ICS Kind Of Part 2

[Nabvrimn]

Originally posted by binTravkin there's only place for maths & strats!

And what do you think I've been doing if not math.

Note that all I actually advocated in that post was replacing your boreholes with condensor farms when you get hab domes no matter whay your layout.

[Zeiter]

Yep, two engineers or transcendi specialists beats a worked borehole anyday. Changing to the specialist strategy after hab domes also helps bring down the ecodamage, which can be a real pain in the endgame (or, if you manage it right, a huge stream of cash).

[binTravkin]

Well, everyone has the rights of opinion, so I still have mine, that 1x1 base placement when countered by similarly good (strategically thinking player) who's using any other will always win the day as till the 2200 it's the fastest strategy (fastest research & production), but my MP games usually end by 2210 - 2230, thus no use of any such features like hab dome.

In fact - I've never ever seen any player to build a habdome in MP (even in PBEM), because by that time either game is over or PBs are more profitable..

[binTravkin]

worth a sig!

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by binTravkin
By placing your CP 2 turns after it is created (2 tiles away) you're sure to get turn advantage ...

Games are won by turn advantage!

Games are won by turn advantage, but turn advantage is not necessarily gained by plopping down a base 2 turns after it is created, regardless of the surrounding terrain.

Often in the early game, there are not very many good terrain squares nearby. By good, I mean at least 2/1, or 1/2, or better. If you do the math, or just save the game and replay it both ways, you will find that you are MUCH better off moving even 4 or 5 squares away before placing your base if you can get to work a better square, such as a 2/1 or 1/2 instead of 1/1 or 2/0. This is especially true in the early game if you don't have the money to rush recycling centers everywhere. Although you will lose 2-3 turns (compared to a 2 tile spacing), you will gain in overall turn advantage before your new base even produces its first colony pod.

Which also brings up the question of exactly when to begin producing terraformers. My strategy has been if there is enough good terrain so that I can place my first 6 bases without terraforming, I will concetrate on colony pods first, and start producing formers only after the colony pods to create 6 bases are being produced. (Assuming 6 bases before extra drones; more bases on larger maps.) Once enough terraforming has been done and drone suppressing projects/facilities are built, then I will fill in the gaps between more widely spaced bases. But the result is not a perfect grid. Capitalizing on the best nearby terrain in the early game is much more important than having a perfect ICS grid latter.

[binTravkin]

Well, I read it all and all I can say, that I had a very similar opinion before I did this testing:

If you do the math, or just save the game and replay it both ways

And I did it not less than 20 times..
Ah those happy times when I could play SMAC/X all day..

And the result was like in 1 or 2 games where terrain nearby was extremely harsh, the wide placement was really better, but in all others it sucked compared to ICS..
Especially if starting on river - you get 2 bases in 2 turn and the 2nd two are also placed as soon as the CPs are created - it's around 5 turn advantage in first 20 years (2-5 turns for every CP!) and with 25% faster development there's no way you can win ICS..

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by binTravkin
...
And the result was like in 1 or 2 games where terrain nearby was extremely harsh, the wide placement was really better, but in all others it sucked compared to ICS..
Especially if starting on river - you get 2 bases in 2 turn and the 2nd two are also placed as soon as the CPs are created - it's around 5 turn advantage in first 20 years (2-5 turns for every CP!) and with 25% faster development there's no way you can win ICS..

Sorry, I had a terrible time understanding that last paragraph. Two bases in 2 turn?

I think a lot depends upon the map you start with. I did 7 trials, starting on normal Planet with each of the 7 factions, in case this made any difference. In two cases, there were enough 2/1 squares nearby to space bases two squares away and still give each base a 2/1 square to work.

In the other 5 cases, there was not but one square better than 1/1 within a two square radius. In one case I could place my second base 3 squares away and get a 2/1. In another case, I needed to place my second base 4 squares away, but got a 4/0!

Spacing between subsequent bases was inconsistent as well. Sometimes there were some resources nearby so that the next base could be placed 2 squares away. In one map, there were no good locations that could be access from a base 2 squares away, but if I placed a base 4 squares west I could reach a 4/0. If I placed a bases 3 sqaures south I could reach a 2/1. And if I place a base 5 squares NW I could reach a 2/1 AND a 0/3.

Lets look at a turn by turn comparison of placing the second base 2 squares away, where only a 1/1 is reachable, verses moving 4 squares away to reach a 2/1.

