Base Size and Pollution

[Ned]

I noticed a strong relationship between base size and eco-damage. For example, in my current game I have 60+ bases, none of which are over size 16. Many of these bases are producing 150+ minerals per turn. No eco-damage problem at all.

In my just previous game, I kept the number of bases limited, but pod boomed the bases to size 22, and then later with Hab Domes, bases went to size 35+. These bases could produce no more than 80-90 minerals without eco-damage.

I have also noticed a strong corolation earlier in the game. Small bases with lots of crawlers can produce more minerals without damage than larger bases.

I have not seen any threads on this before. Is this a known factor in the eco-damage formula?

[mark13]

I know that in CivII, population is a major factor in pollution - not sure about SMAC though....

[johndmuller]

IIRC, none of the threads I've read on this subject include base size as a parameter in the ecodamage calculation. As you probably know, the ones usually mentioned include terraforming, mineral production, planet rating, nukes, etc. There is, given normal development, a correllation between base size and terraforming/minerals, but I presume you are factoring that into your question.

I've have noticed some anomalous behavior along similar lines.

Early in the game, at or a little before the time that the techs for Tree Farms and Centauri Preserves are becoming available, I usually have a few bases where eocdamage is in play. I've lately been playing with blind researech, so sometimes this can last a while. At these bases, the amount of ecodamage is generally controllable, by switching production, but seems to generally start at about the 16 minerals level. Adding TFs (and even Hybrid Forests when available) only provides a small difference for me (perhaps if I had Boreholes in the base area..), but the CPs do seem to do it for me. The strange part is that after being on the edge of ecodamage for some time, the whole issue seems to go away and I can produce lots more mins with no problem. During the transition time I will probably have built more TFs, CPs and maybe HFs, but according to the posts I've read, there is no cumulative effect from these facilities beyond the individual base. This is all with little or no episodes of Worm rape to build up my resistance, no building of planet-rating enhancing SPs or colonizing the Manifold Nexus, no changes to "Greener" SEs or any other mitigating factors I can think of. Maybe late in the game, I might use a Temple of Planet, but I would probably be building it more for the morale effect on newly built native life than for ecodamage except on a really hyped up base.

Basically, there seems to be an early crisis and once over that hump, the ecodamage seems to be mostly irrelevant to me (assuming I haven't done much planet-nasty stuff in the course of my "foreign policy"). I can only think of a few things that could explain this:
--there really is a cumulative effect from CPs and TofPs;
--advanced reactor techs (&/or units with them) have some effect;
--there is a factor involving the nut/min/ec production ratios.

I can't say that the matter of base size per se rings true to me as a possible explanation for the anomaly I think I've noticed, but the game does throw more complexities at you as your faction grows, so it wouldn't surprise me if that was in there somewhere.
[This message has been edited by johndmuller (edited April 25, 2001).]

[Clear Skies]

It must be base size. What else could it be?
Hybrid Forests eliminate pollution caused by terraforming improvements. So why, once you've built them, do you still have ecodamage? It must be base size! So you build Centauri Preserves and Temples of Planet, right?
I can't think of anything else it could be....it might be base improvements....

[buster]

Ecodamage is decides by terraforming and mineral production.

It is then modified by SE choices (planet rating) plus some SPs (like pholus mutagen) and base facilities (like tree farm, hybrid forest, centauri preserve).

You planet rating has major impact. Native life setting at start impacts too and some other factors.

Anyway here is axact formula from alpha helpfiles:

"The ecological damage formula is complex:

1)For each base total the number of Mines, Solar Collectors, Farms, Soil Enrichers, Roads, Mag Tubes, Condensers, Mirrors and Boreholes.
Items in squares which are actually being worked count double.

2)Add an extra +8 for each Borehole, +6 for each Mirror, and +4 for each Condenser.

3)Subract 1 for each Forest.

4)Halve if base has Tree Farm, and Eliminate if also has Hybrid Forest.

5) Divide this value by 8, and reduce by up to 16 plus # of previous
damages. Set this number aside.

6) Take the number of minerals produced this turn (but not from Orbit).

7)If result from 5 was reduced by less than 16+#, reduce result 6
by remaining amount.

8) Divide minerals by 1 plus # of Centauri Preserve, Temple of Planet, Nanoreplicator.

