Strategy Articles!

[Slick]

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
Ruatha, good catches, my friend. Edited, save for:

quote:

---

If you have a surplus in your resource income/expense, the total cost of the retrofits must be compared to the storage AND predicted income the next turn.
You can retrofit with a storage of 0 if you have a turn result of enough positive resources next turn.

I don't believe this is true. In my experience, it does not matter how big your income is, retrofits do come from only stored resources.

Am I incorrect? Can anyone assist to verify this?

---

Stone Mill: You are correct (sorry, Ruatha ). You need resources for retrofits in the bank and can't rely on income because the cost of retrofits comes out of your storage before income goes in. If there is not enough in storage, the retrofit fails.

Also, I agree with you 100% on the monolith issue. Anyone who has run the numbers can see that monoliths pay back waaaay too far in the future in most cases. I also do use monoliths when it is a good idea, especially when you have a planet with high resources in all 3 areas it does make sense - if this planet is large or huge, it may not be.

If anyone wants to prove it to themselves, just do a few case studies and add up the net resources over time:

- make sure you subtract the resources you spend on the facilities you build and add in the resources the facility makes on the turn after it is built. Do this for every turn and you will find that building monoliths will create a large resource deficit for many turns - is your other income able to absorb this and still be competetive?,
- make sure you account for the time it takes to build the facilities,
- you can include a resource converter in the end if you wish, but this really benefits both sides of the argument,
- if you build a spaceyard before building facilities to speed up build time, include the resources and time to build it as well as the increased facility construction rate,
- if you build value improvement plants, include the resources and time to build and the time to increase resource percentages,
- use real game probabilities for planet rescource percentages. It is much easier to find a planet which is > 100% in one resource than to find one that is > 100% in all 3 resources.
- consider planet size. no matter what your build rate, it takes far longer to fill a large or huge planet with monoliths than individual resource facilities.
- since monoliths I, II, III all cost the same, they all take the same time to build, but the lower level ones produce less. on a standard planet with standard construction rate (2000, 2000, 2000) a single resource facility level II can be built in 1 turn with no spaceyard. When the Last one is built, they all can be upgraded to level III's. This method will fill a planet the quickest and the extra cost for upgrading is made up by having the level II facilites built in 1 turn instead of 2 turns for a level III so you have the income sooner.
- finally compare both schemes and see how low your rescource deficits get while building (this will surprise the monolith builders) and how many turns out it takes before a monolith planet exceeds a single resource planet. There is no doubt that a monolith system will eventually outproduce single resource facilities. The real question is at what point and what happens in the meantime? You will find that this time is very long (too many variables to put a discrete number here), but try some case studies yourself and you can see that it will be many many turns. And in the meantime, your enemies are coming...

[edit: p.s. let me know when you are done tweaking 17.3 for incorporation into the FAQ.]

Slick.

[ June 14, 2003, 19:02: Message edited by: Slick ]

[Ruatha]

Live and learn!

Slick, I guess you'll be hearing from Fyron about this
The monolith economy is very close to his heart I belive!

I just like to see those shiny high tech facilities, not spewing enviromental waste as those mineral mines are doing!

[cybersol]

It might be obvious, but no one has explicity mentioned it. If you really wanted to build the monolith economy, but still gain maximum resources as soon as possible. Would you not build the normal economy first, say resource II's. But for the final two facility slots build a space yard for improved build and start the first monolith. As each monolith completes, scrap a normal facility and build another monolith. It is a lot a micromanagement, but it will get you the most resources along the way.

[Slick]

Originally posted by cybersol:
It might be obvious, but no one has explicity mentioned it. If you really wanted to build the monolith economy, but still gain maximum resources as soon as possible. Would you not build the normal economy first, say resource II's. But for the final two facility slots build a space yard for improved build and start the first monolith. As each monolith completes, scrap a normal facility and build another monolith. It is a lot a micromanagement, but it will get you the most resources along the way.

Yes, I didn't mention this but it does work. Once again, do a few case studies because for every system there are disadvantages.

Ruatha, of course, I expect it; I am not the kind of person who needs to have the Last word on everything. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything; I am trying to show people how to come up with the answers that are right for themselves and their play style. The people here are smart enough to make up their own minds. If anyone has a play style they like or prefer, then that is the one that is right for them - the game mechanics will always be the same but different play styles can certainly be used effectively.

