Since no one else is jumping on this, I probably should.
Base placement. Each base extends 2 squares from the base center in each direction. The object of the game if you are not a noob like me is to make it to where no two base's square overlap.
Since no one else is jumping on this, I probably should.
Base placement. Each base extends 2 squares from the base center in each direction. The object of the game if you are not a noob like me is to make it to where no two base's square overlap.
Not always. Having bases overlap minimally without "wasting" any space is also a viable strategy; the result of such looks like this:
SSSSBSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSS
SSBSSSSBSS
SSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSS
SSSSBSSSSS
And if you're going for a momentum game to try to win early on (so you're not building many facilities anyway), it can be worth putting them far closer together for the early advantage.
What's so bad about base overlap? I always have some, and usually a significant amount. Do you restrict yourself from using supply crawlers?
What's so bad about base overlap? I always have some, and usually a significant amount. Do you restrict yourself from using supply crawlers?
Base overlap means you can't grow your bases as high without supply crawlers; since crawlers bring in only 1 resource per square, they're not all that good a use of territory outside specialized situations such as mining rocky squares or farm/enricher/condenser.
This is true to a degree but sort of irrelevant. Crawlers are great from the early-to-midgame although there usefulness can drop off late depending on your terraforming strategy.
But there is nothing that disadvantageous to having somewhat smaller bases and a whole lot to recommend for some sort of overlap.
This is true to a degree but sort of irrelevant. Crawlers are great from the early-to-midgame although there usefulness can drop off late depending on your terraforming strategy.
Even in the early-to-midgame, they're not that great. To compare various terraforming strategies in that area:
-Farm/solar (early game): Crawlers are worth a maximum of 2, working the tile is typically 3-4.
-Farm/solar (after Gene Splicing): Crawlers are worth a maximum of 3, working the tile is typically 1-2 above crawlers.
-Farm/solar (after environmental economics, with advanced terraforming): A square will typically be 3 nut/0-1 min/5-6 energy. That's 5-6 from a crawler, but 8-10 from working it.
-Forest (before tree farm): Crawlers are worth 2, working is worth 4.
-Forest (after tree farm): Crawlers are worth 2, working is worth 5.
-Mine/road on rocky: This is where crawlers are actually fairly good.
-Borehole: Crawlers are worth 6, but working it is worth 12.
-Energy parks: Depends on the layout, but crawlers are generally worth 6 if you use a medium-former-time-intensive layout. They can't be worked (bases interrupt the layout), but compare to 8-10 for farm/solar.
But there is nothing that disadvantageous to having somewhat smaller bases and a whole lot to recommend for some sort of overlap.
The problem with all this is that if you are playing optimally you will have many terraformed squares that will be unworked because your growth will be outpaced by your terraformers. I would rarely advocate crawling nuts or energy early game unless you have a really good square. You definitely should not (and cant) build energy parks in the early game. You're mostly using crawlers to boost your mineral output so you can get your industry rolling quickly and start snagging those important SPs (which can be be sped along by sending crawlers to said base).
I'd love to hear it. It would have to be a powerful argument to convince me that overlapping isnt optimal base placement. ;)
Actually, I believe there is an advantage to using many, many crawlers. Once you're past technicians and librarians and have moved on to engineers and thinkers, you get the ability to choose whether your population units are producing (for example) 3 nutrients + 2 mineral + 2 energy on the one hand, or 3 energy + 2 research (engineer), the equivalent of five energy per unit.
And once you're putting up things like genejack factories and quantum converters, you don't want all your base's potential minerals anyway, not unless you're trying to sink the world, anyway.
So for me, the ideal endgame base has the majority of the living population living a specialist's life, with a few bringing as many minerals (along with the nutrients and energy) as the base can safely process, and crawlers bringing in massive amounts of food to support massive numbers of specialists.
Actually, I believe there is an advantage to using many, many crawlers. Once you're past technicians and librarians and have moved on to engineers and thinkers, you get the ability to choose whether your population units are producing (for example) 3 nutrients + 2 mineral + 2 energy on the one hand, or 3 energy + 2 research (engineer), the equivalent of five energy per unit.
By that point, you can get a lot more than 3/2/2 if you're willing to put in the former time.QuoteAnd once you're putting up things like genejack factories and quantum converters, you don't want all your base's potential minerals anyway, not unless you're trying to sink the world, anyway.
