Love the irony of this comment.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with this obervation.  IMO, there are many errors in the OP. 

While tradeports are generally a good strategy, they are not neccessarily the best early game strategy.  Often, just colonizing adjoining planets is the best income payoff.  The payoff period for tradeports is greatly affected by the length of the trade route (its not 15 minutes, in all cases).  In Diplomacy, with fastest setting, all the income rates are increased (by about 35%).  For example: HWs earn 19.3 vs 14.3, 'rocks' earn .7 vs .52, and a tradeport earns 1.8 vs 1.3 (or 1.4).  So, I don't know how much this also affects the old payoff analysis?

 

Trade ports get 0.1 credits per second for each link in the trade line.

So with 8 planets in trade line you can get 2.5 credits per second per each trade port. 

And general consent among skilled players in diplo MP is quick start, normal fleet, pirates off, and all settings on fastest. Thats where most if not all assumptions and calculations come from. 

You get 1.3 credits per second on the first level of starbase, and 3.25 credits per second on the second level.  The first level upgrade costs you 1800/275/150, and the second level costs you 2700/425/225.  Using the a standard credit conversion that's 3700 credits for the first level, and 5600 for the second.

So the first level is 3700 for 1.3 credits per second, and the second level is 9300 for 3.25 credits per second.  If you crunch these numbers, the ratio of cost:benefit is almost the same (the first level is slightly better). 

Allegiance doesn't affect colony pods, but this really isn't a redeeming feature since the best form of credit income in the game (trade ports) also have this advantage.  The only forms of income that are affected by loyalty are extractors, tax, and resource focus.

Getting back on track: the best investments in the game are high-loyalty planets with lots of extractors.  Trade comes in second, and if you can grow that trade route it can easily outpace any other form of income in the game.  Refineries and culture aren't bad, but you need to place them well.  Some of the low-level techs are well worth your time in the early game, but for the most part they shine best for larger empires.  Techs cost the same amount whether you have 1 planet or 100, but most of them have effects that scale and perform better and better as your empire gets bigger.  This means bigger empires get a lot more bang for their buck out of these technologies.

I've done number crunching on this, too.  Thankfully, I've got mostly positive news here.

If you've got the layout to support it, refineries can be awesome, and a good refinery position will easily compete with all but the most obscene trade routes.  I was pleasantly surprised when I spreadsheeted that; a good 10-rock location can match a trade port up to a whopping 23-jump trade route.  Basically, unless your trade route length is in the 20's, most reasonably refinery positions are perfectly viable.

The problem I have with refineries are their stacking issues (so-called "quota") that can prevent you from deploying them at regular intervals, and their higher cost.  Logistics-wise a refinery will outperform a trade port if it's well-placed, but by a cost-for-cost analysis the trade port is the superior of the two.  So the refinery only really starts to shine when your logistics space is filling up.  If it weren't for these issues, I'd be wholeheartedly endorsing refineries are a match (if not superior) to trade ports.  As it stands, I'd say it's a supplement for the trade port once your metal/crystal income falls behind. 

Anyways, you are correct that you can avoid the black market in many circumstances by leaning on refineries.  However, I'd pursue this after my trade network is complete and I've filled the vast majority of my basic logistic slots, and only start to build refineries once I was buying logistic upgrades.  The problem is that if logistics are not an issue, I can build nearly two trade ports for every one refinery, and when you spreadsheet that for an early-game resource:credit conversion rate, you need to service over 16 rocks for that refinery to be viable.

Very few players do this, which is why it's easy to get away with putting it on the market for 100%, but it's something that everyone needs to learn to do.  The black market rate is positively obscene, and even selling 100 of a particular resource can give you a shocking influx of credits.  Unless you're low on a particular resource, this is almost always worth doing.

 

I've played Advent a lot, and I can say with certainty that I usually am selling resources, not buying them...on a medium map with 4 players, you are lucky if you can get a trade route of even 4 phase lanes (that's five actual planets in a row...keep in mind there are on average only 8 gravity wells per player)...with starbases in non-colonizable gravity wells, you usually can get that up to five or six...but that is a huge investment, and that investment would be BEFORE a solid trade-based economy...if you have a trade-based economy as advent or vasari on a medium map, then you must own well over a fourth of the map or A LOT of desert worlds...in which case the game is likely decided...

The only situations I can think of where I've had to buy resources is when I have a major imbalance between crystal and metal...in which case I'm selling one and buying the other...

