My take on base spacing

[lbores]

Here's my 2 ec:

Being a newbie, I've had my share of difficulty with base spacing.
To help myself (and others) to visualize the effect of various base spacings, I've created the attached figures and commentary:

Figure 1 is the Legend - that is what the various colored squares stand for. I've used the abbreviation ZOI to mean Zone of Influence - that is, those tiles inside the base radius.



Figure 2 is a basic base - showing ZOI and corner tiles (which are outside the ZOI).



Figure 3 is a space-on-3 (2 tiles between) base separation:



Here, 4 corner tiles are outside the ZOI. Between the 6 bases - 40 squares are shared, less 12 corner squares that now fit within some bases' ZOI and are also unshared, leaving 28 tiles that could become a difficulty. In practice, using this spacing - this has not been a problem even without 'crawling'. This will probably allow growth of all to pop 6 without strain, though 'crawling' the 4 corners may be necessary for the center 2 bases. All bases are mutually supportive there being but 2 tiles separating each. With a road, a rover garrison unit could attack any threat in the same turn. If each base is dropped on a pre-placed sensor - there's plenty of warning to move troops to any threatened base.

Figure 4 is a space-on-4 (3 tiles between) base separation:



Here 9 tiles fall outside the ZOI and 12 tiles are shared. All bases are mutually supportive there being but 3 tiles separating each. If each base is dropped on a pre-placed sensor - there's plenty of warning to move troops to any threatened base.

Figure 5 is the smallest practical '5-on-a-die' configuration created by dropping a 5th base onto the middle, unworked square of the above configuration.



Here, 24 tiles are shared and 8 tiles are outside the ZOI. The central base is sharing ALL of its tiles which means that it may have to 'crawl' nuts/min/enr and should probably be a specialist city.

Figure 6 illustrates a space-on-5 (4 tiles between) base separation.



Here, 16 tiles are outside the ZOI. This configuration cries out for crawlers to work these tiles, especially the central 4. All bases are mutually supportive there being but 4 tiles separating each, but a rover garrison unit is reccomended. If each base is dropped on a pre-placed sensor - there's plenty of warning to move troops to any threatened base. This may be a good spacing to use on a large continent but is somewhat inefficient.

Figure 7 is a space-on-6 (5 tiles between or if you're using diagonal separation - 3 tiles between) base separation with a base dropped into the center to create the next practical '5-on-a-die' configuration.



Here, 24 tiles are outside the ZOI but only 8 tiles are shared. Note the light-gray tiles. These are corner tiles swapped between bases and are unshared. I see this as more efficient than Figure 6 even with the tile sharing which in this instance is inconsequential. All bases are mutually supportive there being but 5 tiles separating the corner bases and only two separating these from the central base. Placing a strong rover garrison unit at the central base provides rapid coverage for any threatened base. If each base is dropped on a pre-placed sensor - there's plenty of warning to move troops to any threatened base. This would be my choice spacing to use on a large continent. The bars of the T's could be used by plonking down bases so as to bring them within the new bases's ZOI's.

I would welcome comments by the experienced players out there such as Og, Dimension, et al.

[This message has been edited by lbores (edited March 03, 2001).]

[Blake]

I always use the same base placement strategy, however it is quite flexible and relies on three rules:
1) No base is ever founded more than 3 tiles from another (infantry spacing)
2) No base can ever ever ever be placed where a borehole eventually could go - boreholes are always built adjacant to bases (not diagonal)
3) No base is ever founded in another bases ZOC

In practical terms:
B: Orginal base
O: Borehole
* sites for forest/condensor or just wasteland
#: Valid places to found a new base

"Real" - "Ideal"
#*#*#*# *******
O#O*O#O O#O*O*O
#*****# ******#
O*OBO*O O*OBO*O
#*****# #******
O#O*O#O O*O*O#O
#*#*#*# *******

The first picture is for a real map, covered in rocky squares, fungus and so on. With almost any base I can find a place to put a new base.

