I am of the opinion that anyone should attempt to take neutrals if they can if simply to deny their enemies the resources be they econ, front, or suicide slot.  Econ is more expected to do it especially if they are vasari because they have less micro to do in general.  I find it funny that despite the huge amount of vasari nowadays that it is easier for me as advent to obtain and keep neutrals if they are at all close to me.  There are few that fight very hard for them nowadays.  My guess is lack of vasari experience due to hopping on the vasari bandwagon. 

[_]-Greyfox

get off my bandwagon plz.

its mine.

It's not meant as nit-picking, the game is too complex to play perfectly, I've looked at replays where I've imagined that I've played excellently only to find that I've missed some glaring opportunity or that the enemy had to cope with some disadvantage that I wasn't aware of.   My own scout play can be very weak, and there have been times when I've been very grateful that a friendly scout has wandered past at just the right moment.  However the thread is about how to play the econ slot, and I'd always considered it the econ slot responsibility to battle for the neutrals, I'm surprised that you avoided them as a policy rather than just overlooking them. 

No-one likes a Vasari ally who takes your own easy neutrals and doesn't battle the enemy for theirs, but there are often several neutrals that aren't easy for anyone.  There may be some disadvantage in transferring resources to players who could have picked up neutrals themselves but the econ player is often in a far better position to maximise resource upgrades, which are enough to offset this.  Equally important is that the thread is about how to quickstart an economy- and aren't neutrals at least as vital to this as either early trade or later trade?

My concern is determining when exactly to start trade...Warfleet believes that building trade ports ASAP is the best strategy for eco players...the problem is, we are lacking good comparisons...if Warfleet is such a great eco player, it might be because of his strategy in rushing trade early...or it might just be because he's a good player....we don't really know the difference unless other good players rush trade early and evaluate their performance or Warfleet DOESN'T rush trade early and evaluates his performance...

In my experience, I have never found rushing trade to be the best strategy...even as TEC, where trade is only a lvl 2 technology, I think it is more cost effective to research terran upgrades, colonize faster, or grab uncolonizable asteroids faster...as Advent, you are better doing any of those things OR building a single culture facility before building trade ports...as Vasari, I don't think early trade is even a consideration...

To Seleuceia 

It all depends on situation and map you are playing on.

If you got good planets rushing trade + upgrading (researching) planet is best. If you got neutrals resource upgrade is better. As advent culture is very important since is tier 2.  There really isn't universal situation IMO.

But I do think that as TEC you should rush trade and envoys (with donation upgrade) ASAP. TEC have some great pacts and envoy capabilities.

As advent given that you have 1 roid near your sb Warfleets strategy works best in my opinion.

As vasari I usually purchase resource upgrade tier 3 (both) and "cheaper things research - tier 3" before i place first trade port when I got 4 planet line I start placing culture. It also depends how quickly i grab those planets. If planets are heavily defended i will go 4 trade sooner since resource collection doesn't come to effect so quickly.

What exactly do you mean by"good planets"??

If everything close to you other than your one asteroid is Ice/Volcanic, then you need to be researching colonization technology, not trade, and you need to be pushing for expansion even more (which means more scouts/LFs), not vertical growth...

If you have desert/terran/asteroids around you to where you can hold off on colonization techs, then you are better off investing in civilian infrastructure and researching LRFs so you can do a good rush...the more desert/terrans you have, the more you'd want to research population upgrades...again, not trade...

There is only one situation where I can see early trade being good, and that's if you get a long line of just asteroids (maybe one terran/desert)...this is very rare, but if you do happen to get a line of 3 or 4 asteroids, that's a good trade route, and you will need the income since you'll have no population for tax revenue....there is only one recent game I can think of where this happened to me...I was Advent, and I had 4 asteroids I was able to get right in a row...I rushed trade and got that 5 planet trade route...it was good income, but it came at a price, mainly that I was lacking in military technology and didn't get defense vessels and illuminators as soon as I should have...

