Base Size and Pollution

[mark13]

I know that in CivII, population is a major factor in pollution - not sure about SMAC though....

[johndmuller]

IIRC, none of the threads I've read on this subject include base size as a parameter in the ecodamage calculation. As you probably know, the ones usually mentioned include terraforming, mineral production, planet rating, nukes, etc. There is, given normal development, a correllation between base size and terraforming/minerals, but I presume you are factoring that into your question.

I've have noticed some anomalous behavior along similar lines.

Early in the game, at or a little before the time that the techs for Tree Farms and Centauri Preserves are becoming available, I usually have a few bases where eocdamage is in play. I've lately been playing with blind researech, so sometimes this can last a while. At these bases, the amount of ecodamage is generally controllable, by switching production, but seems to generally start at about the 16 minerals level. Adding TFs (and even Hybrid Forests when available) only provides a small difference for me (perhaps if I had Boreholes in the base area..), but the CPs do seem to do it for me. The strange part is that after being on the edge of ecodamage for some time, the whole issue seems to go away and I can produce lots more mins with no problem. During the transition time I will probably have built more TFs, CPs and maybe HFs, but according to the posts I've read, there is no cumulative effect from these facilities beyond the individual base. This is all with little or no episodes of Worm rape to build up my resistance, no building of planet-rating enhancing SPs or colonizing the Manifold Nexus, no changes to "Greener" SEs or any other mitigating factors I can think of. Maybe late in the game, I might use a Temple of Planet, but I would probably be building it more for the morale effect on newly built native life than for ecodamage except on a really hyped up base.

Basically, there seems to be an early crisis and once over that hump, the ecodamage seems to be mostly irrelevant to me (assuming I haven't done much planet-nasty stuff in the course of my "foreign policy"). I can only think of a few things that could explain this:
--there really is a cumulative effect from CPs and TofPs;
--advanced reactor techs (&/or units with them) have some effect;
--there is a factor involving the nut/min/ec production ratios.

I can't say that the matter of base size per se rings true to me as a possible explanation for the anomaly I think I've noticed, but the game does throw more complexities at you as your faction grows, so it wouldn't surprise me if that was in there somewhere.
[This message has been edited by johndmuller (edited April 25, 2001).]

[Clear Skies]

It must be base size. What else could it be?
Hybrid Forests eliminate pollution caused by terraforming improvements. So why, once you've built them, do you still have ecodamage? It must be base size! So you build Centauri Preserves and Temples of Planet, right?
I can't think of anything else it could be....it might be base improvements....

[buster]

Ecodamage is decides by terraforming and mineral production.

It is then modified by SE choices (planet rating) plus some SPs (like pholus mutagen) and base facilities (like tree farm, hybrid forest, centauri preserve).

You planet rating has major impact. Native life setting at start impacts too and some other factors.

Anyway here is axact formula from alpha helpfiles:

"The ecological damage formula is complex:

1)For each base total the number of Mines, Solar Collectors, Farms, Soil Enrichers, Roads, Mag Tubes, Condensers, Mirrors and Boreholes.
Items in squares which are actually being worked count double.

2)Add an extra +8 for each Borehole, +6 for each Mirror, and +4 for each Condenser.

3)Subract 1 for each Forest.

4)Halve if base has Tree Farm, and Eliminate if also has Hybrid Forest.

5) Divide this value by 8, and reduce by up to 16 plus # of previous
damages. Set this number aside.

6) Take the number of minerals produced this turn (but not from Orbit).

7)If result from 5 was reduced by less than 16+#, reduce result 6
by remaining amount.

8) Divide minerals by 1 plus # of Centauri Preserve, Temple of Planet, Nanoreplicator.

9) Sum the values of (5) and (8), and add +5 for each major atrocity.

10) If Alpha Prime is at perihelion (20 years out of every 80), double
your value.

Ecology% = (ValueFromStep10) * Difficulty * Technologies * (3-PLANET) * LIFE / 300

Difficulty = Normally 3, but 5 on two highest two difficulty levels.
Technologies = Number of technologies discovered
PLANET = Social Engineering PLANET value
LIFE = Native life level (1-3) from Custom Start"

[Ned]

I'm sorry, but all of us have experienced the same phenomena. That eco-damage formula does not explain what we are seeing. For example, if you have a +3 planet rating, you should have "no" eco-damage. But everyone knows this not true.

Has anyone seen this? A base is experiencing eco-damage. You click a mineral-producing crawler. Eco-damage drops to zero. Now suppose you take a specialist and apply it to the spot where the crawler just was. In many cases, eco-damage will remanin zero even though the number of minerals is the same as when the crawler brought in the minerals. But, instead of a specialist, you now have a worker.

