Most important Social Engineering area

[magnwa]

ICS is soundly defeated...

In MP games where this happens.. you simply get everyone else involved to agree to not fight you, and drop some PB's in it Oblitterate the infastructure. That can't be good

Magnwa

[Jokka das Trevas]

Originally posted by bondetamp


I find that it usually buys off Yang's armies just fine.

Not if they are stacked, as I usually do - and it's a law to keep probes on border bases since they take no support...

And Ralf, about ICS: Ok, ICS gives you the population edge... but how do one manages to build something (facilities or armies) with such a crappy production infrastructure.

I mean: in a hole, you're huge... But you can't combine the cities production (crawlers) unless you're building a prototype or wonder... How is it?

[Clear Skies]

Good, a lively discussion
I always say that what matters to you most depends a lot on the style of game you play and your favourite faction, plus the factions around you. For example, if Miriam was nearby you wouldn't want to be caught running Wealth and Eudaimonia - too little Morale for when the bint attacks you!

However, being the techie I am, I think Research is quite important. Granted, it's no use without the Efficiency to support it, but usually Efficiency and Research go hand in hand - cf Knowledge and Cybernetic.
I'm surprised no-one's put Planet - does no-one else engage in mass Psi warfare? I do it all the time once I've discovered Centauri Psi - once I have the Dream Twister, I start churning out Psi Rovers or Tanks with Soporific Gas Pods, plus possibly Wave to remove any Trance abilities. A +4 Planet rating, plus the gas pods and the Elite rating (get the Cyborg Factiory & Command Nexus too of course) and nothing can stand in the way of your Empathi!

[WhiteElephants]

I enjoy the benefits of a decent efficency rating like any other SMACer, but not for the drone control or the retention of potentially lost energy. I tend to use it for adjusting my econ/psych/lab percentages without horrendous loss. I can be nice to blast up your econ in order to rush build those new facilities that just became available, then go the opposite direction and get a new tech in two or three turns. Repeat if neccessary.

All that aside, I still cast my vote for growth. I find that the ability to pop boom can't be out done. With a large enough base drones and lost energy are a thing of the past when you have enough specialists on the job.

[Ned]

If you watched the AI, you would say that Economy was the most important SE choice, followed by Morale. However, we all know that the POP BOOM is ultimately what wins.

Ask any player here this simple question: Could you beat an evenly matched human using only +2 of your favorite SE choice, while your opponent could POP BOOM and you could not?

What is your answer?

[knowhow2]

GROWTH!!!

try winning any game without it! not possible.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Jokka das Trevas
And Ralf, about ICS: Ok, ICS gives you the population edge... but how do one manages to build something (facilities or armies) with such a crappy production infrastructure.

I mean: in a hole, you're huge... But you can't combine the cities production (crawlers) unless you're building a prototype or wonder... How is it?

Hmm! Now you are taking me literally. I dont mean that 1-pop size cities should remain that way. That example was only used in order to explain the output-difference.

The point is that ICS-players pack their cities closely together, with heavily overlapped city-areas (lets say that each city have max 8-10 workable terrain-squares) and they establish huge quantities of these cities (at least 50 and often many more, is not unusual). These city-area squares can rather quickly be max-developed, by fewer settlers. This together that each city is easy to control (because of its comparibly small size), so investments in so many late-game happiness improvements/wonders is not necessarily needed. Camels can efficiently be used to help each other out building big wonders.

One thing I forgot to mention is that the easiness in how one can produce "endless" quantitys of these settlers, is a big part (perhaps the major part; hence - Infinite City Sprawl) of the ICS-problem.

[Velociryx]

Notes on ISC:

Early game, base-stacking has numerous benefits. First and most importantly, it enables you to get around those early game resource restrictions of 2n each as a maximum. This can be most clearly seen with any faction that builds a base+rec. tanks, and Morgan, who can get utterly obscene amounts of energy from base squares, regardless of available techs. In short, early game base squares rock!

Also, packing your bases close together reduces inefficiency due to distance from HQ.

If you pursue the ISC strategy with a vengeance in the early game, then by the time you run out of room to expand, you've got a tech position that enables you to rapidly put infrastructure in all those bases, turning them into sterling production centers across the board.

The end result then, is:
1) LOTS of bases = LOTS of production centers
2) A resonably efficient empire, given a mid-game relocation of HQ to a centralized base
3) Good infrastructure, allowing you to take advantage of the fact that psych sees its greatest impact in well-developed bases.

In all, if you're looking for a way to surge to a position of dominance, ISC is a hugely useful tool!

-=Vel=-

[Sikander]

I voted for growth for the same reasons as Ogie, White Elephants and Ned. Pop booming is important if not critical to my strategy. Efficiency is useful, but I get around it the same way that White Elephants does, by using using specialists to propel my research and econ.

I also agree with Vel about ICS. I place my bases so that they each have from 8-10 workable tiles. These bases can get big, and have high production (one in four squares can be boreholed). I don't skimp on infrastructure, though some of the happiness stuff is unnecessary due to me having so many specialists. Another advantage to ICS spacing in SMAC is that with crawlers your base can be anywhere and still be a productive concern. And spacing bases close together allows for much faster placement in the early game, and a much more defensible empire throughout the game.