9) Sum the values of (5) and (8), and add +5 for each major atrocity.

10) If Alpha Prime is at perihelion (20 years out of every 80), double
your value.

Ecology% = (ValueFromStep10) * Difficulty * Technologies * (3-PLANET) * LIFE / 300

Difficulty = Normally 3, but 5 on two highest two difficulty levels.
Technologies = Number of technologies discovered
PLANET = Social Engineering PLANET value
LIFE = Native life level (1-3) from Custom Start"

[Ned]

I'm sorry, but all of us have experienced the same phenomena. That eco-damage formula does not explain what we are seeing. For example, if you have a +3 planet rating, you should have "no" eco-damage. But everyone knows this not true.

Has anyone seen this? A base is experiencing eco-damage. You click a mineral-producing crawler. Eco-damage drops to zero. Now suppose you take a specialist and apply it to the spot where the crawler just was. In many cases, eco-damage will remanin zero even though the number of minerals is the same as when the crawler brought in the minerals. But, instead of a specialist, you now have a worker.

I don't get it. Nothing in the formula can explain this, but I am willing to bet that most of us here know of this "trick."

Citing the formula simply cannot explain why smaller bases produce no eco-damage (both have the same planet rating) while larger bases produce a lot of eco-damage with far fewer minerals (assuming each has Trees, Forests, Preserves and Temples).

What I am seeing seems to be very similar to what we saw in Civ. There seems to be is a population effect. In Civ, pollution was affected by both base size and overall population. This code still seems to alive and well in SMAC.

[Ned]

Just a point of update. I just finished a game as Domai. 60+ bases each producing an average of 200 minerals per turn. No eco-damage. I had expected to see eco-damage begin as the bases grew beyond size 16 with Hab Domes. Did not happen. I was able to produce eco-damage in one base by pushing its mineral production to 264. (The base was not producing an orbital improvement.)

All this contrasts to other games where I could not go over 100 minerals in any base without producing eco-damage.

According to the formula, during the twenty years out of 80 when Alpha prime is in perihelion the mineral production necessary to produces damage is halved. Does this explain the phenomena I am seeing?

Ned

[Fitz]

Ned, I found your comment about the crawler/specialist interesting, because I cannot recall having seen this before, despite being fairly sure I must have done exactly what you described. I frequently play with eco-damage, removing crawlers etc. However, that isn't to say that I definitly did it. I may have assumed that sticking a worker on a square does indeed restore eco-damage to it's former level, and therefor not place on there.

However, I find that my eco-damages conform relatively well to the formula concept in the early game. The only thing that throws me is the Technologies part of the final forumula. For example, if I get the WP in the early game, stick down two boreholes (worked) and 4 forests (worked) and 2 farm/condensors (crawled), I'm not suprised to find positive eco-damage. Especially since step ten = ((12+16+8-4)/8-4)+(20-12) = 8. Now, if I've discovered five techs (by the time I get two boreholes, I probably have) the total eco damage would be ((8*5*5*3*2)/300) 1 point. Ten techs = 2 points, 15 = 3, 20 = 4, etc. Given this increasing eco-damage as you discover tech in a given base without any changes being made to the improvements or workers, which I have observed many times, I find it interesting that you are assuming something relavant to base size. I would have assumed it was due to gaining tech along the way, as the base grew.

However, I'm not saying you are wrong. I would just like some emperical evidence, mainly because I have seen so many claims about eco-damage, some long held, that were wrong. The old theory of CentPresevres help all bases is an example of these erronous theories. Set up a scenario and test your theory. Several bases, same number of worked improvements (remember that a farm/solar counts as 2 worked), same number of minerals, and different populations, and see if you are right.

It would simplfy things if you set it up as late game, since you can add hybrid/tree farm and nullify the improvments factor, and just match minerals. If the bases have the same mineral output but different base sizes, both with hybrid/tree farm, and have different eco-damages, you are right. If they have the same, it indicates that you might be wrong.
[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited April 26, 2001).]

[Blake]

After fairly extensive testing on ecodamage I determined that the ecodamage formula is actually mostly correct (with a little confusion over how tree farms and CP's effect terraforming, mineral, atrocity ecodamage). However it is very easy to read the ecodamage formula wrong, or assume a part is wrong while it is actually correct.