I don't get it. Nothing in the formula can explain this, but I am willing to bet that most of us here know of this "trick."

Citing the formula simply cannot explain why smaller bases produce no eco-damage (both have the same planet rating) while larger bases produce a lot of eco-damage with far fewer minerals (assuming each has Trees, Forests, Preserves and Temples).

What I am seeing seems to be very similar to what we saw in Civ. There seems to be is a population effect. In Civ, pollution was affected by both base size and overall population. This code still seems to alive and well in SMAC.

[Ned]

I noticed a strong relationship between base size and eco-damage. For example, in my current game I have 60+ bases, none of which are over size 16. Many of these bases are producing 150+ minerals per turn. No eco-damage problem at all.

In my just previous game, I kept the number of bases limited, but pod boomed the bases to size 22, and then later with Hab Domes, bases went to size 35+. These bases could produce no more than 80-90 minerals without eco-damage.

I have also noticed a strong corolation earlier in the game. Small bases with lots of crawlers can produce more minerals without damage than larger bases.

I have not seen any threads on this before. Is this a known factor in the eco-damage formula?

[Ned]

Just a point of update. I just finished a game as Domai. 60+ bases each producing an average of 200 minerals per turn. No eco-damage. I had expected to see eco-damage begin as the bases grew beyond size 16 with Hab Domes. Did not happen. I was able to produce eco-damage in one base by pushing its mineral production to 264. (The base was not producing an orbital improvement.)

All this contrasts to other games where I could not go over 100 minerals in any base without producing eco-damage.

According to the formula, during the twenty years out of 80 when Alpha prime is in perihelion the mineral production necessary to produces damage is halved. Does this explain the phenomena I am seeing?

Ned

[Fitz]

Ned, I found your comment about the crawler/specialist interesting, because I cannot recall having seen this before, despite being fairly sure I must have done exactly what you described. I frequently play with eco-damage, removing crawlers etc. However, that isn't to say that I definitly did it. I may have assumed that sticking a worker on a square does indeed restore eco-damage to it's former level, and therefor not place on there.

However, I find that my eco-damages conform relatively well to the formula concept in the early game. The only thing that throws me is the Technologies part of the final forumula. For example, if I get the WP in the early game, stick down two boreholes (worked) and 4 forests (worked) and 2 farm/condensors (crawled), I'm not suprised to find positive eco-damage. Especially since step ten = ((12+16+8-4)/8-4)+(20-12) = 8. Now, if I've discovered five techs (by the time I get two boreholes, I probably have) the total eco damage would be ((8*5*5*3*2)/300) 1 point. Ten techs = 2 points, 15 = 3, 20 = 4, etc. Given this increasing eco-damage as you discover tech in a given base without any changes being made to the improvements or workers, which I have observed many times, I find it interesting that you are assuming something relavant to base size. I would have assumed it was due to gaining tech along the way, as the base grew.

However, I'm not saying you are wrong. I would just like some emperical evidence, mainly because I have seen so many claims about eco-damage, some long held, that were wrong. The old theory of CentPresevres help all bases is an example of these erronous theories. Set up a scenario and test your theory. Several bases, same number of worked improvements (remember that a farm/solar counts as 2 worked), same number of minerals, and different populations, and see if you are right.

It would simplfy things if you set it up as late game, since you can add hybrid/tree farm and nullify the improvments factor, and just match minerals. If the bases have the same mineral output but different base sizes, both with hybrid/tree farm, and have different eco-damages, you are right. If they have the same, it indicates that you might be wrong.
[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited April 26, 2001).]

[Blake]

After fairly extensive testing on ecodamage I determined that the ecodamage formula is actually mostly correct (with a little confusion over how tree farms and CP's effect terraforming, mineral, atrocity ecodamage). However it is very easy to read the ecodamage formula wrong, or assume a part is wrong while it is actually correct.

However I also seem to have found the strange effect of suddenly crossing a time/tech threshold and being able to produce 30+ clean minerals, with not enough "pops" to account for resistance (btw each pop allows one more clean mineral in every base). So, either another factor effects ED, OR some pops go un-notified. The ways this could happen are:
Pop in another factions territory (but still near your base)
Pop far away from your base that it isn't notified (ie outside of visual radius)
Pop under existing fungus (ie no effect at all)
Randomly forgets to notify you.