Early trade puts a squeeze on your early expansion and your ability to get military prototypes when you need them...I agree with you that map and situation should determine what you do, but it still seems that the options to choose from early on are colonization techs, population techs, civilian infrastructure, uncolonizables, and more ships for expansion...trade is a possibility, but I think in most nearly every situation, at least one if not more of those above options will be easier and more cost effective than early trade...

We are talking about econ position which means you do not build mil labs and you don't purchase fleet supply beyond what you got at start. You always start with colony cap ship and you fill your initial points either with light frigates or scouts. I usually put 1-2 colny frigates in the mix. To colonize roids and fight 4 neutrals. And yes those planets are best to spam trade ports on (9 on desert planet   yay). Scouts can keep militia other than siege busy indefinitely. Just make them circle around planet.... 

By good planets I do mean terrans and deserts. Then I purchase max population research as well. And yes Ice/Vulcan colonization is TOP priority so it doesn't slow u down while grabbing planets.

If you got heavy defended planets you will prob need 1 mil lab for repair platform so it repairs your turrets because once u colonize and kill siege and perhaps LRFs place turret or 2 + repair platform if needed and up to next planet.

ice/volc colonization is not top priority.

colonize an ice or volcanic is such an incredible drain on a starting econ, that unless there is literally only ice and volcs around you, I skip them untill I know I have trade ports up, and I know i can put 5 trade ports on that ice/volc as fast as i can build them.  now, a 4 rock with low militia, is definatly favorable over a 2 rock with tons of millitia, for obvious reasons, and things like that should also be factored into your desision.

IMO you really don't want to backtrack with your colonizer ships so you colonize as you go. If you can choose and colonize roids/terrans/deserts without skipping planets and without backtracking with your colonizer by all means that is much better way to do it, but its rare that you get a string of planets like that. Another thing is if you gave 3 ice in a string don't research vulcan colonization until you need it....

And as i said it all depends on map you are playing.

Good SINS player needs to be flexible and be able to predict what his allies and opponents will do......

The word you're looking for is "proactive"

I'd use that word to describe good playstyle in any RTS game.

i have a slighty modified strat for when u start in eco as advent. of coarse make sure u get a prog. since its colonize makes upgrades cheaper, what i do is get the first roid, then i get the pop upgrade and build extracters, while on my home i get a culture station after scuttling cap factory. then once ive got my 3rd planet i buy all the logistics space availbe and complety fill it with trade ports. very good strat for kick starting ur eco

I decided to put these strategies to the test by doing an experiment...I played two games (no quickstart), one where I played eco as I normally would, and one where I rushed trade very early...

Both games were as TEC and on the same map (Random Small) with pirates off and no other players...all game speeds were set to normal...I played first as I normally do, then loaded from the start and played again, this time rushing trade...

I watched the replays and took note of a few stats every ten minutes...each game was played for 40 minutes...since this was on normal game speed, I don't know how these would compare to fast game speed other than on fast speed it would have taken less time to progress as far as I did...

Game 1 - Control

10 minutes
--Colonized: HW, 3 asteroids
--Two civ labs: Researching Bounty Hunting
--Military: 7 LFs, 3 Scouts, 1 Akkan
--Economy: 10.2 (Trade = 0.0) -- 3.3 -- 1.9

20 minutes
--Colonized: HW, 3 asteroids, 1 desert, 1 volcanic
--Three civ labs:  Researched Bounty Hunting & Universal Negotiation, High Density Zoning I & II, Volcanic & Ice Exploitation
--Military: 11 LFs, 8 Scouts, 1 Colony Ship, 1 Akkan
--Economy: 13.0 (Trade = 0.0) -- 5.4 -- 2.5 **Had fleet upgrade I**

30 minutes
--Colonized: HW, 3 asteroids, 2 desert, 1 volcanic, 1 ice, 2 uncolonizable asteroids
--Three civ labs: Researched Bounty Hunting & Universal Negotiation, High Density Zoning I & II, Volcanic & Ice Exploitation, Deep Core Metal Mining I & II, Orbital Commerce
--Military: 2 Scouts, 2 Colony Ships, 1 Akkan
--Economy: 29.3 (Trade = 8.0) -- 6.2 -- 6.6 **Had fleet upgrade I**

