My take on base spacing

[lbores]

Here's my 2 ec:

Being a newbie, I've had my share of difficulty with base spacing.
To help myself (and others) to visualize the effect of various base spacings, I've created the attached figures and commentary:

Figure 1 is the Legend - that is what the various colored squares stand for. I've used the abbreviation ZOI to mean Zone of Influence - that is, those tiles inside the base radius.



Figure 2 is a basic base - showing ZOI and corner tiles (which are outside the ZOI).



Figure 3 is a space-on-3 (2 tiles between) base separation:



Here, 4 corner tiles are outside the ZOI. Between the 6 bases - 40 squares are shared, less 12 corner squares that now fit within some bases' ZOI and are also unshared, leaving 28 tiles that could become a difficulty. In practice, using this spacing - this has not been a problem even without 'crawling'. This will probably allow growth of all to pop 6 without strain, though 'crawling' the 4 corners may be necessary for the center 2 bases. All bases are mutually supportive there being but 2 tiles separating each. With a road, a rover garrison unit could attack any threat in the same turn. If each base is dropped on a pre-placed sensor - there's plenty of warning to move troops to any threatened base.

Figure 4 is a space-on-4 (3 tiles between) base separation:



Here 9 tiles fall outside the ZOI and 12 tiles are shared. All bases are mutually supportive there being but 3 tiles separating each. If each base is dropped on a pre-placed sensor - there's plenty of warning to move troops to any threatened base.

Figure 5 is the smallest practical '5-on-a-die' configuration created by dropping a 5th base onto the middle, unworked square of the above configuration.



Here, 24 tiles are shared and 8 tiles are outside the ZOI. The central base is sharing ALL of its tiles which means that it may have to 'crawl' nuts/min/enr and should probably be a specialist city.

Figure 6 illustrates a space-on-5 (4 tiles between) base separation.



Here, 16 tiles are outside the ZOI. This configuration cries out for crawlers to work these tiles, especially the central 4. All bases are mutually supportive there being but 4 tiles separating each, but a rover garrison unit is reccomended. If each base is dropped on a pre-placed sensor - there's plenty of warning to move troops to any threatened base. This may be a good spacing to use on a large continent but is somewhat inefficient.

Figure 7 is a space-on-6 (5 tiles between or if you're using diagonal separation - 3 tiles between) base separation with a base dropped into the center to create the next practical '5-on-a-die' configuration.



Here, 24 tiles are outside the ZOI but only 8 tiles are shared. Note the light-gray tiles. These are corner tiles swapped between bases and are unshared. I see this as more efficient than Figure 6 even with the tile sharing which in this instance is inconsequential. All bases are mutually supportive there being but 5 tiles separating the corner bases and only two separating these from the central base. Placing a strong rover garrison unit at the central base provides rapid coverage for any threatened base. If each base is dropped on a pre-placed sensor - there's plenty of warning to move troops to any threatened base. This would be my choice spacing to use on a large continent. The bars of the T's could be used by plonking down bases so as to bring them within the new bases's ZOI's.

I would welcome comments by the experienced players out there such as Og, Dimension, et al.

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

[Blake]

I always use the same base placement strategy, however it is quite flexible and relies on three rules:
1) No base is ever founded more than 3 tiles from another (infantry spacing)
2) No base can ever ever ever be placed where a borehole eventually could go - boreholes are always built adjacant to bases (not diagonal)
3) No base is ever founded in another bases ZOC

In practical terms:
B: Orginal base
O: Borehole
* sites for forest/condensor or just wasteland
#: Valid places to found a new base

"Real" - "Ideal"
#*#*#*# *******
O#O*O#O O#O*O*O
#*****# ******#
O*OBO*O O*OBO*O
#*****# #******
O#O*O#O O*O*O#O
#*#*#*# *******

The first picture is for a real map, covered in rocky squares, fungus and so on. With almost any base I can find a place to put a new base.