However I also seem to have found the strange effect of suddenly crossing a time/tech threshold and being able to produce 30+ clean minerals, with not enough "pops" to account for resistance (btw each pop allows one more clean mineral in every base). So, either another factor effects ED, OR some pops go un-notified. The ways this could happen are:
Pop in another factions territory (but still near your base)
Pop far away from your base that it isn't notified (ie outside of visual radius)
Pop under existing fungus (ie no effect at all)
Randomly forgets to notify you.

I'm not too happy with those ideas, mainly because it seems to be fairly consistent. The other alternative is that in the testing stage they decided that the ecodamage was too hard on players in the mid game so added a feature where if you pass a certain date/tech/other threshold it raises the clean mineral limit (prehaps a "extra clean" bonus for factions which kept clean...)

I can say with confidence that if you have two bases, each producing an identical number of minerals from the same sources and each with the same terraforming they produce the same amount of ecodamage regardless of population. If a larger base produces more ecodamage it is probably because the larger base has much more terraforming, like roads and possibly condensors & boreholes, while a frontier base could easily have no terraforming other than forest. Crawlered minerals are "cleaner" than worked minerals. Also workers working roads(!) creates extra ecodamage.

A third effect (also a logical result from the ecodamage formula) is that a base with only forest for terraforming produces MORE ecodamage WITH a treefarm . This is because a forest produces about -.13 ecodamage, with 16 tiles of forest you get -2 ecodamage, which allows you to produce 2 more clean minerals. HOWEVER when you build a tree farm that -2 gets halved to -1 and you can only produce 1 more clean mineral, so with a very clean strategy building treefarms in bases could increase ecodamage.

[Blake]

edit: How did that happen....
[This message has been edited by Blake (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Ned]

Fitz, Ah Ha! Now I think I understand the "worker" trick. The "double for worked squares" must apply only when a worker works a square, not when a crawler works a square. An "unworked" forest is a "-1." A "worked" forest, however, is a "-2." By removing a crawler and adding a worker on a piece of forest previously crawled, you reduce eco-damage even though minerals production remains constant!

If this understanding is correct, then reworking your example

2 boreholes worked = 2 x 1 x 2 = 4
+ 8 per hole 2 x 8 = 12
2 farms not "worked" = 2 x 1 x 1 = 2
2 condensors not "worked' = 2 x 4 x 1 = 8
4 forests worked = 4 x (-1) x 2 = -8

Subtotal 18

Next, step 5, part 1, we are told to divide this number by 8.

Partial Result 18 / 8 = 2.25

Next, step 5, part 2, we are told to subtract by up to 16.

Partial Result 2.25 - 2.25 = 0

Step 6 now brings in the minerals. In your example, you have two boreholes (6 each) and 4 forests (2 each) producing minerals. This totals to 20. You then subtracted 12, which is 16-4. In the revised formula, the subtraction is 16-2.25 = 13.75)

Partial Result, Step 6 20 - 13.75 = 6.25.

(BTW, I now see why one gets eco-damage in most bases at around 15-16 minerals.)

Continuing, assuming 5 techs, level 5 difficulty, 0 planet and 2 for native life (average)

6.25 * 5 * (5 * 3 * 2/300) = 6.25 * 5 * .1 = 3.125 points.

(In your own example, 8 * 5 * .1 = 4 points of damage, not 1.)

However, it is easy to see how eco-damage goes up dramatically when one gets over 13 - 14 minerals. For some reason, after I discover Tree Farms, and begin building them, eco-damage drops dramatically. The formula suggest very little impact from terraforming. However I know this is not the case.

Regardless, Fitz, give the worker/crawler trick on a forest a try. The problem with this theory is that I seem to recall that it also works on farms.

[Fitz]

Lol, that tree farm thing is pretty interesting.

You seem to be confirming the point about crawlers/workers. Is that what your statement means about "cleaner" minerals from crawlers?

As to the tech thingy, don't some of the tech state in them that they reduce eco-damage? Or am I thinking of the Pholtus Mutagen?

-Fitz

[Blake]

Just a couple of minor details:
You don't double the terraforming ED for working a tile - you add one, so a borehole goes from 8 to 9, Actually, it goes from 9 to 10 (add one for each... then add another one for worked... then add 8 per borehole), but you need to read the formula carefully, which is why there are so many confusions about ED. Also I havn't found any evidence that working a forest doubles the -1 to -2, AFAIK it simply stays -1 when worked.