Now, if I find myself on a small landmass, or are a slow growing faction I'll favour using the close diagonal's and packing bases in really close, if in contrast I've got lots of space I'll favour the far diagonals. I'll always use the "L" shaped seperation between bases.
If I find myself on an all land world covered in rolling and flat terrain with no fungus and no enemies I would use the "Ideal" or it's mirror image.
Using an infinite "ideal" sprawl every base works 3 boreholes and 7 condensors, this is enough to get to size 14. With enrichers size 22 and enrichers + sats ~ size 40

Theres also another rule for placing the bases in this style which works for expanding the placment to ANOTHER landmass (if you intend to join the islands later), imagine the map is a giant chess board, now place bases on the white squares, later boreholes on the black. Altough often I don't bother, but then when I've conquered the world I end up with a borehole "faultline". It does not matter where your HQ is placed, as you place bases relative to existing bases

It is a LOT easier to place bases in this style if you turn base radius on in map, this way just place bases adjacant to your base radius lines, with the exception of the four tiles directly out from the base.

Later I actually do go through and build a grid of boreholes, at the maximum possible density (hint, if the land is "sloped" lower it and then build the borehole, always works). Try this for Yang (who with the WP can start earlier on the boreholes due to his support), you'll be amazed at the amount of raw energy you can rake in even without +2 econ. Ofcourse at the start I build boreholes on Specials, later I trash that borehole for the simple reason 4 boreholes are better than 1.

If I had to give this placment strategy a name I would call it "maximum boreholes", since working it out I've used this placment in EVERY game I've played, with the exception of a couple of momentum games

[cbn]

Great diagrams Ibores.

What I like to do if I am trying to grow all the bases big is reflected by your last figure. The pattern can be continued indefinitely in theory. In reality, I doubt that many gamers achieve any particular spacing pattern on a consistent basis.

Regardless of the merits of any system, it would usually not be advisable (and it is sometimes impossible) to follow it rigidly. Early game, the key is to get the bases down .Rocky squares, oceans and fungus can change plans.

One other point is that although I see the 5 on the die approach as the nost efficient use of base overlap. There are situations in which you might deviate from it. For example I might intentionally cause bases to overlap on a nutrient special so that they can take turns growing faster. Or I may allow a gap between base radii to set up a small crawler park in the interior. Or you could bunch some bases in a rocky area, accepting that they will remain small, but benefiting from multiple build queues.

[Rastapopoulos]

Look folks,
I don't think any of these systems is of any real help when you're in a game, trying to make decisions. Although I can see it's a lot of fun thinking about a system and trying to get your thoughts organized, in the real situation, there are always a lot of secondary considerations that will eventually determine where you put your bases much more than any system you're trying to follow: Resource bonuses, Terrain, fungus, coastlines, and, of course, the enemy. In an MP game I'm playing right now I had to build a base just two squares from my last, just to push my border a few squares and create a corridor of territory that I own. Now, 20 turns later, I'm glad I did what I did instead of following any sort of system and am trying to work around the disadvantages. I agree with CBN: I would never waist time to find a base site that is perfect when I can build 4-5 turns earlier in the early game, then try to remove the disadvantages by terraforming later. Once you've got 4-5 bases set up, you can start thinking about some sort of system, but then some other thing will get in your way, so really, what you need is Doctrine: Flexibility, isn't it?
When I have the choice, I try not to share tiles between bases, because I want to be able to get as many workers as possible out per base, but I'd probably prefer figure 7 over figure 6, but then again, it really depends on the situation. I try to keep specialised fields (arid+rocky, with a mine and road) out of the base's production radius so I can put a crawler on them without waisting a job for a worker, whereas fields that produce different types of resources (Forest+river, with Tree Farm and Hybrid Forest) should be inside the prod.radius for obvious reasons.
All in all, I repeat myself, I don't think it makes too much sense to think about all this, because every situation in the game is so different.



------------------
May the fungus be with you...

