Fungus Resources

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yxklyx,

Regarding question of mins. The real issue at this point of the game is why do you need a plethora of mins? Energy Energy Energy is the mantra of the game at this point. Mins are nice but not a necessity. Facility builds come from mostly rush builds and as long as you have a minimum of 10 mins you are sitting pretty with a rush build facility per turn. 10 mins is easy even if the dreaded asteriod strike hits your nessus mining sats. (solar flares wipe out energy sats IIRC. Also IIRC nothing touches sky farms and as each 2 nutrients supports 1 transcendi with equivalent useful raw energy input of 6=2 econ/4labs this is the best sat to build thats equal to 3energy/base/food sat. You can't even approach that with energy or min sats.)

If units are your desire then as Sik indicates in previous posts his goal is to make el-cheapo shell units and upgrade them via Energy expenditure into latest and greatests.

Now don't get me wrong, you still want a few modest to high min bases but it's not the end all be all at this point in the game.

But as you are not a crawler user ( I respect your option to not use them to make the game more difficult), mins probably do play a larger role as you are looking to have workers provide useful mins as opposed to crawlering a fewish odd mines. Likewise since crawlers are not in play you are looking for the high min bases to provide you a leg up to SP builds so I can see why you desire mins.

For those tho' do use crawlers a few odd crawlers to boost a few mins is generally all that is required until facilites like robotic facotroy and gene jacks are in play. Supplement it with some min sats end you've gotten a very healthy 30+ mins in no time.

Og

P.S. All this SMAX talk has made it all the more urgent for me to load SMAX back up on the HD. Want to try a Morgan no formers game. Have had some difficulty loading SMAX up keep getting TerranX errors. Can someone remind me is SMAX a stand alone or does it require SMAC to be loaded and upgrade from SMAC.

[Fitz]

You need to upgrade from SMAC Ogie.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Thx Fitz

Thought so as SMAX was an expansion pack. Now to see if I have available HD space.

[Lefty Scaevola]

smacx is much more demanding in computor rexources than smac. I would recomend at least 128mb ram and 800mz cpu speed if you are going to play smacx on large or huge maps with big faction empires. More is better.

[Shai-Hulud]

This has been a very interesting thread concerning the optimal usage of resources. I have mostly used forest, and crawlers for energy and mins. Somehow I feel that my cities grow to their maximum of 14 in no time and I sit around waiting for decades before I finally discover Hab Dome. But I have thought about seriously trying all-specialist approach since efficiency is an important issue, especially with large empires I tend to build. Keep posting when I come back with some questions and thanks

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
This has been a very interesting thread concerning the optimal usage of resources. I have mostly used forest, and crawlers for energy and mins. Somehow I feel that my cities grow to their maximum of 14 in no time and I sit around waiting for decades before I finally discover Hab Dome. But I have thought about seriously trying all-specialist approach since efficiency is an important issue, especially with large empires I tend to build. Keep posting when I come back with some questions and thanks

Shai-Hulud,

You might want to space your bases close together when following this sort of strategy. You will have more bases, and with them more population, which means more specialists and the energy they bring. If you use an all or mostly specialist approach you won't have to worry much about bureaucracy drones, so there isn't a big problem there. Of course you will want to use more efficient (space wise) terraforming to at least some extent, though it needn't be as crazy as mine (every square is a base, a borehole or a condensor / farm and a soil enricher once I get the tech.

My tightest spacing is two apart along diagonal lines. Every base has at least 7 squares workable. I put boreholes to the North, South, East and West of every base, which gives every base at least two. All the other squares are condensor / farms, which I crawl. This produces 23 nuts including the base square, which gives me a population of 11-12. Since there is (usually) plenty of space on the edges of my base grid it's no problem to send additional crawlers into the areas on the edge where my new bases will eventually be placed (I just continue my pattern outward), which can bring the populations up to 14 or 16 as warranted. With only 2 workers that means I have 12-14 specialists. Once I get the soil enrichers my bases can support themselves at 16 population solely on the 8 squares I allot them, and bring in a respectable 14 mins and raw energy as well under almost any SE conditions.

