Exploitation of Resource Bonus Tiles

[Scipio Centaurus]

OK. I have noticed that some players build advanced terraforming features in 'wierd' places.

I have seen boreholes constructed in flat tiles adjacent to un-terraformed same level tiles with a mineral bonus - with both tiles located in the same base's production radius. I would have built the borehole right on the mineral bonus square instead of the flat tile.

I have also noticed that some players leave nutrient bonus tiles with their original forest enhancent, while cultivating farms and building condensors in nearby un-terraformed tiles. The first thing I do when I get the ability to build condensors is bulldoze the forests in the nutrient bonus tiles and put farms and condensors in.

What am I missing?

- Scipio

[Blake]

Mineral resource, not rocky: this always gives +2 minerals, so it doesn't matter what is built on it, you get the same benefit. Unless your gonna crawl it, but who crawlers forests or boreholes?

Condensors: I usually condense roaded tiles first to optimise former usage... so if the nut bonus was offroad it may get neglected. But there is no resource advantage of condensing a non-nut bonus in favour of a nut bonus.

[Sikander]

Scipio,

I sometimes have to make some wierd calls with terraforming. I pack my bases pretty tightly most of the time, and though I would like to put that borehole on a mineral or energy bonus I won't do so if it means that it will screw up my borehole pattern and force me to do without one (or more) boreholes that I would otherwise build. I will however usually not build a borehole on a nutrient bonus even though the square in question should be a borehole according to my pattern. Likewise I will often build a mine on rocky mineral square even though it 'should' be a flattened condensor farm square. Some things are just too good to pass up, and besides I can always revisit the square later when minerals are not a problem and nutrients are king.

[MariOne]

Originally posted by Blake
Mineral resource, not rocky: this always gives +2 minerals, so it doesn't matter what is built on it, you get the same benefit.

It depends.
If you talk of post-EcoEng, that's true.
(I noticed that here at Apolyton 90% of your considerations hold true only for SP games against AI in the late game when most of the techs have been discovered...)
But if you can build a BH before EcoEng,
that is if you have the WP,
a forest on MinBonus + a BH give 4+2=6 minerals,
a forest + a BH on MinBonus give 2+8=10 minerals


About crawlering forests or BHs.

Especially for those who rush a former first and go Johnny Appleseeding (i.e. regardless of the actual environment restrictions/opportunities they might encounter), they might often find themselves after IndAuto with more forested tiles than they have workers to put on them. Thus, a crawler getting 2 minerals from a forest is one of the most usual situations in early-mid game.

Also, imagine you have a forest and a kelp/tidal seatile.
Apart that you're less likely to have a seacrawler available, I'd naturally go for 2.2.2 working the seatile and getting the 2 minerals from the forest, even before Splicing.
The more undisputably so if you have a Nut or Energy bonus (or also Min one) on the seatile.
The best is after Splicing, on a kelp/tidal Energy seatile - you get 3.0.5 from it, and 2 minerals from the forest.

The same, before EnvEcon, or anyway with a BH on a special that releases only one of the 2 FoP of a BH, given the unbalance in it (0.6.2 or 0.8.2 or 0.2.8), it can make sense to crawler a BH neglecting the mere 2 Energy or Minerals that you waste, compared to a mixed tile you can directly exploit (e.g. a monolith).


So, if you rigidly stick to your patterns, you ar for sure not getting the best you could from the avaialble resources.


The reasoning about a bonus giving anyway the same benefit, DOES apply instead to the NutBonus and Condenser issue!
Imagine you have a Condenser to crawl and a worker you want to put on a forest, and a NutBonus.
In THIS case, you get indeed the same food total regardless whether you place the forest OR the Condenser on the bonus. (i.e. whether your base gets the +2 from the bonus thru the crawler on the condenser of thru the worker on the forest, it's toatlly indifferent, there are no limit-lifting effects here; *quite* different is the case if you're talking of an all-specialist base and you won't place a worker at all on that NutForest)

[Scipio Centaurus]

I think I see the general reasoning. The assumption is that you will pop boom quickly and hence have workers for all available formed tiles?

Let's throw a monkey wrench into the mix. I typically play Morgan [no pop boom and hab complex limitations]. Many of my bases do not get optimized for growth with hab complexes until after they have missed a few growth opportunities to go from size 4 to 5. This means there is a longer than expected period where I have more formed tiles than workers available. But if I get WP [I get it about half the time] I feel it is better to work [rather than crawl] the boreholes and condensors. I make sure each base gets at least one of each in its production radius. Then I work and crawl the left over forested tiles for the minerals. I usually don't crawl outside the production radius of a base [for the interceptor air cover] until the energy park is built.

