Network node or energy bank: What is better to build first?

[Skanderbeg]

When You have a base with the basic improvements and You want to boost You science, what would be the best to build first, the energy bank or the network node.
From first look, of course it seems better to build the network node first with the +50% research. But with building the energy bank first, it would be possible to build (or rush build) all other science improvements including the network node earlier, and I am asking me if this could on long terms improve Your sience rate better than building the network node first.

[Clear Skies]

To be honest, I rarely if ever build energy banks, because I play SMAX and I almost always get the Planetary Energy Grid first (free EB every base).

However, if I had to make a decision, I'd build network nodes first. Why? Um. I like em?
I just think they're useful. They can link to alien artifacts (giving you a free tech), can pacify drones if you have the Virtual World, and generally give you lots of nice technologies. Many of which help to boost your commerce rating and/or give you access to new SE choices which can get you more income. Swings and roundabouts.

[Blake]

It depends, if you are going to be making a lot of money through harvesting energy (ie morgan or a freemarketeer) then consider building the energy bank first because it'll pay off.

If your main cash source is worm pearls or pod-popping then build network nodes, in particular Gaians and Hive will usually be better of building net nodes because gaians can easily put 70% of energy into research and make money off worms. Most of yangs income will be from worm hunting and you'll be wanting to maximise research to make up for the low energy - this normally means libarians and network nodes.

Basically if your running Free Market it's a tossup between Node and Bank, if your not running freemarket build the node and hunt worms for cash.

[SgtSlick_aus]

HI-

Usually a good MP player builds either one of the following three Human genome, Virtual world, Energy Grid.

Lets say for argument sakes u only get one (which if there is more than one human opponent is usually the case n e way.) This means that your base improvement pivot on which of these u you build. Generally it is the Energy grid players go for coz. you can pump units and building easily with the hurry function and generally therefore 'tech' a lot quicker in every respect. So in this case build network nodes.

If you get human genome, it means you don't have to buy rec. centers- so go networks first. (i should note here that b4 n e improvements, aside from rec. tanks and rec. centers, always build 2 supply crawlers, or u will turtle and ultimately loose.)

Last one is obvious go networks first if you get Virtual ESPECIALLY if you are UoP coz drones are a *****. I even get networks b4 rec. centers... just suppress pop booms with production squares soto get virtual world and in your other cities network nodes up by turn 2140-50. piss easy if you get some good square bonuses.
*just my two cents*

[MariOne]

Skanderbeg!
I thought it has been "sometime" I hadn't seen you posting, so I checked with the lens icon, and it turned out you've been missing for.... 14 months!!!!
Hi there! Wie geht's?

Apart the other very valid answers and considerations above, I'd restrict mine more specifically to your question, that is:
- your goal is to improve science output
- you intend to build the Node/Bank anyway (i.e. forget all the other considerations about PEG and other projects/facilities), and you intend to build them BOTH
- you just want to know whether in this frame it's more convenient to build
> first Node, then Bank
> first Bank, then Node

If that's really what you wanted, a test would be easily set up, requiring just some simple accounting.

In both cases, you start without Node/Bank in a base, and you end with both.
Assume you start with the same initial conditions.
Assume the base will keep the same productivity in both alternatives
Then compare the final status.

The basic test would be done *without* rushing, or rather by rushing items *at the same time* (I know that was NOT what you sought, but it's for ease of comparison).
Let's say you start at turn X, and by turn Y you'll have completed both facilities.
Compare your accumulated labs and ec at turn Y in the two cases.
By building the Bank first, you'll obviously obtain some less Labs and some more ECs.
Your goal was not to build up ecs, and you would have spent them earlier, but this is the first step to assess the amount of the two variables you are considering to make your choice. You can draw some early conclusion already at this step (as usual, it all depends case by case by the *actual* boost you get in the two realms).

Then go on with a more realistic test.
That is, you'll rush the first item as soon as you can (and this will be the same time in both cases), and the same you'll do with the 2nd item (and here will come the difference, because as you said, if you built the Bank first you'll be able to do it somewhat sooner).

