Supply crawlers, need some opinions

[Yitzi]

If convoys have negligible travel time and it's just extraction that's the issue then the distance shouldn't matter, and if the travel time is not negligible then there should be an actual turn delay.

Yes, I suppose a crawler that is working a tile represents continuous transport. We don't see the trucks going back and forth -- which makes the screen less busy, less like Command & Conquer's crystal harvesters.

The tiles worked by citizens in SMAX surely contain transport equipment. We don't see them shuttling resources. This is good, if you prefer less movement on your screen.

But we do see a direct transfer of minerals when a crawler is cashed in towards a Secret Project or Prototype. So SMAX has a hybrid system for transferring minerals (and 1 unit of production for base-to-base convoys).

In the end, what changes to convoys would make the game more fun and interesting to play?

Well, if you can program crawlers to automatically harvest and return to base when full, that would be great. A fully loaded crawler would be a high priority target, which you must protect with an AAA Squad.

But for now, I'd like to see the base-to-base convoy be more useful. If Sparta Command is thriving and Bunker 357 is suffering, I want to do something about it! <Santiago cares deeply.> Sure, I can send a terraformer to plant a forest or use credits to hurry production, but sending 4 minerals per turn (instead of the current limit of 1) would be worth the investment in a supply crawler.

A simple transfer limit could be this: no more than 50% of a city's production can be convoyed. More sophisticated limits--as are being discussed here-- would be welcome, too.

Fortunately for you, the ability to make base-to-base convoy useful is planned as the major addition for 2.6.  (That'll probably also be the version where I replace the "exempt retool type" system with two tiers, so that you can, for instance, have a 50% penalty when retooling anything except project-to-project, and 20% when retooling project-to-project.)

[Nexii]

That would be nice to have re: retooling penalties.  There could be 9 tiers actually (unit, SP, facility) to (unit, SP, facility).  Granted 3 of those could probably be eliminated, logically SP -> unit is pretty similar to unit -> SP for example.

I think the below convoy-patrol/move mechanic only makes sense if the convoy 'charges' up excess nutrient/mineral/energy production for X turns before setting out.  I'd rather see a fire and forget system like the current but improved to be useful.  The game is already so heavily focused on former micro.  Adding a huge level of the same with crawlers...I'm not so sure.  Capping crawlers based on pop would help some.  Logically one can argue that it would take X workers to be able to consume/use the resources being convoyed in.  Another way to set a cap would be to limit a base's overall production based on pop.  Not sure if that would be more or less intuitive.

Something like a convoy just can shuttle X resources.  X modified by reactor linearly.  Then diminished by distance (EFFIC).  X should be roughly double what can be crawled else it won't be used.  So somewhere around X = 5. 

For that matter, one could argue crawled resources should be subject to distance (EFFIC) penalties as well.  Why for example is it 100% efficient to crawl energy from a border borehole/solar to your HQ? 

[Geo]

Why for example is it 100% efficient to crawl energy from a border borehole/solar to your HQ?

Less or no middle men?

[Yitzi]

That would be nice to have re: retooling penalties.  There could be 9 tiers actually (unit, SP, facility) to (unit, SP, facility).  Granted 3 of those could probably be eliminated, logically SP -> unit is pretty similar to unit -> SP for example.

It would be 16 tiers; satellites are a separate category from facilities.  6 could be eliminated, but that's still 10.  (Skunkworks would still eliminate the penalty for anything in-category.)  It could still be done, though, and is probably a good idea.

I think the below convoy-patrol/move mechanic only makes sense if the convoy 'charges' up excess nutrient/mineral/energy production for X turns before setting out.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I'd rather see a fire and forget system like the current but improved to be useful.

Me too, which is why the similar-to-current system is planned for 2.6, and the mechanic that requires them to actually move back and forth is substantially lower on the list.

Another way to set a cap would be to limit a base's overall production based on pop.  Not sure if that would be more or less intuitive.

Probably a bit more intuitive, but it doesn't give the nice tradeoff between base-to-base and square-to-base presented by the crawler cap approach (where base-to-base lets you get more production/nutrients/energy in a particular base but whatever you gain is lost from somewhere else, whereas square-to-base gives smaller boosts but they actually increase your empire-wide total.)

Something like a convoy just can shuttle X resources.  X modified by reactor linearly.  Then diminished by distance (EFFIC).  X should be roughly double what can be crawled else it won't be used.  So somewhere around X = 5.

