spacing, and it's impact on your game: If I'm building roads to my base sites 3 spaces from my current bases, and your colony pods are travelling along rugged terrain, five hexes to their build zone, my base will be up and running two turns after the pod is out of the build queue. Your base won't be up until about four or five turns after that, and by that time, I've already cranked out another former, a garrison, and have started working on my rec. tanks. In very short order, I'll be so far ahead in terms of terraforming and infrastructure that there's no way you will catch up. Additionally, my new base will have had the benefits of four to five turns of growth time, which means that my *next* colony pod will be out that much more quickly than yours (terrain factors being equal), which sets up for a further widening of that lead.

In terraforming, my biggest problem has always been that my ability to make new pods runs far ahead of my ability to prep new base sites, so as I explore more of the continent, I'll invariably have to make some sacrifices....select what I hope will be a relatively protected area of the landmass and NOT build sensors on the base sites....it's either that or slow down growth, and my plan centers around the notion of filling up my starting continent just as rapidly as I possibly can....then all those production centers can go to work on other stuff!

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

In terraforming, my biggest problem has always been that my ability to make new pods runs far ahead of my ability to prep new base sites, so as I explore more of the continent, I'll invariably have to make some sacrifices....

Thank you for that comment! Everything I read here seems to be some kind of idealised strategy. I never have a set placement for bases because fungus, rocky squares and other factions/borders dictate where I have to place bases. In my current MP game out of 4 bases I have founded since getting formers only one have I been able to build the sonsor first.

[Velociryx]

Sea Bases: Yep...I generally use the exact same configuration (easier to do, because there are less obstructions)

Garth, that's dead on, bud. Regardless of your idealized placement scheme, game factors WILL get in and muck that up some, and when they do, you gotta make some tradeoffs? Should you leapfrog over that rocky tile and have a base 4 apart, or further compress it and build a base only two spaces from your others? Do you tie up some formers clearing that fungus tile to keep your idealized spacing, or say screw it and just work around the stuff? And it's how you answer those types of questions that will determine the outcome of the game for you.

Now and again, if there was a base site that was covered over with fungus, I *have* taken the time to clear it for the base, but generally I'll do that only if doing so provides me some added benefit. Perhaps by clearing that one tile, I open a path through the fungus which shaves several turns of travel time to that part of the continent (time I would have had to spend going around said fungal bed). The main point is though, that each game is different, and what works this time around may not be viable next time, which is why a willingness to stay flexible is sooooo important.

The main thing is to make sure your empire is functional. It need not be pretty, or symmetrical, or follow any particular plan or pattern in order to be functional, but you'll recognize that inherent functionality when you see it, because all the individual elements IN your Empire will be working together like a well-oiled machine when you put the parts together in the right way. That's when you know you're rolling....when everything starts clicking together....

I went through a phase where form meant everything, and I'd blow tons of turns levelling out some rocky real estate just to put my next base in such a way that it was perfectly lined up with my scheme. All it did was cost me some of my turn advantage lead and didn't provide much, if anything in the way of benefits, and when I realized that, I saw that I was falling into the "symmetry trap," and got away from it as quickly as possible.

The best approach to spacing your cities is to have some basic principle in your mind ("three apart", "five apart," five on the die", or whathaveyou), and then grow organically, bending your basic strategy around the prevailing terrain.

There are some who would say that organic growth leads to chaos, which weakens your game. ::shrug:: Maybe, but compare two modern cities, one which started off organically (Rome), and the other which started off planned (Washington DC). Both face similar problems with traffic flows, which have cropped up in the US's capital despite a more structured city approach. Clearly then, there are definite limits to the usefulness of a rigid design scheme. (Besides that, on a personal note, organic empires just look and feel cooler to me ::shrug:: )



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Sea Bases: Yep...I generally use the exact same configuration (easier to do, because there are less obstructions)

Garth, that's dead on, bud. Regardless of your idealized placement scheme, game factors WILL get in and muck that up some, and when they do, you gotta make some tradeoffs? Should you leapfrog over that rocky tile and have a base 4 apart, or further compress it and build a base only two spaces from your others? Do you tie up some formers clearing that fungus tile to keep your idealized spacing, or say screw it and just work around the stuff? And it's how you answer those types of questions that will determine the outcome of the game for you.

Now and again, if there was a base site that was covered over with fungus, I *have* taken the time to clear it for the base, but generally I'll do that only if doing so provides me some added benefit. Perhaps by clearing that one tile, I open a path through the fungus which shaves several turns of travel time to that part of the continent (time I would have had to spend going around said fungal bed). The main point is though, that each game is different, and what works this time around may not be viable next time, which is why a willingness to stay flexible is sooooo important.

The main thing is to make sure your empire is functional. It need not be pretty, or symmetrical, or follow any particular plan or pattern in order to be functional, but you'll recognize that inherent functionality when you see it, because all the individual elements IN your Empire will be working together like a well-oiled machine when you put the parts together in the right way. That's when you know you're rolling....when everything starts clicking together....