I also use a couple of different types of 3 spacing. Three on the diagonal gives my bases plenty of room to grow up to size even using treefarms, and with hybrid forests it leaves some space left over for some crawlers etc. I tend to use this spacing with Lal, in order to make use of his happy workers, often doing the golden age thing. This pattern leaves one unworkable square per base, which can be used in a number of useful ways. It's a good place to raise terrain and plant an echelon mirror (and a crawler of course) if you are using solar since it borders 8 workable squares, and it's not a bad spot to drop a condensor / farm and a crawler because it raises the moisture level of those 8 workable squares.

Finally I use the three in every direction spacing. This only yields one more square per base than 2 on the diagonal, 8 workable squares compared to 7. It has a couple of advantages though, namely that you can really crank out SPs quickly by locating your HQ within one road move (ie 3 squares) of 8 bases. This can be a big help when you want to build a SSC. The extra square also makes forest options more appealing than the tighter 2 on the diag. Working all 8 squares of forest (with a TF and HF) you will produce 27 nuts, enough for 13-14 population including a few specialists. This provides balanced production, and allows fairly easy golden ages which several factions need if they want to pop boom.

Because the game is played for so long before hab domes come about, I found myself in exactly the same situation you describe. A lot of underutilized space in my empire while I waited for hab domes and the ability to work those last 2 to 6 squares in my base radius. With specialists you can build a lot of bases without B-drone problems, and those bases can really produce. Another option is to build fewer bases and use a lot of crawlers to supplement their production.

The larger number of tightly spaced bases have production advantages. Firstly they can be laid down more quickly. Secondly, they represent a lot more productive power because you have more build queues. This means that your peak productive power is greater throughout the game, and your sustainable productive power is greater once you are making enough money to rush buy every turn. From a military standpoint these advantages give you the ability to react to the game as it progresses rather than building a larger standing army early on. This is a turn advantage thing, because you could be building facilities, colony pods or crawlers rather than troops. Finally more bases means more free units that you don't need to support with minerals.

[Shai-Hulud]

That is quite extensive placing strategy. I've been reading your posts concerning this issue with enthusiasm. Especially since I'm in the middle of couple MP games. You can beat the AI hands down, even if little tweaked, but to success in MP is definitely going to take more sophisticated strategies. I'll try similar approach in some of my SP games and come back with my gained experience and point of view.

[MariOne]

To Fitz and Sikander:

I am now at work so I can't read all the details of your posts, I trust that they are accurate as your usual.

There is one concept that I really think would make your and everyone's life easier when calculating the number of specialists a base can sustain.

I see that you as many other keep determining the number of citizens supported in a procedural way:
that is, a new 4 food tile allows you to support two more specialists, who produce 2 more food, thus one more specialist, and then if you can make the base grow again the one extra nutrient will allow to support the last one too...

This if you want to point out the "road map".
But if you're interested in determining just how many specialists a food-tile allows to support, in the final steady-state, regardless of the growth-steps required to get there, there's a much simpler calculation to do!

Each Specialist needs 2 nuts to live
Each Specialist will produce 1 of his 2 required nuts from the sky
Eahc Specialist only needs to get the remaining ONE food from land resources, then.
THUS, each single food you get from the land (or sea), will allow you to support ONE specialist at final steady state (provided of course that all the required satellites, HabDomes and growth requirements are met).

So.

One fungus square yielding 4 food will support 4 Specialists = 4 minerals + 4 energy (the 4 nuts from the sky are eaten by the same 4 Spacialists who produce them, for self-support as explained above)

One Farm/Enricher/Condensor square (assuming the condensor(s) make it rainy) yielding 6 food will support 6 specialists = 6 minerals + 6 energy.

Of course this assumes that you crawler the food from the tile.
If you force yourself (or are forced by the game) to WORK that tile, the worker will eat 2 nuts, so only the remaining must be counted to support 1 Specialist each.

A 4-food fungus square will support its worker + 2 Specialists.
A 6-food F/E/C square will support its worker + 4 Specialists.

___
Mind, I'm not saying you posted something wrong, I just suggested a "simpler approach" to determine the supported population at final steady state

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Maione Et. al.

Yes at end game avent of sky farms and hab domes the equation is simple.

Number of land produced nutrients = No. of specialists and/or No. of workers
Assuming enuff sky farms to provide matching land nuts and hab domes established

Mairone, in the last portion of your post you neglect the one nutrient contibution for the sky farm for that worker, thus a 4 food square will support its worker + 3 specialists and a 6 food square will support its worker and 5 specialists.

