 |
| |
|
|
k.k.fly
|
|
i am so bugged and beg for your ideas.
In the follwing "six" social engieering trends: economy, support, growth, industry, research and efficiency. Which one is "the" most important when everyone is at peace. I still need to maintain a good number of force so the statistics screen says my forces is potent or at least formidable. And I have no clean-reactor technology yet.
economy: gives money, assoicated with energy
support: comsume minerals for additional units.
growth: nutrients and rates
industry: minearals.
research: associated with energy.
I believe, but in doubt, efficiency is the most important because it directly assoicates with energy, mineral and nutrients. For example, if i have +3 on efficency, and -1 "and/or" -2 on selective trends, is it still good?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
big_canuk
|
 |
Leamington, ON, Canada
Jul 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
Each area of SE becomes more important at different stages of the game. One must compromise, because obviously you cannot maximize them all. I only write a few ideas following. Much more can be added. Mould your SE choices into *your* style of play.
Economy.
You are right, that this is probably the most important generally in the game. The critical level is +2, but the higher the better, especially if you have lots of treaties or pacts for commerce income.
Support:
This is very important early game, when bases are only making a few minerals(don't go demo too early). Once you get supply crawlers, and can push minerals to ecodamage limits and beyond, then support becomes secondary to the other SE choices. Late game it may again become important in fielding a very large non-clean (therefore cheap) army, by getting to +3 support.
Growth:
This is extremely important very early game, to pump out colony pods. It is often achieved by keeping colony pod producing bases at size one or two. It then becomes (using my style), secondary to minerals, until one is able to pop boom. When pop booming of course growth must be at +6, with +2 nuts, and all else becomes secondary.
Industry:
Industry is very important early. There is a tradeoff between industry and economy for the rest of the game. One can always use 2 ecs for 1 min to buy facilities, and a few more for units. Often you can switch between cash(FM) to pile up ecs, and then industry(planned) to use the cash to rush build taking advantage of the better industry (and using the opportunity to pop boom for a few turns, and maybe complete an SP or two too) (remember to cash you crawlers *before* you switch to planned).
Research:
This one is a toughy. If you can be way out in front, then that is obviously the way to go. But if it is *very* close, then I would rather be a bit behind. That way tech is cheaper. That way you can spend a smaller percentage of your economy to keep pace. That way you have more to invest in the future. But using this tactic, you must be very careful to get to the key techs (for your style)first, for any SPs that you feel you must build. It is, IMHO, probably one of the most important aspects of the game.
Other SE choices may also be important in various circumstances.
If you have the tech lead, you may wish to protect it by boosting probe rating. In special circumstances, you may wish to boost efficiency to say go 100% labs, to nab that tech, and therefore SP, thus beating your opponent by one turn (this has the side benefit of being able to switch from green back to planned to boost the return from crawler cashing). In times of war, elite units are if not a must, then at least make waging it far easier. Elite infantry are *the* late game unit.
Be creative with SE. Once ecs are flowing don't be afraid to switch for a short term to accomplish something. You will fare much better and then be able to get back on track (or at least avoid being destroyed altogether).
In a recent MP game as Morgan, I had a bad start and was playing catchup. I had neglected my military a bit too much. I was about to take the tech lead, and my tech rate was double my main opponent (Gaians). I noticed the PBs getting built. (I had just infiltrated one turn before he built the HSA in smac using *8* probes to get the job done, whew) Soon after he built the PB, and then came the "sneak" attack. I was able to use crawler/trawler shields to deflect the PB from my SCC. Then the SE stuff. I was running DEM/FM/Knowledge probably the most preferred builder setting (My few noodles were in an all specialist base). He bought an outlying base so the first switch was to fundy, for probe and moral. Then I switched to power for again morale, and to avoid the negative of knowledge's probe rating. This whacked my research but it was still a bit better than his, and I had the lead by that turn. Then I switched to green!, for planet rating against his worms, and for efficiency, and to get a few more workers to replace crawlers. I build mostly units, many of them shells. I got the CV, and replaced my crawlers with workers.
