Official: Centralis boreholes?

GeneralTacticus · January 13, 2003, 23:31

Should either, both, or neither of these two boreholes be constructed?

EDIT: poll times out in two days.

EDIT II: Look down to find the real picture.

[IMG]C:\Angus\Apolyton\SMAC Demo Game\Borehole Plan.bmp[/IMG]

Archaic · January 14, 2003, 01:15

Of course.

Pandemoniak · January 14, 2003, 05:17

The link with picture broken, I cant see the image.

GeneralTacticus · January 14, 2003, 05:25

...?

I can see it just fine.

Anyway, the locations are:

Red: 1 tile SE of NA.

Blue: 2 tiles SW of TA.

Pandemoniak · January 14, 2003, 05:28

The VBcodeline for your image is : C:\Angus\Apolyton\SMAC Demo Game\Borehole Plan.bmp, and you're the only one with that file on your computer : you gotta either attach it (as a .gif or .jgp) if its less than 600pixels length, or put it on the web and link it. Until now, I think you're the only one that can see the picture.

GeneralTacticus · January 14, 2003, 05:36

Ok, here's another try.

Cedayon · January 14, 2003, 12:14

Yes to both of course, we need the economic and industrial boost.

On a related note: has anyone given thought to constructing boreholes outside of any base's radii (avoiding terraform eco-damage) and crawling them for energy (avoiding mineral eco-damage)? Crawling most/all of the energy to one base (the capital, most likely) combined with suitable research facilities, for example, could really give our labs a boost.

I realize this is a large undertaking and would take many former/turns (and is cause for ecological concern whether or not it actually causes fungal blooms), but the energy would be worth it IMHO. Particularly if we choose to not go FM.

Archaic · January 14, 2003, 12:24

It would be far more efficient to build an energy park. Less Former time per unit of energy, and more energy in the end (Average SC has 6 Mirrors next to it. Even on low terrain that's then 7 Energy Each.)

Cedayon · January 14, 2003, 12:34

Ah, right *writes that one down*, good for fairly large areas. What about small areas like that 3 square bit in the screenshot, would a borehole fit in any of those? Or would it still be more efficient to build collectors/mirrors there? I think it would depend on whether or not it's ok to extend the energy park into the surrounding within-radii squares. Then again it could be irrelevant if we have enough large areas available.

Maniac · January 14, 2003, 15:25

I voted no on both boreholes, at least for now. GT, several of your bases are already seriously polluting our environment / producing eco-damage. Surely it is folly to build boreholes on top of that before we have developed more eco-friendly production methods?

GeneralTacticus · January 14, 2003, 19:28

Like what? We have Tree Farms under construction in both bases, you realize, and they'll be done long before the boreholes.

Archaic · January 14, 2003, 21:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
I voted no on both boreholes, at least for now. GT, several of your bases are already seriously polluting our environment / producing eco-damage. Surely it is folly to build boreholes on top of that before we have developed more eco-friendly production methods?

Question Maniac. What in your book qualifies as "seriously polluting our environment" in the terms of producing eco-damage. How much eco-damage do you find acceptable? And why is it even an issue?

Archaic · January 14, 2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Cedayon
Ah, right *writes that one down*, good for fairly large areas. What about small areas like that 3 square bit in the screenshot, would a borehole fit in any of those? Or would it still be more efficient to build collectors/mirrors there? I think it would depend on whether or not it's ok to extend the energy park into the surrounding within-radii squares. Then again it could be irrelevant if we have enough large areas available.

It'd probably be better to throw in a Mirror and 2 Solar's there. Boreholes crawled contribute to Eco-damage too afterall, plus we could only fit 1 in there at most anyway. This way, all 3 squares will produce energy.

GeneralTacticus · January 14, 2003, 23:06

Hmmm - do Echelon mirrors recieve energy reflected off each other?

Archaic · January 14, 2003, 23:10

Unfortunatly not. However, if I remember correctly, they still make 5 energy each or some such. It's been a while since I've bothered to make an energy park in a game. However, the following pattern will generate more energy than any other....

Code:

ESESE
ESESE
ESESE

That ends up being better than

Code:

SESES
SESES
SESES

in the long run simply due to the accumulated Mirror bonuses.

Cedayon · January 14, 2003, 23:28

Agreed on the energy park thing, there's one thing that puzzles me though:

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
Boreholes crawled contribute to Eco-damage too afterall

Even if they're outside city radii and crawled for energy and not minerals? That would kill the idea pretty quick... but I remember playing a game some time ago (SMAC, not X) where I had some 40-50 boreholes on a large plain (terraformed up from the seabed) all outside my radii (perhaps even outside my territory) crawled for energy sent to my capital. I was getting 1-2 techs a turn, but I don't recall seeing terribly many fungal blooms or worm assaults or the usual effects of massive eco-damage that one would expect from 40-50 boreholes, however.

Was this changed in a patch, or am I just remembering wrong?

GeneralTacticus · January 14, 2003, 23:30

Quote:

Unfortunatly not. However, if I remember correctly, they still make 5 energy each or some such. It's been a while since I've bothered to make an energy park in a game. However, the following pattern will generate more energy than any other....

I just ran a test using the Scenario Editor on the map that we're using (not the same game, though), and it seems to won't be very efficient to turn the central area into an energy park - the maximum it will produce per turn is 5 energy, which is less than a single borehole will produce, so it would probably be more efficient to just drill a single boreholes, crawl it, and leave the other two tiles as forest to help contain the ecodamage.