I'm not too happy with those ideas, mainly because it seems to be fairly consistent. The other alternative is that in the testing stage they decided that the ecodamage was too hard on players in the mid game so added a feature where if you pass a certain date/tech/other threshold it raises the clean mineral limit (prehaps a "extra clean" bonus for factions which kept clean...)

I can say with confidence that if you have two bases, each producing an identical number of minerals from the same sources and each with the same terraforming they produce the same amount of ecodamage regardless of population. If a larger base produces more ecodamage it is probably because the larger base has much more terraforming, like roads and possibly condensors & boreholes, while a frontier base could easily have no terraforming other than forest. Crawlered minerals are "cleaner" than worked minerals. Also workers working roads(!) creates extra ecodamage.

A third effect (also a logical result from the ecodamage formula) is that a base with only forest for terraforming produces MORE ecodamage WITH a treefarm . This is because a forest produces about -.13 ecodamage, with 16 tiles of forest you get -2 ecodamage, which allows you to produce 2 more clean minerals. HOWEVER when you build a tree farm that -2 gets halved to -1 and you can only produce 1 more clean mineral, so with a very clean strategy building treefarms in bases could increase ecodamage.

[Blake]

edit: How did that happen....
[This message has been edited by Blake (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Ned]

Fitz, Ah Ha! Now I think I understand the "worker" trick. The "double for worked squares" must apply only when a worker works a square, not when a crawler works a square. An "unworked" forest is a "-1." A "worked" forest, however, is a "-2." By removing a crawler and adding a worker on a piece of forest previously crawled, you reduce eco-damage even though minerals production remains constant!

If this understanding is correct, then reworking your example

2 boreholes worked = 2 x 1 x 2 = 4
+ 8 per hole 2 x 8 = 12
2 farms not "worked" = 2 x 1 x 1 = 2
2 condensors not "worked' = 2 x 4 x 1 = 8
4 forests worked = 4 x (-1) x 2 = -8

Subtotal 18

Next, step 5, part 1, we are told to divide this number by 8.

Partial Result 18 / 8 = 2.25

Next, step 5, part 2, we are told to subtract by up to 16.

Partial Result 2.25 - 2.25 = 0

Step 6 now brings in the minerals. In your example, you have two boreholes (6 each) and 4 forests (2 each) producing minerals. This totals to 20. You then subtracted 12, which is 16-4. In the revised formula, the subtraction is 16-2.25 = 13.75)

Partial Result, Step 6 20 - 13.75 = 6.25.

(BTW, I now see why one gets eco-damage in most bases at around 15-16 minerals.)

Continuing, assuming 5 techs, level 5 difficulty, 0 planet and 2 for native life (average)

6.25 * 5 * (5 * 3 * 2/300) = 6.25 * 5 * .1 = 3.125 points.

(In your own example, 8 * 5 * .1 = 4 points of damage, not 1.)

However, it is easy to see how eco-damage goes up dramatically when one gets over 13 - 14 minerals. For some reason, after I discover Tree Farms, and begin building them, eco-damage drops dramatically. The formula suggest very little impact from terraforming. However I know this is not the case.

Regardless, Fitz, give the worker/crawler trick on a forest a try. The problem with this theory is that I seem to recall that it also works on farms.

[Fitz]

Lol, that tree farm thing is pretty interesting.

You seem to be confirming the point about crawlers/workers. Is that what your statement means about "cleaner" minerals from crawlers?

As to the tech thingy, don't some of the tech state in them that they reduce eco-damage? Or am I thinking of the Pholtus Mutagen?

-Fitz

[Blake]

Just a couple of minor details:
You don't double the terraforming ED for working a tile - you add one, so a borehole goes from 8 to 9, Actually, it goes from 9 to 10 (add one for each... then add another one for worked... then add 8 per borehole), but you need to read the formula carefully, which is why there are so many confusions about ED. Also I havn't found any evidence that working a forest doubles the -1 to -2, AFAIK it simply stays -1 when worked.

The formula is more or less correct but it is very difficult to read correctely. Also when computing the effects of terraforming, mineral and atrocity ecodamage with a CP things don't quite add up - an example is that a CP reduces ecodamage from atrocities, while according to the formula it shouldn't.

[MariOne]

WOT? Once again???
How could mankind progress having to rediscover the same over and over again?
eco damage (december)
Borehole eco-damage (february)
Reducing your ecodamage (february)

Now, there's no reference about base size. I think you've already been suggested how to account for the effect you saw.
Those 3 threads linke above brought all of us to focus on every term of the formula.
We saw that if you take into account all the declared variables in the formula, it always yelds the observed values, with two main corrections
- the planet term can't go below 1
- also the atrocities term is reduced by GoodFacilities.