I usually build only 2 crawlers per base till energy park when I start cranking additional crawlers for the cash flow. Should I build max crawlers and replace workers with specialists early on?

- Scipio

[T-hawk]

It DOES matter what you do to Nutrient and Mineral bonuses. Specifically, Mining a mineral bonus gives an extra +1 mineral -- so on rocky terrain that's 7 minerals. Condensors, similarly, give x1.5 to food production in their square, which is applied after the nutrient bonus -- totalling to 4 for a non-bonus farmed tile or 7 for a bonus tile. After Soil Enrichers, it's 6 and 9.

And it's a very important point that a bonus on a square ignores the early game resource restrictions. You can Mine a mineral-on-rocky from day one, and Condense a nutrient bonus as soon as you get Weather Paradigm. The question is what to do with mismatched bonuses. It varies by situation, but most often in the early game I'll Borehole a mineral in flat/rolling. Without WP, I'll Forest it if arid, else farm/solar it. Nutrient on rocky is kind of a pain. If a base is hurting for food, I'll level and condensor it; if it has sufficient food, this is the one instance where farm/mine/road makes sense.

Energy bonuses I tend to just ignore, although if there's one at high altitude in the very early game pre-WP, I'll make an effort to farm+solar that square for 5-6 energy. Hadn't thought to build a Borehole on energy, although to work a borehole that early pretty much requires the base to also have a condensed nutrient bonus.

[Blake]

MariOne,
Actually, I try to make my statements as general as possible (although recently they have taken a crawerless slant).

It turns out 6/7 factions in a game do not have the ability to build boreholes before eco.eng . Altough for the life of me I cant remember why I didn't include a line reffering to the WP... in fact I did, "unless you are drilling boreholes courtesy of the WP", but I musta deleted it.

But it holds true that after Eco.Eng, it doesn't matter at all what you put on a mineral bonus. (unless you mine it, for +1 minerals in addition to what the mine usually gives, if it's a rainy tile I often farm+mine for 2-5-0)

As a non-pop-boomer (pop-booming is disbalanced and evil) it is important for me to drill a lot of boreholes, and I'd rather have two boreholes on a non-special than one on a special. I mean, aside from the fact you get absolutey zlich net advantage from boreholing a bonus . If I do get the WP, I drill boreholes on bonus's until aquiring Eco.Eng, eventually I may level the bonus boreholes which are out-of-sync with the pattern.

Anyway, the simple fact remains that the game is much less interesting with crawlers, the solution is almost always "crawl the tile", it doesn't really matter what the problem was. Even if it's enemies on the tile, throw crawlers at them to slow them down... crawlers, the builder wonder-drug. Bah . sorry about that little rant.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Blake
Anyway, the simple fact remains that the game is much less interesting with crawlers, the solution is almost always "crawl the tile", it doesn't really matter what the problem was. Even if it's enemies on the tile, throw crawlers at them to slow them down... crawlers, the builder wonder-drug. Bah . sorry about that little rant.

If it was only that easy.

[MariOne]

Answers:
Blake, I intended "you" as "Apolytoners" (I'm just an occasional visitor as the site is a must for technical reference), not specifically you.
Also, a typical attitude of Apolytoners is devise tactics which apply to SinglePlayer SPECIFICALLY, that is that work only because it's ascertained that the AI is not programmed to counter them, or because you have time to actuate them only because the AI is so slow in developing. I rarely have seen a decent energy park in a pbem, either someone comes in to destroy it, or while you spend your resources to build it you fall back in develpment (and then someone will be likely so ahead of you that he'll come in to destroy it before you can catch up exploiting it). Also, your comment about a crawlerless game can make sense against AI, but against humans it would be as interesting as playing chess without pawns...
Personally, I regard putting so much effort in single player as putting so much effort in solo sexual activity - it can be entertaing, but don't be upset when someone calls you ****er.

Scipio, if you were referring to me you bash an open door.
I was indeed answering to Blake (who crawlers forstes anyway), telling indeed that is normal to have a moment in the game where you have crawlers and you have more forested tiles you can put your workers on *even if* you get your food from a few crawlered food-rich tiles and already use all your workers on BH/mines (if you have them) and forests. Even then, and even if you had pop-boomed a bit, there will be a significant span of time where it will make sense to crawl a significant number of forests.