1a - moving
1b - moving
2a - moving
2b - moving
3a - Place base, 2/1 + 1/1 = 1/2 net resources
3b - moving
4a - 2/4
4b - moving
5a - 3/6
5b - Place base, 2/1 + 2/1 = 2/2 net resources
6a - 4/8
6b - 4/4
7a - 5/10
7b - 6/6
8a - 6/12
8b - 8/8
9a - 7/14
9b - 10/10
10a - 8/16
10b - 12/12
11a - 9/18
11b - 14/14
12a - 10/20
12b - 16/16
13a - 11/22
13b - 18/18
14a - 12/24
14b - 20/20 [Growth, add 1/1 square next turn]
15a - 13/26
15b - 21/23
16a - 14/28
16b - 22/26
17a - 15/30 [No growth yet, so presume first 10 resources were spent on another scout]
17b - 23/29
18a - 16/32
18b - 24/32 [COLONY POD BUILT!!!]
19a - 17/34
19b - 6/4 [Colony pod moves 1 square]
20a - 18/36
20b - 8/6 [Colony pod moves 2 squares]
21a - 19/38
21b - 10/8 [Colony pod moves 3 squares to get to better terrain]]
22a - 20/40 [Growth; must delay colony pod 1 turn]
22b - 12/10 NEW COLONY BUILT
22a - 1/2 [Colony pod built 4 turns later than b track]
22b - 14/12 + 2/2 at the new base

In summary, by moving four squares to get to where I can work a 2/1 square, instead of two squares where the best square is 1/1 square, I achieve a 4 turn advantage on producing the next colony pod.

In 22 turns, the base placed after two turns has produced a scout, a colony pod, and has 1//2 resources left over. The base placed after four turns has produced a colony pod, which has already built a new settlement, and has 14/12 resources left over (14/2) if you build a scout for an apples to apple comparison. Furthermore, the four square base is much better poised for future growth and production.

Sorry for the long post, but I figured the best way to make the point is show a turn by turn comparison of what happens for each alternative.

[Sikander]

Well on rare occasions I've managed to place two bases on turn one. This requires that you land on a river of course. I find that shooting for formers ASAP is faster than walking colony pods around in all but the most forbidding terrain. It's rare that you can't find a way to produce two nuts and a mineral with minimal forming, and the roads cut deployment times for CPs significantly.

[Natalinasmpf]

In fact - I've never ever seen any player to build a habdome in MP (even in PBEM), because by that time either game is over or PBs are more profitable.

They aren't that profitable. I played one such MP game, I lost a few "buffer zone" bases to a human enemy via PB's, but launching PB's while the charter was reinstated proved too costly, I guess. Or maybe he was too arrogant he thought his unsurpassed might could tackle the entire 6 other factions.

I didn't have PB's either, but what I did have was an immense air force. Together with missile defences, I was only slightly bruised by PB's. Apparently transferring missiles into a weakly defended base or via cloaked carriers might be the cause why I survived, but still...

[Chaos Theory]

You just need to use them right - under the best circumstances, 1 fusion PB can nail 9 bases! Under more realistic ones, you can still get several, and infiltration would allow you to pick the best targets (high population, SPs).

[binTravkin]

Sorry, I had a terrible time understanding that last paragraph. Two bases in 2 turn?

I think a lot depends upon the map you start with. I did 7 trials, starting on normal Planet with each of the 7 factions, in case this made any difference. In two cases, there were enough 2/1 squares nearby to space bases two squares away and still give each base a 2/1 square to work.

In the other 5 cases, there was not but one square better than 1/1 within a two square radius. In one case I could place my second base 3 squares away and get a 2/1. In another case, I needed to place my second base 4 squares away, but got a 4/0!

Spacing between subsequent bases was inconsistent as well. Sometimes there were some resources nearby so that the next base could be placed 2 squares away. In one map, there were no good locations that could be access from a base 2 squares away, but if I placed a base 4 squares west I could reach a 4/0. If I placed a bases 3 sqaures south I could reach a 2/1. And if I place a base 5 squares NW I could reach a 2/1 AND a 0/3.

Lets look at a turn by turn comparison of placing the second base 2 squares away, where only a 1/1 is reachable, verses moving 4 squares away to reach a 2/1.

1a - moving
1b - moving
2a - moving
2b - moving
3a - Place base, 2/1 + 1/1 = 1/2 net resources
3b - moving
4a - 2/4
4b - moving
5a - 3/6
5b - Place base, 2/1 + 2/1 = 2/2 net resources
6a - 4/8
6b - 4/4
7a - 5/10
7b - 6/6
8a - 6/12
8b - 8/8
9a - 7/14
9b - 10/10
10a - 8/16
10b - 12/12
11a - 9/18
11b - 14/14
12a - 10/20
12b - 16/16
13a - 11/22
13b - 18/18
14a - 12/24
14b - 20/20 [Growth, add 1/1 square next turn]
15a - 13/26
15b - 21/23
16a - 14/28
16b - 22/26
17a - 15/30 [No growth yet, so presume first 10 resources were spent on another scout]
17b - 23/29
18a - 16/32
18b - 24/32 [COLONY POD BUILT!!!]
19a - 17/34
19b - 6/4 [Colony pod moves 1 square]
20a - 18/36
20b - 8/6 [Colony pod moves 2 squares]
21a - 19/38
21b - 10/8 [Colony pod moves 3 squares to get to better terrain]]
22a - 20/40 [Growth; must delay colony pod 1 turn]
22b - 12/10 NEW COLONY BUILT
22a - 1/2 [Colony pod built 4 turns later than b track]
22b - 14/12 + 2/2 at the new base