Slick.

[ June 14, 2003, 19:59: Message edited by: Slick ]

[cybersol]

Originally posted by Slick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cybersol:
It might be obvious, but no one has explicity mentioned it. If you really wanted to build the monolith economy, but still gain maximum resources as soon as possible. Would you not build the normal economy first, say resource II's. But for the final two facility slots build a space yard for improved build and start the first monolith. As each monolith completes, scrap a normal facility and build another monolith. It is a lot a micromanagement, but it will get you the most resources along the way.

Yes, I didn't mention this but it does work. Once again, do a few case studies because for every system there are disadvantages.

---

Well, early on it has all the advantages of the normal economy system expect the one facility per planet you have to leave empty to build the monolith. And later, only 30 turns later on a huge AST world, you start to gain the advantages of the monolith economy. Except for the hassle of micromanagement I would say that is the way to go in the long run. At steady state, you sacrifice 1k of production for 3-5 turns to get 2.7k of production. Thus each monolith III becomes net positive (even with just converter I) 4-6 turns after it is completed.

[Slick]

Originally posted by cybersol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cybersol:
It might be obvious, but no one has explicity mentioned it. If you really wanted to build the monolith economy, but still gain maximum resources as soon as possible. Would you not build the normal economy first, say resource II's. But for the final two facility slots build a space yard for improved build and start the first monolith. As each monolith completes, scrap a normal facility and build another monolith. It is a lot a micromanagement, but it will get you the most resources along the way.

Yes, I didn't mention this but it does work. Once again, do a few case studies because for every system there are disadvantages.

---

Well, early on it has all the advantages of the normal economy system expect the one facility per planet you have to leave empty to build the monolith. And later, only 30 turns later on a huge AST world, you start to gain the advantages of the monolith economy. Except for the hassle of micromanagement I would say that is the way to go in the long run. At steady state, you sacrifice 1k of production for 3-5 turns to get 2.7k of production. Thus each monolith III becomes net positive (even with just converter I) 4-6 turns after it is completed.

---

Agreed in principle that it is better than the either/or approach. However don't forget the cost of the Monolith: 10,000 Min; 5000 Org; 5000 Rad. In those 4-6 turns that the previous one starts to turn a small profit, you have started constructing the next monolith which puts your economy as a whole for that planet back into a deficit situation again.

Again, I recommend laying out turn by turn a few cases. In each case consider resources spent, made and the time it takes till the next facility is built. Most of the time in this game (as in real life), income now is much more valuable than income later even if it is more because you can put it to work now instead of later.

Remember, your enemies might not be courteous enough to wait until you have a huge planet filled with monoliths established long enough to be superior over single facilities before they attack.

Slick.

[ June 14, 2003, 20:49: Message edited by: Slick ]

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Slick:
Remember, your enemies might not be courteous enough to wait until you have a huge planet filled with monoliths established long enough to be superior over single facilities before they attack.

Slick.

But, but, but..
Are they allowed to be so nasty?
Whatever happened to Peace, loving and understanding?


[ June 14, 2003, 23:38: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Fyron]

I never once advocated building solely monoliths right off the bat... I only start building them after my economy is well off and can support the deficits incured with Monolith construction without problems (and I start off slowly; I don't just suddenly have 50 worlds start on Monoliths all at once). Also, absorbing a few minor empires early on helps cover those deficits too.

It is a good idea to build a SY as the first facility on new worlds in general because if you need to use them, you now have a bunch of SYs available to build colony ships, warships, and whatever else you want.

The cost to build monoliths is immaterial (esp. when you wait until you get a strong economy going before building them). What else are you going to do with those resources, build more ships than you need?

Also, keep in mind that once my Monolith economy is going, I build them on all resource worlds. A 100/30/30 planet produces more with Monoliths than just Mineral Miners, after all. Will it take longer to even out? Sure, a few more turns. Big deal.

Furthermore, Monoliths are not for small empires. They are for large empires (100s of planets). Starting to build Monoliths when you only have a few dozen planets (and esp. when there is still a lot left to colonize) will only get you killed.

