Formers Or Rover Formers

[RX2000]

I wonder if anyone will really actually choose the "None" option?

I almost always use regular formers, unless its late into the game and I can easily crank out a rover/gravship/hover former in a couple turns, then I might make some of those.

[Flubber]

Early I live with just regular formers but I am learning the benefit of having just a couple of the rover variety to serve as roadlayers

[livid imp]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe thats why I go with infantry transports.

It allows you to get that infantry former onto a rocky square and it can start roading immediately, repeat with another infantrytransport and former combo thus allowing the remainder of the former army a move along a road and immediate mining and/or boreholing. No down time regardless of terrain type.

That sounds good and all, but do infantry transports really end up paying for themselves given the support costs and the mins/queue time to build them

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by livid imp


That sounds good and all, but do infantry transports really end up paying for themselves given the support costs and the mins/queue time to build them

Yep,

I need to dig up the example but I proved to myself once upon a time how 12 formers and 4 infantry transports out t-form 16 formers. (all having the same min cost and support).

[GeoModder]

But with 4 infantry transports, only 4 formers can be moved. At least, I thought that the land transports can only take one unit onboard. What then with those other 8 terraformers?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You use the transported units to premake roads. I road everywhere. The remaining 8 follow afterwards entering squares with a 1/3 movement point and t-forming immediately. In doing so you can get 2 forests laid every turn (w/o weather paradigm) and never have to worry about losing t-forming turns to movement of formers.

[GeoModder]

I normally let 1 former already start on the next road while a small group makes an enhancement on the previous tile.

Less loss of working turns then, but I try your transport idea out.

[livid imp]

And don't you have to have D:Flexiblity to get the transport unit? How does that factor in with the beeline to IA?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It is a detour after IA for most factions. It is a natural for the Pirates who start with D:Flex.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Geo Modder,

It also helps big time when considereing an early war. use of land transport to bring a probe team or infantry best weapon unit next to a base is invaluable. If you use a road you can likewise have the exhausted/wounded infantry unit retreat so that it avoids counter attack.

Considered most useful in war time pre-air power.

[Skanky Burns]

I don't understand the advantage of the infantry transport. You use 2 mineral support to get a road layed each turn with the trans/former ( ) combination. Isn't that equvalent to using two formers on seperate tiles to lay roads?

One former starts building a road while the 2nd former moves to an unroaded square. Next turn the 1st former's road is finished so he moves to an unroaded square while the 2nd former builds his road.

I can see where a rover former would give turn-advantage though.

[Santiago_Claus]

I like the "discount" the standard former receives on the "Clean" modification. Instead of 2 rows it costs only 1.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I don't understand the advantage of the infantry transport. You use 2 mineral support to get a road layed each turn with the trans/former ( ) combination. Isn't that equvalent to using two formers on seperate tiles to lay roads?

One former starts building a road while the 2nd former moves to an unroaded square. Next turn the 1st former's road is finished so he moves to an unroaded square while the 2nd former builds his road.

I can see where a rover former would give turn-advantage though.

The advantage is you never have to lose a former turn due to a move of an infantry former. At some point you lose a turn moving a former into position sometimes you lose a number of former turns due to moves. The minimum of two infantry transports (preferably four) allows you to transport formers and immediately road thus allowing other formers t-forming. In the example you give, you give up former turns to move formers into position. This should never be a problem with use of transports.

Its like this you can seperate all x amount of formers and have them work their own squares. Bad idea. Each time a square is completely t-formed you need move a forme into position. Hence x former turns wsated.

You can decide to have them gang form. Better idea but fraught with some issues. At some point, excess formers will be without a road to move into and will waste turns moving into position. best case this is only one or two that can then road a new square before the rest of the gang finishes up. Realistically this is normally a minimum of 2 former turns wasted for a 6 former cycle. (2 to road 4 for a forest square) That means you have to have moved 2 formers into the next square and done road forming work prior to the others (4 in the case of the foresting) completing their task. Its even worse once the t-forming gets quicker (ie. Weather paradigm) then the loss becomes 2 out of 5.

I know the explanantion is kind of muddled but trust me it saves time.

[Skanky Burns]

But the infantry transport has the same cost as a former. So 1 former + 1 transporter = 2 formers in terms of mineral support.

Transport + former
Turn 1 -> Move and build road.
Turn 2 -> Move and build road.
Turn 3 -> Move and build road.
Turn 4 -> Move and build road.
Turn 5 -> Move and build road.
Turn 6 -> Move and build road.
Net result: 6 new roads.

2 formers
Turn 1 -> F1 and F2 move on unroaded squares.
Turn 2 -> F1 and F2 build roads.
Turn 3 -> F1 and F2 move on unroaded squares.
Turn 4 -> F1 and F2 build roads.
Turn 5 -> F1 and F2 move on unroaded squares.
Turn 6 -> F1 and F2 build roads.
Net result: 6 new roads.

The same results, but a pair of formers can also be used for other duties when all road building is completed.

[Skanky Burns]

And if you consider where roads take more than one turn to complete, the case for inf. transporters gets worse.

Transport + former
Turn 1 -> Move and build road.
Turn 2 -> Finish road.
Turn 3 -> Move and build road.
Turn 4 -> Finish road.
Turn 5 -> Move and build road.
Turn 6 -> Finish road.
Net result: 3 new roads.

2 formers
Turn 1 -> F1 and F2 move on unroaded squares.
Turn 2 -> F1 and F2 build road.
Turn 3 -> F1 and F2 finish roads.
Turn 4 -> F1 and F2 move on unroaded squares.
Turn 5 -> F1 and F2 build roads.
Turn 6 -> F1 and F2 finish roads.
Net result: 4 new roads.