[Misotu]

Completely agree. I take each game on its own merits although nowadays I rarely build bases with no overlap at all. The terrain is the biggest influencer - if all of your tiles are rolling, rainy and high, you really don't need that many per base. If you've got a lot of rock, fungus and arid, your spacing inevitably will be greater - or you'll pay the penalty later if you are working with a booming faction. Since I generally prefer to play booming factions with reasonable hab limits like PK or Gaia, my spacing will tend to be far greater than that of players who prefer, say, Morgan or the Hive.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Lbores,

Cool charts. I'm extremely inept when it comes to HTML so I am envoious to say the least. Just how did you manage to do that? I tried to view the source code but unfortunately only got Apolyton's forum set up code.

Anyway looking at what you have set up my feeling mirrors others in saying, you have a theoretical and then a practical approach. You try to follow the theoretical when the game allows you to and you make some tweaks when the terrain isn't quite right, for example your prime base site is either fungus or a rocky then it might make sense to shift it a square or so, Likewise if there is a juicy special.

AS to the charts you posted realize of course that the game has represented the squares as diamonds so any chart needs to be rotated 45 degrees. That being said my fav still is the approach laid out in figure 3. If you continue that pattern for more and more bases what you find is that every base has the surrounding 8 squares available for its use on average except where the pattern ends (normally a coast). This means with tree farms those 8 squares generate 16 nuts plus 3 from the center base with a rec tanks allowing a max popualtion at this stage of about 9. With Hybrids it runs into 27 nuts or size 13. With condensor farms you max out at 37 nuts or size 18 (beyond hab complex limits).

All inall though once you get sky farms you should have more nuts than you know what to do with and should have no issue maxing out you bases to hab complex limits regardless of spacing. Remember a tightly spaced base with no place to put workers means by defauilt that they become those wonderful specialist I keep refering to. Fusion is the key tho' to make sure you get engineers (transcendi come too late)

Reasons why I like it.

Turn advantage!

Setting you colony pod is a short trip.
Moving your crawlers to an SP building city is a short trip.
Pod booming if you so choose is a short trip.

Sure there are defensive implications as well but I prefer the ability to set my cities and develop them as the higher priority.

Jus my thoughts

Og

I always build bases pretty close for transportation and trade purposes.

------------------
Go post stuff at
Civworld forums
Go post now!
"The seeds of evil are the the same seeds of greatness so be evil and be great."

[lbores]

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe on 03-03-2001 10:14 PM Cool charts. I'm extremely inept when it comes to HTML so I am envoious to say the least. Just how did you manage to do that? I tried to view the source code but unfortunately only got Apolyton's forum set up code.

The charts are gifs; no fancy code needed. Doesn't a right click -> Display Source Code do it?

Whilst I appreciate the fact that the squares are really diamonds - it's much more difficult to convey the ideas using the correct orientation, especially in plan view.

I typically have been using Figure 3 with no noticeable hit to my production. The only downside is that it takes more bases to fill up the land mass.

[The Mad Monk]

...not that I would necessarily call that a 'down side'...

I've been packing my cities tightly--more tightly then I ever did in Civ. Between the early game pop and terrain restrictions, and the late game availability of 'other options', maximizing squares available for work per city simply isn't critical--and treating it as if it was can seriously slow down your early-game development.

edit: because it's too early in the morning to spell properly...
[This message has been edited by The Mad Monk (edited March 04, 2001).]

[lbores]

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk on 03-04-2001 08:19 AM ...not that I would necessarily call that a 'down side'... I've been packing my cities tightly--more tightly then I ever did in Civ. Between the early game pop and terrain restrictions, and the late game availability of 'other options', maximizing squares available for work per city simply isn't critical--and treating it as if it was can seriously slow down your early-game development.

This has been my impression as well. But since '3 tile sep', '2 tile sep', etc. have been mentioned in many msgs in this forum, I thought a more thorough discussion along with the diagrams might help others new to the game.

Thnx for your input.