It's possible that there is some undeclared variable exerting influence, but that must be under conditions different from those we use in our tests.
I used medium and big bases in my tests, and never saw an influence on the results.

Blake, I stand with you, you're right with the no double forest comment. I wonder if you ever got tho to the 3rd linked thread to read my last post in it. I thought you got the concept in the end.
So please stop telling that working a square doesen't double the ED effect.

It DOES double the ED effect, AS SPECIFIED in the formula.
That is, it does count double the nuber of TF items in a worked square.
It does NOT double the ED for advanced items, which is added AFTER the doubling.

So, I repeat.
An unworked Farm+solar+Road tile is worth 3 TFED points
The same tile, worked, is worth 6 TFED points (not 4)!
A Borehole is worth 9 TFED points, 1 for the item itself, 8 for the extra.
If worked, you double the item but not the extra, thus it goes to 10.

The same applies to Mirrors and Condensers

So Ned I won't delve in the details but in your calculations 2 condensers (unworked) are worth 2x(1+4)=10 points, the forests don't have to get doubled, and the borehole calcualtion is correctly set but 8x2=16 (and not 12)!

Finally << The "double for worked squares" must apply only when a worker works a square, not when a crawler works a square. >>
I frankly never imagined it could have been interpreted otherwise. Crawlers are not workers. They don't "work BASEsquares", they convey ONE of the square resources, from wherever.
Interesting to see different PoV anyway(this time it's mine which happens to be the right one, but let's alway remind to keep an ompen mind...).

Don't forget to take roads into account.
If you shift a worker from a virgin forest tile to a roaded forest tile, the road which before counted as one now it gets doubled because worked (regarldess the forest around it which effect is separated). I saw many times my ED raise by 1 in a base for that reason, while juggling to adjust the best workers/specialists/resources distribution there.

That's it, till the next pack of smac recruits will bring the issue up anew again...
[This message has been edited by MariOne (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Ned]

Marione, I read the threads you indexed. Thanks. However, there is a lot more to be said on this topic, IMHO. I have observed ED go from positive to zero when one works a square rather than crawl it - i.e., convert a specialist into a worker but keeping minerals constant. I am certain this works with forests. I am not as certain about other squares. However, if this works only with forests, it must mean that the multiplier (2) is mulitiplying a negative number.

Also, I have also observed that the number of minerals I can produce w/o ED goes up dramatically after and building tree farms and hybrid forests. I can normally produce up to 80 without ED with no CP's, etc. Doesn't this indicate a that tree farms and hybrid forests are doing something to dramatically increase allowable minerals all by themselves. Perhaps there is an undocument doubling of the negative forest effect on building tree farms and a second doubling on building hybrid. This could lead to a negative terraforming effect thereby adding to clean minerals.

There is another phenomena that is very puzzling. The total number of minerals one can produce does seem to be related to the number of bases. I have also seen the effect noted in another post in the "Reduce Ecodamage" thread. If I have more bases, I seem to have a higher threshold before ecodamage kicks in. For example, in a previous game, I could not get over 90 with only 7 main bases. In my last game, I could produce 250 minerals per base. I had sixty bases. In my current game, the limit seems to be around 150. I have 36 main bases.

You might think suggest that the higher total is related to previous "pops." Not so. I usually am very careful about ED, and experience very few, certainly not 234, which is the number necessary to have 250 clean minerals.

Any thoughts?

[Ned]

Obversed the following: I am playing AKI. I have all techs, and the max minerals before ED are 160. I have taken a base from The Caretakers. With me, it produces 80 minerals. No polution. It has NO tree farms, or hybrid forests, or CP's or anything.

I give the base to Domai. It produces 18 minerals. ED = 13. Domai does not have the tree farm tech. So I instead restart and give the base the Diedre. She does have the tech. Same level of ED. 13.

Just to see if this is related to some other tech, I give Diedre all my technology - and this is all technology available. ED remains 13.

This confirms to some degree my observation that working forests increases the number of minerals one can generate before ED. However, this effect is FACTION WIDE. And it does appear that Tree Farms and Hybrid Forests enhance the effect.

This also explains why more bases are better - at least from the point of view of increasing the number of "clean" minerals. One can win with fewer bases, however, the maximum production from each base is quite limited compared to playing with more bases.

In a game with around 66 bases, all Goodfacilities and the Pholus, my max minerals was 260. In a game with 36 bases, same environment, that dropped to 160. In a game where I had around 10-2 prime bases, the number dropped to 100. I graphed that. It appears to be a linear relationship, with about 2.6 minerals per base.

