What is more valuable, ENERGY or MINERALS?

[Commy]

Somebody in one of these posts said that energy is worth more than minerals because energy saved time, or something like that.

So, what's your opinions? Is concetrating on energy and hurry everything better than actually getting tons of minerals?

I came up with some advantages and disadvantages of each.

ENERGY

Advantages: Disadvantages:
--Saves time --Expensive
--Easier to obtain --Energy must be replenished

MINERALS

Advantages: Disadvantages:
--Constant --Eco-damage
--Don't have to be replenished --Takes time

So far, in my personal opinion, I like energy better.

[Chaos Theory]

Having both is better than having either alone:

Having some mins allows you to pay less to rush build
Having some energy allows you to help out smaller bases, or use minerals more efficiently.
Having lots of minerals alone is excessive most of the time, and prevents you from effectively distributing the excess
Having lots of energy alone can be sufficient, but only if you truly have a lot, since rush builds will be more expensive, particularly for units, and if you produce fewer than 10 minerals in any given base, rush builds will be twice as expensive, unless you wait for the base to accumulate 10 minerals.

Furthermore, each mineral costs at least 2 energy (except when exploiting upgrades).
Minerals are not subject to inefficiency.
Energy multiplies via commerce.

[CEO Aaron]

Chaos is right, you do need both. If you have so many minerals that you can produce any unit/facility/project in a single turn, energy's utility recedes into nothingness. However, for many things, that level of mineral income is impractical, due to income restrictions and the repercussions of eco-damage.

I did pick energy, however, because it is far more flexible, more easily magnified with facilities, commerce, can be used to increase tech, production, quell drones or further improve growth and economy.

[Jamski]

Energy is more flexible - you can use it to build stuff, research stuff, bribe units, trade, make your Drones content... Minerals only build stuff.

Also its very easy to convert Energy to Minerals at a 2-->1 ratio, while Minerals to Energy is at best a 4-->1 ratio.

Given a choice between 20 minerals and 20 energy, I'd take the mins, but between 20 minerals and 40 energy, I'd take the energy.

-Jam

[Velociryx]

Early game, minerals, hands down, but as the game grinds on, energy becomes increasingly important.

In the early game, what energy you *could* get will be sorely hampered in any case, by restrictions and small empire size, rendering it insufficient (even with a dogged early game focus on energy) to do the sort of rushing needed to get infrastructure in place (thus, planned is an excellent early game gov choice....the industry bonus enhances that which is most important to the early game--minerals--at the expense of something you don't have a whole lot of during that period anyway--energy.

Once that infrastructure is in place though, energy's raw flexibility begins to really shine, enabling you to rake in the tech, build shell units and selectively upgrade your attack force, etc.

-=Vel=-

[Jamski]

/me takes the bold step of disagreeing with Vel*

On the contrary, I think Planned is only a good first game choice if you are unable to run FM.

And for the same reasons as you outlined.

Since you can easily get minerals early game - with a maximum of two mins/tile before restriction lifting, the quick terraforming of forests gives you 2-min-tiles from the very start - and it is harder to get energy - you argue on reducing mineral costs by a measly 10%.

I, on the other hand, think it more worthwhile to increase energy output by up to 100% by running FM. You end up building stuff faster by being able to rush to completion. Properly managed early-game FM is devastatingly effective, especially with Morgan, where the base tile returns (unlimited by output capping) can reach huge amounts very fast.

-Jam

[furrykef]

I agree with Vel: it depends entirely on the situation. To say that one is always better than the other is to ignore the reality, like saying a bishop is always better than a knight in chess -- which is often but not always true! Some chess books and teachers will tell you a knight is worth 3 pawns and a bishop is worth 3.5. Don't buy into that! It's foolish. Or it's like counting cards in blackjack but you always play the same hand the same way. For instance the dealer shows a six, you have sixteen -- what do you do? Conventional wisdom says always stand on the hand. What if the count is extremely low, meaning there are few high cards? The dealer is likely to have a low total and pull to a high one. Translation: the dealer is more likely to win. However, you're less likely to bust by hitting your hand. What's your only recourse? Hit the hand!

In sum, don't assume given constants ("A is always better than B") are really constants. Therefore, I vote xenobanana.

- Kef

[Sikander]

Energy is a pretty broad term, in that it can be turned into Ecs, Labs or both. Hell, you can even waste it on psych. It's critical at least in the early game, but later on once energy has given you some technologies you can substitute specialists to produce your Ecs & Labs & Psych directly. The only thing that specialists can't do that energy can is produce commerce income.

The only substitute for minerals are Ecs. I'm not as mineral crazy as some players, but I do make a point of getting some good mineral production early on and in no case do I stop chasing minerals until I have at least 10 minerals being produced in a base per turn. This allows you to at least rush buy every turn if you are rolling in the dough.

[Commy]

Let's clarify one thing here, the poll ask which is more important (which has practically already been concluded by now), so for any new posters who actually read the entire thread before posting, don't vote for xenobanana because you think you need both.

I just finished my 4th game. For those who know me, usually I never use crawlers, all I do is use hybrid forests and nothing else. Decided to change my mind. THe game was based on a heavy industry and mineral production. Near the end, I lost over 15 bases (huge map) due to mind worm attacks, even when the bases were population 20+, with tons of facilities, and 10-15 garrison units.