[NorthSwordsman]

quote: Originally posted by lbores on 03-04-2001 09:33 AM This has been my impression as well. But since '3 tile sep', '2 tile sep', etc. have been mentioned in many msgs in this forum, I thought a more thorough discussion along with the diagrams might help others new to the game. Thnx for your input.

Ibores, thanks for explaining so clearly. Those .gif's really help with seeing everything. I think my approach had better be modified. . Thanks!

NS

[D]

I have noticed that the Hive does place bases close to each other. I usually don't like having overlapping squares sinced it sucked in civ 2. Are having close bases that important in single player games for defense? What are the drawbacks for factions that normally have tight alignments that don't?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

D, Lbores, et. al.

Let me reiterate in case I wasn't so clear before. My take is that base spacing is not so much a matter of defense (altho' it is a nice side benefit.) The main benefit(s) are two fold.

Turn Advantage!

Turn advantge. Every time one moves a colony pod it is but three spaces before placing the base. Evertime one builds a crawler and moves it to an SP building base it is accomplished within one move (using an infantry chassis no less). Terraforming is more compact and thereby easier to accomplish as well all leading to turn advantage. 'Specialy considering a larger number of bases contributing a larger number of formers.

Better Energy/(Research and Econ) w/o growth sacrifice!

Second benefit comes from having a larger number of compact bases. Ultimately the ability to increase base population is stimied by the late appearance in the game of hab domes. Until this time normal base size is at best 14(16 w AV) or at best 16(18 w AV) if Lal. This being said 8 squares can support this population. 7 squares as condensors/farms 1 borehole and a recycle tank for the base square nets 31 nuts (15 population points) and minimum 8 nuts 8 energy. Whats more at a minimum you have 8 freed up workers as specialists and maybe as many as 14 depending on the extent that one crawlers in nuts. This represents as much as 40 - 70 extra energy if using engineers and by the by all free from inefficiency losses. Even if one sticks withthe tried and true strictyly forest approach it means 8 squares yield 24 +3 nuts 16 +2 mins and 16 +2 energy. That means 13 population points 5 of which are engineers, for a grand total of 1 free nut/ 18 mins/ 43E (18+25 engineers). A couple of hydro sats and your at the 16 or 18 max in no time w/ all the etras being the mighty 5 energy engineers. (look at the pay back on hydro sats in that light 2 hydro sats net you a 5 energy producing engineer, thats wayy better than a energy sat plus the are available as the earliest sat)

Now contrast this approach to wide open spacing (no square sharing). The population density and hence the overall productivity on a per square basis is much less. In fact much of your squares worked are not utilized. Further to this if you make most of your peeps workers then you run risks of drone issues w/o facilities etc. You have much more difficulty rearranging your units crawlers etc. Having the denser base structure means more suported units. Better ability to shave turns off your game. More bases also mean more build q's so you can go to war or respond to a war much quicker etc.

All in all during the game tight spacing doesn't normally impede base growth until hab domes are in play. And at that point one normally looks to sky farms, energy sats and nessus mining stations to play a role. What it does allow tho' is better per square use of your empire as every square is utilized and the ability of squares to turn in some astounding nutrient FOPs allows excess population points to be specialized. All in all IMHO tighter base spacing of two free squares between bases allows a better game performance then a no square sharing approach. Any tighter than that tho' and the base start to get too numeraous and does have implication on base growth. The more numerous bases then also make you pay a pretty harsh penalty in terms of drone management.

Og

[NorthSwordsman]

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe on 03-05-2001 09:40 AM D, Lbores, et. al. Any tighter than that tho' and the base start to get too numeraous and does have implication on base growth. The more numerous bases then also make you pay a pretty harsh penalty in terms of drone management. Og

Og, I'm beginning to like (been experimenting with it ) the tighter placement. One thing I did notice is that you do indeed have drone problems... due to the more bases. I can cram in nearly 67% more bases in than using the 3 spacing method, where needed... but the additional cost of drone-preventation facilities makes me wonder if the payoff is worth it sometimes.

