 |
Should these boreholes be constructed?
This poll is closed. |
| Red: Yes |
   |
7 |
53.85% |
| Red: No |
   |
6 |
46.15% |
| Red: Write-in |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Red: Xenobanana |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Blue: Yes. |
   |
8 |
61.54% |
| Blue: No. |
   |
5 |
38.46% |
| Blue: Write-in |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Blue: Xenobanana |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Total: |
13 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|
Cedayon
|
|
Yes to both of course, we need the economic and industrial boost.
On a related note: has anyone given thought to constructing boreholes outside of any base's radii (avoiding terraform eco-damage) and crawling them for energy (avoiding mineral eco-damage)? Crawling most/all of the energy to one base (the capital, most likely) combined with suitable research facilities, for example, could really give our labs a boost.
I realize this is a large undertaking and would take many former/turns (and is cause for ecological concern whether or not it actually causes fungal blooms), but the energy would be worth it IMHO. Particularly if we choose to not go FM.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cedayon
|
|
Ah, right *writes that one down*, good for fairly large areas. What about small areas like that 3 square bit in the screenshot, would a borehole fit in any of those? Or would it still be more efficient to build collectors/mirrors there? I think it would depend on whether or not it's ok to extend the energy park into the surrounding within-radii squares. Then again it could be irrelevant if we have enough large areas available.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cedayon
|
|
Agreed on the energy park thing, there's one thing that puzzles me though:
quote: Originally posted by Archaic
Boreholes crawled contribute to Eco-damage too afterall | Even if they're outside city radii and crawled for energy and not minerals? That would kill the idea pretty quick... but I remember playing a game some time ago (SMAC, not X) where I had some 40-50 boreholes on a large plain (terraformed up from the seabed) all outside my radii (perhaps even outside my territory) crawled for energy sent to my capital. I was getting 1-2 techs a turn, but I don't recall seeing terribly many fungal blooms or worm assaults or the usual effects of massive eco-damage that one would expect from 40-50 boreholes, however.
Was this changed in a patch, or am I just remembering wrong?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GeneralTacticus
|
 |
of Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2001 time: 15:25
|
|
quote: Unfortunatly not. However, if I remember correctly, they still make 5 energy each or some such. It's been a while since I've bothered to make an energy park in a game. However, the following pattern will generate more energy than any other.... |
I just ran a test using the Scenario Editor on the map that we're using (not the same game, though), and it seems to won't be very efficient to turn the central area into an energy park - the maximum it will produce per turn is 5 energy, which is less than a single borehole will produce, so it would probably be more efficient to just drill a single boreholes, crawl it, and leave the other two tiles as forest to help contain the ecodamage.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cedayon
|
|
The capital (and pretty much all my bases) had essentially everything that current tech permitted, including TFs/HFs and copious amounts of SC's. The borehole field was many, many squares away, though, and probably outside my territory (ie not within 20 squares of any of my bases or whatever the area is). What determines which base gets hit with the eco-damage for a borehole (and thus could alleviate that damage with HFs) if the borehole isn't in the city radii?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Main_Brain
|
|
Economic World Center
Jul 2002 time: 06:25
|
|
As I always say: you cant have enough Boreholes
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|