atrocity ecodamage

[joer]

I've noticed a lot of people getting different ecodamage results for using atrocities, so I would like to have some feedback as to what atrocities generate what ecodamage under what circumstances.

The ecology help states that only 'major atrocities' are calculated into the ecodamage formula. I thought that refers only to PBs, but apparently, that's not true.

Here is some of my experience:

Without repealing the UN Charter:
Excessive use of nervegas, biological warfare (genetic plagues) and nerve stapling all causes ecodamage to rise in all cities. Over time, this effect falls again.

Exception: Use of nervegas against the alien factions.
This happens under Thinker and Transcend levels.

What do other people experience? What other setting options influence this?
Is there some kind of 'threshold' of the number of atrocities that Chiron allows?
Are there ways around it?

A complete analysis of people's experience could be interesting.
-joer.

[Fistleaf]

My most recent game with the Spartans had zero ecodamage for the last half of the game even though I built the Bulk Matter Transmitter, Singularity Converter. My cities were each producing 40-80 minerals and I do not have a single Centauri preserve. There was only 1 ecodamage fungal growth in the early part of the game so the Planet's threshold for ecodamage couldn't have increased much.
In all my previous games, I have experienced ecodamage for producing 40-80 minerals each city even with many Centauri preserves and Temples of planet but not this one.
This was also the first time I raised land from the sea twice and there were a couple of pod-generated earthquakes raising the land.
Maybe raising land reduces ecodamage(opposite of global warming, sinking the land).
Can anyone explain this?

[RedFred]

I'd be surprised if raising land actually reduced ecodamage. If so, it would certainly be counterintuitive not to mention undocumented.

I'd love to know your secret though. I've never been able to produce 80 minerals without reprecussions. Did you have anything else different in your latest game? I wonder if it is a combination of small things. Even a city on the manifold will make you slightly greener and have an impact on ecodamage.

But back to the original question, I tend to play low ecodamage games so I don't have a lot to add. I do believe there is a bug in SMACX V2 which means that the new missiles which cause fungus or raised land seem to cause the same ecodamage as a PB.

[Sikander]

Yikes! Thanks for pointing that out Fred. Do you know if this applies when you use the missles on neutral terrain, or your own? I had thought to try these out in the late game for terraforming, but I can never get myself to play a game out that long. Too much work.

By the way, I seldom get ecodamage either, probably because I tend to build smaller cities and avoid piling on deal breakers like FM. I run Green approximately 50/50 with Planned. I expend a lot of effort in terraforming, so I don't like to risk it by inviting worm rape. Admittedly, it isn't too tough to stand up to the worms by the time you are enraging them.

[Adam_Smith]

Sikander, green is no match for the productivity of FM. The money you get from free makets will be very usefull during periods of Planned.

[Fistleaf]

As I mentioned before, the only difference between this no-ecodamage game and my normal game is I raised land in this game. I used Free Market for the entire last half of the game but I controlled the manifold Nexus and used Cybernetic SE for a Planet rating of 0.
With the Cloning Vats, all cities grew very big and together with the late technologies, enabled high mineral production without building any Mines or mineral-facilities.
This is on transcend level and I have never gotten zero ecodamage before even with +6 Planet and several Centauri preserves.

[joer]

Fistleaf, that's an interesting comment you make.
Do you mean that you raise the land by terraforming or that you do a council vote of bringing up a solar shield to lower the sea levels in order to reduce ecodamage?

Did you manage to build all those factory installations without ecodamage? That's certainly impressive. The only reason why I won't build a Genejack is because of ecodamage (about 50+ in my punishment, all forest + hybrid forest size 19 city cities, even with Centauri Preserve).
-joer.

[This message has been edited by joer (edited May 07, 2000).]

[Ned]

I find I can run virtually the whole game in FM and avoid ecodamage. There seems to be a relationship between the number of techs one has and the tolerable mineral production - the game seems to permit more as the game goes on. Usually, I can regulate eco-damage by regulating what my crawlers produce. I have found that I can later build robotics factories, quantum converters and even nanoreplicators without eco-damage. I just take some crawlers out of mineral production until the damage goes to zero.