Oh, I realize that you do not have to maintain that uniform spacing throughout the entire empire, but I did so just to experiment with it. The micromanaging was a real bear.... over a hour per turn in the late 2300's... . Has anyone ever calculated the optimum size for an empire yet?

NS

------------------
"The report of my enemy's death is not an exaggeration." -NorthSwordsman

"You can go a long way with a Rover. You can go much further with a Shard-equipped Rover."-NS
[This message has been edited by NorthSwordsman (edited March 05, 2001).]

[bandit]

I do pretty good not even worrying about it. I just put them there, here.. everywhere. Sometimes I have bases 2 squares from each other. Whatever looks good. Often it has to do with the size of my land.

I want lots of bases. Seems to be the key to winning all my games. I build tons and tons of bases, squeeze them in wherever I can. By time I get a 1/4 of the way through the game, I'm totally superior in population and tech..

[Velociryx]

Two notes here, if you're gonna use the Yang-style spacing (which I TOTALLY recommend!)

First, get ready for drone troubles on account of having so many bases. Two primary means of countering this are: HGP/VW (if you can snag them both, you essentially double the number of bases you can have before drones really become much of an issue, and by that point, you've got other means--cool specialists or more advanced drone control facilities--to deal with them). Second means of dealing with the issue is Police/Nerve Stapling, but if you're playing a Builder's game, then those options won't be open to you.

Second, Og said it best. Turn advantage! In the early game, I'm really anal about roadbuilding. One of the first missions of my formers is to plant trees and bulild roads to new base sites. The other thing I'm anal about is building sensor arrays ON base sites, to net that "un-snipable 25% defensive bonus...not to mention that it's a great place-holder).

An infantry based colony pod, following the road, can be in position at the new base site in 1-2 turns, with the actual base build coming the turn after that. If you want speedy development, you can't get much better than that (also note here, that when your interior bases can no longer provide colony pods to a new base site in a timely fashion, it may be time to consider pulling them off of pod duty--relegating that to your next "ring" of outlying bases--and get those core bases working on other projects...developing or honing their initial mineral crawler suites, SP's, advanced infrastructure, etc..

Summary of base spacing, and it's impact on your game: If I'm building roads to my base sites 3 spaces from my current bases, and your colony pods are travelling along rugged terrain, five hexes to their build zone, my base will be up and running two turns after the pod is out of the build queue. Your base won't be up until about four or five turns after that, and by that time, I've already cranked out another former, a garrison, and have started working on my rec. tanks. In very short order, I'll be so far ahead in terms of terraforming and infrastructure that there's no way you will catch up. Additionally, my new base will have had the benefits of four to five turns of growth time, which means that my *next* colony pod will be out that much more quickly than yours (terrain factors being equal), which sets up for a further widening of that lead.

In terraforming, my biggest problem has always been that my ability to make new pods runs far ahead of my ability to prep new base sites, so as I explore more of the continent, I'll invariably have to make some sacrifices....select what I hope will be a relatively protected area of the landmass and NOT build sensors on the base sites....it's either that or slow down growth, and my plan centers around the notion of filling up my starting continent just as rapidly as I possibly can....then all those production centers can go to work on other stuff!

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

In terraforming, my biggest problem has always been that my ability to make new pods runs far ahead of my ability to prep new base sites, so as I explore more of the continent, I'll invariably have to make some sacrifices....

Thank you for that comment! Everything I read here seems to be some kind of idealised strategy. I never have a set placement for bases because fungus, rocky squares and other factions/borders dictate where I have to place bases. In my current MP game out of 4 bases I have founded since getting formers only one have I been able to build the sonsor first.

[Velociryx]

Sea Bases: Yep...I generally use the exact same configuration (easier to do, because there are less obstructions)

Garth, that's dead on, bud. Regardless of your idealized placement scheme, game factors WILL get in and muck that up some, and when they do, you gotta make some tradeoffs? Should you leapfrog over that rocky tile and have a base 4 apart, or further compress it and build a base only two spaces from your others? Do you tie up some formers clearing that fungus tile to keep your idealized spacing, or say screw it and just work around the stuff? And it's how you answer those types of questions that will determine the outcome of the game for you.