If one makes a few more assumption, for example, that the average number of worked forests per base is 16, then this number reduces to approximately .16 per forest. Assuming further that tree farms and hybrid forests each double the effect, this means that each forest is worth .04 mineral. Since I further believe the phenomena is related to working forests, an unworked forest in this formula would be worth .02 clean minerals.

Any thoughts on this?

Ned

[Sikander]

Ned,

I wonder if your techs are having an effect on the ED in your first example above, while the AI has a lower tech value. In your second case, did you advance the turn after you gave away your base? If not, the ED formula may not have been re-formulated to take into account Dee's new tech level. Finally, one factor which is going to be hard to control are 'pops' where Planet sends you fungus or worms to punish you for ecodamage. There really isn't any way to know how many pops the AI has had in the past. Even keeping track of your own could be a problem if there is no message at times, or a more complex algorithm for pops than we assume.

[Ned]

Yeah, I thought of that. I did advance to the next turn. In fact, several turns later I continued to monitor the bases I gave away to other factions. I never gave any tech to Domai. Diedre's remained maxed out. Still the bases I have to Domai and to Deidre that had minerals over 16 had ED.

The higher base level for minerals has nothing to do with tech's.

As to pops, I normally have about 4 or 5 in a game. No more. I cannot monitor the AI. However, I can assure you that neither Domai nor Diedre had any in this game. Both were way under-developed.

So, it remains. The effect seems to be based on the used of Tree Farms and Hybrid Forests, and the number of them in use by a faction. As I said, I do not know whether it is also related to the number of forest squares or whether they are worked.

Ned

[Ned]

Just one more observation. I can take over a base where the enemy is getting ED at 16 minerals, and have no ED the next turn at 80+ minerals (I have the Bulk Matter and Singularity Inductors SPs + 15 Mining Stations.) Why?

[DilithiumDad]

I used to be absolutely convinced that ecodamage is decreased by increasing base size, almost as if there was a "mineral per population" factor in the equation somewhere. But now I think that it's just a coincidence --pop growth happens at the same time that Tree Famrs and Hybrid Forests are built and that eecological techs are discovered.

A critical factor missing in the discussion above is that the TECH in the equatioin is **not** total techs but only "green" techs. The only problem is that manual, the prima guide, and the Gamespot guide all fail to tell us which the critical techs are. Centauri Meditation is definitely one because I hae noted that eco damage drops dramatically as soon as it is discovered. Centauri Genetics is another one. So, there are only a small number of techs involved, with the result that a breakthrough or two can have a huge impact.

I can't explain the base-training results described above. Giving the AI faction green tech should have corrected the eco-damage. One limitation of course, is that the effect of the tech is not immediate but rather occurs on the next turn.

------------------
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

[MariOne]

At the time of the discussion in the linked threads, we built up several tests.
In all those *controlled* tests, the formula, *correctly interpreted and applied*, always yielded the exact figures which we could observe in red in the basewindows.
This included counting the # of all your faction techs in the formula. I have no notice of a tech reducing the ED, be it Green or whatever.
And I set up tests with basesizes from 15 to 35. In all those tests the resulting ED could be calculated with the formula, that is taking the basesize IN NO ACCOUNT. This should demonstrate that it has no influence on it.

About what you observed, you should remember that there are also history factors to be taken into account.
SO, if you set up a test with the scenario editor, you can easily control all the variables in play.
If you wake up in the middle of a long game, you'd better be sure of everything that happened in that game earlier, before you can draw significant conclusions...

Ned, about the "worked" forest... where was that worker before working the forest? maybe it was working a tile with 3 TF items?

Generally, it's easy that a factor can be overlooked considering only verbal accounts.
If you have cases which seem to be in contrast with what we know, it would be useful that we share the savefiles...

jdm, the "step 8 value" is supposed to be the *result*. I assume that in your example you refer actually to the denominator, or divider, or how do you call it. The term which Blake (IIRC) called GoodFacs.

[Ned]

MariOne, I agree with you about controlled conditions. So I took the AKI game I just mentioned and ran a few turns and changed a few variables. The results were surprising.

Below are two bases held by two different faction, producing roughly the same minerals and producing ED.

Diedre, 19 minerals, +1 Planet, 57 techs, including Centauri Meditation. ED 6.

Domai, 18 minerals, 0 planet, 43 techs, no Centauri Meditation. ED 18.

I then sold all Aki's Hybrid Forests.

Aki's ED's remained unchanged. The crossover between ED and no ED remained 160.

However, Diedre's polution dropped to 4. Domai's to 14.

I next sold AKI's Tree Farms.