I notice that I have been able to produce more than 100 minerals without eco-damage. At the same time, in recent game, I notice that Rose, with far less technology, had eco-damage producing only 11 minerals.

[Fistleaf]

Joer, I raised the land by terraforming. I did not build any factory installations except for the free Quantum Converter from the SP Singularity Converter. With this and the Bulk Matter transmitter, I can already produce 40-80 minerals without ecodamage.

[RedFred]

Ned has something with his post about lower ecodamage later in the tech tree. I've often noticed the same thing but put it down to the greater forest cover in the late game.

Wish I could give you a definitive answer to your question Sikander, but like yourself, I have to little experience with either the terraform up or the fungal missile to know for sure. Sorry for the belated reply.

[Sikander]

Adam,

There is a time and a place for Green in my scheme. That time is when I don't need to pop boom (maxed out mostly) and want to increase my energy income and reduce inefficiency drones. Usually I have 11-20 bases at 14 or 16 pop, with an average of 90 % of their infrastructure built. At that point short of a war, I want to emphasise energy over production to increase my tech lead and give myself something to build. FM tends to sharply limit my endeavors.

The main problem is that FM only gives me slight benefit, since I use numerous specialists to power my economy. Switching to FM only nets me 6 or 7 energy per city, and that is subject to inefficiency. When I also consider FM's negatives to Planet and Police, I find that I'd rather use Green. The increase in net income along with the Paradigm economy are more valuable to me.

As for tech affecting pollution, I believe this is true. There was a post quoting the datalink formula for pollution in the advanced game concepts section. From personal experience, it seems easy to run ever higher mineral production as the game progresses. If you are getting tech every 1 or 2 turns, this can happen quickly.

I seem to get a pass from the AI regarding pollution due to my playing style. I only allow my cities about 10+ squares, and I terraform the hell out of them, with every land square containing a condensor/farm, a borehole or a mine. I crawler in all but kelp/harness squares and boreholes. My cities are designed to have at least 15 production clear of support. But I rarely get any ecodamage at all. By the time the game is well in hand I can add two production enhancing facilities and really crank out the production without a worry.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I seem to recall somewhere that use of tectonic missiles comes with the ecodamage normally associated with PB missiles while use of fungal missiles does not.

Interesting points on FM vs. Green. My game observations also confirm times when green outperforms (energy wise) FM (typically the empire is pretty large and widespread for this to happen though so usually in mid to late game), an exception being a faction such as Cyborgs where factional efficiency bonus already allows paradigm while running Demo/FM. I typically run FM throughout for the borgs as a result (unless of course I choose to go a-conquering instead). Typically I hate having to PS a base and lose 1/2 the lab output. I will PS a base now and again if conquering a high mineral output enemy base or I have no other quick and easy means to quell drones. Typically, however, I'll follow the specialist base route instead and use the specialist base(s) as my home base(s) for units in a foreign theatre.

Also on the whole eco damage thing, there is the phenomena that once you experience fungal blow ups two or three times planet seems to cut you some slack and allow your cities to increase mineral ouput w/ little to no ecodamage. I know this from expereince b/c one of the things I like to do every once in awhile is create a poluter base to attract worms while going paradigm efficiency w/ 100% research. The cash from planet pearls keeps my empire afloat (no pun intended re: world flooding). Great way to catch up in the tech race especially considering boreholes mineral and energy ouputs are immune to fungal effects.


[This message has been edited by Ogie Oglethorpe (edited May 08, 2000).]

[joer]

Ogie: Does one polluter base producing fungus reduce the ecodamage of other bases as well?
If so, that could be a very cool strategy to go with, since you know where the worms will hit, and can prepare yourself accordingly.
-joer.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Joer,

You know I don't really know. Typically all of my other bases are mid 30 minerals and the polluter in the high 80s to low one hundreds and increasing as the game goes on to keep fungal sprouting. (Once I get a flood warning I back off and ram a solar shade through the council as I figure planet has had enough and by that time I have all the tech I usually need and am in coast mode). Interesting if it does though.

The polluter base is cool though in that you know the worms we'll be heading there and a few empath units solve your econ woes.

