06-07-2004 04:16									#1
	Base Spacing Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Base spacing for our bases?

	06-07-2004 05:20									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Chaos Theory has figured out that with this map and our current efficiency, our bdrone count is 9. However, if we switch to Planned, which should be possible in about 10 turns, then the efficiency hit brings our bdrone count down to 6. A latter switch to Democracy will take us back up to 9 but that's pretty far into the future.
So, are we going ICS or not? It's too early to tell. We need to explore a lot more before we'll know what is best. For now, let's just place our based as opportunistically as we are can.

Here's a quote from a Poly thread I located that sums it up nicely:

"you can expand more without drones due to +2 efficiency and these additional bases offset your lack of early FM and give you more vital production centers. You are also 'deeper' if things get nasty, and losing one or two bases isn't that critical."

Last edited by Net Warrior on 06-07-2004 at 15:57

	06-07-2004 06:18									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

That is the question: Are we going to ICS or not. And how much. I vote for base-space-space-base, as in our planned spot for base-2. I think we have plenty of space for 9 base. Certainly 6. And I'm not a huge fan of base-space-base ICSing, even though that is quite useful sometimes.

And true, we have some time to scout more.

	06-07-2004 16:01									#4
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Since we will most likely be pop booming at some point in the game, I think base-space-space-base is the minimium.

	06-07-2004 20:53									#5
	Remove this text

pop booming is highly effective also on base-space-base!

	30-07-2004 21:11									#6
	Support Apolyton

This thread needs a little bump.

	30-07-2004 22:04									#7
	Tired of ads?

Well, I suppose I can repeat what I've said in other threads.

Tight = good.
We don't need strict closest-packing ICS (4 tiles/base), since we aren't Yang, but we should be placing bases in every possible spot, as fast as we can reasonably produce CPs. Strict base-space-space-base yields 9 tiles/base, and Sikander spacing yields 8. That's more than enough for any base once we get some formers going and condensor-farming/boreholing everything.

We should not be afraid to have bases within other bases' production radii.

Unlike most factions, when we pop boom, we're in our best SE settings - Demo/Planned/something (preferably Wealth). We can exploit this perpetual pop boom only if we produce plenty of food, and have a large factional maximum population (= per-base max * base count).

Reference my saves posted for Googlie's challenge for how I like to play Dee, or I can dig them up and post them in this forum.

	31-07-2004 01:19									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The poll reports 2 votes for base-space-base, yet we are playing a base-space-space-base game so far.

I know a lot of us are in the US, but that doesn't mean that 20% should show up for the polls. Where is the participation? I will vote now, for base-space-space-base. This is fast, yet allows our terraforming to concentrate on territory, rather than condensors. Er, and it's what I like to play.

	31-07-2004 02:37									#9
	Remove this text

I think the poll should be invalidated, and only posts in this thread should count. Twas a long time

	31-07-2004 04:50									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I voted for base-space-base, but I don't have a problem with our current spacing, since it was driven by the terrain. I'd much rather have looser, early bases than tight, later bases.

	31-07-2004 05:21									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I like base-space-space-base.

As noted above, base-space-base is ok at times depending on terrain and circumstances. I always prefer my bases on river or near monoliths (ideally including both of these) and will trade spacing for this placement every time.

So, basically, I can live with base-space-base if there is some favorable terrain involved. I don't like tight placement if all we get is a 2-1-1 base plus a 1-2-1 forest to work.

Last edited by Net Warrior on 31-07-2004 at 05:28

	31-07-2004 06:38									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The thing about tight base spacing is, once you have a few formers going, you get a 2-1-1 base (3-2-3 with rec tanks + wealth) and a borehole to work, plus a condendor-farm or two from crawlers. With maximum packing, that's
3-2-3
0-6-6
4-0-0
4-0-0
=
11-8-9 per base, which is per 4 tiles, and that's before satellites, and with just 1 worker actually working. The other 4 can be specialists (and the base can pop boom large enough to support them).

Before restrictions are lifted, you can still get the base size, just not the mins/raw energy from the borehole, if you get the WP. Without the WP, you can gradually ramp up to this level by first making farms and forests, then putting condensors on the farms and some forests, then replacing the rest of the forests with boreholes.