I don't really see much benefit to that, and because of how the efficiency formula works, it encourages crawling base A to base B to base C instead of directly base A to base C, which I don't think is desired.

[Nexii]

'I think the below convoy-patrol/move mechanic only makes sense if the convoy 'charges' up excess nutrient/mineral/energy production for X turns before setting out.'

A crawler would have to sit in the base and collect up resources.  For example a base with +5 nutrients.  The crawler loads up 5 nutrients per turn.  After 10 turns it takes these 50 nutrients to another base.  Those 50 nutrients are then added to the new base.  One issue here is that often you'd only want +2 nutrients in the target base such as for population booming.  Generally N-convoying won't be that good unless the unload rate can be controlled.  For E-convoying, theres no benefit either unless the target base has multiplier facilities.  M-convoying, obviously is the most useful such as for SPs.  In general the excess loadup and transfer is not going to be that powerful as opposed to crawling.  Unless theres a multiplier involved, you benefit more by simply crawling the resource to begin with.  Now with a crawler per base cap, it would add a level but only if the convoyable amount exceeds that which you could crawl.  For example 4 minerals from a mine+road.  I think a base-to-base M convoy would have to be much more than 4 minerals/turn else I'm better off just crawling a mine with that crawler.  Anyways I do favor fire&forget base-to base, and a crawler/base cap over resource-limited cap.  But I am not so sure it'd really be the best overall fix.

I wondered if a better nerf to crawlers would be to make them (optionally) cost 1 population like a colony pod?  Essentially they function like an additional worker.  That's what makes them so good - there's no population drop or B-drones like a new city, or N-drones needing PSY/police.  The only cost is minerals & former time.  Nothing really beats dumping all minerals into crawlers pre-tree Farms.  And those crawlers get you the TFs fast, for the coming pop boom.  Now this is all okay but the issue is that it's the only viable strategy.  That's why I also wondered about a clean mineral cap that goes up/down more with base size.  If anything I kind of like this idea the more I think on it...it makes Pop-booming for longer, more important. 

Alternatively, perhaps crawling penalties could be broken out by resource and negated by certain techs?  Maybe this is a bit much, I'm not sure.  But it's hard to argue that early-game mineral crawling to the ecodmg cap, and later on 100% nutrient crawling are the only real options. 

[Yitzi]

A crawler would have to sit in the base and collect up resources.  For example a base with +5 nutrients.  The crawler loads up 5 nutrients per turn.  After 10 turns it takes these 50 nutrients to another base.  Those 50 nutrients are then added to the new base.  One issue here is that often you'd only want +2 nutrients in the target base such as for population booming.  Generally N-convoying won't be that good unless the unload rate can be controlled.

I think the best way is simply to say it unloads at the maximum it can use.  So if there's +6 GROWTH it will unload only enough to give it +2 surplus, and otherwise it will unload at the maximum rate (as faster unloading means faster growth.)  It does mean that if you want to keep it at stable nutrients without growing some micromanagement may be required...but that's a somewhat rare situation.

For E-convoying, theres no benefit either unless the target base has multiplier facilities.

Or multiplier projects.  Or (and here's where I think it would have the most use) is having drone problems and can use the psych.

M-convoying, obviously is the most useful such as for SPs.  In general the excess loadup and transfer is not going to be that powerful as opposed to crawling.  Unless theres a multiplier involved, you benefit more by simply crawling the resource to begin with.  Now with a crawler per base cap, it would add a level but only if the convoyable amount exceeds that which you could crawl.

Oh, that it definitely will if convoying from a halfway decent base and a small loss is acceptable.  But yes, the idea is that base-to-base crawling will often be a substantial percentage of the source base's minerals, so it'd be a lot more than you can get from crawling.

Anyways I do favor fire&forget base-to base, and a crawler/base cap over resource-limited cap.

Not sure what that means.

I wondered if a better nerf to crawlers would be to make them (optionally) cost 1 population like a colony pod?  Essentially they function like an additional worker.  That's what makes them so good - there's no population drop or B-drones like a new city, or N-drones needing PSY/police.

They'd still produce no drones and consume no nutrients, so much of the problem would remain (and if that's dealt with via a pop-based cap, having them use up population isn't necessary).  However, it's not a bad idea, I'll add it near the bottom of the list (with the alternate-style convoys.)

The only cost is minerals & former time.  Nothing really beats dumping all minerals into crawlers pre-tree Farms.