Aki's ED'd remained unchanged. The crossover remained at 160.
Diedre's and Domai's ED remained unchanged.

I then game Domai Centauri Meditaion. Next turn his ED dropped to 12.

Finally, I game Domai all AKI's Tech (which was all tech +3 beyond). Domai's ED jumped to 38.


So, what does this tell us? Clearly, Tree Farms and Hybrid Forests are not changing anything per se. The number of forests worked by AKI remained unchanged - so did the Clean mineral value. (BTW, there were 14 Nessus Mining stations. These are also "clean." After tripling by the Bulk Matter SP and Singularity Inductor SP's, this means that 42 Orbital minerals have to be subtracted from 160 to yeild the ground- based clean minerals of 118.)

The above also suggests that the formula is working for Aki and Domai. The differences between Diedre and Domai appear to be related to Diedre's better planet rating, despite her having more techs.

It also suggest that Centauri Meditation does reduce ED.

Still, the base line for clean minerals for Domai and Diedre seemed to be and remain aroung 16. With AKI it remained 118.

Why?

MariOne, I believe the new worker was previously a specialist. However, now that you ask, I don't remember. However, I do remember being able to keep minerals constant by replacing the crawled minerals with worked minerals while at the same time ED went to zero.

Ned

[Blake]

Ned, orbital minerals aren't quite as clean as you assumed, if you have 10 mining stations, then you get 10 clean minerals. If you have 10 mining stations and the minerals are put through a genejack and robot plant you get 10 clean minerals and 10 "dirty" minerals. This would fudge your results. (Also transcend AI's get 1/3 ecodamage)

But.

I can no longer deny that there is a missing link.

I was playing a game as Yang, had 12 bases, 4 pops and could produce ~40-41 clean minerals. I had 0 "goodfacs" and a tree farm and Hybrid forest in every base.
I notice that if I add 16 (base clean) + 4 (pops) + 12 (# TF's) + 12 (# HF's) I get 44, which is fairly close to 40. Therfore I propose that prehaps tree farms have an effect on ecodamage? Prehaps every tree farm built allows you to have 1 more clean mineral in every base. Prehaps every goodfac built also allows you to have 1 more clean mineral every base. Prehaps you need to *build* them rather than add them using the the Scenerio Editor, prehaps detroying one doesn't remove the +1 clean minerals it granted. Lots of prehaps.

Prehaps other people could try to find some saved games and carefully record the total # of tree farms, hybrid forests, CP's etc, then find the clean mineral limit in a base with a TF and HF. Also if playing a game try to save at points like: Just before getting TF's, during the process of building TF's, after finished building TF's, repeat for Hybrids, and Preserves.

I'll start, loading from after completing my TF's, but before the HF's I could produce 28 clean minerals, this is
16 + 12 = 28
after the HF's
16 + 12 + 12 = 40

Interestingly both are in agreement with my clean mineral limit, prehaps pop's only count if you don't have atleast that many tree farms / HF's. I also tested to see if merely getting Env.Eco was enough, it didn't change my ED at all (I genned a couple of turns to check, no change at all)

In general I havn't found exception to the following:
ED changes are always instant, ie you add a CP and your ED is halved, you get a pop and your clean limit is raised by 1. You add a TF and the terraforming Eco is reduced. Iow a change always kicks in for the turn it occured in.
There is never a large discrete jump in clean mineral limit (you wont go from 20 to 40 from a single event)
Once you have a TF and HF in a base it doesn't matter what terraforming you use, clean threshold is the same.

Anyone is welcome to try and find an example contrary to the above.

So Ned, your probably right about tree farms and hybrid forests reducing global ED (even if not for the right reasons). I think this can easily be confirmed with a few more statistics from real games people have played.

Unfortunately this is another kick in the pants for the non-ICS'ers

[Ned]

Dilithium Dad, At least if the above data is correct, there is a dominating factor in the formula that completely swamps any other factor and substantially raises the "clean mineral" bar. That factor is the construction of tree farms, and perhaps, hybrid forests. I have never noticed any reduction in ED simply by researching tech's. However, the number of worms and their lifecyle level is clearly related to the number of techs.

You might want to re-read my post on Domai and Deidre. Domai had virtually no tech, certainly neither Environmental Economics nor Centauri Meditation. Diedre had both. Yet each experienced the same ED when I have them the same base - a base where I generated 80 minerals and they generated 16. I then gave Diedre all my tech. I continued to monitor the bases I have both her and Domai that generated ED. There was no reduction or increase! Tech had no effect at all.