But, let's suppose the game goes to the late stages, and let's even assume that I own/dominate a good third of the map, a full ten gravity wells, and let's assume by good luck they are all in a nice chain...so my trade route is 10 planets, or nine phase lanes...unless I'm REALLY lucky, 3 or 4 of those "planets" are likely uncolonizable...of the other 6 or 7, one is a terran (homeworld), 2 or 3 are asteroids, and 2 or 3 are volcanic/ice, and one might be a terran/desert...lets assume, so we can count logistics, that I have 2 terrans, 2 asteroids, 3 volcanic/ice, and 3 uncolonizables...that is (as non-TEC) 33 logistic slots...since this is a late game situation (where you say the economy becomes trade-based), it's not unreasonable that I would have 16 research facilities...leaving 17 empty slots...now each of those 7 planets is, on average, going to have one culture facility, leaving 10 slots...and I'm probably going to want at least 2 or 3 factories, which basically means there is only one trade port per planet...maybe 2 at the terran worlds if I skimp out on a few labs or culture facilities...

With only one trade facility at each planet, even a trade route of 10 long isn't going to be insanely profitable...by this point in the game I might be using the black market hardly at all, or maybe selling only one resources...and, this example above was an ideal situation for trade routes...most maps won't favor trade that much...

In my experience, by the time your economy is "trade-based", most of the heavy investments have already been made, and now its about building ships...even on medium-large maps with only 4 players, no one usually has a trade route more than six or seven long unless a player has lost significant territory (in which case, game is likely decided)...most of the time players are lucky to get a route of 5 before having to build starbases in uncolonizables...

I can't speak for FFAs on large maps with fast or faster speed settings, but on medium and medium large maps with 2 vs 2 and normal speed, I will always be selling resources as Advent or Vasari for the majority of the game...whenever I play a 2 vs 2, its a bloodbath for most of the game...if economies are trade-based, then its a late-game stalemate, and then it also is time for the superweapons, and those have a higher credit:resources ratio than pretty much anything other than scout ships (which will induce selling)...

Darvin

If I remember correctly someone did a number crouching on what repays faster refinery or trade port and if I remember correctly you need to have around 10 extractors on the other end of phase line for refinery to be faster. Don't ask me if trade line and how long it was was accounted for..... There must be a thread somewhere still. It is long tome ago and I was noob at that time.

 

Seleuceia

If you play eco spot you should never get 16 labs and and don't build culture on every planet. every 4 th is enough so u got 2 planets without culture in between. That is plenty. And you know that as advent its more worthwhile if you put culture on SB especially at border worlds....

If I play TEC i get 8 civ labs to get pervasive economy and 4 mil labs to get ogrows if I need them otherwise as eco player I stop at 3 mil labs to get carriers hoshikas and sometimes timed explosives.  . If I'm vasari I get 8 mil labs to get kosutras. I always sell my cap ship fact after I build my first colony cap ship I also sell all my factories and don't build them until I cannot expand anymore. Then I build them again. If you play tec you can always research factories on sb.....

And I always spam trade and then If I need more room for factories or labs I sell trade ports. If my feed is good and If my team doesn't waste it  more often than not I don't even need to fleet up and build those extra military labs. I just build some lrms siege and go rape their eco player worlds and try to disrupt their trade.

PS once I get to one good MP game with big difference on eco I will post reply of the game.       

There is no eco spot on a FFA or a 2 vs. 2...everyone has to have a military, EVERYONE...on a 3 vs. 3, at most 2 players will be eco, and odds are that won't be the case...you're not wrong about eco players, but I'm not interested in eco playstyles right now...

We are all in agreement that TEC will most likely be buying, not selling resources...I am looking at the Advent and Vasari, who are more inclined to sell resources than a TEC faction...

We also are all in agreement that in the early game, selling resources is very common for all three factions...

Darvin is arguing that once you get to a trade-based economy, it is highly unlikely you will be selling any resources...and if you are, it is likely only one resource you'll be selling due to a metal/crystal imbalance...I agree with Darvin that trade-based economies induce buying, not selling...

My point is that, in my game experience, trade-based economies on the level that Darvin is talking about are not common in close games...if a player reaches the tipping point of becoming a trade-based economic behemoth, then one team has lost heavy ground, and the game is likely already decided...

In a 2 vs. 2 on a medium/medium large or a 4 player FFA on medium, if you have a trade-based economy then you are dominating the map...the longest trade route I have ever seen before the opposition surrendered is nine (medium large)...this was a TEC player who took half of an enemy's territory (about 4 planets) and put trade ports on his dead asteroids...by this point the game was over since the opposing team was immensely outdone economically...

Trade-based economies are a mid to late game phenomenon...in the game types I am talking about, if the game has lasted this long then it is in a stalemate, and high level research becomes very important...

