Morgan Population Limits - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Factions
  Morgan Population Limits

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Morgan Population Limits

Smeagol posted 04-12-99 01:06 AM ET
Does Morgan also have a lower population max before hab domes and if so what is it?
ViVicdi posted 04-12-99 01:07 AM ET
11
Smeagol posted 04-12-99 01:13 AM ET
Thanks. That seems pretty harsh... considering how easy it is to grow population. I guess you can get it up to 13 with ascetic virtues, but still, isn't this a killer for Morgan?
Atombomb posted 04-12-99 01:29 AM ET
The population limits are extremely mean for morgan. that is the worst thing about this faction, in fact. But, there is still hope. The fact that morgan receives +1 econ means that if he flips into a wealth society he gains a +2 econ, or +1energy/square to all squares. This is a big advantage over other factions which need to flip into a free market in order to receive this bonus early on. This makes his size 11 (or 13 with virtues) bring in alot more than other factions can, without the police/green negatives they would have if they did go for a freemarket. Therefore, I would still rank morgan as one of the very best factions.
Smeagol posted 04-12-99 01:43 AM ET
Yeah, that's exactly what I do with Morgan as well. But growth seems simple to achieve, and those hab domes come very late in the game. Does all that extra energy make up for the lack of minerals resulting from a lower population? I haven't gotten that deeply into a game yet.
HolyWarrior posted 04-12-99 11:32 PM ET
Morgan should 'rabbit' like mad and crank out the colony pods. Since his cities will be smaller, he can afford to pack his cities closer together than other factions. So what if they overlap several squares? Morgan can't use them anyway until the late-mid game.
The AI doesn't do this, and as a result, Morgan is the weakest of the computer factions that I have seen. Properly played, Morgan is as tough as any.
Atombomb posted 04-12-99 11:36 PM ET
I disagree with overlapping cities entirely. You should never overlap more than 1 or 2 squares at most unless you have no other way of harnessing certain squares. Later on your packed in cities will be much smaller, and 3 small cities is considerably less productive and more expensive to maintain than 1 large one. It is best to just claim as much land as you can, as quickly as you can, with the least amount of interference possible. If you have more small cities early, it does make you faster early, but the losses you receive in the long run are probably not worth it.
Zero posted 04-13-99 12:11 PM ET
Atombomb, are you sure that it makes sense to worry that much about overlapping bases? I have never seen a game yet that was still competitive by the time Habitation Domes were available.
If I can get 14 or so squares for a site, that's all I'm really looking for. In the early game, I might even go for less than that, and just pick each site based on pure growth.
Prerogative posted 04-13-99 12:46 PM ET
Atombomb, you couldn't be further from the truth.
Your Example:
"Three small cities will be less productive than one large one."
Untrue.
Example:
I have 3 size 3 cities.
You have 1 size 9.
My three cities harvest 12 squares.
Your one city harvests 10.
My small cities are actually MORE productive than your big one. And, to add insult to injury, small cities don't pollute nearly as much, have less drones (thus no need to spend money on drone-killing facilities and police units) and, since they are packed tightly together, will tend to be closer to my HQ and thus will have lower inefficency.
And, even better, say I have an energy satelite thingy. Your one city would get 1 energy from. My small ones would get three.
So think again, you metroplian dweller
BTW, I play Hive and Morgan, and I would agree that "rabbiting" with Morgan is the best way to play as him. Although one way to make Morgan a more effective AI faction is to edit his primary goals from "Wealth" to "Growth" and keep his agenda at FME or Wealth. I find that he plays a heck of alot more effectively this way.
ViVicdi posted 04-17-99 02:17 AM ET
Observation 1: Expand like crazy and don't stop, because you've got the BEST scalability in the game and the WORST penalty for not expanding.
Observation 2: If you build farther apart you can drop Echelon Mirrors + Condensers more efficiently. It is simple enough to build one OR the other, but squares being directly utilized by bases need both. Imagine two bases, 6 squares apart, with Echelon Mirrors in the gap between them, each one adding 6 energy to your economy ... with Yang or Lal this would be unwise, because you want bases as close to HQ as possible. With Morgan, you can really do some landscaping; live up to your reputation and build suburban sprawl. (You can see why people tend to place Morgan and Huge Map in the same sentence.)
Observation 3: Combining Observations 1 + 2 you can see where war is bad for business -- having more bases, which are more spread out, plus support penalties for building too big an army, equals ... well, lots of bribes and probes ...
ViVicdi posted 04-17-99 02:23 AM ET
Um, only 1 Echelon Mirror would yield 6 energy for 2 bases; the point is that you can leave a few strategic gaps for Mirrors and Condensers, although the fact that forest will eventually grow into them is an offsetting factor. (Too bad you can't plant it.)
