Is creating turn advantage all that important?

[VoodooChild]

After reading Vel's 3.0 guide, I was still asking myself this question.

OK, I can spend $25 to rush a former when I start a new base and save myself on average 5 turns. Given that I will probably use the former to plant a forrest, I will net an extra mineral and energy for each turn I gained by rushing, so 5 minerals and 5 energy all together. Well those 5 minerals can be translated into $12.5 regained, and 5 energy will earn back $2.5 and 2.5 labs (which to most people a lab is worth a great deal) So after putting it all together, I thought a typical rush was breaking even.

Now if there is a Monolith, usable Mineral resource, or prepped forest around, spending that $25 would save me only 4 turns. Ignoring the fact that planting a forrest in this situation may not grant me extra resources since my population is already getting the most out of the square they are working, I will gain 4 minerals and 4 energey or $12 and 2 labs. Clearly this situation is less favorable than the first.

So is creating turn advantage really all that important?

Well is.... and VERY important at that.

It took me awhile, but I finially realized something. OK say I created 5 turns of production advantage by rushing a former, that means that I can get started on my next item in the que 5 turns earlier, and the one after that, etc.... Even if I never rush another item at this base, I have created gain for every single item I will produce in that base with that mealsy $25.

Now granted as population grows and you produce more and more minerals, those 10 minerals you purchased for your former will net you less and less "turns" worth of advantage for each item there after, but you will always be gaining something throughout the life of the base. Also, hopefully you will be rushing more and more items to compound the advantage.

Now all of this may have been apparent to everyone else, but I thought I would write it all out in case there were any other people like me who never quite got it.

[kt_butts]

While I agree overall, I do have a couple of contentions. First of all, I think you undervalued the extra mineral from the forest. While stockpiling energy will turn 5 minerals into 12.5 Credits, the value of the minerals is greater when used for production. An easy example would be if you followed up the former with an Energy Bank. You would then get the added 5 turns of advantage from rushing the former + whatever turn advantage was gained from faster production of the bank * 50% of the economy. Of course, that is a simplistic example, but the principle holds true for all base facilities.
However, if in the beginning of the game, your base is by a monolith, rushing a former would, IMHO, be of no benefit. You can wait the five turn, keep the money, and still build a forest by the time the population grows.
Finaly, it's important to remember, you don't earn interest on credits (unless you loan it to the other factions). As such, if you don't have anything in particular you are saving up for (probe actions, social engineering, upgrading units, or rushing a future production) you gain nothing by letting your credits accumulate. If you win the game with a large amount of credits left (wasted resources), you were not playing efficiently.

[VoodooChild]

My mineral formula was based rush cost not stockpile returns. To rush 1 mineral cost $2.5 so in reverse 5 * 2.5 = 12.5.

I'm from the school that says NEVER stockpile energy as your production choice. Those 5 minerals would only net $2.5 while doing that. If I have nothing else to build then I will always build more Crawlers. Not only do I get to haul in needed supplies or imporve efficency, but I could always cash it in for a SP or Proto and net $4 for each mineral instead of $.5 if I had stockpiled. Even with every other +econ structure you'll lose credits.

Yes I forgot to mention your point about saving credits, but also add that if you do, you run the risk of higher damage from energy crashes and more importnatly higher monetary demands from tyranical factions.

[Simpson II]

YES!!

Especially early on.. get those CPs out! By the time you hit the third generation of bases, they are 15 turns ahead if you could rush the formers.. that will decide the game, if there are few other differences.

Note, though, that you can generate turn advantage, tempo, call it what you want, by having a faster tech-rate. Get the crawlers/TFs/Impact rovers going faster. Overall IMHO this is more effective, energy credit for research point, though most factions can't do it early on - but the Gaians and CyC can. And pod-popping generates TA. And early rushes with recon rovers. And roads before CPs. And so on. Just get it somewhere!

[Lord Maxwell]

quote: Originally posted by VoodooChild on 09-13-2000 04:55 PM My mineral formula was based rush cost not stockpile returns. To rush 1 mineral cost $2.5 so in reverse 5 * 2.5 = 12.5.

No, to rush 1 mineral costs 2 energy, given that you have 10 minerals and that you are not sps. (ie, you build normal buildings.)

And a normal base has a mineral income of 2 when started, so you should only pay 21. (The other 4 in cost are taken care of by the mineral production.) Or you should, if you have alot of cash, pay 41, so that you can rush build the next choice next turn. (Only 10 minerals can carry over, here you pay for 8 carry over minerals and produce 2 carry over minerals.)

