ICS strategy question

[livid imp]

I love the raw efficiency of ICS, but I want to do something different with similar results. I tried to come up with a looser ICS density while maintaining maximum borehole density and a grid pattern. Example:

XBCBX
CCCCC
CBCBC
CCCCC
XBCBX

Unfortunately I have not been doing well. Probably because at this density, you are barely ICSing. Or, more likely, I just suck. So I figured I would ask you, the SMAC addicts better than I. I know I can not get the same early efficiency of a tight ICS, I just wonder if anyone can recommend a play-by-play on how to stay competitive in the early years (i.e. not lose any important early SPs), or another looser ICS strategy?

Edit: I realized that my grid pattern might not be as self evident as I see it. Since "C" could be "city" or "condenser", "B" could be "base" or "borehole", and "F" could be "forest" or "farm". So I rearanged the letter scheme as such:
X=base, B=borehole, C=condenser

[Whoha]

you could try doing the 1x1 grid and then eliminating the middle cities later so that you have the 3x3 grid.

[Lazerus]

I don't stick to a set pattern but its roughly 1x1 loosening to 2x2 once ive got enough core bases and need the space for higher minerals

[CEO Aaron]

Originally posted by Whoha
you could try doing the 1x1 grid and then eliminating the middle cities later so that you have the 3x3 grid.

So the idea would be to plant 9 bases in a 5x5 square, then lift up 5 of them, adding the resulting pods to the 4 remaning bases? I suppose for some factions that have a diffcult time pop booming it might be a good way to simulate vertical growth, but you'll be tying up a lot of your industrial capacity for a good portion of the game with the task of relocating that populace.

I'm not actually sure whether the strategy would be profitable, depending on how you chose to implement it. Obviously, for the bases you planned on eliminating, you'd want to minimise the production of base facilties, probably only getting by with a rec commons until you decided it was time to relocate.

My gut tells me that in the long run you'd just be better off having gone with a wider spacing from the outset, though 3x3 is far too wide. There's really no compelling reason to have bases with no overlapping tiles, except aesthetics.

[Lord Nword]

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
There's really no compelling reason to have bases with no overlapping tiles, except aesthetics.

And less damage from PBs...

I do love aesthetics and large populations though

[Sikander]

I like a 2x diagonal spacing for strong bases, max boreholes and good movement efficiency. This spacing allows every internal base 7 workable tiles, including 2 boreholes.

Boreholed and soil enriched it provides 33 raw nuts and 14 raw mins.

Forested with tree farms and hybrid forests it provides 24 raw nuts, 16 raw mins and at least 14 raw energy from the worked tiles, and a good deal more with +2 econ.

Forested and boreholed it provides 18 raw nuts, 24 raw mins, and at least 22 raw energy.

Build nut sats and then pod boom for crazy labs / econ.

Alternatively you can build rows of bases where each base works all 8 adjacent tiles, giving a slight boost to productivity for a fairly significant loss of development speed, as each base will now be 3 tiles from its neighbors.

[vyeh]

Could someone explain the terminology?

Originally posted by Sikander
I like a 2x diagonal spacing

Could someone explain (or provide a link) that explains the terminology for ICS discussions?

What does 2x diagonal spacing mean?

I thought 1x diagonal spacing looks like this:

BxBxBxB
xxxxxxx
BxBxBxB
xxxxxxx
BxBxBxB
xxxxxxx
BxBxBxB

Is this correct?

Thanks.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Lord Nword


And less damage from PBs...

I do love aesthetics and large populations though

once you get fletchets having the densest cities means that only 1 in every 512 PBs makes it through before orbitals if they target a city.

[Sikander]

Re: Could someone explain the terminology?

Originally posted by vyeh


Could someone explain (or provide a link) that explains the terminology for ICS discussions?

What does 2x diagonal spacing mean?

I thought 1x diagonal spacing looks like this:

BxBxBxB
xxxxxxx
BxBxBxB
xxxxxxx
BxBxBxB
xxxxxxx
BxBxBxB

Is this correct?

Thanks.

It's half the density of the 1x you have above. Take your HQ base and establish a base two tiles (one intervening tile) away from it in each of the cardinal directions (NSEW). Every base is thus two moves away from its neighbors on the diagonal axis. This yields a base density of one base for every 8 tiles, exactly half the maximum density of one base for every 4 tiles. Each base consists of a base tile and 7 workable tiles assuming it is an interior base. At maximum borehole density each base would have two boreholes.

[vyeh]

Like this?

BxxxBxx
xxxxxxx
xxBxxxB
xxxxxxx
BxxxBxx
xxxxxxx
xxBxxxB

[Sikander]

Originally posted by vyeh
Like this?

BxxxBxx
xxxxxxx
xxBxxxB
xxxxxxx
BxxxBxx
xxxxxxx
xxBxxxB

Yes, that's it. Neighboring bases two tiles away, but only in the 4 diagonal directions. These are large enough that every bit of infrastructure can be cost effective early, but small enough that you can expand quickly.