 |
| |
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErikM
Another project whose value imho is vastly overrated is the Weather Paradigm. It has several effects:
(i) formers work 50% faster - no, they do not  Consider a typical terraforming task in early game - planting a forest.
Say, flat and arid square.
Former deploys - 1 turn with or without WP.
Former builds road - 1 turn with or without WP.
Former plants forest - 4 turns without WP; 3 turns with WP.
Overall terraforming time is 6 turns without WP vs 5 turns with WP. Nothing to write home about.
Same task for a rolling square is 7 turns without WP vs 6 turns with WP, which is even worse for WP.
(ii) WP allows you to build advanced terraforming projects, which is excellent, but at this stage at the game your formers time is probably better invested towards building forests anyway. At any rate, with a fast research faction you probably cannot get WP much earlier than 30s and you'll probably get EnvEcon in 50s so the window of opportunity is rather small.
(iii) Later on, you can drill a borehole in 16 turns with WP vs 24 turns without, which is quite substantial but at a cost of 200mins spent towards WP you can build extra 7 clean formers which would net you roughy the same effect.
Of course, with blind research the value of WP increases quite substantially. Overall, good project - all early projects are great really - but not in the same league as HGP/VW (for me at least).
Just my $0.02. |
Gang Teraforming.
I used to ignore the WP and concentrate more on the other SPs until I really started to work on my teraforming. In my most recent games almost all my bases have at least 2 boreholes, many have three, and a couple may have four. I also will use a lot of farm/condenser squares.
Consider the example you gave above but instead of using one former, work with using groups of 4 to 8 (or more) teraformers together (some of them on rover chassis). Your first former on the scene (rover chassis) makes the road; the following formers make the borehole. You can work similarly fast making a farm/condenser + soil enricher (when available) all in one turn. WP allows you to do the work a lot quicker with fewer formers. I have heard the term 'turn advantage' and WP definitely gives you a lot of that.
If I was playing Zak I would choose VW over WP but I would still want WP over all the other early SPs.
Mead
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mead
Gang Teraforming.
Consider the example you gave above but instead of using one former, work with using groups of 4 to 8 (or more) teraformers together (some of them on rover chassis). Your first former on the scene (rover chassis) makes the road; the following formers make the borehole. You can work similarly fast making a farm/condenser + soil enricher (when available) all in one turn. WP allows you to do the work a lot quicker with fewer formers. I have heard the term 'turn advantage' and WP definitely gives you a lot of that.
If I was playing Zak I would choose VW over WP but I would still want WP over all the other early SPs.
|
I respectfully disagree.
Nothing prevents you from gang terraforming with or without WP.
3 formers without WP will build a borehole in the same number of turns (8) as 2 formers with WP. So you just need 1.5 times as many formers to get the same results.
In practice, you'll need even less due to overhead costs of moving formers around as I have mentioned before.
Rover formers in your example do not benefit from WP at all - they'll build a road on a flat square in a single turn and on a rolling square in 2 turns whether or not you have WP.
So WP allows you to accomplish the same task using fewer formers.
But WP is not free - it costs 200 minerals and you can invest these 200 minerals elsewhere, for instance, building extra 10 formers (if support allows) or 7 clean formers. So whether WP is financially worthwhile depends entirely on the intended size of your empire.
For tiny/small maps, where you'll probably end up with 6-12 cities, WP will probably never pay off. For huge maps and 50+ cities it will of course offer substantial savings but even in this case the time-saving effect of WP is easily replicated through other means. You'll use quantity instead of quality so to speak. And it only takes one turn to build a clean former in most cities at the point in the game where you actually benefit from boreholes.
In contrast, HGP vastly simplifies drone control in the early game and, more importantly, allows you to maintain golden ages at odd city sizes regardless of the number of B-drones, something that cannot be accomplished by any other means.
VW will keep your empire financially solvent by avoiding the upkeep cost for those overpriced holo theaters and saves you minerals required to actually build them.
In my opinion, both of these projects are much, much better than WP. PEG in my opinion is also a better project and PTS may or may not be better than WP depending on circumstances.
For me, WP is in the same class as the Command Nexus and Merchant Exchange - nice to have but not essential.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErikM
I respectfully disagree.