Not true.  Crawling a forest returns a bit over 5% per turn (at 5% per turn, formers cost 1 plus 1 support per turn, so a forest costs 8, and a crawler costs 30, for a total of 38, of which 5% is 1.9, and a forest produces 2), and even with rocky/mine/road (which is of course limited by how many rocky squares you have), it's only a bit over 7% (at 7% per turn, formers cost 1.4 plus 1 support per turn, so the mine costs 26.4, and the crawler is still 30, for a total of 56.4, of which 7% is 3.948, and that mine is worth 4).  In comparison, recycling tanks are 7.5% (if all resource types are considered equivalent).  So yes, crawlers do beat out bio labs (if you're not going native) and multipliers in smaller bases (though I think first-tier multipliers could do with a decrease to cost), but they're not exactly that overpowering.

That's why I also wondered about a clean mineral cap that goes up/down more with base size.  If anything I kind of like this idea the more I think on it...it makes Pop-booming for longer, more important. 

A clean mineral cap with base size?  It's an interesting idea, but (a) makes absolutely no sense in-game, and (b) Is just as bad as, if not worse than, a flat clean mineral cap when it comes to the problem of PLANET being virtually useless in mitigating ecodamage.  Better to make clean minerals less of a cap, and deal with the problem of crawlers vs. population more directly.

Alternatively, perhaps crawling penalties could be broken out by resource and negated by certain techs?  Maybe this is a bit much, I'm not sure.  But it's hard to argue that early-game mineral crawling to the ecodmg cap, and later on 100% nutrient crawling are the only real options.

Other than the limited rocky/mine/road squares, mineral crawling isn't really that strong; it can be nerfed further by nerfing Industrial Automation (e.g. by raising the hab pop cap to 10), by applying a penalty, or (once I add that feature) by a population-based cap on crawlers.  Nutrient crawling is powered in large part by the fact that condensers let you get 6 nutrients from a single square but nothing else; set condensers to give only +1 nutrients or even +0 and it will become a lot less appealing.

[Nexii]

Agree that there should be no CM cap.  But then how do you curve ecodamage such that it doesn't get completely uncontrollable? 

By resource-limited cap I meant that only X of a resource could be crawled per 1 population.  Or have some sort of diminishing returns beyond X.  But I think 1 crawler per X population might be easier. 

I'd argue of the 3 FOP, minerals are the most important early game.  They're the most efficient to re-invest (pods, formers, crawlers, recycle tanks.  E is weaker until facility modifiers.  N isn't as crucial since a worker only costs 20N whereas a pod costs 40M.  Therefore M are the bottleneck.  M are also needed for SPs and military units.  Without M you die!

The thing is early game formers don't even cost 1 mineral/turn.  With PS you can run 2-3 per base for free.  These calcs really ignore a lot including that Forest also spreads for free.  Formers do cost 30M upfront but any faction is going to run formers pre-IA.  The incremental question here is how powerful is IA not the ideal strategy before it.  So yes you need extra formers once you hit IA.  But it's my experience that often you have excess formers just because of forest auto-spreading.  In fact it's best to limit the forest planting and make some mines ahead of time.

Crawlers really only cost 30 mins and payback in 15 turns on forest.  Yes this probably doesn't beat Recycle Tanks in overall FOP payback at 13.3 turns (40/3).  But Road+Mine is even more powerful at 7.5 turns (30/4).  Now that being said I still make early game Recycle Tanks.  This is because a tank+forest base grows in 10 turns and can also make a pod in 10 turns.  As well there's no travel time, and less risk in tanks (no deaths to alien life).  I do agree the other early facilities are rather pathetic compared to Recycle tanks (which admittedly are pretty decent).  Only Rec Commons and Command Center (ideally wait to rush Command Nexus) might be considered.  Even RC should be avoided IMO since police sentries are more efficient.  Maybe for Lal or something who can afford to run early FM.

The other huge part of IA is that you can crawler boost a needed SP.  Granted again you want to get your bases to the clean mineral cap before doing this.  This means having a lot of size-3, 16-18M bases as it stands.  How about an ecodamage formula based on faction-wide M, allocated over each based on its M?  Then mitigated by # of Centauri techs, % of bases running Centauri facilities, and PLANET.  Therefore at low TECH, high M is punished more severely.  Creates an incentive to grow bases for more E than M.  Also creates an incentive to actually get the alien life techs earlier in some situations.  I don't think M would get obsolete later since there are late-game M multipliers also.