As Advent and Vasari, you are more inclined to research high level military technologies since you cannot compete with TEC industry...you are right to have only 3 or 4 military labs for TEC, but that is TEC, and you were talking about an eco position...Vasari, and especially Advent must improve the quality of their ships...

The result of this is that, yes, you will likely have 16 labs (at least 14 or 15)...on a medium map, each player will probably have only 5 real planets (likely around 20-25 logistic slots) and on a medium large, each player will likely have 8 or so (40 or logistics with good planets)...by the mid to late game (where economies can turn to trade-based), many logistic slots will be taken up by research labs...this won't affect the length of your trade route but it will hurt your total trade income...

Though you are right in that culture is not necessary at every gravity well, spreading your culture too thin can backfire...wormholes and soft-choke points can allow offensives deep into your territory...if your culture is too thin, a marauding fleet with a capital ship or two can break down your culture temporarily, preventing you from getting cultural bonuses...I usually have at least one culture facility at every non-asteroid planet for this very reason...

With many logistic slots filled with labs, culture facilities, and factories, you won't have more than one or two trade ports per planet on a medium map...on medium-large, you might get lots of trade on terran and desert worlds if you have several of them...but on a larger map, you will also need to have more culture on the frontlines and more factories...trade will be better on medium-large, but not dominating unless you are a superpower...and as I've said before, if you're a superpower then the game is likely decided...

As for culture on starbases, I can only see this being viable in the late game...early on, starbases are hard to kill but not impossible...if you invest in two or three culture upgrades for your starbase, that's 2 or 3 less combat upgrades...assuming you max defenses, you are going to have only 2 upgrade slots for military use if you fully upgrade culture...even if you put meteor storm on that starbase, three non-combat slots hurts your military potential...

If you first invest in culture upgrades, the starbase is weak...the enemy should recognize the culture surge and quickly wipe out the weak starbase...if you invest in defensive upgrades, then culture, the starbase is stronger but your enemy has also had more time to prepare...if you invest in 5 military upgrades before culture, you have given your enemy a lot of time to counter your starbase...and by this point odds are you are getting to the mid or late game, where starbases can be taken out fairly quickly with ogrovs and/or bombers...

I will admit that culture starbases are very effective at goading your enemy into an offensive...but as a general rule I'd say they are a risky investment if they're up on the front lines...using starbases with culture instead of culture facilities does upon up more logistics for trade, but that is a huge investment and would only pay off in a long game....

 

 

hey got a question for ppl questioning me...do u think i dont colinize worlds and build the extracters?

Greg30007 mentioned he might use his next replay if he gets the chance, which is a good idea on his part...

After reading his post I decided to look at the last save of my last 2 vs. 2...

This was on a medium large map...I colonized and held 8 planets for the entirety of the game...the opponent next to me colonized and held 9 (bummer for him that they were almost all asteroids) for the entirety of the game...my ally lost significant ground until he bunkered down with 4 planets...his neighbor therefore eventually had 11 planets...

This is on average 8 planets per player, which is fairly normal for a 4 player medium large setup..

Due to the nature of my quadrant of the solar system, my max trade length was 5 despite having 8 planets and some uncolonizable gravity wells under my influence...in my experience with 8 or so planets, a trade length of 5 is pretty common...

For those curious, I had 2 asteroids, a terran (Homeworld) and 5 volcanic/ice...I also had all resource technologies...my asteroids averaged 3 "rocks" per asteroid and my non-terran planets averaged 2.4 "rocks" per planet...I also had 4 "rocks" in uncolonizables, which is fairly normal, maybe one "rock" above typical...

By the end of the game, my incomes were:

16.1 credits

5.4 metal

3.1 crystal

Now this is after maintenance, so the raw values would be higher...however, the ratios wouldn't be affected by a flat percentage so this data should be fine....

The ratio of credits : metal : crystal for me in this game was 5.16 : 1.74 : 1 ...let's compare this to some purchases I might make in the late game...

Destra Crusader - 525 : 100 : 90 = 5.83 : 1.11 : 1

Aeria Drone Host - 1280 : 230 : 220 = 5.81 : 1.05 : 1

Capital Ship - 3000 : 400 : 250 = 12 : 1.6 : 1

Deliverance Engine - 8000 : 600 : 500 = 16 : 1.2 :1

Level 8 Technology - 1800 : 350 : 550 = 5.14 : 1 : 1.57

Temple of Communion - 900 : 100 : 150 = 9 : 1 : 1.5

Tactical Capacity Upgrade Lvl 1 - 450 : 150 : 75 = 6 : 2 : 1

Other than technology, ALL of these items have a higher ratio of credits to resources when compared to my income...even the lvl 8 technology was comparable to my income (just switch the metal and crystal, and it would be almost identical)...