[Adam_Smith]

sikander,

Ogie brings up a good point. Green will only pay off more than FM if you have a huge empire. -1 planet and police should not be considered to compare to the increased ec you get from FM (It just doesn't). Your empire has to be huge to make a difference. At that point there is knowledge and democracy (that will give you +3 efficiency). If you are at the point where +4 efficiency gives you so much more ec than +3 efficiency that you are willing to sacrifice +2 economy you have already conquered the world.

Specialist don't matter. They are also not affected by inefficiency.

War is something else. With Miriam and Domai I build PS at every base. It doesn't hurt my research too bad at all. I don't know if that is a bug or not. It might just be that specialist are not affected by the punishment sphere so when you have punishment spheres you have many librarians or maybe thinkers. Then, of course, you can steal and trade.

You are right that Green does have it's place. I use it for too reasons. The best reason is if you want to go to war and you don't have A.M.A. (you can still go to war with FM though on your own continent or close by). The other possibility is that I want to rush science or energy to 100%. I would say that 50% of the time FM is more efficient doing that with +2efficiency rather than doing it with +4 efficiency and default economics.

Really, most games I rarely use Green.

[Adam_Smith]

Ogie,

I think you are right. My research advisor tells me that I will discover something next turn but I don't.

At any rate, I am not a researcher. I am a thief. However, I don't always result to that strategy. Sometimes I research instead.

As far as the Green vs. FM, I will encourage you to test it out occasionally to see if FM will be better for you. I used to be afraid of FM too until I agured with someone long enough that I was forced to reevaluate my strategy. FM will definitly give you more energy in 90% of cases.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Adam

re: PS's on the outset it may appear that PS are not affecting your tech rate but I beleive the bug still exists within SMAC(X) wherein the lab screen isn't showing properly the tech you get from PS bases. As a result you get fooled into thinking that you are raking in double the research while in reality you aren't. (at least this is how I beleive the bug was working, and again since I ususally don't use them I don't have this problem) i.e. the PS's actually behave as advertised and halve your lab output although not properly displayed. It should be an easy enough experiment to do simply count the number of turns the screen says you have till your next tech advance. If longer than what the screen says chances are your PS's are kicking in.

On the efficiency thing I find a big dif depending on your game style to +3 eff vs. +4. (Similar to +1 econ vs +2) a huge step forward once this magic threshold is broken. Especially with specialists one can essentially set all specialists to say engineers to bring in a nice baseline of cash and set about 100% research allocation w/o penalty of remaining base energy. Whilst specialists don't pay an efficiency penalty a switch to a research oriented specialsit nets you less effective energy (5 for engineer vs. 3 (useful) for a thinker or librarian) so best means to pump up your research is to max out your energy allocation while still bringing max energy from an engineer type. OTOH once transcendi become available, Engineers get replaced with equivalent +6 energy (useful) transcendi and allocation slams the other way for cash.

[Sikander]

Adam,

I don't doubt that FM is better in all sorts of situations, it just doesn't fit a good part of my game. I think the fact that I use specialists and crawlers is significant, because the number of squares where I receive bonus energy is limited to about 5. It's something, but not the breakaway setting that it would be for someone with extensive worker served forests.

I check my SE setting frequently. By the time my bases have matured, they are more efficient under Green than FM. Even when FM is more productive, I have to consider the adjustment costs in comparison. Btw, I do build a lot of bases, which does make efficiency important (mostly for the new bases without crawlers or buildings).

Ogie, I do the same thing that you do with my economy. Make everyone an engineer, and set science to whatever you like. It really makes the rest of the game easy.

[joer]

Sikander:
If you crawler in lots of energy, you still get the +1 bonus from FM. Unless I am seriously mistaken...

Just a side comment, which may not even be relevant to you. Relying on merely engineers for your energy production, while crawlering in food for your cash-cows might work just as well.
-joer.

[Adam_Smith]

joer is right. supply crawlers give you the same energy as if it were a worker.

You have to plan for FM. That takes some experience. You have to look forward and you have to know what you need. It may not fit in your stratery, but I have tried a little bet of ICS and I can tell you that if you build a lot of bases FM is better that Green. The only time that Green is better is when you have big bases that are VERY far apart, or if you are at war and have no Punishment Spheres.

