Getting Techs Faster

[Saria]

Hey everyone, I've been wondering how I could go about getting techs faster. I usually play as Morgan or Miriam, and especially with Miriam, I'd like some tips on how to get techs faster.

Thanks!

[vyeh]

With Morgan:

(1) You could crank your lab slider up. You'll lose something on inefficiency, but Morgan gets a lot of energy.

(2) Build Network Nodes. If your base is producing two labs per turn, a Network Node will yield an extra lab and cost an energy credit per turn. If your base is producing more labs, then you will do even better.

(3) Look at your social engineering. If you're in wealth, you're producing an extra + 1 energy per square, some of which will increase your labs. If you're in free market/knowledge, you will be producing that extra +1 energy per turn AND your research cost will drop 20%.

(4) Consider a science city with Merchant Exchange, Network Backbone, Supercollider, and Theory of Everything secret projects; Network Node, Biology Lab, Fusion Lab, Nanohospital, Quantum Lab, and Research Hospital facilities; and crawlers on an energy park.

Miriam is a lot more difficult. Miriam can't use knowledge. You can still use (2) and (4) above. Miriam has a probe team advantage, so the first thing to do is to use probes ruthlessly to steal everyone else's tech.

Consider making University a submissive pact, then gifting University with bases. Submissive pactmates give you techs as they discover them.

[Saria]

Thanks, I'll have to try those.

Miriam's great, it's just her not being able to use Knowledge really makes me angry. DX;

[vyeh]

Velociryx, who wrote a guide on SMAC, suggests it is a waste of time for Miriam to put money into labs or Network Nodes. He suggests using probe teams on an enemy to gain tech parity, then building the same type of troops and attacking with Miriam's built in +25% advantage.

[CEO Aaron]

My attitude about network nodes and other research facilities is that the yield of the facility must double the credit upkeep of the facility. So a network node is worthwhile in a base that's producing 4 labs per turn. While Miriam's 20% research penalty reduces the actual yield of your labs, I'd contend that with an empire of sufficient size, lab investment can still be a useful and profitable investment of resources, especially once you've achieved technological parity with your rivals.

[Maniac]

Network nodes should only be built in bases that are producing 22 or more labs.

Reasoning:

A network node costs 80 minerals. For the same price you can build 2.66 crawlers. Putting those on a forest gives 5.33 minerals. You can buy a mineral for two credits. Thus 80 minerals worth of crawlers gives you the equivalent of 10.66 energy. A network node costs one energy in maintenance. Thus a base should produce at least 21.33 labs to break even compared to crawlers.

Network nodes are lousy investments.

[vyeh]

While I appreciate economic analysis as much as either of you, I'd like to point out the following:

(1) (1 min = 2 credits) Note that if you are stockpiling energy, 2 min is converted into 1 credit! So if you put those 2.66 crawlers on forest and convoyed minerals into the base which was stockpiling energy, you would produce 2.66 energy (or you could directly convoy at least 2.66 energy from the forest).

(2) (1 lab = 1 credit) If there are facilities that you are able to build and would like, 1 lab can be worth a lot less than 1 credit as you would rather build facilities. (Unrealized tech doesn't do much good except add to your AC score.) If you can't build the facilities you want because you haven't discovered the tech, then 1 lab can be worth more than 1 credit as the extra energy credits can only be put into the treasury.

Of course, if you are at paradigm efficiency, then 1 lab does equal 1 credit as you can adjust the slider with no inefficiency lost.

(3) (1 min of NN = 1 min of crawler). A Network Node can be built for 20 mins plus 120 energy credits. A crawler costs 10 mins plus 60 energy credits. So you could say a Network Node could be built for the same price as 2 crawlers. Those two crawlers on a forest gives 4 minerals.

The whole point of my discussion is that you have to be careful in converting between labs, credits and mins.

I believe that the labs are rounded up, so 3 labs plus NN results in a bonus of two labs.

[gwillybj]

Two other less complex reasons to build Network Nodes:

#NETCRASH
#xs 440
#caption Operations Director
Network overload at $BASENAME0 has erased all of our accumulated research! Perhaps we should build more Network Nodes to provide backup storage.

(This event is triggered at a base lacking a Network node.)

#NETBONUS
#xs 440
#caption Operations Director
Network Node at $BASENAME0 experiences major research breakthrough!

[Maniac]

Originally posted by vyeh
(1) (1 min = 2 credits) Note that if you are stockpiling energy, 2 min is converted into 1 credit!

Stockpile energy is a lousy investment too.

(2) (1 lab = 1 credit) If there are facilities that you are able to build and would like, 1 lab can be worth a lot less than 1 credit as you would rather build facilities. (Unrealized tech doesn't do much good except add to your AC score.) If you can't build the facilities you want because you haven't discovered the tech, then 1 lab can be worth more than 1 credit as the extra energy credits can only be put into the treasury.

If you have too much labs don't build network nodes. I don't think I've ever had too many credits though. You can always build more colony pods, formers, crawlers...

(3) (1 min of NN = 1 min of crawler). A Network Node can be built for 20 mins plus 120 energy credits. A crawler costs 10 mins plus 60 energy credits. So you could say a Network Node could be built for the same price as 2 crawlers. Those two crawlers on a forest gives 4 minerals.

That is a good point. Still, even taking that into account, the answer to the question when it becomes profitable to build network nodes, lies closer to my original estimate than to yours.

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Maniac
Still, even taking that into account, the answer to the question when it becomes profitable to build network nodes, lies closer to my original estimate than to yours.

The original question wasn't one of profitability, but how to get techs faster.