In this particular game, the closest I came to a trade-based economy was in the late-game, which is where these numbers come from...after looking at this, I stand by my conclusion that as Advent (and Vasari as well) I will be selling resources more than I will be buying them...even for technology, I will have to sell one resource in order to buy the other...

As of right now I can't figure out how to attach a file (just see a button for links), but I do have the save file for this game...

 

First thing

You don't have eco player in 2v2 matches and not very often in 3v3. What I'm talking about when I say eco player I mean player that is shielded on both sides.

2v2 games are totally different story

Now if you play advent and you want to put culture on sb as ECO player you need 3 mil labs and thats it. And as advent you get all most useful ships on Tier 3 unless you want repulse which needs 5 labs. AS eco player your role is to feed and support other players. And most varied support for all races I can think of is culture and aircraft carriers which are both on tier 2.

Now regarding advent SB and culture on it. I use SB with all 3 culture upgrades for attacking. It boosts my shield mitigation and it forces enemy to sacrify and upgrade logistic slots on his planets with civic labs and culture centers. All costs resources and reduces his income until he responds with his own temples.

Another thing even if i'm in fighting role i never purchase offensive capabilities on advent sb. I rather invest in LVL 2 spin control and if I have labs in LVL 2 meteor shover. With spin even if you have much weaker force you can defeat your enemy and meteor is most useful right after culture. I always accompany sb with 2 hangars with shield restore and repair bays and yes I buy 2 cheapest hull upgrades straight away. 

The order of upgrading depends if I or my allies have superior force or not. If he is on defense I force him to attack me or research culture with culture upgrades... If he goes for ogrows another bonus for me because until he gets sufficient numbers they are no threat and they just choke his fleet supply 

That's not an economizer's position, so it's not what we're talking about in this thread.  What you're describing is a front-line empire, which probably doesn't have a mature trade network, so it's still primarily a tax/extractor economy.  In 1v1 and 2v2 on a single-star scenario, that's normal, but we're talking about pocket positions in 4v4 or larger (sometimes you'll see it in 3v3, but it's uncommon), which can have over 100 credits per second before the hour is up.

I've personally hit trade route lengths of over 30 in some multistar scenarios; economies can go insane on bigger maps, and this is more or less what we're talking about.




Using the 4.5 conversion rate and the presumption that you're not expanding your trade route with the newly built trade port, a cost-comparison puts a 10-rock refinery as a match to a 9-jump trade route, which is fairly normal for an early pocket player's empire.  I would imagine this is probably the comparison you saw, but in my opinion this is an overly optimistic outlook.  This is a break-even condition, and if your trade route continues to grow then the trade port is still preferable.

The comparison is overwhelmingly in favour of the trade port if we use a different conversion rate or if we consider the possibility that your trade route is growing every time you build a new trade port.  In either case, that 10-rock position is no longer very attractive, and you're looking at 15-20 rocks before it's worth your time.  I'd still advise sticking to trade ports until you're running out of space or at capacity for both resources.



Definitely; if you already have the starbase operational, save on logistics.  The culture upgrade is more effective when built on a starbase, and the extra cost is more than offset by the savings on logistics space.

Of course, like anything else, I wouldn't build the starbase strictly on this upgrade's account.  Use existing starbases instead.



Personally I'd go for 5 so I can build a boom-base as TEC, but there's definitely strong reason to stop at 3 or 4.  Maybe I might hit 8 if I wanted to start Novalith spamming, but most of the time I'm better served by giving my allies more discretionary spending power.  As Advent, I could easily see going for 6 labs for meteor control, but definitely no more than that.

However, I think Vasari are the exception; a Kostura is definitely worth those 8 labs if you have the economy to support building those monsters.



There's a difference between an economy that has trade and an economy that is trade-based.  For a typical 2v2 situation with well developed economies, you might have 40 cps from trade ports and 30 cps from tax, along with 15 or so rps from extractors.  Trade is a big chunk of your income, even exceeding tax income, but it's not the majority of your total income.

This is a far cry from a situation where you have 120 cps from trade ports, 35 cps from tax, and 25 rps from extractors and refineries.  Now trade makes up the vast majority of your credit income, and nearly half of your total income even after a 4.5 resource to credit conversion.  This is what it means to have a trade-based economy.  Now as Advent you're very unlikely to hit that 25 rps because you don't have refineries, so trade is likely at this point to account for more than half of your total income even after conversion, and that's why Advent almost always ends up buying both resources at this point in the game.