[VoodooChild]

Cost to rush per mineral varies by production type. I'm not positive about the numbers but it should be something like this:

SP and prototypes = $4/min after first ten
Standard Buildings = $2/min after first ten
Units = varies by % completed even after first ten

To rush sea formers (40 min cost)
10 min in que = $3.5/min
20 min in que = $3/min
30 min in que = $2.5/min

So my example holds true for a land former (20 min cost)
10 min in que = $2.5/min

As to your other point, depending on the situation, I may make a partial rush that will complete on the next turn anyway. Those situations I reserve until I am cranking out over 10 mins/turn or want to save some money if I'm saving to rush at several bases.

I rather have the flexibilty in most of the cases to rush or not to rush the next project so in the early going I usually go ahead and pay the full amount for the rush. If I shortchange the current rush, I have no choice but to wait the extra turn until I get past 10 minerals.

Still a good reminder not to waste credits and minerals by overspending rushes

[Fitz]

costs to determine rushes have been determined in detail in The hurry cost thread. Although you may need to go to the middle of the second page for units. Try to ignore the agument between A_S and MariOne, and just concentrate on MariOne/Frankie's formula.

[cbn]

One of the biggest advantages are the additional energy which translate into labs. This allows techs earlier and we all know the value of getting an important tech ahead of an opponent. When the tech result is combined with the possibility of faster increases in nutrients, minerals and dollars that comes from getting those formers out early . . . .

[VoodooChild]

What a post! Informative, Entertaining, and much much more. Not to knock on anyone, but I was surprised earlier at the debate of whos the cutest going on in the general forum and that it is the most active post going these days. Must be me, but that sort of thing is very low on my "what interests me about a game" list, but to each their own.

OK from here on out, I promise not to put numbers in any of my posts! They will just get me into trouble, since I usually post from work and away from the game where I can verify things.

Also in this case I used numbers to try to explain my origional thinking on turn advantage and opened the door for the thread to get side tracked. As a vet of forums I should have know better.

Thanks for the link Fitz, it has opened my eyes to several things (most importantly that there is a different price for not completing a rush), but has brought to mind several other question reguarding crawlers, upgrades, and industry ratings. Guess I know what I'll be doing tomorrow morning.

Anyway to all happy gaming

[MariOne]

Yes, please, ignore the argument

- I agree that strategy is more important and more intersting
- a strategy has to be put in practice tho, and if you mess up in actuating your strategy because you mess with the numbers, you'll tactically ruin a good strategy
- you yourself VC needed numbers in your first post to evaluate the actual convenience of rushing vs letting production go. Principles may hold, but actual figures tell what's convenient
- numbers apart, I also tend to keep my reserves at a minimum (safe) level
- but for your tempo advantage evaluation, you forgot to consider that if you don't spend amount X for the early former, you'll have that amount passed on to rush the *next* item
- the point is: will you *actually* put to USE the work done EARLIER by the former? AND will you invest your ec MORE EFFICIENTLY if you invest them a bit LATER?
Example: you have a base with a monolith. Producing a forest earlier will give you no advantage. While if you rush later you might pay 2ec per mineral instead of 2.5, getting more minerals for your money, and with no overall delay after a couple of items produced.
- OTOH, a forest planted earlier might spread earlier, the former itself (rather than your production) will have a tempo advantage for all its future work schedule, and while for now you won't benefit from the first enhancements, a time will come when your terraforming will hardly keep up with your growth/expansion, so better start earlier anyway.
- on the same line, it's nice to get laser/impact earlier. But if you don't have a target to send your rovers to, you'd have better invested researching something with a more immediate return. Of course if you delay weapons it might be too late when YOU get invaded

Conclusion: it's wise to follow good principles even if sometimes they contrast to what seems conveneint in the short term. But BLINDLY following good principles just for the sake of them, is bad

(actual case: a pbem I subbed in, still in early phase. I founded a base, and already had a former nearby. I started producing another former. I had a rocky but nutrient bonus tile, and only flatmoist or rollingarid tiles around. I thought to add a forest, then to level the rocky tile with the two formers. Then I started a test scenario to evaluate the different options. I found out that I had to rush the former on the *second turn* hurrying 6 out of 8 missing minerals (short on ec...), and FIRST level the nutrient bonus tile asap using both formers (growth 1 turn earlier!), then forest the same bonus tile , and only after that forest a second tile. It turned out that after a dozen of turn I had 5 more nutrients, 3 more minerals, the same money and 2 more labs, over the other tactics... same terraforming performed & all the rest unchanged )