Official : Road Network

Pandemoniak · September 28, 2002, 08:46

What should be our policy for road networks :
1. Only link the cities
2. Link the cities, add an highway to circumvent the base
3. Road all the base radius.

Another question is about the formers. Seeing the design of the Unity Rovers, I thought it would be faster to design a specific kind of former, whihc could move as fast as the rovers : thus, our road infrastructure would be built twice faster. (1st move to move, 2nd move finishes the road, instead of turn 1 : move, turn 2 : finishes the road).

Pandemoniak · September 28, 2002, 08:48

This poll will last 5 days. Any feedbacks or questions welcomed.

Method · September 28, 2002, 10:42

i wouldn't build rover formers/colony pods/crawlers until fusion. it's too expensive with fission.

and link bases and circumvent

Pandemoniak · September 28, 2002, 12:09

I meant only a couple of formers with a rover design, specifically building only (or rather mostly) roads. Others formers would be regular formers.

DeathByTheSword · September 28, 2002, 12:12

all for it

with the circumvant

Maniac · September 28, 2002, 14:36

It seems there's a majority for circumventing right now. I do hope, Pandemoniak, you will still give priority to linking our bases and refrain from circumventing until you have enough terraforming power to do the job.

Pandemoniak · September 29, 2002, 08:33

It will actually depend on the terraforming needed : its a proven fact that a terraformer is very slow, and waste lot of time to move instead of terraforming. Therefore, I will do my best to prevent as much unnecessary movements as possible.
This is actually why I organized my terraforming poll this way : option with the more votes is terraformed first, while the second option with the most votes is terraformed second, if the tile is contiguous to the first tile terraformed.

Andemagne · September 29, 2002, 18:07

link only. (circumvent maybe later.)

I'm for building only rover formers.

Method · September 29, 2002, 18:32

rover formers cost WAAAAAY too much! we don't have the time to spend the extra turns on formers IMO.

moomin · September 30, 2002, 05:11

Ordinary formers. Rover formers are way expensive.

Link only. That's a priority untill we get some serious forming going.

- Groucho - · September 30, 2002, 14:54

1) link first, alternate routes later. #1 priority should be ability to quickly reinforce cities.

2) Rover formers are too expensive IMHO - I would have to see stats to be convinced that the faster roads are worth more than the cost of the extra build time in foregone units and improvements.

Pandemoniak · September 30, 2002, 17:47

Well, the stats are quite simpler : a regular former builds 10 sections of roads in 20 turns, while a rover former builds 10 sections in 10 turns. So for the same amount of work, we'd need two regular formers to get the road done in the same time.
Theres not really a best formula between the two options though, its a choice to make or not to make (else, i wouldnt have polled it, I would have go for the best option). But I repeat that these rover-formers would be very few and would mostly build roads.

Maniac · September 30, 2002, 18:19

It isn't that simple. Only on flat terrain a road takes 1 year to complete. On rolling tiles 2. Not to mention rocky, forest, etcetera territories. This reduces the benefit of rover formers.

And while Base A is still busy building a rover former, Base B can already have built a regular former, and started improving the surrounding terrain, gaining turn adva... Ouch, the forbidden word...

... gaining a quicker return out of our government investments, with those investments having a self-increasing effect to our base's industrial and farming capacity over the years.

Pandemoniak · September 30, 2002, 18:22

Thats what I was saying ; its just a choice to make, not the best formula to follow : do you think it worth the effort in minerals to build rover-formers for roads or do you think it is wiser to let it go with regular formers.

Maniac · September 30, 2002, 18:35

Just providing arguments for the heathens...

- Groucho - · October 1, 2002, 09:08

I'm with the maniac. Our resources are too precious to spend on souped up tractors when a more moderately priced former could be in the field far quicker. In these early days our engineers should be building the necessities of life on this planet - not indulging in gear-head tractor-pull fantasies. Perhaps once our bases are more established and we have some spare mineral resources, a prototype could be developed to provide a proof of concept.

lucky22 · October 1, 2002, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Echinda
In these early days our engineers should be building the necessities of life on this planet - not indulging in gear-head tractor-pull fantasies.

Maniac · October 5, 2002, 10:03

Seeing that we don't have a road network yet, I'd like to propose turning all our formers over to connecting our four bases Antioch, TBIBTU, New Apolyton and UNPD as soon as their current task is finished. The only exception would be the NA former making a road towards NS, and the NS former doing its own distinct work.

Maniac · October 5, 2002, 13:06

A picture (left side). The red lines indicate what I think is the most efficient road network. The red squares indicate my preferred next base locations.

Maniac · October 5, 2002, 13:07

right side...

Method · October 5, 2002, 13:41

i concur

DeathByTheSword · October 5, 2002, 14:27

western base site is

but the northern i would do one tile NW so that you wont have any trouble with overlapping and have more rolling moists tiles

Maniac · October 5, 2002, 15:21

I'd suggest a citizen poll or director quickpoll for determining the northern site. NW would be my second choice as well. But personally I don't mind a bit of overlap. Also when we build it at the indicated location, we can build another coastal base NW of this one with only three tiles overlap. If we build the northern base one tile NW, there is no room anymore for a coastal base and we're wasting some good rainy tiles.