 |
| |
|
|
Chaunk
|
 |
CEO of Morgan Industries, ACDG3
Apr 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
Whats the average spacing between your bases?
1-2 squares. There'll be one space on the diagonal or 2 spaces on the horizontal/vertical normally, ocasionally one more if the terrain demands it.
Are there any special rules you follow?
Yep. Bases go on the black squares so the boreholes can go on the white squares. (I tried to find a good example of this in my save games, but I've not got any... I might play a quick game for some screen grabs). A black square is any square you can get to using only 2,4,6,8 on the number pad from your first base location. (Although you'd probably want to use other keys to get there!) The boreholes can then be built at maximum density without disturbing cities at all.
Also, no base can be built inside another bases perimeter. This looks ugly, and I don't think it's efficient.
Whats the maximum distance you allow for your bases?
Bases must be within a singles turns movement on roads of at least one other base.
How much of your base spacing technique is optimised for the Morganites?
I don't know. My base spacing was based on blake's spacing (it is his really, but I don't use the same terraforming as him for the most part) and it's more suited to pop booming factions than for rabid ICSers. It gives each base a minimum of 7 squares (plus the base square for 8 total) or more likely 8 (1 around the base). Periphery bases get more of course.
As Morgan, bases tend to be smaller, and pop booming is harder (But still essential, or very close to essential). This spacing allows lots of room for crawlers and so forth, and yet is very flexible. I'm begining to think it's not quite flexible enough though, and that I might be better to allow bases to go anywhere, at the cost of a few boreholes. I'm die hard on the second rule about not inside another bases radius though... Urgh!
As far as terraforming goes, I use mostly forest and forget. I'll add a few condesers in, crawled for 4 nuts to pop boom, but only after the forest has been mostly done. Forest goes most everywhere. When tree farms and hybrid forests come around, crawlers start to be cashed in, former production is scaled up a notch (Hopefully clean at this point) and boreholes are dropped in. Should I get the WP, then the plan is mostly unchanged, except that condesers appear more often and I'm not afraid to work them for a while if I have to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arginine
|
|
I do my bases in a grid, with 1 space apart, just like boreholes. I leave sites empty if necesary to make space. I will start out with 2 in 3 spots being used, but as I shift to higher population cities, I will either remove some of the cities, or make them 'support depots'. I should point out that I like to move for the PTS, and as such have many size 3 bases, until I give the base a tree farm, with which to pop-boom.
Forest and boreholes for bases, mines and condensors for crawlers. At the beginning, if I see a nutrients square, I will put a few bases in reach of it. Those bases will have forest squares. I will then choose mineral or nutrient accumulation, so the base produces the colony pod exactly when it grows.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arginine
|
|
I assume about 1/3 to 1/2 of squares are going to be crawled due to being rocky and thus a mine, a site for condensor, or in the early game used by fungus (wait until funicidal tanks if possible). The generic size 3 base has 2 forests, and a rolling moist farm.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jtsisyoda
|
 |
COO, Morgan Industries, ACDG3
Jul 2003
time: 00:37
|
|
The relation of the b-limit to the continent size is important. When planning tentatively how many bases I'll have, I pick some multiple of the b-limit, based on what SE choices I'll be using, and try to spread them fairly evenly over the continent.
There's also the matter of planting a base the same turn it's produced, requiring a road two squares away, preferably diagonally (a la Sikander). I don't go out of my way to do this, in that I don't clear fungus or level rocky squares. I also put a modest effort into placing bases 4, 5, 7 or 8 road squares away from the base that builds the CP. This allows you to move a decent amount while not losing an entire base turn to get only one square farther. (The 7 or 8 is for core bases sending CP's out to the periphery. The terrain would have to be really rich to justify sending CP's way out in the middle of nowhere.)
You also have to go where the two nutrient squares are. If the start is any indication, this won't be an issue.
Not planting a base in another base's radius is IMO an aesthetic concern, one I don't spend too much energy satisfying. The real issue for me is how many squares each base will have available, including workers and crawlers.
Regarding maximum borehole density, the last boreholes you put down don't provide that many minerals in the grand scheme of things, because the game usually ends soon after they are put down. I usually focus on the low-lying fruit-- putting boreholes in places where no preparation is required (no removing fungus, or raising or lowering land). I do try to place this low-lying fruit in such a way that it doesn't wreck completely the idea of getting a near-max density configuration later. But I'd rather build six BH's in say, 2150, than five in 2160 followed by two in 2170.