1. Nothing prevents you from gang terraforming with or without WP.
2. 3 formers without WP will build a borehole in the same number of turns (8) as 2 formers with WP. So you just need 1.5 times as many formers to get the same results.
3. In practice, you'll need even less due to overhead costs of moving formers around as I have mentioned before.
4. Rover formers in your example do not benefit from WP at all - they'll build a road on a flat square in a single turn and on a rolling square in 2 turns whether or not you have WP.
So WP allows you to accomplish the same task using fewer formers.
But WP is not free - it costs 200 minerals and you can invest these 200 minerals elsewhere, for instance, building extra 10 formers (if support allows) or 7 clean formers. So whether WP is financially worthwhile depends entirely on the intended size of your empire.
5. For tiny/small maps, where you'll probably end up with 6-12 cities, WP will probably never pay off. For huge maps and 50+ cities it will of course offer substantial savings but even in this case the time-saving effect of WP is easily replicated through other means. You'll use quantity instead of quality so to speak. And it only takes one turn to build a clean former in most cities at the point in the game where you actually benefit from boreholes.
***
6. VW will keep your empire financially solvent by avoiding the upkeep cost for those overpriced holo theaters and saves you minerals required to actually build them.
***
7. For me, WP is in the same class as the Command Nexus and Merchant Exchange - nice to have but not essential. |
1. True. You just get the benefits far quicker. I want my formers to make the improvement quickly so I can start reaping the benefits quickly. Then I want them to make another improvement quickly and so on.
2. That's a big difference. The bigger the map the bigger the difference.
3. Try to plan your moves so that your formers have work to do after they finish the square they are on without using their full movement (i.e. two squares on a road). Much like troops should not be marching when they should be fighting, formers should not be moving when they should be working. You can also reduce the movement loss by doing everything you want on the square at once (farm/condenser/soil enricher) before moving your gang 1/3 of a move (one square down a road to start on a borehole followed by another 1/3 move (another square on the road) for another farm/condenser/soil enricher).
4. Yes, but they do cut down on the movement inefficiency.
5. I almost always play on huge maps. I agree the smaller the map the less valuable the SP. Just like the fewer the cities you have the less value those SPs like VW, CB, CF. One the current SMAX game I am just about finishing now (SMAX, Trans, Huge) I have at least six distinct teams working. I think the biggest has about 12; it tends to make a borehole every turn.
6. If playing Zak I will take VW over WP, otherwise I have to build a net node to take advantage of it (which I would do if I got it). Now, if I was playing against Zak I might be more inclined go after VW to deprive him of it.
7. WP is definitely more important than Command Nexus or ME. I can usually live without the Command Nexus easily (losing the Cyborg Factory would hurt) but not without the Cloudbase Acedemy as easily. I like airpower far more than ground. I like the ME if I am going to put it in my SSC, but I can still make a pretty good SSC without the ME.
Mead
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CEO Aaron
|
 |
Everything has its price. Even you.
Aug 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
With all due respect, Erik, you're just _dead wrong_. WP effectively increases the amount of terraforming power you have fielded by 50%, and the more terraformers you field, the more you benefit. And while 200 minerals can buy you 10 formers, the WP doesn't cost upkeep, and by the time I reach the midgame, I'll have 12+ bases with ~5 formers each, so the Weather Paradigm will make my 60 formers into 90 formers.
In addition, lifting early terraforming restrictions allows me to build condensers, which let me harvest 4 nuts with a single former, long before I get around to building Gene splicing, which in turn means that my workers can harvest forests exclusively, increasing my mineral and energy output while still maintaining population growth.
If all you're doing with your formers is planting forests, then sure, you don't need WP. But if all you're doing with formers is planting forests, you're going to get left in the dust by someone who knows how to use the WP effectively.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Minute Mirage
|
|
Helsinki
Aug 2003
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Erik your point on relative beenift vis a vis movement loss is semi valid but for those of us who have learned the immeasurable value of land transports it isn't really a consdieration.
WP is always one of my top 2 or at worst 3rd projects to get. |
Regarding land transports, do you find them more useful than rover formers?
