Intro and quick question

[vulturesrow]

Actually, I believe there is an advantage to using many, many crawlers. Once you're past technicians and librarians and have moved on to engineers and thinkers, you get the ability to choose whether your population units are producing (for example) 3 nutrients + 2 mineral + 2 energy on the one hand, or 3 energy + 2 research (engineer), the equivalent of five energy per unit.

By that point, you can get a lot more than 3/2/2 if you're willing to put in the former time.

And once you're putting up things like genejack factories and quantum converters, you don't want all your base's potential minerals anyway, not unless you're trying to sink the world, anyway.

Or are playing with revised ecodamage rules so that ecodamage isn't as much an all-or-nothing affair.

So for me, the ideal endgame base has the majority of the living population living a specialist's life, with a few bringing as many minerals (along with the nutrients and energy) as the base can safely process, and crawlers bringing in massive amounts of food to support massive numbers of specialists.

Endgame (say, after transcendi) is another story; I have been persuaded that crawlers should be the best choice by that point (though the resulting focus on single-resource squares is still undesirable).

Early to midgame are where crawlers truly shine. By the endgame crawlers will not be used nearly as much. If you are a playing a competent human then midgame is about as far as the game gets anyhow. And the AI, well its hard not to beat the AI especially if you are using tons of crawlers (as you should).

[Yitzi]

Early to midgame are where crawlers truly shine. By the endgame crawlers will not be used nearly as much.

Wouldn't filling everything with farm/enricher/condenser and crawling nutrients be an extremely powerful endgame strategy?  In any case, crawlers are powerful later on simply because they free up a citizen to become a transcend.

[vulturesrow]

Yeah the extreme version is basically have nothing but condenser farms and boreholes; crawl the nuts and work the boreholes. Everyone else is specialists. Most MP games dont get that far, its just SP games. But in the early to midgame I have crawlers everywhere. Also because I do overlap my city borders I have less workable squares which naturally leads to more specialists, earlier on to boot.

[Yitzi]

Yeah the extreme version is basically have nothing but condenser farms and boreholes; crawl the nuts and work the boreholes.

Endgame, you're probably better off ditching the boreholes.  A borehole is only 6 minerals and 6 energy; a condenser is 4 nutrients, which by the magic of satellites means 4 minerals, 4 energy, and 4 citizens, make them specialists.  Throw in one more specialist because you're not working the borehole, and you've got 5 specialists to compensate for the missing 2 minerals and 2 energy; even in the worst-case scenario where you want all your energy into economy, 5 engineers is 15 ecpnomy, so that's your missing 2 plus 13 to rush-buy instead of the missing 2 minerals.

[Kirov]

Several threads are here, so just to Green1 and others who worry about their overlap: very often it can have more pros than cons. Vulturesrow is right about the way you want to treat your terrain (i.e. crawl food, work b-holes). Besides, early overlap can give you a nice turn advantage - more tech points -> earlier CE -> more forest, etc. I almost always dump my second base 2 tiles away from the HQ. The third one is usually not far away, either.

Even if you're a fan of expanding upwards rather than outwards, when spacing your bases you should never forget about the military aspects. Overexpanded empires are vulnerable to attacks and it holds true even in the era of needlejets. A base which can be accessed in one turn from two nearby bases is a well-defended base. Of course, usually it happens only in your core.

[Yitzi]

Several threads are here, so just to Green1 and others who worry about their overlap: very often it can have more pros than cons. Vulturesrow is right about the way you want to treat your terrain (i.e. crawl food, work b-holes). Besides, early overlap can give you a nice turn advantage - more tech points -> earlier CE -> more forest, etc. I almost always dump my second base 2 tiles away from the HQ. The third one is usually not far away, either.

Earthmichael seems pretty insistent that such close spacing isn't a good idea; maybe you should play against him sometime.

[JarlWolf]

Welcome to the forum by the way. To input on my opinion of spacing, it generally calls upon the situation:

For me I try to properly space bases most of the time by at least 2, but no further then 5, (unless I am making far flung, separate colonial area's) so I get good resource production as well as making sure units from different bases can move and fortify their comrades without hindrance.

Though my strategy varies depending on map size and what enemies I am facing. If I am facing aggressive factions off the bat (most notably the damn Aliens) I typically don't mind if my bases are a little closer together, so its harder for the enemy to drive through my defences. But on the other hand, if the map is larger or I am anticipating larger and more drawn out wars I want more territory so I can degrade the enemy and use mobile units to hit and run at them, with artillery strikes off and on.

In essence, it comes down to two things for me: Map Size, Opponents.

[Yitzi]

Whereas I'd think it would be hard for your opponents to bypass your defenses even at 4 spaces between bases (not counting the bases themselves), because:

1. You're probably going to route your maglevs, and possibly roads, through your bases, so the enemy can't use them.
2. If you don't (and to some extent even if you do) once the enemy gets close to your bases without conquering them, you can attack them from the safety of your bases.  Effectively it's the "killzone" idea (in which a higher-speed force can force a lower-speed force back due to the fact that the attacker has the advantage), except that your bases provide a safe zone so that you don't need a speed advantage.

Unless by "drive through" you meant actually take the bases; I'm not sure how closer spacing would help with preventing that, though, as both you and your enemy have a smaller front to deal with.  After maglevs, it's strictly an advantage for the enemy, as they can shift the attack from one base to another with less warning, whereas you can put them wherever you want no matter what once you get maglevs.