Not,

"Of course this assumes that you crawler the food from the tile.
If you force yourself (or are forced by the game) to WORK that tile, the worker will eat 2 nuts, so only the remaining must be counted to support 1 Specialist each.

A 4-food fungus square will support its worker + 2 Specialists.
A 6-food F/E/C square will support its worker + 4 Specialists. "

Therefor a 6 nutrient crawlered square with transcendi yields

12 econ
24 labs
or 36 energy points

(Think of it for only 6 sky farms which IIRC have no means to be knocked out of the sky due to random event you get 6 energy/sat/base. That is HUGE)

while a workered 6 nutrient square yields

10 econ
20 labs

or 30 energy



Sorry to nitpick MariOne , as you are normally the epitomy of accuracy with your detail and examples. (I commend you for that)

So back to Fitz's example:

Base size 3, Cloudbase Academy project (free Aerospace Complex in base), minimum of 7 satellites of each type.

Worker one on Forest (1/2/1) workers 2 & 3 on Farm/Solar on rolling terrain, altitude <1001 (2/1/1).

Total nutrients = +1 Forest, +4 Farms, +3 Sats, +2 base square = 10.

Total land based nuts = 7.

He comes up with total population of 7 inclusive of workers and specialists. So we agree.


So again in the spirit of simplicity the real steady state equation is:

land based nuts = total pop points (Workers + specialists)

assuming enuff sky farms and hab domes

Og

[MariOne]

Luckily I declared that I was posting from work!

I added at the last moment the crawlerless approach consideration. Not being crawlerless my usual turf, I was misleaded for being too much zealous.
Indeed, every citizen "produces" one nut from sat, regardless of being worker or specialist.

So, in summary, a 4-food tile support 4 citizens. Period. No futher precisation needed (why I let me confuse myself...)

Determining whether they are 4 Specialists or 1 worker + 3 Specialists only alter the amount of Minerals and energy they personally provide (in both cases they also drag down from the sky 4 minerals + 4 energy)

Thank you OO for correcting me this will sure improve my popularity!!!!

[wheathin]

I agree with the posts here (hard to disagree when its all true!), but I will offer one caveat to so many bases: increased infrastructure costs. Each additional base requires additional facililties to be built or rush-bought, and the on-going costs for maintenance. While outweighed by the gains from increased energy in the mid-to-late game, those costs are not trivial. If you have fewer very large bases, as opposed to many smaller ones, you will have lower facility maint and build costs.

Of course, some of this is mitigated by free facilities or SPs, and you get some back in the free mins for fonuding a base, the PTS, and the increased free support units.

[Fitz]

Originally posted by wheathin
If you have fewer very large bases, as opposed to many smaller ones, <...>

Yeah, but with Siks spacing you have many very large bases (ie size 14) until the late game, as opposed to fewer very large bases (size 14). Only once Hab Domes are discovered does the impact hit you. Now, unlike some people I don't assume "the game is over long before this" because I have played many LAN games with conquer only on, and they can run to the retirement year without resolution, but for the most part it is true enough. Certainly in SP games, 90%-95% of the game (although not time put into it) occurs before hab domes. The rest tends towards wrap up.

Mario & OO, thanks for the simplification and summarization. I have never thought of it in those terms, as nut to pop supported is one of the few parts of the game I do holistically, as opposed to calculated. This will probably change that.

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by Sikander:
I put boreholes to the North, South, East and West of every base

I put boreholes where I can place them. Do you play on a flat terrain (strong erosive forces), were you extremely lucky that the terrain always matched your base scheme, or do you terraform like hell?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Adalbertus


I put boreholes where I can place them. Do you play on a flat terrain (strong erosive forces), were you extremely lucky that the terrain always matched your base scheme, or do you terraform like hell?

You can put a borehole on any terrain. Move a former to the square and hit "B". If you get the message stating that you cannot place a borehole on sloping terrain (or whatever it says), then you will need to lower the terrain (left bracket command) first. Then place the borehole. I played the game for well over a year before I learned about this. So, yes, I terraform like hell. Rocky squares get leveled unless they are where a borehole would go, fungus gets ripped out, and I raise sea squares to get more land or to round out production areas.