[Adam_Smith]

I don't play that way. I've turned some coquered bases into mostly specialist, but I can't say that it is part of my over all strategy. I can say that in most games that I play I get more research or energy from +2 efficiency and +2 economy than I do with + 4 efficiency when I go to 100% energy or research alocation. However, to maintain maximum efficiency I try to only do that in emergencies (which is not often). I still don't see any reason why Green would be more efficient that FM, but I will check the next time I build some specialist bases.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Adam

If you have any interest in the specialist approach check out the specialist cities thread in strat section. The evolution of the idea was kind of laid out there and the whole idea kind of took some twists and turns.

It provides an interesting counter approach for single player who knows how it would fare in multiplayer? I would recommend factions with high support and or industry. Right down your alley with the Believers and Drones.

[RoadRash]

I tend to wimp out on the FM path because of it's negatives. But I have to admit, that +1 energy per square is awesome. Usually that means you're doubling your net income, not to mention you're ripping past everyone in technology. If I wasn't so lazy I know I'd bite the bullet more often. Green just plays alot smoother for most of the game.

Back on the original topic of this thread, I happen to be a big fan of fungus/quake missiles. They're just plain fun. I use the tectonic warheads to bury enemy fleets and to tweak borders in my favor. Sometimes I even use the fungus missiles to "plant" fungus for myself late in the game when my fungus production bonuses are really high.
And yes, the use of these warheads triggers tremendous ecodamage. Which doesn't bother me to much since I've turned off global warming; but I've still wasted alot of time beating down hundreds of worms a turn. And that late in the game, the last thing you need is something that makes the turns last longer.

[Adam_Smith]

Ogie,

I will check out the thread. I'm somewhat familiar with specialist bases. I tried it once and actually won the game. I did it with the Drones. No green of course. I ran Free Market and Police State. -2 inefficiency did not hurt too much because I made my HQ a superbase. I used supply skimships to transport energy to HQ. Man, that +2 econ really paid off there!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Joer and Adam,

If I may speak on behalf of Sik for a second as I have played extensively with games in the fashion that Sik is partial to. (In reality I like to play multiple styles, conventional, specialist, in momemtum, hybrid and builder flavors. I think real potential exists with a specialist style and think maybe a combination specialist/conventional style may be the answer)

Typically in the specialist game crawlered conventional energy is a last bolt on to your economy. First order of business is crawlering in nuts to support a population that is in a high proportion specialists particularly engineers once fusion is discovered. Only a handful (say 2 or 3)of worker bees per base are on squares and typically these are on the most productive squares ala boreholes. By the time one maxs out population to 14 (16) population only then does crawlered energy come into play. By that time your empire should be quite large in terms of number of bases and more often than not you are in a conflict or two going a-conquering. For those two reasons green can be a nice SE choice. The +1 energy per square doesn't become a huge deal as you really are only harvesting energy from say at most 3 squares per base. True enough scads of bases running as high as +3 econ (FM/W) will get you nice energy influx especially base squares but the ability to really increase base square income by going to +4 econ or higher isn't an option (at least until Eudamonia) b/c over half your population is specialized thereby not allowing the rule to be met for golden age (i.e. half the population talents and no drones). This being said the ability to be completely felxible with energy allocation is a bigger factor than the little bit of excess energy you'll get from FM. Not to mention the nice little adds of being able to capture mindworms etc. from + planet rating. P.S. Those worms make excellent garrison units if nothing else. (Nice anti-nerve gas inherent ability)

Long and short of it incomparing FM to green is that much depends on two primary factors.

1) Number of squares actually worked and/or harvested for energy
2) Emphasis/importance in your game style to allocate freely energy w/o penalty (i.e. paradigm eff.)

[joer]

Another side note:

I used the specialist superbase with lots of energy crawlers from the mirror park in my last game (SNAC, tho. I love that mod). I found it relatively easy to keep a constant GA, because of the few workers and relatively high psych allocation (20%). With SE: Wealth, I got the same effects as FM in that city (+1 energy/square), while going green, keeping up a high efficiency and not having to worry about planet.
-joer