Now, if I find myself on a small landmass, or are a slow growing faction I'll favour using the close diagonal's and packing bases in really close, if in contrast I've got lots of space I'll favour the far diagonals. I'll always use the "L" shaped seperation between bases.
If I find myself on an all land world covered in rolling and flat terrain with no fungus and no enemies I would use the "Ideal" or it's mirror image.
Using an infinite "ideal" sprawl every base works 3 boreholes and 7 condensors, this is enough to get to size 14. With enrichers size 22 and enrichers + sats ~ size 40

Theres also another rule for placing the bases in this style which works for expanding the placment to ANOTHER landmass (if you intend to join the islands later), imagine the map is a giant chess board, now place bases on the white squares, later boreholes on the black. Altough often I don't bother, but then when I've conquered the world I end up with a borehole "faultline". It does not matter where your HQ is placed, as you place bases relative to existing bases

It is a LOT easier to place bases in this style if you turn base radius on in map, this way just place bases adjacant to your base radius lines, with the exception of the four tiles directly out from the base.

Later I actually do go through and build a grid of boreholes, at the maximum possible density (hint, if the land is "sloped" lower it and then build the borehole, always works). Try this for Yang (who with the WP can start earlier on the boreholes due to his support), you'll be amazed at the amount of raw energy you can rake in even without +2 econ. Ofcourse at the start I build boreholes on Specials, later I trash that borehole for the simple reason 4 boreholes are better than 1.

If I had to give this placment strategy a name I would call it "maximum boreholes", since working it out I've used this placment in EVERY game I've played, with the exception of a couple of momentum games

[cbn]

Great diagrams Ibores.

What I like to do if I am trying to grow all the bases big is reflected by your last figure. The pattern can be continued indefinitely in theory. In reality, I doubt that many gamers achieve any particular spacing pattern on a consistent basis.

Regardless of the merits of any system, it would usually not be advisable (and it is sometimes impossible) to follow it rigidly. Early game, the key is to get the bases down .Rocky squares, oceans and fungus can change plans.

One other point is that although I see the 5 on the die approach as the nost efficient use of base overlap. There are situations in which you might deviate from it. For example I might intentionally cause bases to overlap on a nutrient special so that they can take turns growing faster. Or I may allow a gap between base radii to set up a small crawler park in the interior. Or you could bunch some bases in a rocky area, accepting that they will remain small, but benefiting from multiple build queues.

[Rastapopoulos]

Look folks,
I don't think any of these systems is of any real help when you're in a game, trying to make decisions. Although I can see it's a lot of fun thinking about a system and trying to get your thoughts organized, in the real situation, there are always a lot of secondary considerations that will eventually determine where you put your bases much more than any system you're trying to follow: Resource bonuses, Terrain, fungus, coastlines, and, of course, the enemy. In an MP game I'm playing right now I had to build a base just two squares from my last, just to push my border a few squares and create a corridor of territory that I own. Now, 20 turns later, I'm glad I did what I did instead of following any sort of system and am trying to work around the disadvantages. I agree with CBN: I would never waist time to find a base site that is perfect when I can build 4-5 turns earlier in the early game, then try to remove the disadvantages by terraforming later. Once you've got 4-5 bases set up, you can start thinking about some sort of system, but then some other thing will get in your way, so really, what you need is Doctrine: Flexibility, isn't it?
When I have the choice, I try not to share tiles between bases, because I want to be able to get as many workers as possible out per base, but I'd probably prefer figure 7 over figure 6, but then again, it really depends on the situation. I try to keep specialised fields (arid+rocky, with a mine and road) out of the base's production radius so I can put a crawler on them without waisting a job for a worker, whereas fields that produce different types of resources (Forest+river, with Tree Farm and Hybrid Forest) should be inside the prod.radius for obvious reasons.
All in all, I repeat myself, I don't think it makes too much sense to think about all this, because every situation in the game is so different.



------------------
May the fungus be with you...

[Misotu]

Completely agree. I take each game on its own merits although nowadays I rarely build bases with no overlap at all. The terrain is the biggest influencer - if all of your tiles are rolling, rainy and high, you really don't need that many per base. If you've got a lot of rock, fungus and arid, your spacing inevitably will be greater - or you'll pay the penalty later if you are working with a booming faction. Since I generally prefer to play booming factions with reasonable hab limits like PK or Gaia, my spacing will tend to be far greater than that of players who prefer, say, Morgan or the Hive.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Lbores,

Cool charts. I'm extremely inept when it comes to HTML so I am envoious to say the least. Just how did you manage to do that? I tried to view the source code but unfortunately only got Apolyton's forum set up code.