Btw, the way I avoid losing movement points is using terraform crediting. I move one former to the square to be terraformed and use it to build a road there. Meanwhile, the other former(s) wait by terraforming something, e.g. a solar collector. When the road is finished, the other former(s) can enter the square and keep all the terraforming they accumulated. I do not consider this a cheat since it's not forbidden in most MP rules, and even if it's forbidden it's only in the case of combat terraforming.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Minute Mirage
|
|
Helsinki
Aug 2003
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Net Warrior
MM,
I thought one of the patches fixed this bug. Formers could now only accumulated terraforming credit and use it on something else IN THE SAME SQUARE.
Can anyone else weigh in on this issue?
Net Warrior |
I have SMAX 2.0 and SMAC 5.0 (the newest patches), and terraforming works like I described.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
Wow, looks like I've opened a can of worms with my innocent observations. Let me address some points.
quote:
Originally posted by CEO Aaron
With all due respect, Erik, you're just _dead wrong_. WP effectively increases the amount of terraforming power you have fielded by 50%, and the more terraformers you field, the more you benefit. And while 200 minerals can buy you 10 formers, the WP doesn't cost upkeep, and by the time I reach the midgame, I'll have 12+ bases with ~5 formers each, so the Weather Paradigm will make my 60 formers into 90 formers.
|
In the very early game, I'm fine with 1 former per base (2 if Hive) which will be used almost exclusively to plant forests. Maybe even less if there are plenty of monoliths and other "pre-terraformed" squares. You don't need many terraformed squares early on, since your bases fluctuate between size 1 and size 2.
In the midgame... Well, define "midgame". Prior to EnvEcon and tree farms, most likely you are not going to exceed hab complex limits whether you are building condensors or not. Realistically, then, you need something like 4-5 terraformed squares per city. One former/city + freebie forest expansion easily allows you to accomplish this. Once I get Tree Farms, clean reactors are just around the corner (actually I sometimes beeline to clean reactors before EnvEcon). It takes one or two turns to build a clean former in most cities by then. I shoot for 2-3 formers/city with WP, so without WP I'd shoot for 3-4.
So if by building a WP I can transcend in year t, then without WP I should be able to transcend in (t+1) or (t+2) worst case due to extra time necessary to build extra formers to compensate for lack of WP. Hardly overwhelming.
5+ formers per city is way too much imho. Prior to clean reactor, you'll eat into your support and after clean reactors there are often better things to build. If you need 5+ formers/base. most likely you are not using your resources efficiently.
quote:
In addition, lifting early terraforming restrictions allows me to build condensers, which let me harvest 4 nuts with a single former, long before I get around to building Gene splicing, which in turn means that my workers can harvest forests exclusively, increasing my mineral and energy output while still maintaining population growth.
|
This is true, and I have mentioned in an earlier post that WP becomes more valuable in tech stag or blind research games. For directed research, though, and with a good research faction, I usually find that I get Gene Splicing at about the same time I'm in position to build WP anyway.
quote:
If all you're doing with your formers is planting forests, then sure, you don't need WP. But if all you're doing with formers is planting forests, you're going to get left in the dust by someone who knows how to use the WP effectively. |
I plant forest prior to EnvEcon. I may build a condensor or two with a WP if a particular city lacks nutrients, although ceteris paribus I'd rather build a kelp farm (cheaper). But it's not a tragedy if I cannot build them since after tree farms my growth problems will be solved anyway and before tree farms I'm not that eager to have big cities since most likely I will lack psych output necessary to keep them pacified.
I almost anticipate that at this point something is going to say "SPECIALISTS!!!". Convenient, not essential, imho. You'll accomplish the same task by crawlering some energy to your major science producers which circumvents the need for specialists. So crawlers allow you to do the same thing as your formers, albeit in a different way.
As for other terraforming options (namely, boreholes), they are largely useless before EnvEcon anyway (unless mineral/energy special that does not require raising/lowering terrain, but these squares are rare).
quote:
Originally posted by Chaos Theory
The HGP does not guarantee that you can induce golden ages, regardless of bureaucracy drones. For purposes of inducing a GA, it cancels two bureaucracy drones. If you have three in a city with the HGP, you can only get a golden age if it is even-sized. With four or more, no golden ages (all assuming Transcend difficulty and no other sources of talents).
|
True. I rarely expand to the point where I am getting 3+ B-drones, though. Even if I do, it will probably be at a time where Cloning Vats would be available soon. At which point my core cities would be already pop-boomed, so the extra drones are superficial. HGP is very useful for early growth though.