Disclaimer:
Sorry, for the way I develop, I never noticed the actual effect of a Condenser, I relied on assumptions, common sense, Datalinks, and something reported by otheres.
When I used them, I didn't pay attention to the details or didn't bother to investigate if a got a glimpse of a figure different from what I expected.


FACTS:
True, a Condenser adds a bonus of 1.5 times the other nutrients in the tile, ROUNDED DOWN.
As Enrichers come late in the game, if you don't have a bonus on the tile, this makes anyway rainy+farm=3, *1.5=4.5 rounded down =4, as if it were just +1.
A FACT is however that ALSO condensers DO lift restrictions prior to Gene Splicing, exactly as a bonus does (for T-Hawk:"And it's a very important point that a bonus on a square ignores the early game resource restrictions. [ ... ]Condense a nutrient bonus as soon as you get Weather Paradigm").
Otherwise with the WP you would not get +3 from a rainy+condenser or a moist+farm+condenser, or a +4 from a rainy+farm+condenser.
And if you have the Jungle, a rainy+Jungle+farm tile yelds 4, but only 2 if you don't have Splicing.
A rainy+Jungle+Condenser yields 4 even before splicing(3+1.5 rounded down), a rainy+Jungle+FARM+Condenser yields 6 even before splicing (4+2 for the Condenser).
This shows that if you have the Jungle, getting the WP and running for Condensers is even more beneficial. But after you get the WP, Condensers actually allow you to have 4 food tiles without NutBonus.

One more FACT is that also Enrichers actually behave as condensers with regard to increasing nutrients (not moisture).
That is they add half of the existing nutrinets, rounded down.
You can test it for yourself if you don't believe it.
You'll see that a rainy+farm+bonus+Enricher yields 7 (as if the Enricher was a Condenser) and not 6
So, ok, as you say,
a rainy+farm+Condenser yields 4
a rainy+farm+Bonus+Condenser yields 7
also
a rainy+Condenser yields 3
a rainy+Bonus+Condenser yields 6
Thus, farming or not, I was wrong. It DOES make a difference whether you put the condenser or the forest on the bonus tile, the condenser is able to increase the benefit of the bonus too.

A rainy+farm+enricher+Condenser yields 6
A rainy+farm+enricher+BONUS+Condenser yields tho 10 and not 9, and that's the top without the Jungle
(rainy+farm+bonus=5, +2.5 for the Condenser[OR Enricher]=7, +3.5 for the Enricher[OR Condenser]=10 indeed)
(the *multiplying* effects of Condensers and Enrichers are *cumulative*)

Enrichers ALSO lift restrictions as Bonuses and Condensers
But as I said, Enrichers need Adv.EcoEng to be built, even the WP is not enough for them.
While it's possible to have thus condensers before EcoEng, and even before you have Splicing, if you grab the WP (or if someone trades to you EcoEng but NOT Splicing... I know it's rare.... but possible), it's utterly unlikely that you obtain AEE before EcoEng or Splicing.

I think that is already known and documented and written more tha once in a few threads on the subject, the top food you get from a tile is
rainy+Jungle+Bonus+Farm+Enricher+Condenser=13 (6+3+4.5)
A 16 size base getting 3 food from the basetile, 13 food from that tile, and 16 food from satellites, will sustain itself (3+13+16=32=16*2), being able to devote ALL his other workers (if not specialists) and crawlers to mineral and energy collection.


Sorry, I will talk about Minerals, BHs and mines another time

[MariOne]

OK, FACTS about Mines

without roads.
A. flat(0) + Mine(+1) = 1
B. roll(1) + Mine(+1) = 2
C. rock(1) + Mine(+2) = 3

With a Mineral Bonus (*) on the tile
A* =3
B* =4
C* =5

You see that it's NOT the Mine giving that extra +1 on the MinBonus tile (contrary to what's written in the datalinks).
A MinBonus always gives just +2, and there's no bonus boosting effect verified so far.

It shows ONLY when you ALSO build a road on it (a road only has no effect without a mine)

without bonus
AR = 1 (A+0)
BR = 2 (B+0)
CR = 4 (C+1)

with Bonus
A*R =4 (A* +1)
B*R =5 (B* +1)
C*R =7 (C* +2)

The datailnks state that a road gives an extra +1 to a mine only on a rocky square, and that a mine gives an extra +1 on a MinBonus square.
If that were true, A* should be 4, B* 5 and C* 6, which is not.
The above statements would hold true with the clause that only a road would trigger the extra mineral a mine gives on a bonus.
That would be the same to say that only a Mine+Road combination would confer a +1 for rocky squares AND for MinBonus tiles, *cumulative*.