Similar to Chaunk, I go forest first. Usually three per city for PTS (assuming RT's), then a couple more for crawlers. Then I make a decision: either start a condensor-farm (or two) at each base (or selected bases) to prep for booming, or start boreholing. If con-farming, rather than cash in crawlers, I switch them from mins to nuts so the new workers can work forest. If boreholing first, it requires more formers, but there's less hassle... CC's and HT's, etc. become more optional. Boreholes have another advantage over population-- you don't stick out like a sore thumb on the dominance chart. In a free-for-all with no coop victory, this might be important. Boreholes are more flexible as far as play-style, IMO... Con-farms are very buildery. BH'ing is also good if we go with lots and lots of really close bases, maybe even Police/Green/Wealth? That would be a departure for our apparent builder-leaning membership, though (myself included).
Another benefit to close spacing for Morgan is that you don't lose as much of that beautiful base-square energy to inefficiency.
We should consider close spacing and lots of bases with a bomb & drop rush (ixnay on the opperchay's) in the mid-game. Our overall preference of hard-core builder, early builder becoming conquerer, etc. should actually be decided now, so we can optimize things like spacing and terraforming for that goal. Playing Morgan as a mid-game conqueror is very different from being a pure builder, in my experience. You give up a lot of efficiencies of scale that would help your future growth, but you can really whip up a nice army in a hurry.
Last edited by jtsisyoda on 02-07-2004 at 10:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chaunk
|
|
CEO of Morgan Industries, ACDG3
Apr 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
I imagine it will be 6 which is standard for a large map. To my knowledge, buster hasn't changed his alpha.txt map sizes.
I somewhat hoped we'd be doing that yeah Andi. The HGP rules, and expanding under FM without it is tricky to say the least.
jt, you make some good points re: Boreholes against condesor+farms. My take on it is that a crawlered con+farm = 2 pop, which can be two libararians for 6 research. A borehole requires 2 nuts from someplace else, so we need to add another librarian. Therefore, con+farm is roughly equal to 9 labs points, pre multiplying by facilities.
A bore hole is 7 eneregy, hence, (probably) 4 labs points, 3 e.c.s. Slightly loses out to the con+farm.
However, as morgan, the increased difficulty in pop booming means that a borehole can provide the extra energy to go to psych, whereas the con+farm doesn't provide this energy. Putting the borehole first though, means there may not be enough nuts to get a pop boom to work that borehole!
I prefer the con+farm first, using the extra pop as specialists or workers as required. Maybe that is indeed the builder in me talking though. I don't consider that to be a bad thing though. Morgan is the king of builders, by some way. Only zak can come close to a well played Morgan in a building race, and zak is ai here. We needn't fear if we can build in peace for 50 years 
Certainly also, our initial base spacing should be around a central base - not necessarily our HQ, although that might be helpful. We should do that because then the crawlers to make the HGP have less distance to move, and hence, we build it quicker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CEO Aaron
|
 |
Everything has its price. Even you.
Aug 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chaunk
jt, you make some good points re: Boreholes against condesor+farms. My take on it is that a crawlered con+farm = 2 pop, which can be two libararians for 6 research. A borehole requires 2 nuts from someplace else, so we need to add another librarian. Therefore, con+farm is roughly equal to 9 labs points, pre multiplying by facilities.
A bore hole is 7 eneregy, hence, (probably) 4 labs points, 3 e.c.s. Slightly loses out to the con+farm. |
If your only goal is the conduct of research, specialists outperform a borehole, however, the total FOP of a 'hole under FM is 13, as opposed to the 9 you offer for a librarian. The other drawback with specialists is that with Morgan's hab limits, you only get so many non-doctor specialists.
quote:
Originally posted by Chaunk
A crawler on top of a forest+sensor square will stop it being destroyed by any remote bombardment. But yeah, the 2 nut square is way more important, especially since we won't be able to get rec tanks early... |
Why are we not getting Biogenics first? I missed any discussion we had about beelines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jtsisyoda
***
Not planting a base in another base's radius is IMO an aesthetic concern, one I don't spend too much energy satisfying. The real issue for me is how many squares each base will have available, including workers and crawlers.
|
True. Not buillding within another bases radius may look nice, but it is better if we get our bases and running quicker rather than prettier.
quote:
Regarding maximum borehole density, the last boreholes you put down don't provide that many minerals in the grand scheme of things, because the game usually ends soon after they are put down. I usually focus on the low-lying fruit-- putting boreholes in places where no preparation is required (no removing fungus, or raising or lowering land). I do try to place this low-lying fruit in such a way that it doesn't wreck completely the idea of getting a near-max density configuration later. But I'd rather build six BH's in say, 2150, than five in 2160 followed by two in 2170.
|
I agree. What Jtsisyoda is saying is turn-advantage.
quote:
Another benefit to close spacing for Morgan is that you don't lose as much of that beautiful base-square energy to inefficiency.
***
|
Although the game might be decided before efficiency becomes much of an issue, close basing does limit inefficeny loses should we get there.
Mead
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2004 18:10
)
|