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Erik your point on relative beenift vis a vis movement loss is semi valid but for those of us who have learned the immeasurable value of land transports it isn't really a consdieration.
|
I don't understand "semi-valid". The point is either valid or not.
Land transports costs support. I personally think that a rover former used exclusively to build roads is more convenient. However, as I have mentioned, roadbuilders do not benefit from WP at all so their availability is not an argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Minute Mirage
Btw, the way I avoid losing movement points is using terraform crediting.
|
I use it too but I found that sometimes it works and sometimes it does not (ie former loses accumulated turns). Do you know the gory details on the actual mechanics of pre-terraforming?
I do my best to minimize overhead costs of moving formers around, but I doubt it can be completely eliminated.
===
Bottom line. I do not recall ever saying that WP is a piece of crap. It's a good SP but there are better projects. HGP I regard as essential and VW & PEG pay back faster than WP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Minute Mirage
|
|
Helsinki
Aug 2003
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErikM
I use it too but I found that sometimes it works and sometimes it does not (ie former loses accumulated turns). Do you know the gory details on the actual mechanics of pre-terraforming?
|
On the first turn you assign the terraforming task to the former and let it "grey out" normally. When you wish to activate it on a later turn, you have to wait until it has "greyed out". If you activate the former before it has done its terraforming for the turn, you lose at least some (if not all) of the accumulated terraforming. You have to be careful that the formers don't actually finish the terraforming task they are doing while waiting. This is why I usually give the formers different tasks if they are waiting in the same square.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
Thanks, MM.
BTW, on a unrelated note, I might get some free time next weekend or otherwise around Dec 20th, so if this works for you, we can try for a podless comparison game. Let's stay in touch.
Best,
-- ErikM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Minute Mirage
|
|
Helsinki
Aug 2003
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErikM
Thanks, MM.
BTW, on a unrelated note, I might get some free time next weekend or otherwise around Dec 20th, so if this works for you, we can try for a podless comparison game. Let's stay in touch.
Best,
-- ErikM |
I have my last exam on Dec 18th, after which I'm likely to have time to play SMAC again. We might want to decide the settings for the game before that, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErikM
I don't understand "semi-valid". The point is either valid or not.
Land transports costs support. I personally think that a rover former used exclusively to build roads is more convenient. However, as I have mentioned, roadbuilders do not benefit from WP at all so their availability is not an argument.
|
Semi-Valid in that you have assumed an equal waste of t-forming turns due to moves into a square. Not so always.
Land transports eliminate this turn wastage and although the hew and cry exists that it costs support Bah I say. All one needs is but 3 land transports. If 3 minerals lost due to support is too large a cost, well I dunno... seems a no-brainer to me.
As for use of rover chassis, a bit of a compromise perhaps but it still doesn't solve the moving into a rocky square dillemma. THis is where land transports shine (3 formers on 3 land transports) road a rocky in a single turn thereby allowing all the other formers to move immediately in and start the mines.
All these assume the same thing that the player is gang forming. In gang forming mode the formers are moving as a pack and all one really needs to be able to do is have enough land transports to allow enough (i.e. no more than 3) formers to move into a square and road it the same turn thus allowing all the formers the ability to terraform every turn be it road, forest or mine (later condensor/farm, road, and borhole.)
That being said your comparisons for purposes of foresting are skewed.
Regardless of whether you believe in land transports or not, the benefits of WP with respect to the expensive t-forming projects esp. roaded mines and boreholes is well worth the cost of the project.
WP becomes even more critical in importance the slower the tech rate. Ability to pop boom (via condensor farm), ability to raise land, etc. can be of immense value in a long slow game (read huge world or larger, techstag, etc.).
While I agree I typically look to HGP and PEG as two great great SP's WP is not that far behind and for a faction like Miriam often is my most sought after.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-11-2003 08:43
|