Many of my specialists were empaths for ecs, and psych (more workers). One I got cybernetic, I went 100% economy for a while! Low and behold, he *had* to follow suit, and boost his economy too, lest I surpass him militarily. Once I got the Nano Factory for cheap upgrades, I quickly surpassed him militarily, and used shells, cheaply upgraded to win.
I thought I was going to loose. I had 1/2 as many bases as he had. I was forced into my SE choices. But they proved fruitful. A fundy/green/power/cybernetic Morgan. Who would have thought of that?
Be creative and experimentitive with your SE choices. They are one of the richest parts of this game. A great part of what makes it great. A great reason why the Artificial Idiot can't compete. A reason why MP is so rewarding and enjoyable.
Have fun!
bc
|
|
| |
|
|
|
k.k.fly
|
|
I am sorry for not making my question clear.
I assume the game is at middle stage? where weapon 12, armor 4, hovertanks, aircrafts have been invented. All fraction are powerful with 10 cities at least although I slightly have more military forces, yet barely influenced all of them to go peace.
Actually my question is (efficiency) vs (economy, growth, support, industry, research).
if you go into any base building screen, efficiency is assoicated with nutrients, energy and mineals as a whole.
efficiency=energy,nutrients,minerals
while
economy=energy
growth=nutrients
support=minerals
industry=minerals
research=energy
 so is effiency more important.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
Like everything else in this game the answer is that it depends
LOW Efficiency has 3 major effects
1. Econ and labs losses if you attempt to diverge from the 50-50 allocation
2. Energy inefficiency losses for distant bases
3. Additional bureacracy drones as you pass certain threshold number of bases
I'm not quite sure why you equate efficiency with nuts and minerals . . .
there is little point in getting huge amounts of energy coming in only to lose it to inefficiency. So you want to maintain a reasonably high efficiency rating. However with only 10 bases, it will not be as important as when you have a larger, more widespread empire.
you can find yourself in situations where efficiency can almost be ignored-- Specialists-- Sometimes i have a number of bases that crawl sufficient resources and then drone control, labs and economy are all boosted by the use of specialists.
Later game, when you want to go 100% Labs . . . now thats a time when I stress efficiency
They did a poll once on which was the most important. I don't recall what won but perhaps it was efficiency. Personally i see growth as the most important at a number of stages of the game. But given the ability to pop boom, its no big deal if the growth rating is in the crapper for a while.
If you think efficiency is paramount, consider that the Hive will spend almost all their days in PS and will almost never have a positive efficiency rating yet are quite playable as a faction since the benfits of plusses in other areas balance some efficiency losses
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
k.k.fly
|
|
Let's say a base is producing 10 minerals a turn. that 10 minerals go directly into production. On social engieering, there is +1 Industry.
how many minerals are actually produced in "sum" per turn for that city?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yxklyx
|
|
Industry just changes the cost of building something - not the number of minerals generated by a base.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
Thats correct which is why the Drones can be so powerful in Planned wealth-- The plus 4 industry makes a 100 shield build go to 60-- much easier to build and much cheaper to rush
|
|
| |
|
|
|
k.k.fly
|
|
so basically it is a discount on cost of producing goodies.
In that case, on military basis, Santiago's +2 morale is better than my beloved Hive's +1 industry. Quality? Quantitiy? oh well... lol
|
|
| |
|
|
|
k.k.fly
|
|
but if you manage to build the commanding nexus project, you can heal your veteran units in one turn, which is so important for me all the time, and it gives additional +2 morale booast, and can add "trained" later on.