Ultimately, minerals are just not worth it. My economy was good, and my industry was better (thanks to the drones and Domai), but the eco damage was just too much, so I like the idea of building lots of small bases, that way you have less minerals but more energy total.

[Blake]

I prefer minerals - though that you need both is obvious. Ofcourse I'm a die-hard non-exploiter of crawler tricks, if your going to upgrade crawlers for cashing in, then energy is probably better. The cool thing about minerals, like when using genejacks etc is that you can build whole fusion shard choppers in one turn. It's expensive to rushbuy shard units, and even shell upgrading is pretty expensive at about 160 energy, and it takes more player actions and the chopper wont be available immediately for use. Same is true of facilities, altough they are cheap to buy it is downright convinent to be building orbitals in 2 turns with no intervention. High minerals also allows you to crank labs up to 80-90% and basically leave it there. Finally when your bases are cranking out 50+ minerals per turn, support costs become insignificant and you don't need clean reactors, except on formers/cheap garrisons.

However the more one obsesses over crawlers, the less valuable minerals become, simply because crawled enriched condensors support many engineers, the cash generated has more raw buying power than a borehole. Also crawled energy can be amplified many more times through the lab boosting SP's.

[Velociryx]

I don't think we disagree, Jamski...on the contrary, I'm an avid fan of early market, however....Market is only as effective as your early game infrastructure, and with the Morgan example, he's got no spiffy abilities such as a Police bonus to help mitigate Market's police penalty, which means at a minimum, rec commons everywhere before shifting to a Market stance (tho with Morgan, an early Market stance is not absolutely critical in any case, cos he can just run wealth and kick up the 1 energy per square).

But to *get* to that early Market stance, a short trip to Planned to help get the early infrastructure in place across the board can really make the difference....Planned/Wealth is even better in that regard. An excellent transitional model for three reasons: 20% cheaper crawlers in preparation for a big productivity spike, faster, cheaper early infrastructure at a time when you're sorely punished by restrictions, and in a tight race for SP's (especially if you're rabid about getting all of them!), that extra nudge can really make the difference.

-=Vel=-

[furrykef]

I think new players would be more comfortable with Planned, which is why in the Social Engineering chapter of the wiki guide that I recommend that the player know what he's doing before using free market. Also the "-3 planet -5 police" may look more daunting than it is to the newbie, instilling some kind of terror that he won't be able to control his people or Planet. A player of Yang, regardless of skill level, would prefer Planned to Free Market because Planned has no deficiencies for him while Free Market does...although there are times he may want to run Free Market, in general it doesn't play to his strengths and weaknesses. This is one reason why he's always stuck for energy: it's often not advantageous for him to pursue it.

That said, going straight to Free Market seems a perfectly viable plan for many factions, and I'd definitely recommend it for Morgan unless he's really stuck for territory. It will often rake in huge amounts of cash (well, huge for the early game). Sure, you can't police the drones, but you only get up to size 4 early on anyway, and the Human Genome Project or Virtual World can help if you manage to get one of them.

- Kef

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Jamski
I, on the other hand, think it more worthwhile to increase energy output by up to 100% by running FM.

Growth is power.
PLANNED:
+2 Growth, +1 Industry, -2 Efficiency
FREE MARKET:
+2 Economy, -5 Police, -3 Planet

-police-
Every citizen past your first is a drone. While it's possible to set a doctor for a turn if you're spamming pods, that's only good up until your b-limit.
By then, you'll get Drones on the first turn, necessitating either a rushbuilt Commons or allocation to Psych.

I, OTOH, can simply plonk a Scout patrol down, and set a Doctor for 1 turn while I rush a pod (if it's at that b-limit).
Having Police is much better for early expansion - when a Colony Pod is worth far more than a Commons.

Then there's the problem - you want lots of scouts (or similar) popping pods and scouting out new bases.
When you're drone-drowned attempting to do what would put you ahead, you'll soon learn the downsides.
A mineral pod is just as good as a full rush, and a lot less painful.

-planet-
In a period where you're spamming formers, pods and crawlers, but before you have Trance...
You'll either lose your units or have to dance your units to avoid coming near worms.

-inefficiency-
Vel said it best.
-2 Inefficiency doesn't spork the b-limit, and you're not using much energy anyway.

-economy-
+1 Energy/square?
"Cool! Now my river forests are still 1-2-2, my monoliths are still 2-2-2, but at least I get +1 Energy on the other squares!"
It's not +1 Energy -every- square then.
Energy in the base?
"Cool! Now I can use this extra 1 energy to support the Rec Commons I needed to rush earlier!"

-industry-
Get a base in 0.9 of the time.
Get the next base in 0.81 of the time.
Get the next base in 0.729 of the time.
etc.

-growth-
Pop means power! Having 2 workers get +1 energy per tile isn't as good as having an extra worker on a 1-2-1 forest.
Growth is a great boon in the early game.

Verdict:
Go Go Gadget Planned, at least until restrictions are lifted.

[Enigma_Nova]

EDIT:
Getting the HGP early (or VW for Zak) can mitigate these drone penalties.
If I get the HGP or the VW (or both!) then FM starts to look pretty damn good.
The problem is getting the infrastructure, of course.

[binTravkin]

Depends on faction & game time
In early game mins are much more important - thats why so many players tend to beeline for IA
But after you instate planetary trade pact at the same time having TFs & HFs energy becomes more appealing

In average - Energy!