Now and again, if there was a base site that was covered over with fungus, I *have* taken the time to clear it for the base, but generally I'll do that only if doing so provides me some added benefit. Perhaps by clearing that one tile, I open a path through the fungus which shaves several turns of travel time to that part of the continent (time I would have had to spend going around said fungal bed). The main point is though, that each game is different, and what works this time around may not be viable next time, which is why a willingness to stay flexible is sooooo important.

The main thing is to make sure your empire is functional. It need not be pretty, or symmetrical, or follow any particular plan or pattern in order to be functional, but you'll recognize that inherent functionality when you see it, because all the individual elements IN your Empire will be working together like a well-oiled machine when you put the parts together in the right way. That's when you know you're rolling....when everything starts clicking together....

I went through a phase where form meant everything, and I'd blow tons of turns levelling out some rocky real estate just to put my next base in such a way that it was perfectly lined up with my scheme. All it did was cost me some of my turn advantage lead and didn't provide much, if anything in the way of benefits, and when I realized that, I saw that I was falling into the "symmetry trap," and got away from it as quickly as possible.

The best approach to spacing your cities is to have some basic principle in your mind ("three apart", "five apart," five on the die", or whathaveyou), and then grow organically, bending your basic strategy around the prevailing terrain.

There are some who would say that organic growth leads to chaos, which weakens your game. ::shrug:: Maybe, but compare two modern cities, one which started off organically (Rome), and the other which started off planned (Washington DC). Both face similar problems with traffic flows, which have cropped up in the US's capital despite a more structured city approach. Clearly then, there are definite limits to the usefulness of a rigid design scheme. (Besides that, on a personal note, organic empires just look and feel cooler to me ::shrug:: )



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Sea Bases: Yep...I generally use the exact same configuration (easier to do, because there are less obstructions)

Garth, that's dead on, bud. Regardless of your idealized placement scheme, game factors WILL get in and muck that up some, and when they do, you gotta make some tradeoffs? Should you leapfrog over that rocky tile and have a base 4 apart, or further compress it and build a base only two spaces from your others? Do you tie up some formers clearing that fungus tile to keep your idealized spacing, or say screw it and just work around the stuff? And it's how you answer those types of questions that will determine the outcome of the game for you.

Now and again, if there was a base site that was covered over with fungus, I *have* taken the time to clear it for the base, but generally I'll do that only if doing so provides me some added benefit. Perhaps by clearing that one tile, I open a path through the fungus which shaves several turns of travel time to that part of the continent (time I would have had to spend going around said fungal bed). The main point is though, that each game is different, and what works this time around may not be viable next time, which is why a willingness to stay flexible is sooooo important.

The main thing is to make sure your empire is functional. It need not be pretty, or symmetrical, or follow any particular plan or pattern in order to be functional, but you'll recognize that inherent functionality when you see it, because all the individual elements IN your Empire will be working together like a well-oiled machine when you put the parts together in the right way. That's when you know you're rolling....when everything starts clicking together....

I went through a phase where form meant everything, and I'd blow tons of turns levelling out some rocky real estate just to put my next base in such a way that it was perfectly lined up with my scheme. All it did was cost me some of my turn advantage lead and didn't provide much, if anything in the way of benefits, and when I realized that, I saw that I was falling into the "symmetry trap," and got away from it as quickly as possible.

The best approach to spacing your cities is to have some basic principle in your mind ("three apart", "five apart," five on the die", or whathaveyou), and then grow organically, bending your basic strategy around the prevailing terrain.