GeneralTacticus · January 14, 2003, 23:32

Quote:

Even if they're outside city radii and crawled for energy and not minerals? That would kill the idea pretty quick... but I remember playing a game some time ago (SMAC, not X) where I had some 40-50 boreholes on a large plain (terraformed up from the seabed) all outside my radii (perhaps even outside my territory) crawled for energy sent to my capital. I was getting 1-2 techs a turn, but I don't recall seeing terribly many fungal blooms or worm assaults or the usual effects of massive eco-damage that one would expect from 40-50 boreholes, however.

Was this changed in a patch, or am I just remembering wrong?

Did the capital or nearby bases have Hybrid Forests?

Cedayon · January 14, 2003, 23:38

The capital (and pretty much all my bases) had essentially everything that current tech permitted, including TFs/HFs and copious amounts of SC's. The borehole field was many, many squares away, though, and probably outside my territory (ie not within 20 squares of any of my bases or whatever the area is). What determines which base gets hit with the eco-damage for a borehole (and thus could alleviate that damage with HFs) if the borehole isn't in the city radii?

Archaic · January 14, 2003, 23:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Cedayon
Agreed on the energy park thing, there's one thing that puzzles me though:
Even if they're outside city radii and crawled for energy and not minerals? That would kill the idea pretty quick... but I remember playing a game some time ago (SMAC, not X) where I had some 40-50 boreholes on a large plain (terraformed up from the seabed) all outside my radii (perhaps even outside my territory) crawled for energy sent to my capital. I was getting 1-2 techs a turn, but I don't recall seeing terribly many fungal blooms or worm assaults or the usual effects of massive eco-damage that one would expect from 40-50 boreholes, however.

Was this changed in a patch, or am I just remembering wrong?

Hmmmm....perhaps I'm remembering wrong. I remember having massive eco-damage, but then, I'd crawled mainly minerals, not energy. It was a 1 city challenge I'd done for some reason. I remember counting over 100 Boreholes by the end.

GeneralTacticus · January 14, 2003, 23:42

Quote:

The capital (and pretty much all my bases) had essentially everything that current tech permitted, including TFs/HFs and copious amounts of SC's. The borehole field was many, many squares away, though, and probably outside my territory (ie not within 20 squares of any of my bases or whatever the area is). What determines which base gets hit with the eco-damage for a borehole (and thus could alleviate that damage with HFs) if the borehole isn't in the city radii?

No idea. Meybe it doesn't get hit at all, but in any case, if all your bases had Hybrid Forests, the issue it irrelevant - HFs negate the ED effects of terraforming.

Cedayon · January 14, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

From Archaic:
I remember having massive eco-damage, but then, I'd crawled mainly minerals, not energy.

Yea, you'd get massive ED if you had massive surface mineral production (anyway around that other than large numbers of orbital mining stations and large population?)... I've played a few games where my industry got to the point that I was fighting off 40-50+ unit swarms of locusts per turn (sometimes multiple groups of them), ouch. So I adopted the strategy of crawling enough energy that I could research really fast and have enough cash to buy whatever my more moderate industry couldn't produce fast enough.

Anyway, I'm done hijacking the thread

GeneralTacticus · January 14, 2003, 23:52

Hardly a threadjack - it was on a related topic, and your suggestion is probably a good one.

Main_Brain · January 15, 2003, 00:12

As I always say: you cant have enough Boreholes

MrWhereItsAt · January 15, 2003, 01:11

Cedayon - if this is indeed true, that boreholes crawled for energy beyond a certain distance (or perhaps at ANY distance) create no ED, then we must look into this seriously - it could be a way of bulking up the energy without even FM, thus keeping groups on both sides of the FM fence happy. After all, the only bonus to FM is energy, and if we could get masses without resorting to the negative police and planet ratings, then we COULD stay in Planned or Green with fewer objections from the likes of me.

IMO this idea needs to be investigated further.

GeneralTacticus · January 15, 2003, 01:13

While it's a nive idea, it would need vast numbers of boreholes to reach the levels that FM would give us, which would mean a huge investment in former-time - not to mention the fact that the STEP lobby would probably go on the warpath on RP grounds.

Archaic · January 15, 2003, 01:17

Finished checking. The Boreholes won't create Eco Damage directly unless they're in a base radius. Of course, as already stated, it's not a viable solution to the problem. Inefficiency would kill most of that production even before we get into the STEP RP reasons and the former time.

GeneralTacticus · January 15, 2003, 01:19

Well, inefficiency wouldn't be a factor if we directed it all to our HQ, but that would force it spend vast amounts of time producing crawlers, or mean that we'd have to move al the crawlers to there and rehome them first.

MrWhereItsAt · January 15, 2003, 01:34

Or we up our Efficiency as much as possible with Green, Children's Creches (IIRC) etc.

Even if we never get as far as building enough to reach FM proportions, whilst there is this much oppositiion to FM, we may as well go for what we can. And just imagine what it would be like if in the future we had BOTH boreholes and FM...

Archaic · January 15, 2003, 01:51

As already stated, better to go for the Mirrors and Solars than Boreholes for energy parks.

Unless.....does anyone know if Mirrors boost energy production of Boreholes?

Still though......we're getting along the lines of creating a Super Science City with that there. The production to create such a thing though.....we won't be able to manage it at this rate.