Anyway looking at what you have set up my feeling mirrors others in saying, you have a theoretical and then a practical approach. You try to follow the theoretical when the game allows you to and you make some tweaks when the terrain isn't quite right, for example your prime base site is either fungus or a rocky then it might make sense to shift it a square or so, Likewise if there is a juicy special.

AS to the charts you posted realize of course that the game has represented the squares as diamonds so any chart needs to be rotated 45 degrees. That being said my fav still is the approach laid out in figure 3. If you continue that pattern for more and more bases what you find is that every base has the surrounding 8 squares available for its use on average except where the pattern ends (normally a coast). This means with tree farms those 8 squares generate 16 nuts plus 3 from the center base with a rec tanks allowing a max popualtion at this stage of about 9. With Hybrids it runs into 27 nuts or size 13. With condensor farms you max out at 37 nuts or size 18 (beyond hab complex limits).

All inall though once you get sky farms you should have more nuts than you know what to do with and should have no issue maxing out you bases to hab complex limits regardless of spacing. Remember a tightly spaced base with no place to put workers means by defauilt that they become those wonderful specialist I keep refering to. Fusion is the key tho' to make sure you get engineers (transcendi come too late)

Reasons why I like it.

Turn advantage!

Setting you colony pod is a short trip.
Moving your crawlers to an SP building city is a short trip.
Pod booming if you so choose is a short trip.

Sure there are defensive implications as well but I prefer the ability to set my cities and develop them as the higher priority.

Jus my thoughts

Og

[Archangel MasterBob]

I always build bases pretty close for transportation and trade purposes.

------------------
Go post stuff at
Civworld forums
Go post now!
"The seeds of evil are the the same seeds of greatness so be evil and be great."

[lbores]

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe on 03-03-2001 10:14 PM Cool charts. I'm extremely inept when it comes to HTML so I am envoious to say the least. Just how did you manage to do that? I tried to view the source code but unfortunately only got Apolyton's forum set up code.

The charts are gifs; no fancy code needed. Doesn't a right click -> Display Source Code do it?

Whilst I appreciate the fact that the squares are really diamonds - it's much more difficult to convey the ideas using the correct orientation, especially in plan view.

I typically have been using Figure 3 with no noticeable hit to my production. The only downside is that it takes more bases to fill up the land mass.

[The Mad Monk]

...not that I would necessarily call that a 'down side'...

I've been packing my cities tightly--more tightly then I ever did in Civ. Between the early game pop and terrain restrictions, and the late game availability of 'other options', maximizing squares available for work per city simply isn't critical--and treating it as if it was can seriously slow down your early-game development.

edit: because it's too early in the morning to spell properly...
[This message has been edited by The Mad Monk (edited March 04, 2001).]

[lbores]

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk on 03-04-2001 08:19 AM ...not that I would necessarily call that a 'down side'... I've been packing my cities tightly--more tightly then I ever did in Civ. Between the early game pop and terrain restrictions, and the late game availability of 'other options', maximizing squares available for work per city simply isn't critical--and treating it as if it was can seriously slow down your early-game development.

This has been my impression as well. But since '3 tile sep', '2 tile sep', etc. have been mentioned in many msgs in this forum, I thought a more thorough discussion along with the diagrams might help others new to the game.

Thnx for your input.

[NorthSwordsman]

quote: Originally posted by lbores on 03-04-2001 09:33 AM This has been my impression as well. But since '3 tile sep', '2 tile sep', etc. have been mentioned in many msgs in this forum, I thought a more thorough discussion along with the diagrams might help others new to the game. Thnx for your input.

Ibores, thanks for explaining so clearly. Those .gif's really help with seeing everything. I think my approach had better be modified. . Thanks!

NS

[D]

I have noticed that the Hive does place bases close to each other. I usually don't like having overlapping squares sinced it sucked in civ 2. Are having close bases that important in single player games for defense? What are the drawbacks for factions that normally have tight alignments that don't?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

D, Lbores, et. al.