[Yitzi]

Agree that there should be no CM cap.  But then how do you curve ecodamage such that it doesn't get completely uncontrollable? 

Easy: Increase the mineral divisor and/or total divisor for ecodamage until it's manageable (with difficulty at the top two difficulty levels, and assuming you don't do something like play a mineral-heavy strategy on Free Market, and assuming you build available ecodamage control facilities).  Something like a total divisor of 1000 and mineral divisor of 3 will probably do it.  (If you remove all clean minerals, you'll also probably want a per-base ecodamage of -1 just so that it doesn't round up to 0 too early in the game.)

I'd argue of the 3 FOP, minerals are the most important early game.  They're the most efficient to re-invest (pods, formers, crawlers, recycle tanks.  E is weaker until facility modifiers.  N isn't as crucial since a worker only costs 20N whereas a pod costs 40M.  Therefore M are the bottleneck.  M are also needed for SPs and military units.  Without M you die!

Yeah, minerals are probably the most important early game, though that could be nerfed somewhat by decreasing the cost of some early-game facilities.  However, by pinning crawlers to population, nutrients get increased sharply in importance.  And energy determines how soon you can get out of the early game.

The thing is early game formers don't even cost 1 mineral/turn.  With PS you can run 2-3 per base for free.  These calcs really ignore a lot including that Forest also spreads for free.

Point, on both counts.  Though Police State has its own disadvantages.

The incremental question here is how powerful is IA not the ideal strategy before it.

Probably too powerful; limiting crawlers by population and moving hab complex will probably bring it down to size, though.

Even RC should be avoided IMO since police sentries are more efficient.  Maybe for Lal or something who can afford to run early FM.

Police won't last you forever, and Police State has its own disadvantages (low efficiency, and can't run Dem for growth).  It may be worth it on Transcend, but not on a more standard difficulty level.  (I feel that with proper ecodamage and drone fixes, and maybe a few others, Librarian is standard, and Transcend for if you really want a challenge.)

The other huge part of IA is that you can crawler boost a needed SP.

Definitely.  One of my main motivations in making workable but limited base-to-base crawling is that then it'll be possible to ban crawler boosting of SPs without throwing the game out of whack in other ways.

How about an ecodamage formula based on faction-wide M, allocated over each based on its M?

That basically amounts to "faction-wide clean minerals, split proportionately"; at that point, you might as well just get rid of clean minerals entirely.

Then mitigated by # of Centauri techs

Already sort-of in place, in that Empathy and Meditation (and Secrets) each give a powerful (if somewhat costly to use) way to mitigate ecodamage.  Well, they would if clean minerals were removed and the divisors increased.

Therefore at low TECH, high M is punished more severely.

I don't think that's good for the game, either narratively or gameplay; the fact that ecodamage gets worse as you tech is a good part of the game.

Creates an incentive to grow bases for more E than M.

That can be done by more normal tweaks to ecodamage; it might be easier, though, to simply reduce the cost of multiplier facilities (and maybe some others) so that M is less of a bottleneck (and then E will be more of a bottleneck, because you want tech to get new facilities to build) and E somewhat easier to boost.  And, of course, limit crawlers, though that's more relevant to the competition between M and N than M and E.

[Nexii]

Yea it would seem Librarian games would be faster (and perhaps more peaceful) as it's easier to run FM with 2 less N-drones.

Good points on ecodamage.  This does curb the power of M-heavy late-game strategies.  Although, they probably weren't overly powerful anyways once the E multipliers kick in.  Played around a bit without CM, have to agree it makes for a better game.  Might try reducing the default PLANET multipliers for ecodamage a bit though.  FM becomes a lot less viable at 6x the pollution of Green.   I'll stick with -1 penalty on resource crawling until a population based cap can be optioned.  Even then crawlers would be heavily used to rush SPs.  But they should have a use I suppose.

Note raising Hab is a big buff to Morgan (and moderate nerf to PKs).  I'm not sure raising Hab to 10 would have a huge impact otherwise.  The thing is, you have to go for techs near IA to get food production up enough to get near size 7 anyways.

