Specialist cities

[bondetamp]

Sikander:

I'm not quite sure why you adress me with that, but thanks anyway

Adam_Smith
If each crawler has the potential to carry home 13+ nutrients, this means that two crawlers may be enough to support a base upp to the point where it gets hab domes (and even further, as you get nutrient pods before that). This means that you can place bases one apart, and still have them gow to imense sizes. But his also means that if a chopter or two comes by and take out 10-15 crawlers, you will have starvation n seven or eight of your bases, for several turns, until you can get another 10-15 crawlers up and running. And a wyrm attack can do the same thing.

A couple of interceptors and AAA garisons is a small price to pay IMHO.

[Adam_Smith]

bondetamp,

Yes, that would be quit a disruption. I've never had such a disruption, but I usually use crawlers for minerals and energy only. Well, some for food. I've never run a specialist base though. At least not one with all specialist.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Bondetamp, et al.

Don't sweat the loss of crawlers if a stray chopper takes them out. So you starve a little big deal. The great thing about specialists unlike mineral producing bases for units etc. is that even under starvation conditions (and here I do mean starvation not merely hunger situations) is that the econ or research is still contributed. Lets them starve or hunger for a turn and then get a fresh crawler back out there. No interuption to you research or energy production. Demo Planned again and your back up to full population. (Now on the other hand if choppers raids become an every turn situation you'll need to deal with it post haste but for the short term it's no biggy. Also since this was a Single Player tactic, I find the AI is woefully inept about creating let alone using an airforce to any degree. Choppers especially. AI seems to love needlejets but choppers is another matter. A much more devious player would wipe the crawlers then go about bombing the terrain improvements or worse yet lobbing a fungal missile your way ouch!!)

On a seperate note, I've been playing the Data Angels in a land grab for the Monsoon jungle with 'Borg' style specialist city approach. The ability to produce meaningful mineral output to supply the needed crawlers is making the pace a bit slower than I would like. I'm at 2200 and have just gotten 5 cities to max size all specialists. I'm now thinking of replaying the game from 2122 on to put forests down every where to aid the buidling of initial crawlers. Additionally I'll forego the switch to Demo/Planned/creches until such time as I can get a few pre made crawlers (I'm thinking 3 per city on mines and road where possible else boreholes) bringing in some much needed mins outside the Monsoon Jungle before paving over the whole thing using farms and condensors. (ahh Urban sprawl and all the concrete err.. mean farms)

As far as SE selections go this approach offers some unique features. No efficiency loss so no need to max out your efficiency. Planned or Free Market becomes the preferable SE choices. As far as drone control goes, if you start with all specialists fromthe beginning your growth is only as fast as you crawlers get inplace. realistically I have had to short cut the equation and put some workers in the field b/c I couldn't make crawlers fast enough. In fact I think I'll go completely over the top and run Police/Planned/Wealth so I can churn out a few more supported formers b/c again efficiency isn't needed. (This is something I wouldn't even dream about doing except for Yang but in this case it can work for any faction. Hmm... have to see if Data Angels are averse to Police or Power can't remember)


All in all a reasonable first attempt worth more consideration and fine tuning.



[This message has been edited by Ogie Oglethorpe (edited March 13, 2000).]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

One other interesting tidbit,

Normally in a builderesque fashion once I get past Industrial Auto I'm trying to beeline to tree farms. With this approach, energy restrictions become significantly less important. Now the bee line is towards fusion (as it should be if you plan to go a-conquering). It allows some interesting changes in your whole tech development approach. I think it still is quite important however to ensure those mineral restrictions get lifted in order to have some ability to churn out the needed crawlers and ultimately R&D facility upgrades.


[This message has been edited by Ogie Oglethorpe (edited March 13, 2000).]

[bondetamp]

Adam Smith:

If you use crawlers primarily for minerals and energy, wouldn't it still be a disruption?

Firstly you loose the crawler, so you have to build a new one. That is some minerals right there.

Second you have to get it out to the resource. As the crawlers that are farthest away are the ones likely to get smashed, this can take a considerable amount of time. If we are talking boreholes on top of mineral resources, we are talking 8 resources lost every single turn, from the crawler is hit to a new crawler is back on the spot. If building/ shipping takes five rounds, this equals 40 minerals. Enough for an interceptor IIRC.

As the support- and unhappiness factor of the interceptor must be accounted for as well, I don't think I would use air support for single crawlers. But if three or four crawlers were stationed within a few tiles of each others, the cost of an air base, a sensor and an interceptor could very well be worth it IMO.