I have killed 2 units of same kind using one unit, but of course for instance if you use an morale booasted aircraft attacking an unit with AAA or SAM, it is not gonna go very far.
my new question would be: is arty useful? please, arty experts, share your stories or strategies.
second question is: if you add a ground unit with arty ability, but if engaged in a melee combat, is there a bonus or plenty for combat rating because of added arty ability?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yxklyx
|
|
I basically only ever use Democracy/Police State, Free Market/Green, and Knowledge. Planned is only good for Yang and POP booms. Fundamentalist is pretty worthless except for Miriam. I don't like Wealth and Power at all. The morale and industry penalty for the two are nasty. Of the Future's, Cybernetic is the most useful though Eudaimonic's industry bonus is nice to help build those last projects.
Wealth would be best for the Spartans if they didn't have the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm BUT they can't use it. Power would be nice for Domai I suppose.
In SMAC2, I think the SE choices need to be tweaked. First, the HSA should not be as powerful or add two new projects that cancel the negative effects of Wealth and Power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
moi
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yxklyx
I basically only ever use Democracy/Police State, Free Market/Green, and Knowledge. Planned is only good for Yang and POP booms. Fundamentalist is pretty worthless except for Miriam. I don't like Wealth and Power at all. The morale and industry penalty for the two are nasty. Of the Future's, Cybernetic is the most useful though Eudaimonic's industry bonus is nice to help build those last projects.
Wealth would be best for the Spartans if they didn't have the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm BUT they can't use it. Power would be nice for Domai I suppose.
In SMAC2, I think the SE choices need to be tweaked. First, the HSA should not be as powerful or add two new projects that cancel the negative effects of Wealth and Power. |
the cloning vats eliminates the negative effects of power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yxklyx
I basically only ever use Democracy/Police State, Free Market/Green, and Knowledge. Planned is only good for Yang and POP booms. Fundamentalist is pretty worthless except for Miriam. I don't like Wealth and Power at all. The morale and industry penalty for the two are nasty. Of the Future's, Cybernetic is the most useful though Eudaimonic's industry bonus is nice to help build those last projects.
Wealth would be best for the Spartans if they didn't have the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm BUT they can't use it. Power would be nice for Domai I suppose.
In SMAC2, I think the SE choices need to be tweaked. First, the HSA should not be as powerful or add two new projects that cancel the negative effects of Wealth and Power. |
Some good ideas but I confess that I often take the opposite approach . You suggest
Domai --- power
Spartans-- wealth
as examples when the "bad" SE choices may be used. In both instances you have negated a factions bonuses and disadvantages with those SE choices.
While I agree Domai can run power, I am just as likely to have a run in Planned/wealth to reach +4 industry. and even if the spartans could run wealth, I would only spend small periods of time in it since the ability to produce high morale units is THE best attribute of the spartans. Both suggestions tend to "normalize" factions toward more neutral attributes while I tend to favor accentuating advantages-- you know, cult or gaians go green while the Hive and drones spend a lot of time in Planned/wealth etc.
The only SE choice I have not found a consistent use for is power. By the time I am warring I usually have a couple of bases with morale enhancing facilities such that elite units are possible without it. Police state is heaven as Yang but for the rest it can be difficult, although I have used it in the early game for drone control and faster builds.
I micromanage the heck out of my empires and have found uses on a regular bases for all the rest of the choices. I thought I would outline my uses of a few that are in disfavor with the writer above
Wealth-- most useful when not building units or fighting a major war-- in fact in those circumstances it has no negatives since if you are not fighting right now, the morale of your units is no big deal. I use it frequently while building and rushing as many facilities and SPs as possible. The +1 Economy bonus often leads to suprising benefits that can compensate for any efficiency loss for leaving knowledge
Planned-- I use it early game to speed growth when I am rushing Colony pods as soon as possible. In the early stages, getting a base out two turns earlier is definitely worth the minimal efficiency losses at thie stage. I use it to boom (obvious) and I often go planned for a while when in the facility building stage when the decreased facility cost has a bigger impact than any efficiency losses from the switch. I do find that this choice is the one I switch the most as FM and Green can both be very attractive -- In essence, green has "no negatives" once your bases are at available hab limits and we all know that FM run properly can break a game open.