Or are playing with revised ecodamage rules so that ecodamage isn't as much an all-or-nothing affair.QuoteSo for me, the ideal endgame base has the majority of the living population living a specialist's life, with a few bringing as many minerals (along with the nutrients and energy) as the base can safely process, and crawlers bringing in massive amounts of food to support massive numbers of specialists.
Endgame (say, after transcendi) is another story; I have been persuaded that crawlers should be the best choice by that point (though the resulting focus on single-resource squares is still undesirable).
Early to midgame are where crawlers truly shine. By the endgame crawlers will not be used nearly as much.
Yeah the extreme version is basically have nothing but condenser farms and boreholes; crawl the nuts and work the boreholes.
Several threads are here, so just to Green1 and others who worry about their overlap: very often it can have more pros than cons. Vulturesrow is right about the way you want to treat your terrain (i.e. crawl food, work b-holes). Besides, early overlap can give you a nice turn advantage - more tech points -> earlier CE -> more forest, etc. I almost always dump my second base 2 tiles away from the HQ. The third one is usually not far away, either.
The advantage closer bases have in terms of defence and stopping enemies from capturing them is that since they are so close together its easy to withdraw units from and enforce bases, effectively base hopping.
You can slow down an enemy base by base with this, and put lots of focus in defencive upgrades for those close bases. The bases are merely there in these situations more as "Fuel" depots, minor mineral supplements for troops, fortresses and just base of operations for coordinated military defence. This isn't a strategy I use if I am making economical hubs with large populations, more so for early defence or making bases at chokepoints and near enemy territory,
But doesn't it also allow the attacker to shift the attack from one base to another more easily?Not if you place them correctly: As said I use this strategy for chokepoints, area's where mobility is limited. Such as a land bridge, where enemies are forced to channel through that piece of land, and if they use naval units to cross then they are vulnerable to any sea patrols I may have. (Plus it might not be a total ocean, might just be a pinch of water.) And air travel is costly and doesn't happen until later on, and by then if I were using this strategy I would have interceptors or other anti air.
If so, wouldn't just a single base of operations for each front be more effective, as that way you don't have to split your forces?
Not if you place them correctly: As said I use this strategy for chokepoints, area's where mobility is limited. Such as a land bridge, where enemies are forced to channel through that piece of land, and if they use naval units to cross then they are vulnerable to any sea patrols I may have. (Plus it might not be a total ocean, might just be a pinch of water.) And air travel is costly and doesn't happen until later on, and by then if I were using this strategy I would have interceptors or other anti air.
The bases are placed strategically so as to limit enemy movement, and its hard for the enemy to push forward when they have to punch through constant lines of defences. Think of it like a trench system, and I'll refer to the First World War. The majority of that conflict was at a standstill because both sides dug in and created fortified trench systems, and they would have multiple trenches behind them as well to withdraw to, just in case they had to withdraw. It is a similar concept here.
Not necessarily, it might be a larger front I need to protect, and if you are playing Hive or you are like me with Drones and you can maximize industry to pump out units, especially colony pods it isn't a big deal making bases. Plus I am not putting all my forces all throughout these bases, I might just have a minimal garrison for the ones behind the frontline, and if the frontline falls and I lose that base the enemy gets a scanty, scrawny base and now is surrounded by numerous other smaller bases. Not only that if I know I am going to lose a base I might just evacuate it, and withdraw all my units to the other bases. Its a sort of elastic defence, when you know the first trench is going to be overrun you retreat to the next one and you keep grinding the enemy. This tactic is brutal and often drags out combat but it keeps my losses much lower then the enemy, as the enemy has to spend many lives on capturing near worthless bases.
edit: Note, should have clarified this, I try not to make multiple bases for each line of defence, I limit the amount of bases as small as I can. The max amount of bases I might have for a line is two or three. And even then its pushing it, I'll take a screenshot so you get the picture a bit clearer, my apologies.
Ah, I see. So the basic idea is that this isn't really ICS, but rather using close-packed bases (probably with no facilities other than perimeter defense etc.) as a fortress line.
Of course, it does take up land that would otherwise find more productive use, but you do need defense somehow...