Building a Robotoid Factory III after the 4th Monolith often takes just one more turn than a Monolith, and gives many more resources than a Robotoid on a planet with normal miners does (as there is much more base production).

The fact that monoliths take longer to build can work to your advantage. Normal economies max out a lot sooner than a Monolith economy (and a proper Monolith economy will not be too far behind the normal one when this happens), while the Monolith economy still has a lot of growth left. I would have to disagree with the statement that some resources now are better than more resources later. In most situations, waiting a dozen turns or so is well worth the investment. If you are being destroyed, then of course building Monoliths is not going to help much. Emergency situations call for normal miners.

Keep in mind that it is rather easy to get Monoliths built in 3 turns a piece on all worlds with more than a few facility slots (HI, 120 const, SY III, Jubilant pop). Again, the resources to build them are only an issue if you are engaged in a losing war. If you are in no wars or in a winning war, then the high cost to build Monoliths is a null issue.

And by the way, I know how to do algebra.

Here are some numbers for a PBW game I am in:
Huge (255 system) map, 17 players, turn 142

1st: 8.7 M points, 299 planets, 4.2 M resources
2nd: 4.5 M points, 142 planets, 1.1 M resources
3rd: 4.1 M points, 117 planets, 387.5 K resources
4th: 3.7 M points, 158 planets, 507.5 K resources

Guess what the 1st place player did? You guessed it, Monoliths. 2nd place has been building Monoliths recently, but is very far behind. 1st place can not get enough ships built to use up resources, so many 100k of them get wasted each turn (he lost something like 140 ships in an ongoing war thanks to those damned Talismans). And, 1st place doesn't even have HI in this game (he was a PBW newbie when it began, afterall).

There was another empire that was in 2nd for the whole game, and using normal miners. He managed to destroy several empires too. He surpassed 1st place player for about 20 turns, but his unrelenting aggression forced the peace loving races of the galaxy to go to war to stop him. He is in 8th now. When (current) 1st place entered the war, each of them was producing about 1.0 M resources, and he had more planets than (current) 1st place did. This was some 50 turns ago.

So in summation:

Short term: Monoliths = bad
Medium term: Monoliths = roughly equivalent (with only low net loss)
Long term: Monoliths = super good

If you only care about short term gains (such as early game, small maps, early wars), go with normal miners. If you care about long term gains (large maps, mid-game, no early wars that are not resulting in you steamrolling over a minor empire), go with Monoliths.

-===-

About Remote Miners:
Again, using them is only good in the short term. In the long term, it is much better to build planets out of asteroids and build normal miners or Monoliths on them (as the situation dictates).

[Ruatha]

I'll have to side with Fyron on this one. In PBW games with 20 players I try to get monoliths early.
I do build M1 and M2 though, mainly to stake in those slots and to get fast upgrades to M3 later.
In late games I really use alot of Rads and organics too as I put atmosphere converters on 100+ planets in NGC2 and also built some Null-space weapons. PPB's are the base weapon in my fleet.
In networks I've converted alot (not 100 though) planets, those atm converters cost alot!
Mineral shortage is something I seldom experiance but early in the game I can get a lack of orgs and rads.
Even though they take time to build, I do them on my ringworlds aswell, the ringworlds will never be completed before the game finishes but my income will continue to rise along with my fleet size.

[ June 14, 2003, 12:08: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Stone Mill,

Excellent piece, lots of interesting stuff.

The only thing I was surprised by was your (and others) negative view of Remote Mining.

While I'd never remote mine a planet - unless future colonisation was completely impossible - I find asteroids very useful, especially because of their very high resource percentages.

One can build, relatively early in the game, a Light Cruiser with three mineral RM components that will cost around 1500 minerals in maintenance, and mine around 6000 minerals on a 200%+ asteroid. Something that takes 4-5 turns to build and returns an income of 4500 a turn is as good an investment as a mineral mine (unless you're thinking very long term when the degradation of the asteroid mineral percentage becomes an issue).

And a key benefit, which no one has yet mentioned, is that asteroid mining is (obviously) not prone to rioting. So it's a guarranteed source of income even during a major war when you're suffering damage.

This saved my neck in a very recent game, when a large number of my planets had been glassed, and two thirds or more of the rest were rioting. My asteroid mining income kept my fleet alive and the empire operating.