True

but it is bare minimum and I don't build refinery on every planet and they are limited to 3 per extractor. Also as trade they get bonus from research so it all comes down to a lot of variables. And 9 joints in phase line is pretty much maximum in most cases before you are forced to fleet up or .... well it also takes time to build and sometimes you get obstacles that don't allow you to build long chain (magnetic cloud.....).

10 extractors??? ..... average is 3 per planet so you are almost there with 2 phase lines..... and if you build refinery at start when you don't have that 9 planet chain yet....

It becomes even faster ROI if you sell resources on black market instead of buying them. And if every one is lacking and buying and you are selling at 500 or 600 cred. Well.... 

To sum up it depends a lot on situation you are in.

As eco I try not to buy resources or buy as little as possible to build trade ports. I also don't like to wait to have resources to build trade ports. So if you don't need to buy you have a good savings in credits which speeds up your expansion and trade port spamming. 1 trade port resource purchase gives you another trade port credit wise for free if you don't need to buy them.

I don't see them as main economic benefit and trade ports and good planets play this role. But in my experience so far they help with fast and efficient expansion..... 

For TEC, refineries and trade ports share the same upgrade, so there is no actual change in their relative performance.  For Vasari, there are no refinery technologies.

Average is, unfortunately, a bit below 3, since 2-rock planets are more common than 4-rock planets, and that's without considering the possibility of an empty neutral or a dead.  However, at the end of the day you should have at least one viable refinery location in your empire.

The problem with the "less than 9 chain" scenario is that it's very likely you trade port chain is still growing at this time.  As I already mentioned, if the new trade port expands the length of your chain, the comparison is greatly in favour of trade ports, and that 10-rock position is outperformed by a mere 4-jump trade route. 

If you're selling to other players, yes, but if you're selling primarily to the black market... it gets a lot worse for refineries.  If you're selling to the black market in large quantities, you're using a 2.5 conversion rate for resource to credits rather than the more favourable (for the refinery, that is) 4.5 conversion rate.  Using that number, you need to service 19 rocks to match that same 9-jump trade route, and your 10-rock position isn't even worth considering.

As I said, refineries are great, but I personally think that trade comes first in most situations.

I'd agree with that; if I had a 16-rock intersection I wouldn't hesitate to put a refinery there asap.  However, those don't come up every game, and I think your average to above-average refinery locations can wait until your trade chain is complete.

I'd certainly agree that fast-expansion is your top priority early game, and nothing else compares.

 

I agree...mass disorientation and meteor storm are much more effective...but if you have lvl 2 in both of those, that leaves 4 slots...divide those amongst 3 defense upgrades and 3 culture upgrades, and there is going to be some sacrifice somewhere...you are either going to skimp out on culture (which then I'd ask, why even bother?) or defense upgrades (not good against bomber swarms) or mass disorientation (not good since lvl 1 won't affect ogrovs)...

On maps with lots of players, I can see culture being a more viable upgrade since allies will have your back and you'll likely be on a one front war...but if you can't support that starbase with at least some of your fleet, bombers and ogrovs are going to hit you hard...and if you don't have all 3 defense upgrades, there's a good chance that starbase is going to go down...a dunov, radiance, or kortul can really hit the antimatter on that starbase, limiting how long you have meteor storm and mass disorientation...and if they have a lot of SC, you'll need that 3rd defense upgrade to buy you enough time to get reinforcements there or have your fighters wittle down their bombers....

When you go on the offensive, having your culture there is nice, I'll agree with that...but if your culture equals theirs (which doesn't require a SB) then when your fleet jumps in, your capital ships can often push back the enemy culture as soon as you land in...even if things don't work out like this (mainly their capital ships being there), your powerful culture has come at a cost...mainly a weaker starbase...since as Advent you'll almost always have enough culture to guarantee culture bonuses on defense without culture on a SB, culture on a SB gives you greater offensive power at the price of less defensive power...I'd say normally this is good since offensive actions are often harder than defense...but its also more risky, because if your fleet does have to leave that starbase so it can fight on another front, you either have to leave more ships behind (mainly aeria's with fighters, defense vessels, and iconus guardians) or you leave your flank more vulnerable...

