At the risk of starting an imbroglio ...

lbores · February 15, 2001, 11:21

... can we discuss the pros and cons of plonking a base down on a resource square?

In CivII, doing so would gain the city big-time in some cases. For example - city on a grapes or river tile . But what about SMAC? I've seen some opine that it makes no difference whilst others say just the opposite.

I realize that some of the early posts went over this - but these posts are buried and somewhat chaotic.

What say you?

[This message has been edited by lbores (edited February 15, 2001).]

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 15, 2001, 18:01

I'm one that see beneifts of both. Depending on the special involved and number of bases.

For nut specials. The effect of having the bonus under the base square is the same as working it outside. So say for instance you have a forest w/ a size 1 base. Then nuts = 5 (3 available for grwoth 2 to support citizen) in both cases. Mins and energy are the same.

On theone hand though if you ICS like mad then often times the first citizen will be a drone requiring you pull the worker and make him a doctor. If you build the base on the special you get advantage of having excess 2 nutrients.

OTOH the effect of nutrient specials is much greater when considering condersor farms and soil enrichers. All of a sudden a rainy/condensor/farm which on any other square would be 4 nuts is in acutality 7 nuts. Soil enrichers go from base of 6 to 9 or 10 IIRC. Each of these cases make the special worth more than a simple +2 nuts.

In light of the huge benefit of resource points in the long run I will almost always try to forgo building bases on nut specials and will instead condensor/farm/soil enrich and crawl bag the nuts.

For min specials, if not on a rocky, its normally a prime spot for me to build a base. I like having the security that even if I have to pull the workers from the field I'll have the extra 2 mins. Definitely though for rockies always leave them for road/mining. ( Bye the bye, the 7 mins are the same kind of effect as the 7 nuts. You would normally think either of these mentioned squares would offer only 6 resource points but in actuality yield 7)Its really moot anyway as you can't build a base on a rocky anyway.

For energy specials its kind of a 50/50 arrangement. If I recognize it as a potential borehole site I may want to borehole when I get the WP, since energy restrictions are the last thing to be lifted I'll take the 2m/8E as soon as I can. The extra energy can be a godsend. OTOH if I miss out on WP and am ICSing I'll want to make sure I am capturing every bit of energy possible including those bases that I have to Doctor and inthat case a build onthe special is a good thing.

As is the case with anything though much depends on the faction and game set up. A slow paced (tech wise game) makes me think a little differently then a fast paced game.
[This message has been edited by Ogie Oglethorpe (edited February 15, 2001).]

Lefty Scaevola · February 15, 2001, 18:19

If you are playing a lower level game or a faster research game so that you will gain al the techs (and secrete projects) that increase fungus prodution before the end of the game buiding a base on bonus squares is a good idea.
If you are a forest builder you want your nut +2 outside your bases.

------------------
Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
Pontificator Pendanticus
older richer & wiser than you
Did I mention that I like spellcheckers?

Sprayber · February 15, 2001, 18:59

I usually try and place bases on nutrient bonus but not the other two. Especially since I play many aquatic factions, if I spot one in the first turn or two I place the base on a nut. square. In my experience it helps. I would never do that with a min. or energy bonus though.

DilithiumDad · February 15, 2001, 23:05

It also depends on faction. If you are playing afaction that can't pop boom, it will be a long time before every square in your radius is under production. Especially as the Hive or the Morganites, I will build a base on all 3 bonuses EXCEPT energy or nutrient on high elevation (over 1000 meters; these get farm/solar) and mineral on rocky, as mentioned already. If I'm playing as Lal and I'm shooting for a small number of perfect megabases, I would never stoop to building a base on a bonus!

------------------
Creator of the Ultimate Builder Map, based on the Huge Map of Planet, available at The Chironian Guild:
http://guild.ask-klan.net.pl/eng/index.html

Aredhran · February 16, 2001, 01:05

The difference between Civ and SMAC, is that in SMAC the underlying terrain will not affect base production.

So a resource will give you an extra 2 nut/min/energy depending on its type if you place a base on top of it.

However, think about this: if you use the bonus as a terraformed tile, it's production is not affected by limitation for the type of the bonus. This means that you can have a rocky+mineral tile with a mine+road produce 7 minerals, before the advent of EcoEng, or a flat+forest+mineral giving you 1-4-1, or a rainy+farm+nut for 5 nutrients... Huge advantage in the early game.

Personally, I prefer not to use the resource bonuses for base tiles.

Aredhran

edited because I should re-read what I type before clicking submit

[This message has been edited by Aredhran (edited February 15, 2001).]

Kinjiru · February 16, 2001, 01:45

Starting with one of your first three bases on a special square can be great for the very early game, as you will get a small boost.

However, that square will never reach it's full potential. You can't do any advanced forming on it so that by turn 70 or so, you are now losing out every single turn.

If you are doing the 5 on a die approach where your center base will not be working any squares, then it mightbe advisable to go ahead and make that center base on a special.