40 minutes
--Colonized: HW, 5 asteroids, 2 desert, 1 volcanic (1 more under siege), 1 ice, 4 uncolonizable asteroids
--Three civ labs: Researched Bounty Hunting & Universal Negotiation, High Density Zoning I & II, Volcanic & Ice Exploitation, Deep Core Metal Mining I & II, Orbital Commerce, Improved Arid Colonies I & II, Neruda Prototype; researching Rapid Hyrdometallurgy
--Military: 7 LFs, 6 Scouts, 2 Colony Ships, 1 Akkan
--Economy: 57.1 (Trade = 32.7) -- 7.9 -- 6.6 **Had fleet upgrade I**

Game 2 - Rush Early Trade

10 minutes
--Colonized: HW, 2 asteroids (1 more under siege)
--Two civ labs: Researched Orbital Commerce
--Military: 1 LF, 2 Scouts, 1 Akkan
--Economy: 12.8 (Trade = .5) -- 2.8 -- 1.9

20 minutes
--Colonized: HW, 3 asteroids, 1 desert (1 more under siege)
--Three civ labs: Researched Orbital commerce, Bounty Hunting & Universal Negotiation
--Military: 3 LFs, 4 Scouts, 1 Akkan
--Economy: 21.4 (Trade = 6.2) -- 4.2 -- 2.5

30 minutes
--Colonized: HW, 3 asteroids, 2 desert, 1 volcanic, 1 ice
--Three civ labs: Researched Orbital commerce, Bounty Hunting & Universal Negotiation, High Density Zoning I, Volcanic & Ice Exploitation
--Military: 1 LF, 3 Scouts, 1 Akkan
--Economy: 31.8 (Trade = 16.9) -- 5.8 -- 4.6

40 minutes
--Colonized: HW, 3 asteroids, 2 desert, 1 volcanic, 1 ice, 1 uncolonizable asteroid
--Three civ labs: Researched Orbital commerce, Bounty Hunting & Universal Negotiation, High Density Zoning I & II, Volcanic & Ice Exploitation, Deep Core Metal Mining, Neruda Prototype
--Military: 1 Scout, 2 Colony Ships, 1 Akkan
--Economy: 66.6 (Trade = 42.2) -- 5.6 -- 5.5

Notes:

On the first game, I accidentally researched a fleet upgrade (out of habit) at about 8 or so minutes into the game...it was a mistake since I was *supposed* to be modeling an eco play...

All values under "Economy" represent raw values...however, for 3/4 of the first game, I would have had 9% less resources, so keep that in mind when comparing the two games...

To model eco play I researched the technology that would allow me to feed players, and I ended the 40 minute round with the technology for envoys...

--ALL FILE LINKS ARE AT BOTTOM--

Observations:

Ten minutes into the game, both games were fairly comparable...at the time those numbers were taken, I had just colonized the 3rd asteroid in the control game but had just entered that gravity well in the trade rush game...therefore, in the control game I was suffering from underdevelopment yet also had an extra metal mine due to the Akkan...I also had just finished building my first trade port at my HW in the trade rush game...therefore, the economies of both games 10 minutes in where nearly identical in output, with slightly faster expansion in the control game and slight trade income from the trade rush game....

Twenty minutes in, I had one more planet in the control game than I did in the trade rush game (a volcanic world)...in the trade rush game, I had a significantly higher credit income due to trade (though in control game, I was suffering from underdevelopment on the newly colonized volcanic)...I'd say that after 20 minutes in, the trade rush game had a better economy by a fair amount, but in the control game, I had an extra planet, more technologies, and a larger military...

Thirty minutes in, both games had fairly comparable credit incomes with a slight advantage to the trade rush game (which at this point was generating twice as much trade)...however, the control game had a fair advantage in resource income, partially due to 2 uncolonizable asteroids...I'd say at this point the control game had a fair economic advantage, though not decisive or significant....in the control game I had more planet population and more technology...I also had been playing the control game with 9% less resources due to fleet supply for a full 20 minutes...nevertheless, both games are still fairly comparable....