The same prinsiple goes for energy- and nutrient hoarding crawlers. The cost of the crawler is insignificant, but the loss of production while processing can be considerable.


-b
[This message has been edited by bondetamp (edited March 14, 2000).]

[Adam_Smith]

quote: Originally posted by bondetamp on 03-14-2000 11:29 AM Adam Smith: If you use crawlers primarily for minerals and energy, wouldn't it still be a disruption? -b [This message has been edited by bondetamp (edited March 14, 2000).]

I would say that loosing nutrient production would be the biggest disruption if you end up loosing population for it. Minerals would be second because with out minerals it's tough to build another crawler. Energy loss is the least disruptive. It is easy to just build another crawler and get it back out there for energy, and it wont be much of a set back.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Been giving this some thought.

Loss of Nutrient crawler - Net effect will be eventual loss of population point. Not a huge immediate concern if you have nutrients in the tank (i.e. you normally run a small excess of nuts.). In fact worst comes to worst if and when you can't get a crawler out to replace it one could put the worker back out to the field to bring in nuts. and run in a small excess to fend of starvation for a time then pull it back into the base as a specialist(s). If for some reason the amount of workers you need to place inthe field is enough to cause drone rioting a simple every other turn approach will still keep you operating without pop loss.


Loss of energy crawler - this doesn't seem germaine to this topic moreso it goes towards talking about effectively protecting an energy park as I was making the assumption that if I was going to crawler in energy it would be fairly distant from the Monsoon jungle.

Loss of mineral crawler - This seems to me to be a bigger issue in that it will stimy the Monsoon Jungle tightly spaced cities growth.


Just my thoughts

[bondetamp]

I'm planning on, in my next game, to try the (drum roll) "Extreme Specialist Approach". This would include spacing like this:

cxcbcxcbcxcbc
cbcxcbcxcbcxc
cxcbcxcbcxcbc
cbcxcbcxcbcxc
cxcbcxcbcxcbc
cbcxcbcxcbcxc
cxcbcxcbcxcbc
cbcxcbcxcbcxc

where b=boreholes,
c=Farms+soil enrichers+condensers and
x=bases

The figure will be expanded as new pods are built, but kept small as I figure you get the picture.

Each base will thus have three squares available. Two nutrient producing tiles and one borehole.

There will be only one worker in each base, the one working the borehole. Crawlers will take care of the two nutrient squares.

The crawlers will thus be able to support a population up to seven (6+6+3) or more with nutrient squares.

as efficiency will not be an issue, I'll run planned, to get the industry- and population bonus and police state to support the hordes of formers I'll be needing.

The uttermost ring of bases will have more than three tiles available, which is fine as they need to build and support a garrison. The inner bases will not really need a garrison, as any enemy would have to slash their way through an endless horde of crawlers (to be upgraded as soon as my sensors see from where they are coming) to get to them. Something that will buy me time to build a garrison, or crush them (the enemy, not the crawlers) with my choppers.

After a while I will stop expanding at one spot, just expanding around it.

This will make a figure like this:

cxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcb
cbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcx
cxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcb
cbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcx
cxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcb
cbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcx
cxcbcxcbcxcbcccccccccxcbcxcbcxcb
cbcxcbcxcbcxcccccccccbcxcbcxcbcx
cxcbcxcbcxcbcccccccccxcbcxcbcxcb
cbcxcbcxcbcxcccccccccbcxcbcxcbcx
cxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcbcxcb

etc...

The hole in the middle is for crawlers to support larger and larger bases. Maybe I should put some boreholes there too, to make the inner cities produce SP's and Sky hydroponics.

This whole concept, of course, requires a rather large continent.

Well, I haven't had the time to actually try it yet. Do you think it could work?

[This message has been edited by bondetamp (edited March 14, 2000).]

[Adam_Smith]

bondetamp,

sounds pretty good. I've used the base every 2 spaces strategy. It works pretty good. I'm still into 2 spaces between bases though.

One thing that I've found is that once someone takes one of your bases they easily take very many of your bases since they have no garrison and they are so close together.

Another thing is that you show up high on the graph early, and people really hate that and they will immediately plan your demise.

[bondetamp]

Adam (may I call you Adam? )

Take a look at the figure again. Imagine every single 'c' as being a crawler. Now imagine me uppgrading most of the crawlers facing the enemy to best armour. Imagine me having a chopter or two standing by.