Let me reiterate in case I wasn't so clear before. My take is that base spacing is not so much a matter of defense (altho' it is a nice side benefit.) The main benefit(s) are two fold.

Turn Advantage!

Turn advantge. Every time one moves a colony pod it is but three spaces before placing the base. Evertime one builds a crawler and moves it to an SP building base it is accomplished within one move (using an infantry chassis no less). Terraforming is more compact and thereby easier to accomplish as well all leading to turn advantage. 'Specialy considering a larger number of bases contributing a larger number of formers.

Better Energy/(Research and Econ) w/o growth sacrifice!

Second benefit comes from having a larger number of compact bases. Ultimately the ability to increase base population is stimied by the late appearance in the game of hab domes. Until this time normal base size is at best 14(16 w AV) or at best 16(18 w AV) if Lal. This being said 8 squares can support this population. 7 squares as condensors/farms 1 borehole and a recycle tank for the base square nets 31 nuts (15 population points) and minimum 8 nuts 8 energy. Whats more at a minimum you have 8 freed up workers as specialists and maybe as many as 14 depending on the extent that one crawlers in nuts. This represents as much as 40 - 70 extra energy if using engineers and by the by all free from inefficiency losses. Even if one sticks withthe tried and true strictyly forest approach it means 8 squares yield 24 +3 nuts 16 +2 mins and 16 +2 energy. That means 13 population points 5 of which are engineers, for a grand total of 1 free nut/ 18 mins/ 43E (18+25 engineers). A couple of hydro sats and your at the 16 or 18 max in no time w/ all the etras being the mighty 5 energy engineers. (look at the pay back on hydro sats in that light 2 hydro sats net you a 5 energy producing engineer, thats wayy better than a energy sat plus the are available as the earliest sat)

Now contrast this approach to wide open spacing (no square sharing). The population density and hence the overall productivity on a per square basis is much less. In fact much of your squares worked are not utilized. Further to this if you make most of your peeps workers then you run risks of drone issues w/o facilities etc. You have much more difficulty rearranging your units crawlers etc. Having the denser base structure means more suported units. Better ability to shave turns off your game. More bases also mean more build q's so you can go to war or respond to a war much quicker etc.

All in all during the game tight spacing doesn't normally impede base growth until hab domes are in play. And at that point one normally looks to sky farms, energy sats and nessus mining stations to play a role. What it does allow tho' is better per square use of your empire as every square is utilized and the ability of squares to turn in some astounding nutrient FOPs allows excess population points to be specialized. All in all IMHO tighter base spacing of two free squares between bases allows a better game performance then a no square sharing approach. Any tighter than that tho' and the base start to get too numeraous and does have implication on base growth. The more numerous bases then also make you pay a pretty harsh penalty in terms of drone management.

Og

[NorthSwordsman]

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe on 03-05-2001 09:40 AM D, Lbores, et. al. Any tighter than that tho' and the base start to get too numeraous and does have implication on base growth. The more numerous bases then also make you pay a pretty harsh penalty in terms of drone management. Og

Og, I'm beginning to like (been experimenting with it ) the tighter placement. One thing I did notice is that you do indeed have drone problems... due to the more bases. I can cram in nearly 67% more bases in than using the 3 spacing method, where needed... but the additional cost of drone-preventation facilities makes me wonder if the payoff is worth it sometimes.

Oh, I realize that you do not have to maintain that uniform spacing throughout the entire empire, but I did so just to experiment with it. The micromanaging was a real bear.... over a hour per turn in the late 2300's... . Has anyone ever calculated the optimum size for an empire yet?

NS

------------------
"The report of my enemy's death is not an exaggeration." -NorthSwordsman

"You can go a long way with a Rover. You can go much further with a Shard-equipped Rover."-NS
[This message has been edited by NorthSwordsman (edited March 05, 2001).]

[bandit]

I do pretty good not even worrying about it. I just put them there, here.. everywhere. Sometimes I have bases 2 squares from each other. Whatever looks good. Often it has to do with the size of my land.

I want lots of bases. Seems to be the key to winning all my games. I build tons and tons of bases, squeeze them in wherever I can. By time I get a 1/4 of the way through the game, I'm totally superior in population and tech..