farm + mine = wtf??

Renaissoxx · December 29, 2003, 18:13

I played civ3 for a while and my cousin told me to check out this game cause its just more fun to play than the civ series.

So I am just now trying it, it seems pretty cool and I like the designing units feature and stuff, the graphics aren't that big of a deal.

Anyways the point is Im new to the game, and I looked through all the information and so far have got that:

Moist squares produce 1 food. Farms add 1 food. Rolling squares produce 1 mineral. Mines add 1 mineral.
Farms and mines are not mutually exclusive. Neither has any penalty to any other type of output in its description.

So WHY is it that when I build a farm and a mine on a rolling moist square it only makes 1 food???

TimeTraveler · December 29, 2003, 18:22

a mine will deduce 1 nutrient per turn from whatever square it's on. It's just something it does.

Renaissoxx · December 29, 2003, 18:24

I see... too bad they decided to omit that fact in all descriptions of what it does lol...

Flubber · December 29, 2003, 18:32

Because IIRC there ARE food penalties associated with building a mine . I actually forget because I never build that combination. IN any event NEVER ever build this combination of a farm plus a mine anywhere-- build forests for multipurpose squares-- it takes less terraforming time and nets more resources ( especially later after you build tree farms.

Very simplified terraforming rules

Mines should only go on rocky tiles period and nowhere else ( idea is to use crawlers to gather resources of a single type which is maximized from the tile)

Farms generally will go on tiles in combination with solars ( worked by a citizen) or condensors ( crawled).

Borehole or forest everything that doesn't get a farm or a mine

Some people follow rigid terraforming rules like

rainy-flat--- condensor+farm
rainy rolling-- farm + solar but I often find reasons to deviate from formulaic approached

Even if you ignore the rest of what I post, remember, Farm+mine is a bad combination

Blake · December 29, 2003, 19:22

The only time you want to farm + mine is when there is a mineral bonus on a rainy tile and it's pre-restriction lifting. It still takes 12 former turns or something, so only bother if your formers are sitting around bored.

Edit: May as well describe my terraforming, remember I dont use crawlers on a permament basis, if at all. My terraforming rules reflect the fact that all tiles will be worked.
Rocky -> Level then forest.
Rainy,Rolling,1000+ -> Solar, then farm, maybe replace solar with condensor at some point. If these tiles are abundant some will be forested.
Farm+Condensors on rolling tiles as nessecary to support borehole workers.
Everything else, forest or borehole.

The major difference is I condense the rolling tiles rather than the flat, to get the +1 mineral.

Sarxis · December 29, 2003, 20:07

I took the mine nutrient penalty out in my modded rules.

Its silly. Silly silly.

Jamski · December 29, 2003, 20:47

Forests, condensor+farm, mine+road on rocky and boreholes are the only t-forming I use.

-Jam

CEO Aaron · December 30, 2003, 17:05

Mining a farm square is a foolhardy exercise even if you remove the 1 food penalty of a mine. It takes 10 terraforming turns to produce a square that produces, at best, 1 more factor of production than a forest square, which, I might add, takes 4 turns to plant, and spreads independently. And once you get tree farms, there's simply no contest.

Blake · December 30, 2003, 18:04

And the exception is mining a mineral special, which gives +2 minerals. So farm/mining a rolling/rainy/Mineral goes from 2-3-0 to 2-5-0. Good for a SP base, and it also stops the forest spreading over the tile which changes it to 1-4-1.

CEO Aaron · December 30, 2003, 19:55

First of all, a rolling rainy square gives 2/2/0 when mined/farmed, not 2/3/0. Roads only help on rocky squares. Second of all, you'll get the same +2 boost to minerals if you forest that mineral bonus. I'd rather have a 1/4/1 square that takes me 4 turns to terraform, than a 2/4/0 square that takes me 10 turns to terraform, especially considering that once I get Tree Farms, the forest becomes the clear winner.

Jamski · December 30, 2003, 21:33

He's right. Mines are only worth it on rocky squares, and never worth combining with farms.

-Jam

Blake · December 30, 2003, 23:17

Bah I have nothing more to say on this topic.

Nubclear · December 30, 2003, 23:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
I took the mine nutrient penalty out in my modded rules.

Its silly. Silly silly.

How?

ErikM · December 30, 2003, 23:56

IIRC the rule is that mines provide an extra mineral in mineral bonus squares.

So just as Blake said any rolling min special with a mine gives 5 mins which is sometimes better than 4 mins from a forest.

Rolling +1
Special +2
Mine +1
Bonus +1
Total 5 mins.

IIRC Monsoon jungle min special square is 2/5 with a mine only prior to restriction lifting (rainy=2 food, mine -1 food, jungle +1 food). Probably better than a 2/4/1 forest alternative. Not that it happens very often.

Also Garland crater and Mt Planet count as mineral specials, so mines yield an extra mineral in these squares as well. Mines are particularly viable for Mt Planet since you cannot forest them anyway. Technically they are not supposed to be farmed either but (farm+mine+road) commamd will still build a farm there. But Farm+solar is probably better still since Mt Planet bases tend to be nutrient-poor.

[Edit: forgot to mention that above applies to rolling squares]

CEO Aaron · December 31, 2003, 12:56

One day I'm going to learn to do math, then you all will tremble in fear. :P

Sorry, Blake.

Sarxis · December 31, 2003, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

How?

There's a line in the alpha(x).txt file:

0, ; Nutrient effect in mine square (0 or -1)

When its 0, you don't get the reduction.

Mr. Harley · January 1, 2004, 05:43

Renaissoxx, if you are new to SMAC there's an assumption these guys didn't tell you. Almost all of us who play single player will do anything short of cheating to get the Weather Paradigm. You see, it lets you build condensors early, which lets you bypass the early nutrient restrictions. Nice trick, it really helps your early game.

Plus alot of the people here use crawlers. I have to admit I didn't use them effectively until I found this site. With crawlers on a flat moist square that has had a farm and condensor built, you can take four nutrients back to your base. If you plan to use a specialist on the square, use a rolling square so you get an extra mineral.

There are various early and mid game strategies on how to terraform. Go through the last year of threads here, you'll find some very nice discussions on it.

CEO Aaron · January 2, 2004, 18:38

Or you can save yourself some time and read Ogie's definitive terraforming overview:

http://www.civgaming.net/smac/acad_tformopt.shtml

Mr. Harley · January 3, 2004, 03:30

It's a nice overview, but it doesn't deal with the combined issue of base spacing, i.e. Sikander's versus whatever your typical Gaian optimal spread is. Plus you have Hive spacing, and some of the interesting ideas being tested on that. It's why I suggested he go through the forums, both here and on Civnet. He'll get alot of fine points that he would miss otherwise. Ogies overview is excellent, but just that, an overview. Renaissoxx evidently has some turn-based strategy experience, so I'll bet he would enjoy the fine points.

Blake · January 3, 2004, 03:50

Ogie's is good from a mathematical perspective, but really, the AI is so shocking that you can beat the AI with any of the terraformings. My most favourite is probably pure forest with a smattering of boreholes. Once everything is forested I turn to raise land and expand my continent and build more bases until I'm happy. It looks good and clean, and with lots of infrastructure the AI doesn't stand a chance.

Quote:

... If you plan to use a specialist on the square, use a rolling square so you get an extra mineral.

Said like a true crawler addict. Or "The worked square is a wasted specialist".