Of the early game facilities, I think I would only reduce HoloT's cost (maintenance).  Yes Network Node, Energy Bank, HoloT are bad for low/small energy bases.  Not sure this is a bad thing though as high E production should first require a lot of N production.  Currently crawlers let you circumvent that N production by just crawling M.  I'd argue that it's fine for early game M to be a bit more powerful than E.  The thing is, E is always competitive if used right.  Getting a tech first and trading it around for more techs or money is the only way to really stay ahead as a builder.  E can also be allocated to bases most in need (i.e. put into Recycle Tanks or Rec Commons) unlike M which you have to take what you get.  Once a base has those then the value of M goes down (at least, until higher size/tech).  Bases past #6 get less valuable (though still worth it) due to effic distance and B-drones, etc, etc.  If anything lowering the N curve might be a good addition.  Though that would have big impact.  A better mod might be to allow overall techrate as a variable?

[Yitzi]

Yea it would seem Librarian games would be faster (and perhaps more peaceful) as it's easier to run FM with 2 less N-drones.

Not sure what N stands for here.

Good points on ecodamage.  This does curb the power of M-heavy late-game strategies.  Although, they probably weren't overly powerful anyways once the E multipliers kick in.

True; increasing hurry costs across the board by 50%, and changing upgrade costs to match (increased) hurry costs should weaken that somewhat, and a unit cost formula that decreases the effect of reactors, plus boosts to the cost of later-game facilities and projects, should take it the rest of the way to where mineral-based and energy-based are two distinct styles.

Played around a bit without CM, have to agree it makes for a better game.  Might try reducing the default PLANET multipliers for ecodamage a bit though.  FM becomes a lot less viable at 6x the pollution of Green.

That depends how much minerals you're producing; if you're going mostly farm/enricher/solar (with mirrors and condensers and land raising) and have tree farm/hybrid forest (which you probably want anyway for ECON and PSYCH), it shouldn't be so bad.

Note raising Hab is a big buff to Morgan (and moderate nerf to PKs).

True, though nerfing Dem to +1 GROWTH (for harder pop booms) is a fairly big nerf to Morgan.

I'm not sure raising Hab to 10 would have a huge impact otherwise.  The thing is, you have to go for techs near IA to get food production up enough to get near size 7 anyways.

How so?

Of the early game facilities, I think I would only reduce HoloT's cost (maintenance).  Yes Network Node, Energy Bank, HoloT are bad for low/small energy bases.  Not sure this is a bad thing though as high E production should first require a lot of N production.

The issue isn't that they're bad for small bases, it's that their high cost means that larger bases have a lot to use M on even when you have low tech, making M more of a limiting factor as compared to E.

The thing is, E is always competitive if used right.  Getting a tech first and trading it around for more techs or money is the only way to really stay ahead as a builder.

Which could be a problem if you're isolated (the situation that builders are supposed to be best in.)

E can also be allocated to bases most in need (i.e. put into Recycle Tanks or Rec Commons) unlike M which you have to take what you get.  Once a base has those then the value of M goes down (at least, until higher size/tech).  Bases past #6 get less valuable (though still worth it) due to effic distance and B-drones, etc, etc.  If anything lowering the N curve might be a good addition.  Though that would have big impact.  A better mod might be to allow overall techrate as a variable?

Variable techrate formula is an interesting idea, but I don't think it's the solution to the drastic E-to-M balance shift from early to midgame; I think changing the M side of things is more promising there.

[Nexii]

By N-drones I meant population size drones.  Not sure the regular shortform (C-drones conquest, B-drone bureaucracy, P-drones pacifism)

Actually I feel that with ecodamage modded to be relevant then SE choice determines your strategy.  Green will go heavy Forest (and some Boreholes) whereas FM has to go Farm/Solar and Kelp/Tidal.  Can't have much minerals now with FM past the mid game. FM/energy strategies should have the economic edge as Green has its own merits - strong native life, higher mineral production, and a lot less disruption from native life and fungal pops.  The E:M ratio can be changed if M seems too powerful, but I'm not completely convinced it is.  Perhaps just in the very early game I meant minerals were much stronger than energy.  But the more I play I feel that E is just as important beyond that first expansionary burst.  I will agree though that the later game SPs and (some) facilities are a bit undercosted.  May tweak some of these a bit.  Would be a nice variable to play around with though (SP rush ratio, unit rush ratio, and facility rush ratio).  IMO they should all be 2:1 and some of the SPs/lategame facilities increased in cost.  The issue with supply crawlers is that you can send minerals base to base at 1:1, whereas energy is bought into SPs at 4:1.  Reducing SPs to 2:1 would make a pretty good M:E balance.

