my first post

[Verrucosus]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes

If I click on one of the buttons at the top of the base control screen other than the center "Governor" button, that other button will light up. But no matter what I do I can not get back to the default with only the center button lit up. By clicking on the "Governor" button repeatedly it toggles between both it and the other button both lit or neither lit.

Hah, I remember how this drove me crazy as well! There are small arrows to the left and right of the "Governor" button. These allow you to customize your Governor settings (e. g. tell him not to build secret projects). If you check the option allowing a Governor with multiple or no priorities, you can get back to a "balanced" governor.

Originally posted by Laser Eyes

edit: There is a square next to a base that has the following characteristics:

Flat & Moist
Forest
Road

According to the Resources MFD that square is producing 1 Nutrients, 2 Minerals and 1 Energy.

My question is shouldn't the square be producing 2 Nutrients, one for the square being moist and one for the square having a forest?

According to the manual "a moist square produces 1 nutrient per turn" (p 37) and a forest provides a bonus of 1 nutrient (p 154). That means the square should produce 2 nutrients per turn.

Forests (like base, fungus and monolith squares) are "fixed production squares" which means that the underlying terrain, including its rainfall, is irrelevant. In my edition of the manual (which seems to have different page numbers from yours) this is not explained in the main text, but documented in the "Resource Production Tables" included both in Chapter 3 ("Planet") and in Appendix 2.

Although the fixed production rule explains why your forest square produces just one nutrient, but it is itself subject to an exception for landmark bonuses. In particular, the nutrient bonus from the Monsoon Jungle would apply to a forest square.

Please note that the "Resource Production Tables" is plain wrong in stating that there is no energy output from forest squares. It's possible this was changed after the manuals were printed (and after they programmed the automated formers which are much more reserved about planting forests than human players tend to be).

[Laser Eyes]

Originally posted by Verrucosus

Forests (like base, fungus and monolith squares) are "fixed production squares" which means that the underlying terrain, including its rainfall, is irrelevant. In my edition of the manual (which seems to have different page numbers from yours) this is not explained in the main text, but documented in the "Resource Production Tables" included both in Chapter 3 ("Planet") and in Appendix 2.

Although the fixed production rule explains why your forest square produces just one nutrient, but it is itself subject to an exception for landmark bonuses. In particular, the nutrient bonus from the Monsoon Jungle would apply to a forest square.

Please note that the "Resource Production Tables" is plain wrong in stating that there is no energy output from forest squares. It's possible this was changed after the manuals were printed (and after they programmed the automated formers which are much more reserved about planting forests than human players tend to be).

Ah yes I see it says in the Resource Production Table:

Fixed Squares
(The production of the following squares is fixed, regardless of underlying terrain."

Then wouldn't it be stupid to build a forest on a moist square because you would already get 1 nutrient from that square, the forest would add nothing? And even more stupid to build a forest on a rainy square because you would reduce your nutrient production from 2 to 1? I see what you mean about automated formers not being efficient.

I just looked at the table again. It says a forest should produce 1 nutrient, 2 minerals and 0 energy. So why is that square producing 1 energy?

edit: I just reread your post. I see that the manual is wrong about no energy from a forest square. Just ignore the last paragraph.

[Verrucosus]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes

Then wouldn't it be stupid to build a forest on a moist square because you would already get 1 nutrient from that square, the forest would add nothing? And even more stupid to build a forest on a rainy square because you would reduce your nutrient production from 2 to 1?

From a nutrient standpoint, you are quite correct. However, if minerals are more important to you (perhaps because you already have a huge nutrient surplus or the base in question has reached its maximum with regard to drone control or hab limits), the forest might be better (much better if it's flat terrain, a little better if it's rolling terrain). As far as energy is concerned, forests are more efficient for low terrain, because it doesn't take as long to plant them as it does to build a solar collector and the output is the same. They are also very efficient because they spread by themselves and can even push back the fungus. All of these advantages come at a price though, because - as you pointed out - by planting and working a forest instead of a farm on moist and rainy squares you forgo an opportunity to boost or sustain the growth of your base. Of course, that's exactly the kind of trade-off that makes the early terraforming game so interesting.

By the way, all this talk is making me nostalgic. I have a feeling I might be playing SMAC this weekend.

Verrucosus

[Darrell01]

The secret to forest squares also lies with tree farms and hybrid forests. Tree farms make forests 2/2/1 and a hybrid forest makes them 3/2/2. Also forest squares are nice mineral crawls if you don't have a mine. You'll get to that later, I'm sure. The do other things too. If you terraform over forests, the former that finally terraformed over it will send 5 minerals back to its home base. Also, they help eliminate pollution in a city. They are not as strong as fungus, but its a lot less than mines and condenser/echelon/solar farms. Militarily, they are +50% defense and they take 2 movement points to go thru withut a road. I wouldn't worry too much about it as I think I'm putting the cart way ahead of the horse right now.

Welcome to the forums!

[dmm1285]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes

Do you mean to say "the less you know about Alpha Centauri the more fun it is"?

My inexperience with strategy games might mean SMAC overwhelms me and I give up. I have to strike a balance between not spoiling the fun and not losing my way. I think I'll try and work things out on my own and look for help when I need it.

The dirty secret about the SMAC AI is that it is bad, very bad, I guarantee you will have no problems beating the game no matter what strategy you use. However, you will much greater personal satisfaction if you figure them out for yourself rather than reading about them on here. The other advice I have for you is don't be afraid to experiment, just because what you are doing now works well, doesn't mean something else might not work better.