In summary, by moving four squares to get to where I can work a 2/1 square, instead of two squares where the best square is 1/1 square, I achieve a 4 turn advantage on producing the next colony pod.

In 22 turns, the base placed after two turns has produced a scout, a colony pod, and has 1//2 resources left over. The base placed after four turns has produced a colony pod, which has already built a new settlement, and has 14/12 resources left over (14/2) if you build a scout for an apples to apple comparison. Furthermore, the four square base is much better poised for future growth and production.

Sorry for the long post, but I figured the best way to make the point is show a turn by turn comparison of what happens for each alternative.

That's all wery well of course, but I NEVER get in such area that I do NOT have any Monolith, Nut/Min bonus or even a simple 2-1-x square..
What a starting location did you have if in radius of 2 squares from 1st base (not counting it's square) you didn'd have at least two 2-1-0 squares???

..or monolith, or a min/nut bonus?

You probably werent expanding in the right direction, but if what you're talking is true (that there were no basesites in 2 turn-move area that had at least a 2-1-x square), than this is the ONLY on land (sea dwellers better not use ICS1x1) case when ICS1x1 is worse!

An average starting location contains 1 monolith/ nutbonus & atleast one 2-1-x square!

Try ICS for that case!

[binTravkin]

They aren't that profitable. I played one such MP game, I lost a few "buffer zone" bases to a human enemy via PB's, but launching PB's while the charter was reinstated proved too costly, I guess. Or maybe he was too arrogant he thought his unsurpassed might could tackle the entire 6 other factions.

I didn't have PB's either, but what I did have was an immense air force. Together with missile defences, I was only slightly bruised by PB's. Apparently transferring missiles into a weakly defended base or via cloaked carriers might be the cause why I survived, but still...

Try gaining enough cash to build enough PBs for every enemy city on the Planet!
And then PB them all!
The Planet even wont kill you fast enough, as you'll be the winner in the next turn!

Or, be the first to PBs (at least 5 turns ahead from others) and threaten them saying that you'll unleash your PBs if they try to build their!
Or request ecs/bases/techs from them as an alternative being PBing!
The threat does more psychological than physical damage - they just think "all my cute empire will be wasted, I put so much effort in it.. No I'd better give him that tech/base/ecs!"

My usual tacs!

[Natalinasmpf]

Try gaining enough cash to build enough PBs for every enemy city on the Planet!

By the time you do that, I'll be pumping out orbital defense pods. Another problem will be the fact that PB's can't nuke the entire enemy empire in one turn, its too big. Its more than 18 squares wide.

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by binTravkin
That's all wery well of course, but I NEVER get in such area that I do NOT have any Monolith, Nut/Min bonus or even a simple 2-1-x square..

An average starting location contains 1 monolith/ nutbonus & atleast one 2-1-x square!

Average for what map? I consider the standard map of Planet to be the baseline map. The veterans map certainly has rich starting locations, but I consider that map to be unusually rich.

I did 7 trials on the normal map of Planet, and only 2 times out of 7 did a get such a rich starting location. Usually I have to position my bases several squares apart just for each base to have access to a 2/1 or better square to work.

This morning I started a game (on normal Planet) where I was hard pressed to find ANY terrain better than 1-1-x. There was 1 nutrient bonus 4 squares away from my starting location, and after exploring 8 squares in EVERY direction, there was not a single monolith or 2-1 square to be found.

The interesting point about this is because of the lack of good terrain, it was actually advantageous to build the bases close together for ease of terraforming. (Luckily I was playing University, and after I was seeing how resource poor my map was, I researched terraformers in time to switch my original bases to formers without losing resources.) Still, this kind of start puts one at least 10 turns behind compared to a start where one can build colony pods immediately from the initial bases.

My point is simply that you have to adapt your strategy to the situation handed to you. If moving an extra two or three squares can get your early base better terrain to work with, you are far better off doing it.

And if you "NEVER" start in a resource poor area, then you are missing the fun of winning a trancendent game from a disadvantaged starting position. Frankly I am surprised that you always have good terrain nearby. What map/faction are you playing? I wonder if certain factions consistently have better starting locations than others on Planet?