The above examples show that "ADDING" a MinBonus to a mineroaded tile, regarldess of the ground, increases the yeld by +3.

The problem in this approach, is that in gameplay you can't decide to "ADD" a Bonus to a tile. Special resources are just there. You can create them popping a pod, but this you "usually" do before terraforming the tile (if you bring a former there, you pop the pod). Or they can appear (or peter out...), but it's very rare and you can't control it or not even predict it.

So you have to star considering the yield of the tile WITH the existing bonus, ad compare the final effect of the terraforming alternatives you have available.

So, if you have a
FlatMineral tile, Mineroading it brings it from 2 to 4
RollMineral tile, Mineroading it brings it from 3 to 5
RockMineral tile, Mineroading it brings it from 4 to 7

Of course if you renounce to Mineroad the FlatMineral tile (to BH it for example) this doesn't mean the you have in exchange to Mineroad another flat tile, or even that you have to build a Mine elsewhere at all.

Anyway it's true, if you have a RockMineral tile, BHing it and putting a mineroad on ay other rocky tile yelds 8+4=12 minerals, while Mineroading the bonus tile and putting the BH anywhere esle yields 7+6=13 minerals.

But if you have a RollMineral tile, mining it is questionable. Depending on its altitude and moisture, it could be preferable to forest it or FarmSolar/FarmCondense it. In this case ther would be no boosting effect of the Min Bonus, and you wouldn't even "need" to think to build a MineRoad elsewhere.
And if you have a FlatMineral tile, I believe that Mineroading it is wrong. Forest it, and you get the same minerals, and much more else.
_____

As for where building BHs and whether crawlering them, I guess we basically agree, once made the circumstance clear.
The tech allowing you to build them is the same lifting the Mineral restrictions (EcoEng). The one lifting Energy restrictions can come soon after that (EnvEcon).
But if you "find" BHs (i.e. the BH Cluster, or conquer soeone else's land before you can build them), or if you can build them before EcoEng, that is you have the WP, then where you place them can make a difference.

First of all, if you build them thanks to the WP, they will yield a mere 0.2.2, and it would be a WASTE of terraforming work. You just have to care to have them *ready* for the time you at least get EcoEng, lifting Minerals, this means preparing them with a *little* advance (depending on your research speed and link/theft opportunities).

So, the ONLY case in which it makes sense going for a borehole asap after getting the WP, is if you can place it on a Mineral Bonus or eventually an Energy one (because early game is more mineral driven).
Furtherly, in case you 1.get the WP 2.get IndAuto before EcoEng, when you have a 0.8.2 or a 0.2.8 BH, it may make well sense to crawl it, as one of the 2 FoPs is significantly higher than the other. You may well have other mixed-resource tiles where you'd be wasting more than 2 energy should you crawl'em instead than work'em.

Even AFTER you get EcoEng, you should consider whether you're going straight to EnvEcon or not. I usually do, but many circumstances may slow you. You might be forced to adopt a SE slowing your research, you might play with Tech Stagnation, or with BlindResearch (or both...).
Thus, *in-between* EcoEng and EnvEcon, a normal BH yields 0.6.2. On a MinBonus 0.8.2, on an Energy 0.6.8. In those particular circumstances, going for the latter may make a lot of sense (if you can work it), even tho there's no "bonus boosting" effect as you point out. Or you might consider useful crawling the minerals from one of the first two, as I said above.


I think in conclusion we all shoud agree that it's very important to know all the details about how things work in every situation and circumstance.
This way we will be able to know and use the optimal solution when we live in an optimal situation.
But we'll also be smart enough to know and understand where and when sub-optimal options can instead turn out to be the best under particular conditions, even temporary, and adapt our patterns with the due flexibility.
From my experience, "optimal conditions" are less than frequent....

[MariOne]

Originally posted by Blake
...after Eco.Eng, it doesn't matter at all what you put on a mineral bonus. (...if it's a rainy tile I often farm+mine for 2-5-0)
...

hey, I overlooked that before.
You mean that you have a 2.3.0 tile (rainy rolling Mineral), and that you spend 8+2+4=14 former turns (w/out WP) only to bring it to 2.5.0, that is only to add two minerals?
Besides, after you build the Mine, you only get 1.4.0, and you need the additional 4 to farm and get the 1 food *back*, and the road to get the second +1 mineral. Forest it, and in half time you build the mine alone, you get 1.4.1 right away
(leaving alone that the presence of the mine makes impossible to Solar, Condense, or even Sensor it depending on the other terrain/tactical features)

In my humble opinion, yours would be (one) the worse terraforming option for that tile.
The simplest and probably best would be... leave it as it is!
Use your Formers time to work on other tiles that will improve much more with terraforming, netting you considerably more extra FoPs for the same work.