My last few games have been played on Dilithium Dad's Ultimate Builder Map, which is a modified huge map of planet. It seems to be more or less a normal map regarding elevations and rockiness, but contains a good deal more fungus. If you are lucky enough to start on the Northern Island or the other big Island in the North than your fungus seems to be of more normal proportions.

wheathin,

Yea, more bases but the same per base productivity more or less, so they are well worth the investment. I do try to get all the free facility projects also, but it's not critical. The two advantages are speed (faster getting your bases into place, and faster growth due to more places to grow in) and more efficient terrain utilization. There are a few disadvantages, this system is probably not as great in a blind or double blind game, because it tends to depend on advanced terraforming and crawlers (though you can do it without the crawlers with less productivity), and restrictions lifted so that those boreholes produce something for all of that former time.

In a blind game simply getting the Weather Paradigm makes this system instantly viable nutrients-wise, because you can build condensor farms which produce 4 nutrients even though you haven't yet got nutrient restrictions lifted. It's kind of like having a nutrient bonus in every square which you put a condensor in.

Even after hab domes come having more bases still has an advantage over having fewer bases with more production. Namely, once you get hab domes and your satellite nut production becomes useful you are still limited to the growth rate of one population per base per year. In the same space as an empire of 9 perfectionist bases (21 squares each) I can fit 23-24 (well, 23.625) of my (8 square) bases, which yields a growth advantage of 2.55 to one (assuming 23 bases). It also yields an advantage in satellite utilization of the same magnitude, ie every satellite for the perfectionist yields 9 FOP, while it yields 23 FOP for me.

So the basic doubling of your populations once you get satellites accrues more quickly and pays for itself more quickly the more bases you have. My average bases (ie no specials) top out at 33 population, which means that my land area reaches maximum productivity 17 years after the hab dome goes in (assuming I had a limit of 16 before). This would take 77 years with a perfectionist base with a similar terraforming ratio to mine (15 condensor / farm / soil enrichers and 5 boreholes). Eventually it also means that the larger base empire will have to build many more satellites as well, for what is about the same production in the end, but less for a good long time.

Finally, if you are not courting ecodamage (and I've spent too much time terraforming to risk a sea level rise) you have to spend a lot more effort mitigating that damage with larger bases, or accept less mineral productivity. My bases produce 14 minerals on the ground and 33 with the appropriate sattelites, for a total of 47 minerals. If I want to go with this number, than there will be zero ecodamage regardless of my previous history (ie 'pops'). As soon as I choose to use a factory however, the minerals from space which come in to being because of the factory do add to the 'bad' mineral total. Thus I can forego the factory, forego the mining satellites or seek to alleviate the ecodamage by building 'Good Facs' (Treefarms, Hybrid Forests, Centauri Preserves and Planet Temples). By building all of these facilities in all 23 of my bases I will thus have over 100 minerals allowable per base without pollution. This will allow me to build two of the factory facilities in each base (each adds +50% to mineral production), and end up with a total clean production of 94 per base, with more possible should a base contain a mineral or nutrient special.

The larger base system is beset with a double problem here. He has fewer bases, which means fewer 'good facs' (or he has spent time and effort building, scrapping and rebuilding them) at the same time he has more mineral production per base. He has only one alternative as I see it. He can refuse to build the factory facilities and just use his clean space minerals. This is a fairly nice alternative, because it allows him to hit some fairly nice production totals without worrying overly about anything. Assuming that he has 5 boreholes and 15 condensor / farm / soil enrichers, than his total minerals will be (once his bases grow to full size (93) and all the satellites are built) 123. Of course it will take 77 years for him to get there assuming that 1/3 of his queue productivity is dedicated to satellites which are rush built every turn, or that he had built ahead before hab domes were available. If there is still time left in the game he could even form over his boreholes and replace them with additional condensor / farm / soil enrichers. This would not result in a net mineral or raw energy increase, but it would give more population and thus production from specialists.

Comparing the total clean mineral productivity of the two empires:

Small and numerous = 94 *23 bases = 2162 minerals per turn
Big and few = 123 * 9 bases = 1107 mins per turn

Of course either empire could expand into other lands, and increase their production that way. This is just a comparison based upon a given land area. The numerous instances of turn advantage for the tighter base placement are however irrecoverable for the more spread out empire. From the early advantage of colony pod movement, through the early pop booms, and until the economy of scale and growth multiplier in the hab dome and satellite period the numerous and tight base strategy is superior in total game production.

[Shai-Hulud]

This is not a terraforming strategy; this is a Theory of Terraforming; this is a style of terraforming; a way doing and a way of being done. A philosophy of terraforming