Atombomb posted 04-17-99 02:34 PM ET
Don't listen to this freak ok? (overlap sucks for everyone, period)
Atombomb posted 04-17-99 02:44 PM ET
About your comment with the squares, yes its true, 3 size 3 cities COULD be better than a size 9. However, the size nine receives much more bonus from the improvements in the city. Lets say each of the size 3s have 4 energy each, and you have a 50/50 split econ/tech. They would produce a total of 12 energy among them, 6 to each. The size 9 would produce 5/5. Now you add in something like network nodes, something everyone wants. For the small cities, it costs you 3 maintainance to upkeep, and you only receive on lab to each city, for a total of 9 lab. For the larger city, you receive 8 lab (rounds up), and it only costs you one maintenance. Hence, you can operate the one larger base cheaper with little or no difference in total output.
Now lets talk about when the cities get much larger. This is when it really matters that you split your cities apart. If you have 3 cities, lets say about 6 overlap over each of them, then each city can produce 6 less squares once you start reaching up to a 20. Therefore, you can only harness a total of 14 squares on each of your smaller cities, then you have to go to specialists. The larger city, on the other hand, can grow up to a 20 before it runs out of squares, therefor being much more productive.
I am not going to actively argue that 3 cities don't beat one. That was not the point of my argument at all. My argument was that spreading out your cities is the best way to go. It only takes a few extra turns to move your colony pod out of range of your other cities, and its well worth it. when you have 3 cities, chances are I will also have 3 cities, maybe a couple of turns behind, but later on I will reap the benefits. Additionally, if your 3 cities are covering 60 squares instead of 42 you will have much more of a chance for bonus resources (size one cities can select from 20 squares each instead of 14 each). You can do what you want, I don't really care, but in the long run this is the best way to go.
Atombomb posted 04-17-99 02:46 PM ET
About the pollution, the amount produced by a city is relative to its size. Therefore, a size 7 or so with 15 minerals will pollute while a size 14 with 20 minerals will not pollute at all. Get your facts straight boy!
Prerogative posted 04-17-99 07:30 PM ET
Correct me if I'm wrong, Atombomb, but as far as I know eco damage is highly relevant to total minerals produced. Since smaller cities have the total mineral production spread out, it would seem logical they would pollute less.
Yes, large cities do gain bonuses for structures. But this happens later. Expansion is in the beginning.
googlie posted 06-23-99 08:20 PM ET
reactivating
Lo_11 posted 07-29-99 11:44 AM ET
Back to the top...
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Morgan Population Limits
Smeagol	posted 04-12-99 01:06 AM ET Does Morgan also have a lower population max before hab domes and if so what is it?
ViVicdi	posted 04-12-99 01:07 AM ET 11
Smeagol	posted 04-12-99 01:13 AM ET Thanks. That seems pretty harsh... considering how easy it is to grow population. I guess you can get it up to 13 with ascetic virtues, but still, isn't this a killer for Morgan?
Atombomb	posted 04-12-99 01:29 AM ET The population limits are extremely mean for morgan. that is the worst thing about this faction, in fact. But, there is still hope. The fact that morgan receives +1 econ means that if he flips into a wealth society he gains a +2 econ, or +1energy/square to all squares. This is a big advantage over other factions which need to flip into a free market in order to receive this bonus early on. This makes his size 11 (or 13 with virtues) bring in alot more than other factions can, without the police/green negatives they would have if they did go for a freemarket. Therefore, I would still rank morgan as one of the very best factions.
Smeagol	posted 04-12-99 01:43 AM ET Yeah, that's exactly what I do with Morgan as well. But growth seems simple to achieve, and those hab domes come very late in the game. Does all that extra energy make up for the lack of minerals resulting from a lower population? I haven't gotten that deeply into a game yet.
HolyWarrior	posted 04-12-99 11:32 PM ET Morgan should 'rabbit' like mad and crank out the colony pods. Since his cities will be smaller, he can afford to pack his cities closer together than other factions. So what if they overlap several squares? Morgan can't use them anyway until the late-mid game. The AI doesn't do this, and as a result, Morgan is the weakest of the computer factions that I have seen. Properly played, Morgan is as tough as any.
Atombomb	posted 04-12-99 11:36 PM ET I disagree with overlapping cities entirely. You should never overlap more than 1 or 2 squares at most unless you have no other way of harnessing certain squares. Later on your packed in cities will be much smaller, and 3 small cities is considerably less productive and more expensive to maintain than 1 large one. It is best to just claim as much land as you can, as quickly as you can, with the least amount of interference possible. If you have more small cities early, it does make you faster early, but the losses you receive in the long run are probably not worth it.
Zero	posted 04-13-99 12:11 PM ET Atombomb, are you sure that it makes sense to worry that much about overlapping bases? I have never seen a game yet that was still competitive by the time Habitation Domes were available. If I can get 14 or so squares for a site, that's all I'm really looking for. In the early game, I might even go for less than that, and just pick each site based on pure growth.