The formula is more or less correct but it is very difficult to read correctely. Also when computing the effects of terraforming, mineral and atrocity ecodamage with a CP things don't quite add up - an example is that a CP reduces ecodamage from atrocities, while according to the formula it shouldn't.

[MariOne]

WOT? Once again???
How could mankind progress having to rediscover the same over and over again?
eco damage (december)
Borehole eco-damage (february)
Reducing your ecodamage (february)

Now, there's no reference about base size. I think you've already been suggested how to account for the effect you saw.
Those 3 threads linke above brought all of us to focus on every term of the formula.
We saw that if you take into account all the declared variables in the formula, it always yelds the observed values, with two main corrections
- the planet term can't go below 1
- also the atrocities term is reduced by GoodFacilities.

It's possible that there is some undeclared variable exerting influence, but that must be under conditions different from those we use in our tests.
I used medium and big bases in my tests, and never saw an influence on the results.

Blake, I stand with you, you're right with the no double forest comment. I wonder if you ever got tho to the 3rd linked thread to read my last post in it. I thought you got the concept in the end.
So please stop telling that working a square doesen't double the ED effect.

It DOES double the ED effect, AS SPECIFIED in the formula.
That is, it does count double the nuber of TF items in a worked square.
It does NOT double the ED for advanced items, which is added AFTER the doubling.

So, I repeat.
An unworked Farm+solar+Road tile is worth 3 TFED points
The same tile, worked, is worth 6 TFED points (not 4)!
A Borehole is worth 9 TFED points, 1 for the item itself, 8 for the extra.
If worked, you double the item but not the extra, thus it goes to 10.

The same applies to Mirrors and Condensers

So Ned I won't delve in the details but in your calculations 2 condensers (unworked) are worth 2x(1+4)=10 points, the forests don't have to get doubled, and the borehole calcualtion is correctly set but 8x2=16 (and not 12)!

Finally << The "double for worked squares" must apply only when a worker works a square, not when a crawler works a square. >>
I frankly never imagined it could have been interpreted otherwise. Crawlers are not workers. They don't "work BASEsquares", they convey ONE of the square resources, from wherever.
Interesting to see different PoV anyway(this time it's mine which happens to be the right one, but let's alway remind to keep an ompen mind...).

Don't forget to take roads into account.
If you shift a worker from a virgin forest tile to a roaded forest tile, the road which before counted as one now it gets doubled because worked (regarldess the forest around it which effect is separated). I saw many times my ED raise by 1 in a base for that reason, while juggling to adjust the best workers/specialists/resources distribution there.

That's it, till the next pack of smac recruits will bring the issue up anew again...
[This message has been edited by MariOne (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Ned]

Marione, I read the threads you indexed. Thanks. However, there is a lot more to be said on this topic, IMHO. I have observed ED go from positive to zero when one works a square rather than crawl it - i.e., convert a specialist into a worker but keeping minerals constant. I am certain this works with forests. I am not as certain about other squares. However, if this works only with forests, it must mean that the multiplier (2) is mulitiplying a negative number.

Also, I have also observed that the number of minerals I can produce w/o ED goes up dramatically after and building tree farms and hybrid forests. I can normally produce up to 80 without ED with no CP's, etc. Doesn't this indicate a that tree farms and hybrid forests are doing something to dramatically increase allowable minerals all by themselves. Perhaps there is an undocument doubling of the negative forest effect on building tree farms and a second doubling on building hybrid. This could lead to a negative terraforming effect thereby adding to clean minerals.

There is another phenomena that is very puzzling. The total number of minerals one can produce does seem to be related to the number of bases. I have also seen the effect noted in another post in the "Reduce Ecodamage" thread. If I have more bases, I seem to have a higher threshold before ecodamage kicks in. For example, in a previous game, I could not get over 90 with only 7 main bases. In my last game, I could produce 250 minerals per base. I had sixty bases. In my current game, the limit seems to be around 150. I have 36 main bases.

You might think suggest that the higher total is related to previous "pops." Not so. I usually am very careful about ED, and experience very few, certainly not 234, which is the number necessary to have 250 clean minerals.

Any thoughts?