[JarlWolf]

The advantage closer bases have in terms of defence and stopping enemies from capturing them is that since they are so close together its easy to withdraw units from and enforce bases, effectively base hopping. You can slow down an enemy base by base with this, and put lots of focus in defencive upgrades for those close bases. The bases are merely there in these situations more as "Fuel" depots, minor mineral supplements for troops, fortresses and just base of operations for coordinated military defence. This isn't a strategy I use if I am making economical hubs with large populations, more so for early defence or making bases at chokepoints and near enemy territory,

[Yitzi]

The advantage closer bases have in terms of defence and stopping enemies from capturing them is that since they are so close together its easy to withdraw units from and enforce bases, effectively base hopping.

But doesn't it also allow the attacker to shift the attack from one base to another more easily?

You can slow down an enemy base by base with this, and put lots of focus in defencive upgrades for those close bases. The bases are merely there in these situations more as "Fuel" depots, minor mineral supplements for troops, fortresses and just base of operations for coordinated military defence. This isn't a strategy I use if I am making economical hubs with large populations, more so for early defence or making bases at chokepoints and near enemy territory,

If so, wouldn't just a single base of operations for each front be more effective, as that way you don't have to split your forces?

[JarlWolf]

But doesn't it also allow the attacker to shift the attack from one base to another more easily?

Not if you place them correctly: As said I use this strategy for chokepoints, area's where mobility is limited. Such as a land bridge, where enemies are forced to channel through that piece of land, and if they use naval units to cross then they are vulnerable to any sea patrols I may have. (Plus it might not be a total ocean, might just be a pinch of water.) And air travel is costly and doesn't happen until later on, and by then if I were using this strategy I would have interceptors or other anti air.

The bases are placed strategically so as to limit enemy movement, and its hard for the enemy to push forward when they have to punch through constant lines of defences. Think of it like a trench system, and I'll refer to the First World War. The majority of that conflict was at a standstill because both sides dug in and created fortified trench systems, and they would have multiple trenches behind them as well to withdraw to, just in case they had to withdraw. It is a similar concept here.

If so, wouldn't just a single base of operations for each front be more effective, as that way you don't have to split your forces?

Not necessarily, it might be a larger front I need to protect, and if you are playing Hive or you are like me with Drones and you can maximize industry to pump out units, especially colony pods it isn't a big deal making bases. Plus I am not putting all my forces all throughout these bases, I might just have a minimal garrison for the ones behind the frontline, and if the frontline falls and I lose that base the enemy gets a scanty, scrawny base and now is surrounded by numerous other smaller bases. Not only that if I know I am going to lose a base I might just evacuate it, and withdraw all my units to the other bases. Its a sort of elastic defence, when you know the first trench is going to be overrun you retreat to the next one and you keep grinding the enemy. This tactic is brutal and often drags out combat but it keeps my losses much lower then the enemy, as the enemy has to spend many lives on capturing near worthless bases.

I'll post screenshots of said strategies if you want in a PM if you are curious.

edit: Note, should have clarified this, I try not to make multiple bases for each line of defence, I limit the amount of bases  as small as I can. The max amount of bases I might have for a line is two or three. And even then its pushing it, I'll take a screenshot so you get the picture a bit clearer, my apologies.

[Buster's Uncle]

Why not just post them here?

[JarlWolf]

That could work.

[Yitzi]

Not if you place them correctly: As said I use this strategy for chokepoints, area's where mobility is limited. Such as a land bridge, where enemies are forced to channel through that piece of land, and if they use naval units to cross then they are vulnerable to any sea patrols I may have. (Plus it might not be a total ocean, might just be a pinch of water.) And air travel is costly and doesn't happen until later on, and by then if I were using this strategy I would have interceptors or other anti air.

The bases are placed strategically so as to limit enemy movement, and its hard for the enemy to push forward when they have to punch through constant lines of defences. Think of it like a trench system, and I'll refer to the First World War. The majority of that conflict was at a standstill because both sides dug in and created fortified trench systems, and they would have multiple trenches behind them as well to withdraw to, just in case they had to withdraw. It is a similar concept here.

Not necessarily, it might be a larger front I need to protect, and if you are playing Hive or you are like me with Drones and you can maximize industry to pump out units, especially colony pods it isn't a big deal making bases. Plus I am not putting all my forces all throughout these bases, I might just have a minimal garrison for the ones behind the frontline, and if the frontline falls and I lose that base the enemy gets a scanty, scrawny base and now is surrounded by numerous other smaller bases. Not only that if I know I am going to lose a base I might just evacuate it, and withdraw all my units to the other bases. Its a sort of elastic defence, when you know the first trench is going to be overrun you retreat to the next one and you keep grinding the enemy. This tactic is brutal and often drags out combat but it keeps my losses much lower then the enemy, as the enemy has to spend many lives on capturing near worthless bases.

Ah, I see.  So the basic idea is that this isn't really ICS, but rather using close-packed bases (probably with no facilities other than perimeter defense etc.) as a fortress line.

Of course, it does take up land that would otherwise find more productive use, but you do need defense somehow...

edit: Note, should have clarified this, I try not to make multiple bases for each line of defence, I limit the amount of bases  as small as I can. The max amount of bases I might have for a line is two or three. And even then its pushing it, I'll take a screenshot so you get the picture a bit clearer, my apologies.

That'd be good.

[JarlWolf]

Ah, I see.  So the basic idea is that this isn't really ICS, but rather using close-packed bases (probably with no facilities other than perimeter defense etc.) as a fortress line.

Exactly. These bases are otherwise worthless: They only have defence upgrades and such, and nothing really productive.

Of course, it does take up land that would otherwise find more productive use, but you do need defense somehow...

Mhm. Though, typically the land this is on is on highly contested and often quite barren and desolate territory. These frontline Guardsmen' bases make sure the people back home are safe and warm in their beds with plenty of minerals to crank out the machinery of war and facilities for domestic life, and advancing technological progress.