All this clearly indicates that the number of "clean minerals" has nothing to do with tech. However, if there is any damage at all, the number of techs may multiply the damage, as indicated by the formula, and may increase the number of and power of the worms. However, I have not observed the first, but I have observed the second.

Think back to the last time you had a number of bases experiencing ED at the time you discovered Environmental Economics. ED did not drop simply by researching the tech. However, it does begin to drop - everywhere - when you build the first tree farm. The effect is pandemic.

Also, before you get tree farms, try the trick I indicated above. See if you can reduce ED simply by replacing a crawler on a forest with a worker! The minerals will remain the same, but ED goes down. The only explanation I have for this is that "worked" forests reduce ED.

This effect apparently increases dramatically upon construction of tree farms and perhaps hybrid forests.

Ned

[johndmuller]

MariOne, Blake, Fitz: Thank you for your detailed and insightful posts in this and prior threads, and most of all for your patience and tolerance.

Ned: Thank you for sticking to this subject.

Back in the beginining of this thread I agreed with your basic premise that later in the game one seems to be able to produce more mins than would seem to be allowed by the supposed rules (i.e. the formula). While I tossed out a few half baked possibilities as to why, I am not vested in any particular explanation.

I have yet to see anyone address the basic question of how you can produce so many mins without ecodamage.

Lets just use the example of 80 mins.

I'm proposing the following simplifying assumptions:
---term #5 = zero
---no atrocities, no perihelion
---Diff = Trans (5); Planet = 0 (3); and Life = Avg (2).

The formula (from buster's post) reduces to:
((mins - (16+#pops))/(1,2,3, or 4) times (Techs/10))

As long as BOTH of these factors are less than 1, eocdamage must be less than one. If BOTH of those factors are > 1, the ecodamage will start to go up rapidly as mins go up. With one of each, the movement would be more moderate.

If there were 2 pops, then fractional ecodamage would start at 19 mins; ecodamage = Techs/(10 times step 8). If Techs were = 5 and the step 8 value were 3, that would be 1 full damage point every 6 mins, with the first occurring at 24 mins.

At this point, I see that Dilithium Dad has just posted an item of ***MAJOR*** import to my post, that is that the Techs term only refers to "Green" Techs. I don't know whether this clarifies or muddies the water. From the point of view that he didn't know what exactly were the green techs, obviously muddied, but assuming that the techs term is a number of techs, it would presumably reduce the growth rate of the whole formula by quite a lot since I would suppose less than 25% would qualify. DD's reasoning that the discovery of Centauri Meditation reduces ecodamage is contrary to the formula as I see it since it would Increase the Numerator of the formula. Of course, building the associated Centauri Preserves definitely works in the direction of reducing ecodamage by increasing the Denominator of the formula (and perhaps that is what DD means).

All this notwithstanding, even with a Techs value of 1, there should still be an ecodamage point every (10, 20, 30 or 40) mins above the start point of 16 plus pops. Thus, Ned should see at least 1 ecodamage point at his 80 or so mins even with highly favorable assumptions.

What's the missing link?

[This message has been edited by johndmuller (edited April 30, 2001).]

[johndmuller]

Ahhh, it feels like we are getting somewhere.

At last we have a theory that doesn't conflict with my gut perception of how ecodamage works. It's always seemed to me that there is probably some factionwide element to this calculation. Having a lot of builder in my strategy, I usually get into the TF's, CP's ASAP, and eventually, the HF's and the other GoodFacs; coincidentally, at that same point of the game, I am aware of ecodamage, but only for a short period. There is a significant correllation between my focussing on building those facilities and the diminishing of any need to worry about ED for at least a long time, if not altogether.

As I read the posts, we are basically talking about this formula:

((mins-(16+pops+TFs+HFs)) / GoodFacs) times (the DfTePlLi/300 term)

Where DfThPlLi are Difficulty, Techs, (3-Planet) and (Native) Life;
and TFs and HFs are the total faction-wide and GoodFacs = (1 + # of CP, TP & NR in the base) and various simplifying assumptions have been made, like no atrocities or perihelion penalties and that the terraforming term is not significant, because of the TF/HF reduction and/or it is too early in the game for massive borehole-in-base influence.

Another possibility for the formula could be:

((mins-(16+pops)) / (GoodFacs+TFs+HFs)) times (the DfTePlLi/300 term)

This might be a bit more elegant, just putting the TFs and HFs in with the GoodFacs, but Blake's numbers seemed to go better with the first version. The Techs factor is still somewhat confusing what with Dilithiun Dad's offering about "Green" techs.

