 |
| |
|
|
ChairmanSlick
|
|
Hi,
I was just wondering about upkeep. What is your take on the subject?
I feel that i do not generally let it dictate what facilities i am going to buy. However, i do believe that it affects which SP's i go for. For instance, i think that Virtual World, and Cyborg Factory and the best two SP's in the game.
If you get it then thats -7 upkeep per city (i think)...
lets say u have 11 cities that -77 upkeep.
Lets say ur @ about 2170 -- u'd be looking in an average game to be making (with an average builder faction) around 250 ec's i reckon. (just a guess...) Oh and this is before upkeep is taken out. Thus, if u can shed that -77 upkeep cost then thats a lot of money u can spend on rover supplies for those up and coming projects or tree farms or research hospitals etc.
Also, do u guys usually keep a safety net of Ec's in ur bank for incase someone attacks u-- Personally i keep local probes and around 500-1000 ec's (during the middle of the game) in my bank as defense so to rush units and subvert units...
I'm curious how people use there energy credits generally...
Also = do u guys lend money to the AI factions?
Do u buy technologies?
Thanks for ur input:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
I'm with the Green God on this one: EC's represent build-points you've already earned, waiting for a decision on where to spend them.
However, I do keep a reserve large enough (~120) to upgrade a Rover Supply Crawler into a "Porkbarrel", which I then spend on SP's.
I used to cash in Artifacts to get the early SP's, incidentally, but beelining to IA works so much better ... thanks, Jamski!
CmnSlick (and Vel's guide) advise a reserve for probe operations, but one can generally forsee such costs and save up for them on a case-by-case basis, rather than keep a big chunk of your assets permanently frozen "just in case".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CEO Aaron
|
 |
Everything has its price. Even you.
Aug 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
EC's are worth more than just minerals. They're worth TIME, allowing you to shorten your build times and get a jump on your competition. Credits in the bank are potential energy to be sure, but they're also wasted time. The cost of stockpiling energy is the other things you could have built with those credits, as well as the other things your bases could have been building once the first things were finished.
In short, my stockpiles tend to be very minimal, unless I'm actively in a shooting war, at which point they'll spike until the conflict is resolved. If I get caught with my pants down, I can always sell off a couple of facilities for some quick cash. Efficient? Maybe not, but it's more efficent than keeping more than 200 ECs in your bank account.
quote:
However, I do keep a reserve large enough (~120) to upgrade a Rover Supply Crawler into a "Porkbarrel", which I then spend on SP's. |
This is an illusory economy, especially in the early period. Yes, if you view your EC expenditure solely in terms of minerals per EC, upgrading crawlers is less expensive. However, rushing crawlers not only gets you the crawler itself, but gets started building the next one sooner. And if you can put the first crawler to work before you cash it in, you also get the minerals it's crawling while you're waiting for enough crawlers to one-turn your project. Finally, if you rush your crawlers sooner, you'll have the project you're trying to finish quicker.
Still don't believe me? Try it yourself. Start a game with your favorite faction. Beeline for IA. Save the game the turn you get your tech. Now try one game where you upgrade the crawlers you build, and load the game over and try rushing the crawlers after they've accumulated 10+ minerals, and putting them to work on their way to being cashed in. Compare how long it takes you to finish all the available projects, and you'll see which is a better use of your credits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ChairmanSlick
|
|
oh and also.. i tend to find myself beelining for the Planetary energy grid... and i'm a firm believer of early tree farms. so this leaves me with a large source of income. thus sometimes it just seems that i can't avoid running a profit. When ur in a situation like this... what do YOU do CEO Aaron'; with this extra cash??
--very curious
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:36
|
|
As usual the it depends argument is a good one. Last night I started a game on a 256x256 map as the Hive. I've built the WP, the HGP, the CN, and the VW and every base has recycling tanks, network node, energy bank and two formers and two garrison troops. I really just don't have much to build, so I'm building Ecs in most of my bases except the newer ones. To be sure as my formers create land I'm running colony pods over to take advantage of it, but tech progress is slow as I'm the Hive and the map is gigantic. I suppose I could build lots of probe teams, but with one in every base and my nearest opponent who knows how far away what's the point? I could build up a crappy AI style military, but again what's the point? As the Hive tends to be weak monetarily I'd rather build money so that as technologies come on line I can rush them.
Also, against the AI having a decent rainy day fund can save a lot of money / effort in the long run. A few probe teams and 100+ Ecs in the bank can obviate the need for support gobbling troops.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
CEO Aaron, I took what you said to heart and put it on the spreadsheet to see just what kind of economy I was getting from crawler upgrades.
My results show that as long as you upgrade ONLY special abilities that you'll run roughly 2 ec's per production point, depending on industry rating.
Case-in-point: Xfer_5 (supply crawler w/ 1 ability, cost 5 rows) upgraded to Porkbarrel (supply crawler w/ 4 abilities, cost 11 rows) costs 110 and adds 6 rows. 110 / (6 * (industry rating)) gives unit cost.