I went through a phase where form meant everything, and I'd blow tons of turns levelling out some rocky real estate just to put my next base in such a way that it was perfectly lined up with my scheme. All it did was cost me some of my turn advantage lead and didn't provide much, if anything in the way of benefits, and when I realized that, I saw that I was falling into the "symmetry trap," and got away from it as quickly as possible.

The best approach to spacing your cities is to have some basic principle in your mind ("three apart", "five apart," five on the die", or whathaveyou), and then grow organically, bending your basic strategy around the prevailing terrain.

There are some who would say that organic growth leads to chaos, which weakens your game. ::shrug:: Maybe, but compare two modern cities, one which started off organically (Rome), and the other which started off planned (Washington DC). Both face similar problems with traffic flows, which have cropped up in the US's capital despite a more structured city approach. Clearly then, there are definite limits to the usefulness of a rigid design scheme. (Besides that, on a personal note, organic empires just look and feel cooler to me ::shrug:: )



-=Vel=-

[Method]

what i usually(or always) do just like in civ2 is (on the 3d map) 4 squares to the left, up right or down of the base or 3 and one diagonal. or i go 5 squares diagonal from the base. this way no base ever shares a square. the formers have to go nuts, but all my bases get enough everything (AI always builds their bases so close 2gether which is why i hate war with the base capturing and all).
[This message has been edited by TKG (edited March 06, 2001).]

[Blake]

Looks like I'm only person which uses a fairly rigid base layout plan. I always plan my base sites so I can borehole everywhere, no good having a base where a borehole can go. It's really not that hard, pretend gamemap is a chessboard, only build bases on the "white" squares, the "black" squares are for boreholes: hint, use "terrain cursor" start at existing base then move curser using 8,4,6,2 any square the curser moves over can have a base built on it. I use this to move my base layout to other landmasses.

True this cuts my options for base placment in half, but I can almost invariably find some good place to stick a base 3 tiles from the existing base. Then when it's time go borehole crazy I just start a borehole adjacant to one of my cities, and the boreholes spread from there, 1 in every 4 tiles gets a borehole. Perfect. Incidentely if I get the WP I build boreholes on mineral/energy specials - later when the main borehole effort starts I trash those special boreholes, whats better? 1 *sligtly* better borehole or 4 standard boreholes?. Melikes the latter.

I also like to play on high erosin arid maps. That way it's more like true terraforming. It also means it doesn't matter squat where I put my bases, with no rainy tiles any place is as good as any other.

[It'sLikeThat]

what about sea-bases? you guys use the same system? or do you use a different tactic?

[johndmuller]

In addition to the various factors covered so well already, I find myself giving serious weight to at least one other consideration - trying to locate my cities strategically so as to preempt or at least discourage the AI and/or human opponents from settling too much of what I consider to be *my* territory.

This means sending out a Colony Pod or two to the far corners of my future realm in order to stake my claim - heading off incipient expansion of the neighbors in my direction. Of course, this only works with the less belligerent factions and a lot of time is wasted while your CP is slogging across the continent, but it saves the time and aggravation of having to later fight off the interlopers. Also, if you do succeed in turning their expansion in another direction not only will you be able to develop a large area in relative peace, but it should lead to that neighbor having a non-productive relationship with their other neighbor(s) while you thrive.

If I'm feeling that this is too inefficient, I try to tell myself that it is like a CP was lost to worms (but with a free city thrown in). As for the here and now expense of the support on the roving CP, compared to the then and there cost of fighting for (or probe-buying) that territory later, I'll leave that interest calculation for the MBA's, but it seems to work for me.

When it comes to ocean going cities, I'm often motivated to build off my coasts as much to beat the AI there as for any other reason. Of course, its usually easy to take sea cities from the AI, but they generally aren't worth much (or in the exact place you would put them) and you may not feel like a vendetta at the time.

It seems that trying to adhere to pre-set patterns at sea works mostly in the places where there are large shallow areas. Otherwise, I would build sea cities first in those spots where you are in the middle of 3 bonus squares. Also, being adjacent to land, even if only a one square island, can be useful for forests and as a landing area for drop pod whatevers.

[Sikander]

Blake,

I use a fairly rigid pattern as well, though not as much as you do. I build bases about every other square along my coast (sometimes three squares where the coast curves). I build boreholes in between bases as you do, though I usually only build 1 per base. I crawl minerals and nuts from the interior where necessary. I try to build a sensor under every base, but can get away with one under every other base where I have maintained spacing at two.

As has been so eloquently explained previously tighter spacing is a big plus throughout most of the game, both for turn advantage and defense. Even later it is no detriment thanks to supply crawlers. In fact if you are intent on large scale energy crawling it is better to have all of your bases packed fairly close to your HQ, and then crawl energy from as far away as you like, because any losses due to distance are based upon the location of the receiving base rather than the origin of the energy itself.