Let's say that without the ec-boosting effect of the Bank, your faction economy/productivity is able to complete one Node/Bank Facility in a time F

case A:
start at time X, build Node at X+F, build Bank at time Y=X+2F

case B:
start at time X, build Bank at X+F, build Node at time (Y-T)=X+2F-T

When you rush the 2nd item, there might be some little variability with the minerals and money you'd be left with, but assuming that you'll do the best effort, we can imagine as first simplification that in both cases (A:Y & B:Y-T) you'll have same minerals and 0 ec. You can be more accurate in a second time.
First result, T is the number of turns advantage in which you'll have *both* items operative. But this does not help ust for the comparison, because while that time T gives the indicative advantage of *future* science-boosting facilities availability, at the same time you currently lost F-T turns in which the initial Node would have been operative.
The solution is to make the comparisons anyway at the same time. That is, even if in case B: you're finished buiding at time Y-T, you let your simulation go on T more turns until also case B gets at time Y.

Now you'll be a the same point in time (Y), with the same facilities built.
You need to compare your "assets" at that point.

Minerals
A: 0 (or very few)
B: those accumulated in T turns

ec
A: 0 (or very few)
B: those accumulated in T turns

Labs
A: node has been operative for F turns
A: node has been operative only for T turns (
In ANY case, by building that Bank first you'll end with "some" Labs less, and that was not the goal you sought.
You'll have traded those Labs for some minerals and some ec. You'll have to convert them in Labs-worth, but this will occur in the future, thus is a delayed benefit.

Also, imagine that in a distant future you'll finally build a Research Hospital at a time Z.
In case B, you'll build the RH at a time Z-T. After time Z, you'll have your RH in both cases, so the advantage you'll reap in the future will only be few turns T of RH operativity, and NOT a continually accruing advantage...

Of course all the collateral side-effects on growth, tech-availability, productivity, all influenging each other become too complex for a simple analysis.
Not mentioning that you'll do this choice in several bases, probably with staggered starting times.

You might, if you want, take a test where you give yourself GeneSplicing too, and run 3 cases:
B-N-RH
N-B-RH
N-RH-B

In general, I'd say that unless you have already a flourishing energy collection, the Bank is not really worth it.
By building the Bank first you'll lose some Labs in exchange for some minerals and ec, and you'll have a bit more labs back only in a distant future.
I would say in any case that insteadof building a Bank I'd rather build something else.
For instance, if I had already IndAuto too, I might rather consider building a crawler before the Node.

[CEO Aaron]

I'm suprised no one else has mentioned this, but banks are a zero-sum game until you get 4 econ base, with most factions this is going to take quite a bit of time, even if you're planning on crawling for energy (which takes a backseat to minerals for most players). With any kind of builder strategy, I'll be wanting network nodes before then to hasten my tech-climb

[johndmuller]

If you take the game a tad further (unitl you have Industrial Automation), I think the question of whether to build a Crawler or an Energy Bank is as interesting if not more so. In this case, the benefits of having a finished crawler are directly applicable to the costs of producing the Energy Bank - i.e. an approximately 20% reduction in the cost of building the EBank. Looked at the other way, the benefits of having a finished EBank could also be applied to rushing the crawler. Without getting down and dirty with the numbers, it looks like you would have to have a decent energy production before it would be worth while building the EBank first, although beyond that point, it would be increasingly better to do that. Practically speaking, it might not be reasonable to expect such a high energy production without having already had the occasion to build the EBank, unless you had the PTS, Environmental Econ and were starting a new base at the Borehole Cluster (and you also had enough nut crawlers or sats up your sleeve).

[Jethro83]

Unless I'm playing as the Morganites (yeah right!!!), Believers (don't need science then), or as the Uni (free Network nodes) I usually build network nodes first. It helps to be able to cash them in for technology, suppress drones with the Virtual World and increase Labs output.

As the Believers or Morganites, however, I use artifacts to rush projects, since I prefer to probe the enemy with the superior probe teams of a fundamentalist faction (I play with the Fundamentalist SE choice if I'm Morgan).

[Skanderbeg]

Skanderbeg!
I thought it has been "sometime" I hadn't seen you posting, so I checked with the lens icon, and it turned out you've been missing for.... 14 months!!!!
Hi there! Wie geht's?