Further keep in mind that early in the game, even closest-packed bases will have more than 3 workable tiles, since almost every base will be on the perimeter.

	31-07-2004 07:44									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I usually play the Peacekeepers and go vertical and cross the bdrone limit much later on. I've heard of the tight spacing-borehole-condensor scheme before but have never tried it. Since the Gaians seem perfect for it, I'm ready to give it a try.

	31-07-2004 18:56									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Here are reasons why some factions do well at tight base packing:

Hive: police, inability to pop boom
Morgan: high base energy, low hab limit, low support, difficulty pop booming
Uni with Virtual World: drone-free size 2 bases, regardless of bureaucracy
PKs: drone-free size 1 bases, regardless of bureaucracy, low effic
Gaians: Forced ability to use police, inability to use FM and therefore need to get energy from boreholes or specialists
Drones: Very high industry means cheap rec commons for drone-free size 2 bases
Believers: Ease of getting lots of formers and immediate ability to build rec commons, lack of anything else to build besides an army

Factions that don't do so well:
CyCon - just begging for Demo/FM/Wealth
Angels - nothing for or against
Pirates - expensive bases at sea, defeats-the-point to pack bases on land, inability to reach boreholes from much of the sea

Not enough experience:
Spartans - could try Planned or Police/Planned for drone control, but couldn't add Police until specialists got going
Aliens
Cult

	01-08-2004 15:47									#15
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

spartans: I spent awhile trying to play Spartans as builders. I will add them to the list of factions that are good to ICS-tightly with. Low industry means more build queues == more built == only way past industry penalty (other than Planned).

Another thing to consider: How early will conflict occur? This affects base spacing for me.

Net Warrior has brought up the b-drone limit too. What's our strategy to go to the second b-drone limit and beyond? Even with base-space-space-base, we have enough space to pass this limit, especially in Planned....

	01-08-2004 16:05									#16
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Net Warrior I usually play the Peacekeepers and go vertical and cross the bdrone limit much later on. I've heard of the tight spacing-borehole-condensor scheme before but have never tried it. Since the Gaians seem perfect for it, I'm ready to give it a try.

As CT nicely lists, the Gaians reasons for tight-spacing are not really as strong as other factions. The thing is, tight spacing is pretty much the best strategy, win-wise, for all factions. It's too bad it's so heavily stronger than alternate strategies, but there ya go. I'd add another reason Gains do thrive with this strategy: Fungus. We can eat it. 99% of potential base sites are viable for us, even with the PTS! A base == another former, which can quickly turn a fungus-base into something more useful. speaking of which, we need to consider clearing some base sites in/near the ruins fairly soon.

Some possible weaknesses of tight spacing:

• Unable to claim all territory available b/c other factions encroach too early.
  
• Vulnerable to quick assaults in the early game. A rover can take 3 undefended bases in one turn, if they are really close
  
• Vulnerable in the mid-game while crawler heavy, but without satellites. Dead crawlers == dead bases.
  
• Inability to deal properly with b-drones, if not used to this, or have no plan
  
• mid-game mineral shortage annoyance till mining stations
  
• vulnerability to ODP crippling empire
  
• Ugly
  
• Getting Stuck, like Skanky Burns example, at 5 population for too long...
  

	01-08-2004 17:50									#17
	Support Apolyton

The easiest way I find to deal with most of the problems of ICS is to leave some holes, which could accept bases but don't have them. These holes tend to be mediocre base sites, or difficult to found bases in, such as a fungus or rocky base site, a pothole lake, or maybe just a lack of moisture. This increases the workable tile count of all adjacent bases, and can be filled in later once they don't need to work so many tiles.

In particular, in one game as the Uni, I basically used Sikander spacing up until orbitals, then filled in all the unused base sites, exploding up the power charts.

As far as bdrones go, we should pause at the bdrone limit, and make sure all bases can cope with gaining a drone. Then, expand without bound. Police and rec commons take care of 3 drones, and if we aren't yet running Demo, we can build first-turn police at new bases. Should we get the PTS, we can rush rec commons. PTS with Demo, we can first rush the rec commons to 10 minerals, at modest expense (~20 ECs) and then the following turn rush it to completion, for about 40 ECs more.