I can see the economics of this situation, and culture on a starbase is more "economical" if you were already going to build the starbase in the first place...it's really nice if your border worlds are asteroids to have those logistic slots for trade and factories instead of culture...but I think economics (and this is a trend I see a lot) are being overemphasized...this isn't about trade-ports vs. refineries where the advantages/disadvantages are purely economical...putting culture instead of more militant upgrades on a starbase is also a tactical decision...culture on a starbase gives you more room for trade (economic bonus) or room for factories (tactical/economic bonus)...but it also weakens your defense (tactical disadvantage)...I don't see number crunching the tactical pros and cons here being viable, but I can say this...if 50 Vasari Bombers come with a space egg and some assailants, that starbase is going to go down fast...15 ogrovs with some garda flak are going to wreck havoc as well...I don't think it really matters how many credits you made by putting culture on that SB, if it gets destroyed because it wasn't at full military potential, then you just lost a huge economic investment...and the bastion of your planetary defense....

There is another tactical situation you haven't thought about. Defending your sb with another one from your team mate. More often than not vasari allied player always doubles defenses with their sb in case of a stalemate. 

Another thing if you bring those 25 carriers with phase missiles that sb will prob die but that depends on how far phase bypass is researched. With 2 carrier caps and some guardians + repair platforms that sb has high chance to live until reinforcements arrive and since PJs ar a must on border worlds is highly possible that good portion of his carriers will die.

But those are military decisions which go beyond this thread. Once eco player gets attacked unless he is attacked by fleet from player that was fighting he is forced to fleet up.....

 

Here is a reply of the game 

http://www.filesavr.com/ooqLonWE

Crazy pete had 133 cred ps income 36 min into the game. True he didn't need to feed but he had to be careful because he was near player on opposing team. He wasn't in pure eco position but he could go eco because he was supposed to be fighting a noob.

Teams were a little stacked but it shows all those new players what skilled players can do. I play as MR G and my team looses in the end but we do successfully double one of players on other team.

Not one of best games I'we played. It was a terrible mistake to loose one of my cap ships and that cost me loosing my HW.... 

 

I have thought about this...but it doesn't really make much of a difference...a vasari starbase doesn't increase the survivability of your starbase, it merely adds extra firepower...if your starbase is the one with culture, it's going to be taken out first, and whatever amount of bombers and/or ogrovs are capable of taking your SB out quickly are not going to be destroyed fast enough by a vasari starbase...full defensive upgrades, full meteor storm, and full mass disorientation are all key...it is absolutely crucial that you deny your enemy the ability to take down a starbase with raw firepower from LRFs and HCs (meteor storm and mass disorientation)...the defensive upgrades give you more time to take down bombers...without all three upgrade types maxed out, the starbase is vulnerable to at least one type of composition (either all SC, all HC, or all Ogrovs)...

Tell me Is it worth loosing half or whole fleet to take out one sb since once you loose fleet you will need massive feed and your planets are wide open to enemy counter attack. 

Enemy counter?  What enemy counter?  If you have the type of defenses you are talking about (2 starbases + repair bays + PJIs + a select group of defense units NOT part of your regular fleet) then either the game has been going on quite a while or you invested so heavily in tech and defenses, you don't have a fleet to counter attack with...if the game has being going on quite a while, then you can bet the other team has comparable defenses as well, so a counterattack is just as viable for you as their original offensive is viable for them...

The difference is, if you border an Advent player who didn't put culture on their SB, their SB is going to be stronger...mainly, it is going to have a lot more offensive power...their planet is going to be harder to take than your planet...so maybe you have a culture advantage, but how much is that going to help? I'd argue not very much...

If they attack you, you are going to have culture bonuses in your territory regardless of whether you put culture on your SB...if you attack them, their culture is going to retreat because you brought in capital ships, not because of your starbase (because remember, the whole point of building culture upgrades on a SB is so you don't have to build cultural orbital facilities, so your culture isn't going to be all that much stronger)...

You are correct in that sacrificing a large amount of your fleet just to kill one starbase is a dumb idea...but that situation is likely never going to occur...early on your starbase is going to be easy to kill (cultural upgrades first) or it isn't a cultural threat (military upgrades first)...later on, when you have both cultural and military upgrades, your opponent is likely going to be capable of attacking you...even if they can't hit your planet with the SB, they'll just attack elsewhere...either you have invested too heavily in defenses at the cost of your fleet, or you have invested in both and will need every bit of defensive advantage you can get...in the former situation, they'll attack elsewhere and you'll be screwed...in the latter situation, even if both of you have comparable fleets, those three culture upgrades have hindered your defensive potential, which in the end will result in a tactical defeat...

I have tried a lot to get use out of cultural upgrades...and everytime I built cultural upgrades, I regretted it...either it was a huge waste of resources because the nearby planets never fell culturally, or I lost the starbase by a hair because it just didn't have the military power it needed...