Unit cost depends on industry rating:
11: 1.666667
10: 1.833333
9: 2.037037
8: 2.291667
7: 2.619048
A unit cost of 2.29 is roughly equivalent to the rush-build unit cost of a crawler with 10 minerals remaining. At industry rating 7, unit cost 2.62, the break-even is at 16.
Upgrading seems to me to be much cheaper unless your industry rating is 7 or better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:36
|
|
I'm new to this thread, but regardless of what other people have said, I'm going with CEO Aaron. One reason energy is so much better than minerals is because it diminishes speed. If I need a military unit so my base isn't taken, I want it now. If I need a crawler to crawl 7 minerals to my base because my economy is needed for other things, and I want a SP, then I want the crawler now, not 3 turns from now.
So if I want to upgrade a crawler so it can get to work immediately, and have a special ability, energy is the way to go.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
CEO Aaron, the "time advantage" you're getting is actually trading later completion time of an SP for use of the constituent crawlers in the interim.
You're also making a case that 3 crawlers are better than 1 porker, but again that's assuming you'd rather delay the SP to gain more production. If you're completing the SP the turn after the upgrade, you gain no advantage.
I've grappled with the issue of opportunity cost myself: in the very early game, I'd much rather get 2 minerals per turn from a supply crawler than burn it on an SP, so I try to saturate my territory with crawlers then build more still to cash in. I don't want to "eat my seed corn" so to speak.
When competing with the AI, though, one of course doesn't always have that luxury. Under those circumstances you're better off upgrading and cashing in whilst building more crawlers instead of burning off a larger number of un-upgraded ones then trying to buy their replacements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:36
|
|
The crawler upgrade trick takes advantage of the fact that you get the full mineral value of crawlers when you disband them (for anything....facilities, projects, prototypes, whatevers).
It's a common practice in some circles (including our gaming group here) to build cheap "shell" combat units and upgrade them to the exact configuration you want or need later--this is especially groovy once you get clean reactors, cos you can churn out an endless supply of clean laser or impact rovers and just litter your continent with them, upgrading them as you need to to a worthy combat configuration to meet whatever threat comes your way....if they die pre-upgrade, it's no great mineral loss, and whatever killed them has set up his own doom (and you can be almost assured that whatever killed your unit cost as much, if not more than your investment in the unit you lost). This maximizes military flexibility, as you can be assured of having *exactly* the type of unit you need to face whatever threat arises.
Another common (and wise) practice is to never transport "expensive" units across open bodies of water.
Trannies are slow and vulnerable. Losing a fully loaded transport with all hands can be a devastating mineral loss.
On the other hand, losing six trance scouts is no biggie, but when you're in range of your target, you can upgrade those units from the design workshop to Marines, and smack the cr@p out of your opponent without risking minerals unduly.
Same principle with the crawler, 'cept that the goal is to design some rediculously expensive crawler, upgrade a basic crawler to that configuration and then cash it in for the full mineral value toward the project you're working on (and some crawler configurations have a mineral cost that rivals the cost of SP's!).
Early game, unless you're facing stiff competition FOR a given project, it's almost always better to race your early crawlers TO the bases you're building the projects from, re-home them there, and use them to increase the Project Base's mineral counts.
You can gain a measure of insurance too, by keeping them "one turn away" from the project base, so that if you get a "such and so is about to compete the project" message, you can crash build it by cashing the crawler(s) in, but in the meantime, you're earning "interest" on the crawlers in the form of harvested minerals.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
And, of course, it is better to keep the crawler working than to lose it on an SP.
If you're reasonably sure of getting the SP anyway, don't sink a million crawlers into it.
If you're short on crawlers and need an SP NOW, then doing the cash-upgrade thing is a good way to snag an SP.
If you're short on cash, but heavy on crawlers - cash the crawlers 2 turns before the project is done by your enemy.
A problem I suffer from is cashing crawlers when none of my opponents even have the prerequisite tech for the SP, or stalling so bloody long that the opponent gets the SP anyway even with my 100 crawlers around.
And, in general, if you plan to build an SP then it's better to build crawlers in its stead and cash them in when appropriate - that way you get a few extra minerals while the sacrificial supplies wait around.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ChairmanSlick
|
|
Often i find that early game, especially when playing the hive, rather than build a shitload of crawlers ... ie. one in each city, i start building a project early, and all the other cities can continue building former/cp's etc. and coastal cities building transport foils - this way u are bound to get an alien artifact when u pop a pod or two and the isles aren't as interested in popping u. In turn, u can use this on the project.
Even if this does not happen, i think with a good industry faction like hive or drones, its just as effective to build the SP in one city and start on it early, as opposed to building 1 crawler each. This way each city can go about filling out its most critical objectives first- ie. like terraforming, or building a rec. centre.