If you plan to get a Hybrid Forest in the base exploiting it, that tile will become a 3.4.2. Only a 1.1.2 net FoP gain and HF are expensive, but if you have to build one in the base anyway because you already have lots of forests...
FarmSolaring it you may get a 3.3.2+ depending on altitude.
FarmCondensing it you get a 4.3.0 (plus the raininess increase in surrounding squares as extra).

[Blake]

Marione, I would only mine+road a rolling/rainy/mineral bonus for a SP building base, because minerals are "twice" as valuable for a SP (seeing as rushbuying is twice as expensive). Also, I would have made sure to plant enough forest to keep my workers happy first.
(If the terraforming is going to be wasted anyway by lack of a worker, I may as well do a low efficency task...)

Also, however sucidal it may be to not use crawlers in MP, I dont play MP so I dont use crawlers in SP. Also I play against super-AI's which are really rather good. And without cheap crawler tricks to 'plop' SP's down in one turn you have to really consider your terraforming....

I know it probably seems horrific playing without crawlers, but it makes the game more challenging and much more balanced. Also with a well thought out terraforming&base founding scheme your game suffers very little from the lack of crawlers - the main hurt being the SP thing... (Iow, you only get your fair share of SP's, rather than robbing the AI blind).

[MariOne]

Blake, what can I say if you don't play MP...
Of course, you can MODIFY the game to make it decently challenging.
As if you play against a PC chess program form years '80 at level 1, you may find that setting up a game where you play with king and queen alone against the computer with full ranks can begin to be interesting and challenging, and force you to find new techniques...
But... the game you would be playing would be Blake's game, different from the original one.
And even if you are very keen in finding out the guts and bits, the game mechanics, and help to explain us how the game works for certain issues, the *playing* experiences you make in your games and the strategies you may devise and find effective, will have no relation with what other players experience, and would be of no meaning and interest to the others....

I still find a lot of interest in the game after almost 3 years, despite its innumerable bugs, and have a bunch of underway pbems. I even practically play pbem SMAC ad nothing else.
Should I come to the point where to find interest in SMAC I should play against the AI only, without ever building Conly Pods, crawlers, combat units, porjects, etc... well, it would be time past overdue to find another game to play....

[Blake]

I see your point, but playing crawlerss does have applications outside of just not using crawlers by choice, example:
Large maps, tech stag, blind research, bad research factions, challenge games: You'll often be playing crawlerless for quite a while.... and growth may be slow... also getting SP's becomes doubly critical...
Tech may go strange paths, like having Eco.Eng before crawlers... (or even fusion/orbital spaceflight before crawlers )

Getting back to the Mineral+rainy+rolling, I could mine it in 8 former turns, for +2 minerals, forest it in 4 former turns for +1 mineral, solar it in 6 tuns for +2 energy (= 1/4 mineral for rushbuying SP's). And when I want to build a SP I know which I would rather , the condition is: I want maximum SP building ability: the optimal solution, mine the mineral bonus.
It's not about finding ideal solutions for optimal conditions, but the optimal solution for a given condition .

I consider 'Blake SMAC' to be superior to normal SMAC anyway, because some of the features in SMAC were included without proper consideration of the ramifications on gameplay, and without properly updating the AI.
Crawlers are the most obvious, being the ultimate win-win no comprimise build. Win-win's are bad for strategy.
Some terraforming was obviously modified late in play testing, particullary the AI terraforms as if forest is worth 1-2-0 instead of 1-2-1.
Pop-booming was included
Raise terrain and condensors were not properly thought out.
The AI makes some damn stupid decisions, and has self destructive behaivour.

So I made AI factions which eliminate the self destructive behaivour, this doesn't make them explosive growth monsters, rather it prevents them from stagmenting in the mid game (the most significant change was +8 Police, meaning the AI no longer spends half the game in drone riots). By playing on the right map the AI can be made to do a half decent terraforming, and by modifying agression and priorities some more self destructive behaivour is eliminated.
This sort of modification is my idea of fun Given the choice of playing a better game, I take that choice. And I happen to like Blake SMAC more than normal SMAC


I must also point out that probably the majority of regulars at AC-G/H/S are SP'ers, or atleast have some interest in challenge games
Oh yeah, and I've already found the new game, it's called Civ3, but only time will let me play it

[MariOne]

Blake,
as long as we understand what we're talking about, we seem to be reasonable guys, and it's not a problem to see each other's point.