I am getting the feeling that you like the culture part of the starbase because it allows you to receive military advantages (shield mitigation) when you go on the offensive...that's a great bonus, but I don't see the SB with culture being of much help...Let's say you have Planet A which borders enemy planet B, and you also have Planet C a few jumps away that borders enemy planet D...

If you put a starbase with culture on Planet A, that culture is only going to help offensive actions on planet B...if you are attacking planet B, I would ask you why you bothered to put a SB on A when you should be more concerned about defending Planet C...if you attack Planet D, then the culture on the SB at planet A is not going to help AND your defenses are weaker than they could be...

Even with 4 culture starbases at the sun, I have found it difficult to take enemy planets even one jump away from the star...human players simply will realize what you are doing and build more cultural facilities...now you have brought up a valid point: your culture forced them to make an economic sacrifice by building culture instead of trade...but, I'd argue that in any situation you specifically build a starbase for culture, you are taking the bigger economic loss...if you are building a starbase for defense, but you put culture on it, then you have limited the potential of your defense and likely have done very little to increase your offensive potential via culture bonuses....

I've tried to get culture on SB to work, but everytime I build culture on a starbase, I always regret it...I find that either the starbase simply shouldn't have been built in the first place, or that military upgrades would have been much more beneficial...it just seems to me that culture on a starbase can never be tactically or economically justified...

I say cheers to you for getting culture on SB to work out, because I've never been able...

The thing in SINS is that you must not rely only on one strategy and if you are not scouting (at least against skilled player) you are probably going to loose. You need to be able to see where enemy fleet is and what it consist of so you are able to respond.

I find out that most new players make that mistake. Just yesterday i was in fighting role. Me and my opponent were contesting for a ice planet. I must say he was noob. I had 2 carriers which at start were fighting against 1 of his carriers and a bunch of assailants..On planet nearby i had 2 factories pumping my own assailants but i didn't bring them onto contested planet. After one of caps was 75% hull i retreated to my roid and he followed. What resulted was total destruction of his fleet and his death 5 min later. If I was pumping my assailants and sending them into fight fight would be going for a while.

Basically not scouting and eventually not knowing that i had fleet cost him his fleet and all of his planets.

And once you go on defense unless you are vasari if you put just sbs in and don't know what enemy fleet is and you don't invest in your own fleet your sb is predictable dead since in sufficient numbers enemy bombers can kill anything they come against. You don't need ogrows or starfish for that.....    

Yes as eco player its very important that you fleet as late as possible but its also important that you are ready to fleet at moments notice. That means all ships you intend to build need to be researched and you need to have suficient numbers of factories so you can respond really quick. In my opinion that means at least 3 factories and good intel what enemy is doing.

And one more thing usually (if i said otherwise i made a mistake) but advent sb with culture is intended for support of your allies that means that he and guy that he is fighting are in stalemate (both have sbs up or enemy is on defense with sb up and my ally doesn't have force to breach his sb and fleet. 

If you clash with other team eco player its self evident (at least for me) that you gonna fleet up and attack his planets with trade. In case of even teams the team with better eco wins ALWAYS and if you kill enemy eco well its gg. If you cannot take him with your fleet then you start to fortify yourself and try to weaken enemy with culture. When I said to use culture as attack its meant when other options are exhausted at least at the moment. Culture is really slow but if given time it can serious hamper enemy.

When you are fortified then you can think about other options like attacking trough wormholes and super weapons.

No skilled player will go for super weapons or culture attack if he can beat opponent with fleet. In my opinion that would be stupid and prolong the game to point that enables enemy to catch up either in terms of economy or fleet or perhaps both.

 

Perhaps pple missed my previous post with address to reply of the game since I didnt actually link it .... so here it is again

http://www.filesavr.com/ooqLonWE

Crazy pete had 133 cred ps income 36 min into the game. True he didn't need to feed but he had to be careful because he was near player on opposing team. He wasn't in pure eco position but he could go eco because he was supposed to be fighting a noob.

Teams were a little stacked but it shows all those new players what skilled players can do. I play as MR G and my team looses in the end but we do successfully double one of players on other team.

Not one of best games I'we played. It was a terrible mistake to loose one of my cap ships and that in the end cost me loosing my HW since i didn't have enough fighter cover ....

 

 

You shouldn't even need to have scouted to know that.  He could have plainly seen you weren't receiving reinforcements and has to presume that money would be spent elsewhere.  And beyond that fact... look before you leap. There are a few situations where you can get away with taking this risk, but if your opponent has had more than a minute or two of setup time you don't take that risk.