Prerogative	posted 04-13-99 12:46 PM ET Atombomb, you couldn't be further from the truth. Your Example: "Three small cities will be less productive than one large one." Untrue. Example: I have 3 size 3 cities. You have 1 size 9. My three cities harvest 12 squares. Your one city harvests 10. My small cities are actually MORE productive than your big one. And, to add insult to injury, small cities don't pollute nearly as much, have less drones (thus no need to spend money on drone-killing facilities and police units) and, since they are packed tightly together, will tend to be closer to my HQ and thus will have lower inefficency. And, even better, say I have an energy satelite thingy. Your one city would get 1 energy from. My small ones would get three. So think again, you metroplian dweller BTW, I play Hive and Morgan, and I would agree that "rabbiting" with Morgan is the best way to play as him. Although one way to make Morgan a more effective AI faction is to edit his primary goals from "Wealth" to "Growth" and keep his agenda at FME or Wealth. I find that he plays a heck of alot more effectively this way.
ViVicdi	posted 04-17-99 02:17 AM ET Observation 1: Expand like crazy and don't stop, because you've got the BEST scalability in the game and the WORST penalty for not expanding. Observation 2: If you build farther apart you can drop Echelon Mirrors + Condensers more efficiently. It is simple enough to build one OR the other, but squares being directly utilized by bases need both. Imagine two bases, 6 squares apart, with Echelon Mirrors in the gap between them, each one adding 6 energy to your economy ... with Yang or Lal this would be unwise, because you want bases as close to HQ as possible. With Morgan, you can really do some landscaping; live up to your reputation and build suburban sprawl. (You can see why people tend to place Morgan and Huge Map in the same sentence.) Observation 3: Combining Observations 1 + 2 you can see where war is bad for business -- having more bases, which are more spread out, plus support penalties for building too big an army, equals ... well, lots of bribes and probes ...
ViVicdi	posted 04-17-99 02:23 AM ET Um, only 1 Echelon Mirror would yield 6 energy for 2 bases; the point is that you can leave a few strategic gaps for Mirrors and Condensers, although the fact that forest will eventually grow into them is an offsetting factor. (Too bad you can't plant it.)
Atombomb	posted 04-17-99 02:34 PM ET Don't listen to this freak ok? (overlap sucks for everyone, period)
Atombomb	posted 04-17-99 02:44 PM ET About your comment with the squares, yes its true, 3 size 3 cities COULD be better than a size 9. However, the size nine receives much more bonus from the improvements in the city. Lets say each of the size 3s have 4 energy each, and you have a 50/50 split econ/tech. They would produce a total of 12 energy among them, 6 to each. The size 9 would produce 5/5. Now you add in something like network nodes, something everyone wants. For the small cities, it costs you 3 maintainance to upkeep, and you only receive on lab to each city, for a total of 9 lab. For the larger city, you receive 8 lab (rounds up), and it only costs you one maintenance. Hence, you can operate the one larger base cheaper with little or no difference in total output. Now lets talk about when the cities get much larger. This is when it really matters that you split your cities apart. If you have 3 cities, lets say about 6 overlap over each of them, then each city can produce 6 less squares once you start reaching up to a 20. Therefore, you can only harness a total of 14 squares on each of your smaller cities, then you have to go to specialists. The larger city, on the other hand, can grow up to a 20 before it runs out of squares, therefor being much more productive. I am not going to actively argue that 3 cities don't beat one. That was not the point of my argument at all. My argument was that spreading out your cities is the best way to go. It only takes a few extra turns to move your colony pod out of range of your other cities, and its well worth it. when you have 3 cities, chances are I will also have 3 cities, maybe a couple of turns behind, but later on I will reap the benefits. Additionally, if your 3 cities are covering 60 squares instead of 42 you will have much more of a chance for bonus resources (size one cities can select from 20 squares each instead of 14 each). You can do what you want, I don't really care, but in the long run this is the best way to go.
Atombomb	posted 04-17-99 02:46 PM ET About the pollution, the amount produced by a city is relative to its size. Therefore, a size 7 or so with 15 minerals will pollute while a size 14 with 20 minerals will not pollute at all. Get your facts straight boy!
Prerogative	posted 04-17-99 07:30 PM ET Correct me if I'm wrong, Atombomb, but as far as I know eco damage is highly relevant to total minerals produced. Since smaller cities have the total mineral production spread out, it would seem logical they would pollute less. Yes, large cities do gain bonuses for structures. But this happens later. Expansion is in the beginning.
googlie	posted 06-23-99 08:20 PM ET reactivating
Lo_11	posted 07-29-99 11:44 AM ET Back to the top...