There are some who would say that organic growth leads to chaos, which weakens your game. ::shrug:: Maybe, but compare two modern cities, one which started off organically (Rome), and the other which started off planned (Washington DC). Both face similar problems with traffic flows, which have cropped up in the US's capital despite a more structured city approach. Clearly then, there are definite limits to the usefulness of a rigid design scheme. (Besides that, on a personal note, organic empires just look and feel cooler to me ::shrug:: )



-=Vel=-

[Method]

what i usually(or always) do just like in civ2 is (on the 3d map) 4 squares to the left, up right or down of the base or 3 and one diagonal. or i go 5 squares diagonal from the base. this way no base ever shares a square. the formers have to go nuts, but all my bases get enough everything (AI always builds their bases so close 2gether which is why i hate war with the base capturing and all).
[This message has been edited by TKG (edited March 06, 2001).]

[Blake]

Looks like I'm only person which uses a fairly rigid base layout plan. I always plan my base sites so I can borehole everywhere, no good having a base where a borehole can go. It's really not that hard, pretend gamemap is a chessboard, only build bases on the "white" squares, the "black" squares are for boreholes: hint, use "terrain cursor" start at existing base then move curser using 8,4,6,2 any square the curser moves over can have a base built on it. I use this to move my base layout to other landmasses.

True this cuts my options for base placment in half, but I can almost invariably find some good place to stick a base 3 tiles from the existing base. Then when it's time go borehole crazy I just start a borehole adjacant to one of my cities, and the boreholes spread from there, 1 in every 4 tiles gets a borehole. Perfect. Incidentely if I get the WP I build boreholes on mineral/energy specials - later when the main borehole effort starts I trash those special boreholes, whats better? 1 *sligtly* better borehole or 4 standard boreholes?. Melikes the latter.

I also like to play on high erosin arid maps. That way it's more like true terraforming. It also means it doesn't matter squat where I put my bases, with no rainy tiles any place is as good as any other.

what about sea-bases? you guys use the same system? or do you use a different tactic?

[johndmuller]

In addition to the various factors covered so well already, I find myself giving serious weight to at least one other consideration - trying to locate my cities strategically so as to preempt or at least discourage the AI and/or human opponents from settling too much of what I consider to be *my* territory.

This means sending out a Colony Pod or two to the far corners of my future realm in order to stake my claim - heading off incipient expansion of the neighbors in my direction. Of course, this only works with the less belligerent factions and a lot of time is wasted while your CP is slogging across the continent, but it saves the time and aggravation of having to later fight off the interlopers. Also, if you do succeed in turning their expansion in another direction not only will you be able to develop a large area in relative peace, but it should lead to that neighbor having a non-productive relationship with their other neighbor(s) while you thrive.

If I'm feeling that this is too inefficient, I try to tell myself that it is like a CP was lost to worms (but with a free city thrown in). As for the here and now expense of the support on the roving CP, compared to the then and there cost of fighting for (or probe-buying) that territory later, I'll leave that interest calculation for the MBA's, but it seems to work for me.

When it comes to ocean going cities, I'm often motivated to build off my coasts as much to beat the AI there as for any other reason. Of course, its usually easy to take sea cities from the AI, but they generally aren't worth much (or in the exact place you would put them) and you may not feel like a vendetta at the time.

It seems that trying to adhere to pre-set patterns at sea works mostly in the places where there are large shallow areas. Otherwise, I would build sea cities first in those spots where you are in the middle of 3 bonus squares. Also, being adjacent to land, even if only a one square island, can be useful for forests and as a landing area for drop pod whatevers.

[Sikander]

Blake,

I use a fairly rigid pattern as well, though not as much as you do. I build bases about every other square along my coast (sometimes three squares where the coast curves). I build boreholes in between bases as you do, though I usually only build 1 per base. I crawl minerals and nuts from the interior where necessary. I try to build a sensor under every base, but can get away with one under every other base where I have maintained spacing at two.

As has been so eloquently explained previously tighter spacing is a big plus throughout most of the game, both for turn advantage and defense. Even later it is no detriment thanks to supply crawlers. In fact if you are intent on large scale energy crawling it is better to have all of your bases packed fairly close to your HQ, and then crawl energy from as far away as you like, because any losses due to distance are based upon the location of the receiving base rather than the origin of the energy itself.