I've had several games where we've won even after our eco has been taken out, but usually that involves very strong players on the front-lines.  In one really fun game, our eco player managed to re-establish and start feeding again after losing his entire empire.  It's not a 100% deal if the eco player goes down, especially if you have strong players that are winning their own battles elsewhere.  However, if one team has an unfettered eco that gets ridiculously powerful and the other does not, then it's over.

My point exactly But i did say he was noob. So another chance 4 him to learn

I agree with that but i did mention that we need to have even teams 4 my scenario to work. Even teams on balanced maps will sooner or later generate a stalemate and then alternative strategies come into play (super weapons, attacks trough wormholes and establishment of fortified islands in the middle of enemy side of maps - surprise attacks, hit and run tactic, Opening new fronts ets.....). 

Sometimes if you feeding a noob who is fighting pro all the feed will be probably for nothing. There were occasions that one player got more than 50k or even 75k plus metal and crystal while his opponent got nothing or 5k in credits (almost no feed) and guy that was feed still lost. 

Warfleet still seems to think he is the "BEST", and doesn't seem "to learn".  Even Greg said its better to wait before doing trade.  For TEC & Vasari, the tier 1 tech to increase terran population pays for itself in less than 10 minutes.  Then, if you are lucky to grab some neutrals, the low level techs to increase extractor output will also pay for itself before trade does.  So research them AND grab adjoining planets first.  Like I said before:  "Each tradeport that lengthens the chain, earns .1 more income,  and adds .1 to each of the ports proir to it on the chain.  So, don't even start building them, until you can build several at once (in a chain)".

I also disagree about building "a culture station every 2".  I also never build colony pods, and rarely find refineries worthwhile.  Here's a another good eco replay.

http://www.filefront.com/16792259/Eco-Full%20Pacts.record

the culture thing can be done your own way, but regardless the sooner you build yoru trade ports the sooner they bring in profits. When i play TEC i can get 2 trade ports built before i eveng et my first rodi and that puts me at a huge eco advantage because i am getting the extra income so early. also refineries are very worthwhile if placed correctly.

Two trade ports on your homeworld at the very start of the game?  Sorry, but unless you're in a 1-lane start position, that's going to slow down your expansion.  So long as there aren't LRM's on them, I can send a dispatch of Cobalts to any ice/volcanic planet to have them take it down, speeding up my colonization over a lone Akkan.  If you spent all your starting money on getting two trade ports on your homeworld, you can't do that.

Without a trade route, each of those trade ports is less profitable than a single extractor.  Maybe you could get away with this on a one-lane start on fastest game speed, but frankly I think you're better off putting that money into a second group of cobalts to colonize in two directions simultaneously, because a mere 2-rock volcanic is more profitable than two trade ports at this stage of the game.

Hmmm 

One thing first I'm definitely not best payer out there and on random maps you need to be able to adapt. True I have no problems getting into skilled games but I can line up at least 10 different players that I loose in fight against in 9 out of 10 games.

And SB Warfleet is one of them. 9 out of 10 times when we are in direct conflict if i don't get good and early feed there is high chance he will beat me.

Now another thing. I'we seen a lot of skilled players sell frigate factory at your home after they build starting up fleet to help with cleaning of planets. If you play advent (definitely) or even tec (sometimes) and you really don't want to wait for that factory to be destroyed. you will probably build one of civ labs on that roid you colonized first. after you sell your frig factory or even cap factory as well you got 2 slots open for trade port at your HW. That is before you upgrade any logistic slots on any planet.

So in this case it is perhaps better option to build 2 trade ports on your HW first before you start to purchase logistic slots on your roid. It does give you economic boost and you reach those credits (450 i think for roid purchase) at faster pace..... I don't play advent so often... (15% of the time) and I don't really know.... It is viable strategy and I can definitely see benefits especially if you don't start with progen cap ship. I will try it next time i am in right situation.   

Why not start with progen as your cap??? 

You get easy exp while clearing those planets and high LVL cap ships are definitely good support for later on.

And Darvin

yes trade port line is important but at start with 2-3 trade ports it gives you bonus from 0.1-0.3 cred PS if you get that line working and you build 2 ports on your hw. Now compare that bonus with what you are spending on upgrade on that roid so you can build that trade port on roid and do same comparison for extra trade port on HW. As advent especially you are forced to build that 1 civ lab on your roid so you are forced to upgrade.

Can you see benefit to building extra port on hw before you upgrade roid???? Even if you use progen as 1st cap benefits of 1 extra trade port on HW seem to offset benefits of 30% cheaper upgrade for logistic slots purchase. In truth I never looked at 1st logistic slot upgrade this close before and in this way. Good catch WAR and you get karma for that +