Technically, you were not providing a figure as to when it becomes profitable to build network nodes but a figure of when it becomes MORE profitable to build network nodes than to build crawlers.

Even assuming 1 min = 2 energy, if your base has 3 labs, then it cost 80 min (=160 energy) to build a network node and an upkeep cost of 1 energy per turn to result in 2 bonus labs per turn. So one's investment is returned in 160 turns.

[Maniac]

WTF?!?

You get techs faster by learning how to make more profitable investments. Always building network nodes when you have 3 labs would for many players in fact reduce the speed they get techs, compared to their usual build orders.

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Maniac
WTF?!?

You get techs faster by learning how to make more profitable investments. Always building network nodes when you have 3 labs would for many players in fact reduce the speed they get techs, compared to their usual build orders.

Please watch your language (even if it is an acronym).

I am not advocating building network nodes over other solutions. The original question was how to speed tech. A network node is one way.

The question was how to get techs faster. I provided a menu of possibilities. I never said anyone should build a network node because they have three labs.

I think you have misunderstood my position.

The original poster wanted to know how to get techs faster. I don't believe your anwer addressed that issue.

Originally posted by Maniac
Network nodes should only be built in bases that are producing 22 or more labs.

Reasoning:

A network node costs 80 minerals. For the same price you can build 2.66 crawlers. Putting those on a forest gives 5.33 minerals. You can buy a mineral for two credits. Thus 80 minerals worth of crawlers gives you the equivalent of 10.66 energy. A network node costs one energy in maintenance. Thus a base should produce at least 21.33 labs to break even compared to crawlers.

Your reasoning appears to go like this:

(1) You can build 2.66 crawlers for 1 network node. I've already pointed out that only applies in a non-rush build situation. In a rush building situation, you can rush build 2 crawlers for the same mineral/energy credit cost of 1 network node.

(2) Putting those on a forest gives 5.33 minerals. This overlooks the fact that you need to have formers to build forests and that it takes time to build forests. It also overlooks the limitation in real estate. For the rush build, this is 4 minerals.

(3) You can buy a mineral for two credits. The original poster isn't interested in buying minerals. The poster is interested in speeding up tech. So instead of talking about buying minerals, we need to know how to convert the minerals produced by the crawlers into something which will speed up tech. Assuming energy and labs are fungible (which ignores slider inefficiency), you can convert minerals to labs by (a) stockpiling energy or (b) building a facility which generates labs or energy.

If you pick (a), those 5.33 minerals produce 2.66 energy. For the rush build situation, this is 2 energy.

(4) You stated that 80 mins of crawlers gives the equivalent of 10.66 energy. I believe this is similar to looking at the conversion rate between dollars and euros and using the dollar buy rate when you should be using the dollar sell rate. So the 80 mins of crawlers in your scenario would give the equivalent of 2.66 energy since the original poster is interested in buying energy, not selling it. In the rush build situation, this is 2 energy.

(5) A network node cost 1 energy in maintenance. True. Assuming the fungibility between energy and labs, that means the network node needs to contribute 2.66 energy (2 energy in the rush build situation) above the maintenance cost.

(6) You conclude that the base needs to produce at least 21.33 labs to break even. Using your figure of 10.66 energy, you would need to double (since network nodes gives an additional 50%) 10.66 PLUS the maintenance cost, which results in 23.33 labs. I believe the figure is (2.66 + 1) * 2 or [(2 + 1) * 2 in the rush build situation]. This yields 7.33 (6 in the rush building situation).

[CEO Aaron]

While Network Nodes do have a high front-end investment, they're considerably more resilient than crawlers and don't require additional terraforming to realize their profits.

Maniac is correct, however, that it takes a LONG time for Network Nodes to pay for themselves and start being profitable at low lab income levels. And that ultimately should be your guiding star when evaluating what's best to spend your minerals building.

However, tech has intangible benefits that don't necessarily yield so simply to mathematical analysis. Tech unlocks higher resource limits, new weapon systems, and can be leveraged with trade for yet more techs. A single weapon tech can often be traded to several other factions for numerous other techs.

[vyeh]

I agree with CEO Aaron.

I would like to focus my remarks on network nodes.

(1) Don't forget Alien Artifacts. For every tech advance via an Alien Artifact, you need one Network Node.

(2) Generally, bases don't remain at low lab levels. As they grow, as their territory is terraformed, as treaties and pacts are formed, as social engineering (particularly economy) develops and as specialists populate your base, the labs produced by a base grows.

(3) If you have the Virtual World secret project, Network Nodes double as Hologram Theatres.

(4) Network nodes can be built before crawlers can be built.

(5) At a new base later in the game, there may be no forests around the base. In such a case, when I am optimizing the output of such a base, it doesn't make sense to adjust the lab/economy slider (since that affects the entire faction). I'm willing to trade one energy credit for one additional lab credit at the present. For the reason CEO Aaron stated, tech is hard to overvalue.

While I agree crawlers are impressive and in some situations you would want to build crawlers first, I think Network Nodes are almost always a good long-term investment (barring oddball situations of a base deliberately kept at pop 1 as a home for your entire clean war machine).

In my games, bases usually have no more than 20 squares to work or crawl (I build bases so my entire territory lies within the radius of at least one base). So the number of squares that a base can crawl is limited. I like my bases producing as much minerals as they can without creating pollution and I like them at the current population limit. So the number of squares I can devote to crawling energy is limited.

So I find network nodes an important part of my long-term strategy. I think the player who "automatically" builds network nodes is usually in a better position than the one who only builds them in the science cities, but I admit that may be because my playing style is sympathetic to network nodes.