Personally, I find pbem SMAC, that is playing against humans, so much superior to playing against AI, that I admit I'm not interested AT ALL in discussing things relating to the AI, no matter how challenging you may make it thru modifications not only of the AI behavior but of the rules you play with (and that's indeed why I said that I'm not a true Apolytoner).
When I want to find a challenge, I play against a human and I get it. If in a pbem I meet peculiar conditions, I will study perhaps the best fit technique using single test games, but those will *never* focus on looking at how the AI reacts and behaves.

Anyway, your mileage may vary...

Some nitpicking about the contingent terraforming issue.
You said that you usually farm+mine+road that tile to get it to 2.5.0.
You didn't mention at first that your goal was to maximize mineral production for fastest project completion.
I am the frist to be open to particular solutions tailored on the specific goal you have present.

If you read again my notes about mines, you see that spending the first 8 former turns, you will NOT get +2 mineral, but only +1. That's the error in the documentation I was pointing out. To get the second extra mineral, you must anyway throw in 2 more former turns to build the road.
Besides, I thought that you were interested in supporting food too in the menawhile, as you told that you bothered to also farm the tile to get the 2nd nutrient back.
With 8 former turns, you will get a 1.4.0 tile (test it) if you don't have a road there already.

So, you (we) would have to see in the specific situation whether that nutrient is useful, perhaps to get earlier to a second worker.
Considering the actual growing times, we would know whether it's more efficient to first dedicate the former to plant a forest in another (or more) tile, THEN go back to the MinBonus tile and improve it.
Or even, plant a forest first on that tile, then mine over the forest and road it.

Hey, it could be interesting to test this here, so that we both prove to be dedicated to details and not users of cookie-cut solutions.

The processes will take 14 turns.

A.
Mine > Road > Farm
for 8 turns, you get 2.3.0 = 16.24.0
for 2 turns, you get 1.4.0 = 18.32.0
for 4 turns, you get 1.5.0 = 22.52.0

B.
Forest > Mine > Road
for 4 turns, you get 2.3.0 = 8.12.0
for 8 turns, you get 1.4.1 = 16.44.8
plus 5 min for harvesting the forest 16.49.8
for 2 turns , you get 1.4.0 = 18.57.8

let's compare the two options at the same given time checkpoints

T+ 4 A=8.12.0=B
T+ 8 A=16.24.0 B=12.28.4
T+10 A=18.32.0 B=14.36.6
T+12 A=20.42.0 B=16.49.8
T+14 A=22.52.0 B=18.57.8

T>14 A=+2.5.0 B=+1.5.0

You see, that, stricty speaking, the unusual proposal I made in this post (only using THAT tile) is able to yield 5 more minerals and 8 more energy after 14 turns, and the same mineral yield form then on.

Of course, I'm the first to say that you shouldn't neglect to consider nutrients.
You should see at which point of the project construction you are, how many nutrients are needed for that base to grow, whether is is already at size 2 or still at size 1 (which influences the food needed to grow), and the like.
The first thing I'd do, in general AND in the specific, is to MAKE SURE that there IS another forest available for the exact time when the bases grows, if that's to happen early. I'll tailor the rest of the activity around that deadline.
Even if we share the common goal to maximise mineral accumulation in that base, you'd agree that some flexibility is required if you really want to achieve that goal, because a small variation in the context can greatly modify the optimal solution for that given condition.

Another trick to that goal, i.e. maximise the mineral speed of a project base, I learned here in Apolyton, although at the expense of sacrificing overall expansion.
I build a pod in a near base. Disbanding the pod into the Project would yield 1.5 rows.
If I instead add the pod to the project base, I gain another worker. Provided that I have a free forest ready to be worked, and that I have no riot or food problems, in ~7 turns I break even and from then on I net +2 minerals per turn in the project base.
Again, the *actual context* has to be verified everytime for the real convenience of that technique. I'm using it in a couple of pbems with success, in one I have a forested NutBonus tile supporting a RockyMineral mine too, pod boosting that base was *absolutely* convenient

So, happy Blake-SMACing, and when you'll have some trick useful also against humans playing original SMAC, I'll be happy to learn it too