Fundy-- It took me a while to appreciate fundy and there are times when it is pretty useless (ie I have all the morale enhancing facilities and can generate elite units without SE help or when I have no plans to start probe actions ). But there are times when a switch to fundy can be huge when warring. Build a bunch of probe teams and go fundy to steal bases and units.
I am probably not explaining myself well but I have found uses for the vast majority of SE choices. The only setting I tend to stay in long term is "Democracy" and I have shifted out of that if a war or probe campaign looms on the horizon. FM/Planned/Green are all attractive while with power/Knowledge/wealth I go between knowledge and wealth with wealth giving way to knowledge more as the game progresses with the exception of switches to cheapen builds.
Last edited by Flubber on 22-01-2002 at 04:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vitamin j
|
|
As an aside to what Flubber was saying, I'd just add that wealth can also get you +1 energy per square if you reach a golden age in your bases. You may have to jack up your psych allocation until you get it going, but you can usually adjust it back down once the energy starts rolling in. It's the only way Deirdre can get +1 energy/square (before late game), and other factions (except Cult and Hive, I think) can use it to simulate free market, without the police and planet problems.
I agree -2 morale can hurt, but also consider that your units are that much cheaper.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
k.k.fly
|
|
So how often do you shift the pysc, lab and econ thing at the bottom of the social engineering screen?
I only do that until I've finished all the research, then change econ to 100%.
Secondly, if you shift the meter, in the manual it says some resources are going to go 'wasted' for few turns. My question is, for example you change to lab 60%, pysc 20% and econ 20%. (While still making a little positive money to pay base maintenance cost) Will the benefit you gain from changing meter overcome those 'wasted' resources?
Apparently I don't really have a clear idea what am I asking, but curious if other people have did some research on the pysc, lab and econ thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by k.k.fly
So how often do you shift the pysc, lab and econ thing at the bottom of the social engineering screen?
I only do that until I've finished all the research, then change econ to 100%.
Secondly, if you shift the meter, in the manual it says some resources are going to go 'wasted' for few turns. My question is, for example you change to lab 60%, pysc 20% and econ 20%. (While still making a little positive money to pay base maintenance cost) Will the benefit you gain from changing meter overcome those 'wasted' resources?
Apparently I don't really have a clear idea what am I asking, but curious if other people have did some research on the pysc, lab and econ thing. |
I tinker a lot with the labs/econ allocation but its usually at 50/50 unless my efficiency rating is higher.
At +4 efficiency you acheive a paradigm economy and will have 0 losses due to shifting allocations so at that time feel free to shift at will. With this type of efficiency I will swing my allocations wildly. I might go 100% labs for a few turns to get a key advance and then go 100% econ for a turn or two to allow the quick rush-build of a newly available facility (ie fusion labs or hab domes).
At negative or zero efficiency I usually find that switching from equal labs/econ allocation is a waste of time since the allocation losses negate any benefit. With other positive efficiencies less than 4 I tinker with it as I see fit and check the F2 display a lot. Whenever possible I up the research even for just a turn or two if it will get the advance a turn quicker.
I usually check the allocations every 2-3 turns to see the effect of various settings up or down.
Psych allocation is something I don't frequently use much unless I am trying to create a golden age. If drones are a problem I will usually live with having a doctor at a base or two until better facilities/police take care of the problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yxklyx
|
|
O.K. I've experimented with Planned some more and it does work very well at the beginning of the game. Was playing Miriam and was able to crank out lots of units very fast. As long as I didn't build anything that required maintenance (like Recreation Commons) I was able to make some money which I could later use for upgrades. Several bases were just Stockpiling Energy (as far as I can tell Stockpiling is not effected by Inefficiency). Now, I'm running Democracy/Planned (don't have Fundamentalism yet)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2002 05:33
!!!
|