I severely doubt he'd be able to take *that* many bases before the retaliation.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Bond (Is that Bondetamp, James Bondetamp? )

I think your on the right track. I recently ran a game as UoP since I figured it wouold be extremely helpful to have the freebie network node and since drones are an issue of the past it seemed the perfect faction to take this approach out for a test drive. It worked quite well. The sprinkling of boreholes being worked by workers was a good way to juice the hole thing up. In that game I was three squar spacing though and trying for size 16's populations and work a minimum of 2 - 3 boreholes. Realsitically all you ever need to get to though is size 5 so you can specialize other than doctors or empaths.

I like the tight spacing approach and smaller city approach (sound like we are migrating to David Byron's 'Borg' style approach) the nice ty of this is no need for efficiency. Police/planned will work nicely.

Post your results please as I would be interested to know your impressions.

Oh one last thing if for some reason you've decided to include the Monsoon Jungle in your grand designs, I suggest that you try to make that the central all "c" areas. It was occurring to me in my latest Data Angels game I was actually squandering the resources of Monsoon Jungle by putting so many bases in it. I should be looking to crawler each and every square for nutrients instead of taking up value squares as base sites.
[This message has been edited by Ogie Oglethorpe (edited March 14, 2000).]

[Enigma]

Very innovative approach.. high on terraforming time but comparable to an energy park. It is nice in that it also gives you minerals at each base. All I have to do is a little compare and contrast though..

I would like to put this in the simplest turns possible..
essentially this layout calls for a 2:1:1 condenser/farm/soil enricher to cities to borehole ratio.

Thus it is fair to say that on average each square gives you a little less than 4 food.. meaning 2 population. 2 population means 6 base lab points.

On the other hand an E park would give you on average 5 base energy per square.. every other square has 10 divided by 2.

Both use the same amount of crawlers, I.E. every other square.

an E park needs a city every 16 squares.. this layout needs one every 4 squares..

If my calculations are correct and you are taking the energy from crawlers to super science cities then an E park would give you superior labs, and good energy compared to the specialist city idea.

Plus it takes much less colony pods meaning fewer drones lost to inefficiency.

Neither plan loses energy to inefficiency.

I really do not have the organizational skills to compare and constrast this in an orderly manner, these are just obserbvations. And if anyone here would like to see a painstakingly built energy park that I spent 6-8 hours moving formers with... email me and I will send the turn.

[Christopher]

The annoying part of this?
I ususally play against Bondetamp and he allways beat me.

Could you guys stop giving him this tips for superior strategy?
Tell him to build only one city and then build that to a maximum before getting a new one...I hate loosing against him. He is so smug whenever he wins

Christopher

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Nigma et al.,

Additional points of comparison

Pros:

1)Two specialists in the beginning game net 6 labs or equivalent of 6 energy. At fusion power a reconfiguration of specialist to engineers will net 2*3 econ + 2*2 labs. for a net 10 equivalent energy. (granted it is a reduction in lab output but the cash can't be taken for granted). All this is in comparison to averge energy output from an energy farm yielding ~5/square (crawler).

2) As Bond points out susceptibility to outside invasion chopper raids should be markedly reduced. Instead of a sprawling energy farm outside your core cities that would require response to attack from outside stationed forces or worse yet your cities a much quicker response should be achievable to an attack in this model. Finally when and if the attacks come on your crawlers you should have some level of nutrients in the tanks to 'weather the storm' and not cause an immediate cessation to your lab and cash rasing efforts by the specialists. Contrast that to a chopper attack on your energy farm and the moment that crawler is destroyed you lose the energy income.

3) Complete flexibility in all SE choices. Drone management should be minimal to keep one citizen working a borehole and maintain 6 specialists i.e. you probably don't need any psych facilities. While this isn't an issue per se for the science/HQ city it will be for all the other cities within your empire.

Cons:

1) Super science city takes advantage of one set of all the science enhancing facilites. Maintentance costs are a one cost item at this city. This approach multiplies the amount of facilites by the number of cities in order to max out science rate. Now consider the amount of minerals required to establish all those facilties in the first place.

More thoughts later......
[This message has been edited by Ogie Oglethorpe (edited March 16, 2000).]

[Adam_Smith]

The advantage that I see to Bonds strategy, which I have used something similar and been very successfull, is that you get a very fast start because you build more bases in the beginning. You get the resourse boneses from the bases and faster growth. His terraforming options also seem productive.

I like to have much more production at my bases though. You can have as much production with supply crawlers via transporting minerals. However, I believe that having workers on forest is better than supply crawlers, because you get the nutes and energy too. Ultimately, a good pop boom at a base with space to grow and a tree farm is going to better for your faction in most cases.