Morgan I'm not too worried about really even if you do go with Pop:10 at Hab Complex.  His -1 SUP really stings all game and I feel he'd be especially weak without the starting energy boost. Personally I think it's fine if IA is required past size 7.  What makes IA so good right now isn't really the Hab portion anyways, it's the supply crawlers.  Granted I could see an argument for cheaper Hab Complexes.  A Police State player can get size 6 easy with IE rush and no base infrastructure.  A builder has to do a lot to even get to size 6 let alone exceed 7 with Hab Complex.  But then again to get off PS and go bigger it takes Rec+Holo.  So that's about an equal cost.

Actually being isolated is always a really bad thing in SMAC.  Explore is as important as the others (Build/Conquer/Discover).  If you don't find the other factions and trade/pact them then you will fall way behind a builder who does.  That being said isolation can be very good.  If your enemies are distant, you then don't have to keep much military.

[Yitzi]

By N-drones I meant population size drones.  Not sure the regular shortform (C-drones conquest, B-drone bureaucracy, P-drones pacifism)

Just call them population drones.

Actually I feel that with ecodamage modded to be relevant then SE choice determines your strategy.  Green will go heavy Forest (and some Boreholes) whereas FM has to go Farm/Solar and Kelp/Tidal.

Makes sense.

Can't have much minerals now with FM past the mid game. FM/energy strategies should have the economic edge as Green has its own merits - strong native life, higher mineral production, and a lot less disruption from native life and fungal pops.

And they do; keep in mind that Green also comes at a penalty to Growth.  FM would be best for energy, Green best for production, and of course Planned best for growth.

Perhaps just in the very early game I meant minerals were much stronger than energy.  But the more I play I feel that E is just as important beyond that first expansionary burst.

What I've read from others seems to indicate otherwise, though not by very much.  I think a 25% cut to the cost of builder tier 1-2 facilities should be enough.

Would be a nice variable to play around with though (SP rush ratio, unit rush ratio, and facility rush ratio).  IMO they should all be 2:1 and some of the SPs/lategame facilities increased in cost.

I'd disagree; SPs are inherently better for rushing (as a delay in building it could mean you don't get it period), and already have a larger advantage to energy-heavy factions (due to getting the tech first) than facilities do, so it should cost more to turn energy into minerals.

Morgan I'm not too worried about really even if you do go with Pop:10 at Hab Complex.  His -1 SUP really stings all game

Is it that bad?  It amounts to 10 minerals per base, which is somewhat problematic but not exactly crippling.  I think it's a mix of that and his growth problems (both from aversion and from the hab limit) that balance his energy focus.

Personally I think it's fine if IA is required past size 7.  What makes IA so good right now isn't really the Hab portion anyways, it's the supply crawlers.

True, and I think crawlers need a nerf...I think even with crawlers nerfed to a manageable level it just has so many things that it could do with losing one.  Or maybe not...though I am in favor of moving the mineral cap to IA, which would be too much unless it loses something else.

The other reason for boosting the hab limit (which suggests moving hab complexes a bit up) is that it encourages wider base spacing.  If hab complexes are 10, then hab domes are naturally 20.  And 20 is a very important number for base population; it's the maximum that a base can work if not crowded by other bases or crawlers.

Actually being isolated is always a really bad thing in SMAC.  Explore is as important as the others (Build/Conquer/Discover).  If you don't find the other factions and trade/pact them then you will fall way behind a builder who does.  That being said isolation can be very good.  If your enemies are distant, you then don't have to keep much military.

Also, if you're isolated that translates into more territory you can put bases in.  By "isolated" I don't mean "isolationist", I mean "not near any other factions."

[Nexii]

Note though that raising hurry costs benefits M strategies (forest/mines) over E (solar/echelon).  The worse the energy:mineral hurry ratio, the more you need minerals to make things.  A boost to E strategy would be to make solar and raising cost less former time.

I do agree it's a bit odd the early game facilities being so expensive on minerals relative to what you can make at that point in the game.  But I'd argue they aren't weak - once you get Condensor/Boreholes available it all changes.  And to get these you need E...WP might let you pre-build but still you need the techs to harvest fully. 

A small base with a borehole might get 20 energy or so, and at that point they have pretty good payback.  (20 turns for Energy Bank, Network Node).  Now where they really shine is with high commerce/ECON...you might get 40 energy with two boreholes in a larger base.  At that point the payback time is really good even surpassing Recycle tanks.