Just give me a lot of bases which are growing and I'm happy.

[Ned]

Vel and Sik, I question ICS, if the concept is meant to include a large number of bases closely spaced. True, such a structure is faster to build, and less inefficient, but ultimately there is a problem with bureaucracy drones that can not easily be dismissed.

First look at the below table. You see that regardless of difficulty level, you accumulate extra drones by an average of two per extra base. The bases that receive the extra drones are somewhat random, and could be in a base build a critical SP. That drone may cause a riot that cannot be fixed by adding a facility due to the fact that you are building an SP. If you use a worker, you may enough food production so that you lose population. This has happened to me.

As well, the bureaucracy drones can also prevent GA, which when combined with Wealth, is one of the best SE choices available. It allows fabulous economy and industry, and avoids the negative police of FM. Also, it can prevent Aki and Sven from pop booming. GA + Demo + Planned + Creche is the only way Aki and Sven can pop boom before Eudaimonia.

Here's the table counting bureaucracy drones on a standard map.

Transcend									
B's over 6	1	2	3	4	5	6			
Drones	1	4	6	8	10	12			
									
Thinker									
B's over 10	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Drones	1	2	4	7	9	10	11	13	16

[WhiteElephants]

Ned -- Hmm... your chart is quite a bit off and... and I don't know what else to say because I'm unsure as to how you got your numbers.

You only get one extra drone for every base past the limit mark. In other words, one base over six (the seventh base) you get one beuracracy drone, then a total of two extra drones (or +1 more drone) after the next base (the eigth base) is laid. The additional drones are not cummualtive. Meaning, you don't get one for the first base after six, and the two for the second base after six for a total of three. In this example you'd only have two total beuracracy drones.

[Velociryx]

Drone Problems:

Two flavors of conversation here, SP and MP. In SP, by the mid-game, no matter how many bases you have, drones should be essentially a non-issue. This is due to the fact that the AI can't seem to get it together well enough to launch a full-scale invasion, allowing you to make use of specialist terraforming techniques, creating specialists as you go and eliminating any chance for drones to crop up.

In MP games, it's a bit of a different story for two reasons. First and most important to consider is the fact that humans can and do launch cunning invasions, and snipe crawlers, and a whole host of other stuff that the AI never does.

In most cases, that will serve as it's own limiting factor for the number of bases you can build. I can't recall any MP games where I've had more than 15 or so bases running (but even then, they were pretty closely stacked together).

On bases with sudden drone problems that you're building an SP in:

Haven't had this happen in a while because when I'm building an SP at a base, I'm generally shuffling crawlers to the target base, so the SP gets built 1-2 turns after it is begun (these are non-upgraded crawlers btw). If it DID happen though, my initial response would likely be to shift crawlers around to boost nutrient production, then pull workers off to create psych specialists until I solved the drone problem that way. It'd only have to stay like that for a turn or two (until the completion of the SP....then I could put a more permanent solution in place).

-=Vel=-

[Provost Harrison]

Actually as a builder and peaceful expansionist, I would say that there are quite a few parameters which are important to me. Efficiency, for obvious reasons of keeping bases up and running at large distances. Industry to allow quick construction and speed up the rate of expansion, as well as to allow me to build up my bigger bases and nab SPs. Never underestimate growth, especially going for that pop boom. And research, to get those techs out faster. It is a balance. Sometimes one can compensate for the others, but it depends on situation and what kind of mood I am in

[mark13]

PH - there was me thinking you were a +2 economy junkie

The fact is that as has been outlined above, you can't specify a single area which is most important. For me, efficiency, economy and research are all key areas, not forgetting growth - but the fact is that every settings has its use. Pop booming, +2 economy, and +4 efficiency are all crucial at various points in the game, and you simply can't outline a single area more important than the rest of them.

On the subject of ICSing, it can be a devastatingly effective strategy - though it can get messy for a while in the mid-game. Gathering nutrients to grow your bases can be impractical before Hydroponic Labs, without some serious terraforming (which again, costs resources). Though the small number of squares to work can often land you in mineral problems early on, this is offset by the sheer number of production centres you have, as outlined above.

Of course, there is also the question of territorial advantage. Quite often in MP, you will need all the territory you can get, basically to expand your sphere of influence. You need to fight in MP, and a closely packed, but efficient empire will often lose out to a less efficient empire, but with more territory. This is due to a number of factors:

- PBs (this is often a factor in MP games, and in more than one circumstance I have dropped/been on the receiving end of a PB which can change the game)

- Warmongering generally. In many circumstances, air units have very limited range, without a base in the thick of the action. It is often simply not practical both to defend, and launch an assault from, a paked empire.

Of course, in MP, it often comes down to circumstance. Forget detailed analysis of the exact production figures, forget using 15 formers to construct massive energy parks - at the end of the day it comes down to tactical & (to a lesser extent) strategic decisions, based purely on circumstance. My personal opinion is that a packed spacing simply doesn't give you the flexiblity I would like in my empire.

[Ned]

WE, You may think the tables are inaccurate because the Datalinks tells you that you get only one drone per base. However these are measured bureacracy drones. They also reflect my actual experience from CIV on.

After our experience with the ED formula, I thought we all might be more skeptical about the complete accuracy of the Datalinks.

Ned