I'n not sure that this is a big advantage for ICS'ers, since there likely wouldn't be any ED in those size 1-3 bases anyway and they wouldn't be building HFs and TFs as early as a builder either; of course, once they get around to building up all those bases, that would be a different story.
[This message has been edited by johndmuller (edited May 01, 2001).]

[DilithiumDad]

This calls for a scenario editor test! I will set it up with a very low tech level, and certainly no orbitals to complicate the picture! Also, periohelion multiplies everything so I will be sure that's not taking place.

Incidentally, I also see ecodamage mainly in the late early game. This is also around the time of perihelion. Is there any way to quicly determine perihelion, besides noting the warning message?

[johndmuller]

DilithiumDad, good luck on your tests. BTW, could you give us some more info on the "Green" Techs subject; I had presumed that the factor in the formula was the total number of all techs, which I think would ADD (and very substantially as time went on) to the ED - if, as I think you said, it is only the total number of certain techs, it would still add, but not so much and if the first green tech didn't come right away (as in the likely candidate Cent. Ecology), that whole half of the formula would be zero at first.

MariOne, I hesitate to dispute such a large body of research without a well documented alternative, but please consider these points.
a}: Your (presumably rapid growth) style of play may effectively bypass the ED crisis of the late early-game and deprive you of experiencing the puzzlement some of us are reporting here when it seems to go away mysteriously in the face of this formula which looks on its face to rise rapidly as you add mins and tech, but somehow doesn't.
b): In the event that there are some areas of imperfect code in this section of the program (and let me say here that despite the numerous unplanned features cited in this forum that this program is, IMhO, of quite admirable quality), it may be possible that different results occur using the scenario editor than would occur when playing the game. For example, if the game were maintaining a data item for each base (or for the faction) tracking some or all of the ED elements and it incremented/decremented this data item upon performance of certain game actions rather than calculating it from scratch each time, it might not be accurately set by the scenario editor which could reflect logic present in earlier versions of the program. Ned's anomaly when he sold all the TFs and HF's could be a manifestation of a similar oversight by the programmers who didn't think to sell their HFs and TFs during testing.

[Ned]

Blake, et al., Since I had observed ED being eliminated faction-wide on the construction of Tree Farms in only a few bases, I was completely puzzled by my experiment described above where the ED limit did not change on sell all Tree Farms and Hybrid Forests. However, Blake, your theory seems to provide a complete explanation. The construction of TF's and HF's adds one to a "clean mineral" counter for the faction. This counter does not seem to be "recounted" every turn - for efficiency purposes, I presume. So, your "clean minerals" remains the same regardless of subsequent events.

I mentioned that I had graphed the number of clean minerals versus number of bases. The slope was roughly 2.6, but the intercept was around 80-90! (These numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt since I was operating from memory about the number of bases and "clean mineral" limit.) However, it does indicate that 1) other facilities beyond TF and HF may be adding to "clean" minerals; and 2) regardless of TF's or HF, something else was raising the base "clean mineral" level to 80-90.

I propose 1) that "Centauri" techs each add, if the Domai example is accurate, 2 clean minerals; and 2) that certain SP's, such as the Pholus Mutagen and Singularity Inductor (both are said to reduce ED caused by minerals), multiply a base number, such as the base 16, plus the number of "Centauri" techs, by a factor, such as 2.

I count four "Centauri" techs, Centauri Emphathy, Centauri Meditation, Centauri Genetics and Centauri Psi. 16+(2*4)=24. If this base is mulitplied by 4, you get 88, which corresponds to the intercept I charted.

I suspect this theory could easily be verified as well.

As to the "additional" clean facilities, I suggest that these might be the Centauri Preserve and Temple of Planet facilities. These not only operate on a base's ED according to the formula, but add to the number of "clean" minerals just as do TF's and HF's.

Ned

[Ned]

I can confirm that each Centauri Preserve adds one to "clean minerals" for the entire faction. I have not been able to confirm whether the "Centauri" techs also add to clean minerals.

In my current game, I was getting ED at the 16 mineral level when I began building CP's. The turn after I built one, the ED limit for all bases also increased by 1.

Just two datapoints for your confirmation.

ED = 30. 2 pops, 12 CP's
ED = 33. 3 pops, 14 CP's.

Just for your amusement, I had had the tech to build CP's for quite some time, but had not built any. Until I wrote the above post, I had no idea just how important they are. Now, every time I build another CP, I rearrange the "furniture," so to speak, to up my mineral production to just over the ED limit. As expected, this forces a pop every few turn that also adds to the number of clean minerals without causing the polar caps to melt.

Vel needs a new chapter.

Ned