And yea I do consider -1 SUP a pretty big penalty, one of the more steep ones.  Early game this means only one unit supported per base.  Meaning -1 minerals/base on top of the -10 on base construction (assuming comparing -2 SUP to -3 SUP though I find the SUP more needed than +2 GROWTH early, so I rarely go Demo early).  You certainly need at least one police sentry/defender so your second unit (usually formers) will need that support.  1 E from +1 ECON isn't as good as 1 M, so overall it's a penalty from the start.  Morgan is good though because you can always get out 2 fast Recycle tanks at the start.  The fast start outweighs the SUP penalty on later bases.

I think if Hab Complex were at 10 (which isn't a terrible idea at 80/2 cost), you'd want to bump it farther up the tree to another tech than IA.  Perhaps one level to Silksteel or to another part of the tree less chosen, Optical Computers perhaps.

[Yitzi]

Note though that raising hurry costs benefits M strategies (forest/mines) over E (solar/echelon).

True.  However, in the early game that's not such a concern, and in the midgame a boost to M as compared to E is probably not a bad thing.

And to get these you need E...WP might let you pre-build but still you need the techs to harvest fully. 

True, though I favor moving the cap techs to all be different tier 3 techs (probably gene splicing/industrial automation/optical computers for N/M/E respectively.)

And yea I do consider -1 SUP a pretty big penalty, one of the more steep ones.  Early game this means only one unit supported per base.  Meaning -1 minerals/base on top of the -10 on base construction (assuming comparing -2 SUP to -3 SUP though I find the SUP more needed than +2 GROWTH early, so I rarely go Demo early).

That's not "on top of".  Either you're comparing +0 to +1 and it's -10 on construction but no -1 per base per turn, or you're comparing -2 to -3 and both lose the 10 per base so it's just -1 per turn.

You certainly need at least one police sentry/defender so your second unit (usually formers) will need that support.

Once you get clean, that just amounts to 10 minerals.

1 E from +1 ECON isn't as good as 1 M, so overall it's a penalty from the start.  Morgan is good though because you can always get out 2 fast Recycle tanks at the start.  The fast start outweighs the SUP penalty on later bases.

I think Morgan's real strength, though, is in the midgame once he gets several pacts and can get significant benefits from his commerce bonus.

I think if Hab Complex were at 10 (which isn't a terrible idea at 80/2 cost), you'd want to bump it farther up the tree to another tech than IA.  Perhaps one level to Silksteel or to another part of the tree less chosen, Optical Computers perhaps.

Silksteel makes perfect flavor sense (hab dome is super tensile solids), and should help make the defensive side of the tree more appealing.  Optical computers is a better choice for lifting energy caps.

[Seleuceia]

I play with a personal mod and here are some of the changes I've made that I feel make for a more fun game...

1)  Hab complexes are needed to grow beyond pop 10, domes to grow beyond pop 20...this is crucial for making a small-focused strategy competitive with a quick-expansion strategy
2)  Hab complexes require silksteel...this takes into account the fact that the cap is higher and also encourages research in probably the least important tech path in the vanilla game...
3)  Political SE changes:  Democracy is now -2 police, +1 growth, +2 effic -- Police state only gets +1 support, but only has -1 effic -- fundamentalist only has -1 research...I have found these changes to make all 3 political systems more viable at all stages of the game...
4)  Economic SE changes:  Free Market is now -3 support instead of -5 police -- planned is now only -1 effic -- green is only +1 effic, but also only -1 growth...this allows more flexibility in combining all three economic policies with police state while still keeping the democracy combos viable...
5) Forests give 1/1/1 instead of 1/2/1...this makes mines more viable (which are almost useless in vanilla) and weakens the forest n forget strategy...this, in turn, increases the consequences of eco damage since you are more dependent on farm/mine/solar terraforming...
6)  All cap techs are tier 3 techs...for nutrients, it's ecological engineering (this is a tier 3 tech in my mod)...for minerals, it's industrial automation...for energy, it's superconductor (this is a tier 3 tech in my mod)...this makes researching in different paths more viable since in vanilla the cap techs all were in the same path (and tier 3-5 at that!)...

These are only some of the changes, and I do admit that those changes may affect the significance of those mentioned above...these however are the ones that I felt most relevant to the discussion and I find playing with them to be more balanced and more enjoyable...they make different strategies more viable instead of the same 2 or 3 cliché strategies, which I think is a good thing...