MariOne , thanks for Your welcome.
It was simply the case, that I wasn't able to post because Apolyton made some changes with the site, and I couldn't find out the right combination of Java, javascript, cookies and that sh*t to be able to log in.
But now I am back:

[vitamin j]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'd almost always rather build the bank before the node. Of course it depends on the secret project situation (like everything else!), but in single player I've taken to playing without projects or crawlers. Probe teams can steal literally thousands of energy in tech, but can't really make you very much money, a point that can hardly be over-emphasized. The bank only costs 1 to maintain, and will turn 1 energy allocated to econ into two econ - rounding up the half point it adds, if I'm not mistaken. So the bank turns 3 energy allocated to econ into 5. And even minimal commerce income can be effected as well. Plus, the node costs 1 to maintain, as does the creche and commons. I find my cash flow to be much more comfortable when I build the bank first. I probably build more farms and solars in the early game than most players here. A 2-1-2 square is much more attractive to me than a 1-2-1. I've also had some good success "beelining" to Int Integ and using non-lethal methods for drones, temporarily bypassing the commons (depending on faction).
Anyway, to the original question, it looks like MariOne has the right idea as far as the hard math, as usual. My limited multi-player experience taught me that tech accelerates very quickly with several people making trades all the time, and it's not always necessary to be in the lead if your careful and have just a few things others want. It's possible to trade the same tech to a couple people for something different each time, which has a tremendous multiplicative effect on your labs allocation!

[Andemagne]

I'd build the network node 'cos then you are able to "cash in" those alien artifacts you have found, and as I allways play as Spartans, who have Mobility Doctrine as starting tech, which boosts early exploration, I'll usually find lots of those AA's.

[Adalbertus]

Look further

I got the impression that the "short" vision, the order of building two facilities, doesn't get the problem. It is easier to see this with a genejack factory because it's mineral only. Assume, you've got a newly built base somewhat in the game, and you want to build several faciltites. Should you build a genejack factory, and if so, when? You get some minerals, such that the factory has some effect, and the factory is the first in the list. For ease of comparison, the factory takes 9 turns to build, and all following facilities take 6 turns without and 4 with factory. Take the "local optimisation approach" and compare the factory with the next build. without building the factory, your facility is productive after 6 turns, with after 13, so let's swap the building order. The same comparison can be made with the next facility ... you'd move the factory at the end (where you can eliminate it, 'cos you won't build anything after the end).
Now the global view:
10 facilities (as above) take 60 turns to build. A genejack factory and 10 facilities take 49 turns. Assume, each facility provides 1 benefit per turn. In the first case, you collect 270 benefits after 60 turns. In the same time, with the second scheme (assuming you finish two more facilities in 4 turns each), you get 300 benefits. The difference is again the magic word "turn advantage".
For energy banks, the reasoning is similar. You don't gain much in the first time, but you build up turn advantage (through the ability to rush-buy more frequently), which pays off later in the game. The research points you lose don't kill turn advantage. Earn them later and you'll have them back, and you will get them because you get your Research hospital ... earlier.
That's my 0.02E.

[knowhow2]

getting tech early has more effect than just a techadvantage. You could also sell the tech for 25 (or more), build something that produce energy/mineral/food. not to mention getting weaponary to go otu and rob people for their cash and tech. Nodes has an advantage if you ask me.

[johndmuller]

As VJ touched on earlier, with his preference for 2-1-2's over 1-2-1's, early consideration of energy production can help avoid a painful economic stagnation. Availing oneself of rivers and investing in solars is to some extent equivalent to building fractional Netnodes and EBanks (perhaps with a bias toward the Netnode effect as labs get the 1st call when splitting an odd amount of energy production - given an equal allocation formula). When a bases production is quite low, an extra energy or two represents a substantial percentage of your researcha and cash flow and can have a noticable impact on how long the early techs take to finish.

Energy production, of course, contributes to both econ and labs, so the Netnodes vs EBank question is still otherwise pertinent.

[DilithiumDad]

Another consideration is that when a base's total economy is an odd number, the extra energy goes to labs not economy. I consider that 3 labs/turn (minimum of 5 energy in base) makes a node marginally worth it (1 maintenance for 2 labs) and 5 labs per turn (minimum of 9 energy in base) makes it definitely worth it (1 maintenance for 2 labs). Consider too that a biology lab increases the value of the node, and there is no equivalent facility for energy (except maybe the facility that increases tidal harness energy in SMAX, but that comes later).

Because of the "ties go to labs" rule, you need at least 6 energy in a base to get benefit from an energy bank and 10 to make it really worth while. Morgan can get to this point much sooner than other factions.