In conclusion, i don't mean to discredit the crawler theory, but i feel that in practice sometimes it may be a little ineffective, despite its efficiency.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Minute Mirage
|
|
Helsinki
Aug 2003
time: 07:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChairmanSlick
Often i find that early game, especially when playing the hive, rather than build a shitload of crawlers ... ie. one in each city, i start building a project early, and all the other cities can continue building former/cp's etc. and coastal cities building transport foils - this way u are bound to get an alien artifact when u pop a pod or two and the isles aren't as interested in popping u. In turn, u can use this on the project.
Even if this does not happen, i think with a good industry faction like hive or drones, its just as effective to build the SP in one city and start on it early, as opposed to building 1 crawler each. This way each city can go about filling out its most critical objectives first- ie. like terraforming, or building a rec. centre.
In conclusion, i don't mean to discredit the crawler theory, but i feel that in practice sometimes it may be a little ineffective, despite its efficiency. |
There's no way in my mind that you'll be able to build an SP in just one city as quickly as someone who builds crawlers in ten cities. Sure, you may get more infrastructure built, but I don't think compares to having the HGP or the VW.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ChairmanSlick
|
|
this is a valid point. But think about it this way, these are two different SP's. And the merchant exchange, the planetary energy grid, the empath guild, and the weather paradigm are others. If you are only playing against one or maybe two human opponents this give you time to sit back, let them get one of these projects (maybe first) whilst you have established an infrastructure in 11 cities by 2135 and are about to build an SP. Afterwhich you can then use the supply crawler tactic. This is how i play the hive, but i guess this choice depends on which faction you are playing, which factions you are playing against, and what technology you have. =)
Just my thoughts on the matter. Interesting nonetheless
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003
time: 14:36
|
|
quote:
Kody (are you reading this, K, if so please chime in) ran some simulations while managing the Hive in the current ACDG that indicated that for a +1 Industry faction it was cheaper - and faster - to rush the crawlers and then cash them in without upgrading.
|
Explaination why crawlers can become more efficient than crawler upgrading. It's because crawlers are a cumulative effect, and investments improve with time.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...ler#post2618935
How it actually balances depends on several things. I was managing to pay 1.7EC/mineral in the game I was playing working on a 4 year build up for SPs.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...430#post2720430
quote:
Santiago_Clause wrote:
Unit cost depends on industry rating:
11: 1.666667
10: 1.833333
9: 2.037037
8: 2.291667
7: 2.619048
|
Assuming that the upgrade cost is 1.833 I can see rush buying crawlers still being a very useful technique even at +0 industry rating. However, I won't pretend to know exactly when to rush buy or when to upgrade without carefully looking at the game and the person who's playing.
I can say that doing rush buying is the more mircomanagement intensive technique.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
If you've saturated your territory with crawlers and you're building more solely for the purpose of building SP's, upgrading seems to be an obvious choice.
If your territory isn't saturated, and you rush-buy as many crawlers as you have ec's, then send them into the field, you get their use until you cash them in at the point when you have enough crawlers to complete the desired SP.
At that point, it makes sense to ask yourself this question: "Why burn 6 crawlers when I can upgrade and burn 2, keeping the remaining 4 out in the field harvesting?"
You've introduced a lot more variables which make that question less easy to answer. I can convert an almost unlimited number of ec's into minerals very quickly and cheaply by upgrading crawlers, but I don't get a stockpile refund like I would rush-building ... food for thought, indeed.
Something this discussion has reiterated is that there aren't a whole lot of SP's worth their weight in crawlers, at least not until diminished marginal utility kicks in.
Woe unto the player who must burn off his first few crawlers sniping a contested SP ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:36
|
|
I tend to take an extremely "minimalist" approach to crawlers, *rarely* saturating the continent with them. Just enough to give me food all 'round (generally I have two boreholes--not crawled, obviously--two farm/condensors (crawled), and will crawl all mines....and that's about it.
I'm an avid believer in kelp/tidal, build the aquafarm/transducer in every coastal or sea base (my sea bases get the "inner ring" with mines, and everything else with tidals, so they get all three sea-enhancing builds.
This, taken together with the 3-apart spacing I tend to use gives me a good blending of specialists and natives (since all territory not used as outlined above is forested), and I wind up with a core of solid-producing cities that have robust counts across the board.
tried to build a kelp farm in one game and found that I didn't need it. My cities were already maxed, and while I could have squeezed out more science by going pure specialist, the utility just wasn't there for me. Certainly don't need it to beat the AI, and I do not see tech advances (and specifically the speed in acquiring them) as an end unto themselves, so would rather take a more controlled approach. As it is, entering the era of sat launches, on average, I'm 18-24 techs ahead of the AI with this balanced approach....and that's a comfy enough lead for me...
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-05-2004 20:31
and at that point upgrading is definitely the way to go.
|