Forty minutes in, I had two extra asteroids in the control game, and was currently taking a 2nd volcanic world...I also had all four of the nearby uncolonizables while in the trade rush game I had just taken one...the trade rush game was outputting more credits per second by a fair amount, but the control game was outputting more resources by a fair amount...I had more technology in the control game (desert population upgrades and more metal bonus techs) and had a larger fleet that was mobilized to continue expansion...in the trade rush game, I had virtually no fleet in position to take planets, and I was running out of logistic slots for trade ports (just a few slots left on the two desert planets)...meanwhile, I had more population in the control game and lots of room for expanding the number of trade ports...

Conclusions:

After 40 minutes, the economy of the control game was producing more resources while the economy of the trade rush game was producing more credits...

At a 4.5 : 1 conversion ratio, the control economy had an output of 122.4 while the trade rush economy had an output of 116.6...at a 2.5 : 1 conversion ratio, the control economy was at 93.4 while the trade rush economy was at 94.4...since in both games I was buying resources far more than I was selling them, the 4.5 conversion ratio is more accurate...all in all, the control economy was more productive and more balanced (metal and crystal prices were frequently above 500, making the control economy even more productive)...

In the control game, I not only ended with a better economy but I also had more technology and more planets...in addition, the majority of the control game was played with 9% less resources because I'm dumb and researched a fleet upgrade (other than temporarily, I never used those extra fleet supply points)...I also had more economic potential with the control economy since I already had most of my population (which grows slowly) yet had not tapped out all of my logistic slots for more trade ports or research facilities...

Given that I had a good line of asteroids and desert worlds, I would say this map was more favorable to an early trade rush than most maps...after this experiment, it is my opinion that rushing trade early is not a good idea...colonizing faster, grabbing uncolonizable asteroids, researching planet population upgrades or resource upgrades, and building higher levels of civilian infrastructure all seem to be better early options than rushing trade, even on a map that would allow a good early trade route (deserts/terrans/asteroids)...

This game was on normal, not fast speed, and though I tried to simulate playing eco, I obviously was not feeding any players...however, I believe that if both of these games were to continue, the control game would be in a far better position to feed players than the trade rush game...

It is also important to consider I probably would not have had quite as many planets in these games as I would in a real MP game...however, if all those resources that I invested in colonizing those last few planets had instead gone into more trade ports (let's pretend those last few planets don't exist), the control economy would have been even more stronger than the trade rush economy, and I could have sent my Akkan to an ally's front even sooner...

Even on a map most favored to rushing early game, I still don't think rushing trade is the best strategy for the TEC...and I don't see how early trade could even be remotely better for the Advent (who have early culture and trade at lvl 3) or the Vasari (who have better resource techs, population growth techs, and trade at lvl 4)

I am not some pro or legendary sins player by any means, and I know there were some mistakes made in both games...nevertheless, I still stand by my conclusion that there are many better things to invest in than early trade...

This is the replay of the control game and this is the replay of the trade rush game...

This is the last save file of the control game and this is the last save file of the trade rush game...

This is the stats file of the control game and this is the stats file of the trade rush game...

Since i don't play on normal speeds and with no quick start on I made my own reply. 

Even though my starting position was handicapped (no trade line) I managed to get 152 cred ps in 41 min. Game was 5v5 random map with easy AI not to disturb my expansion since in eco position you are most likely not to be disturbed. I played tec and colonized as many planets as you would probably colonize if you are in eco position.

Until I got trade line of 4 planets my eco was going slow even though I had all slots filled with trade....

Anyway here it is.

PS English is not my first language and even though i speak it fairly well there are some words i don't know they even exist.... 

ive ben expermenting with my own strat and the way i said at the top is not the most effective i do admit. as advent it works wonders when u use a prog to buy all log slots cheap and then build max trade ports when u can afford them. u should still be able to do thsi within 10 minutes though. i normally have atleast 7 trade ports by 15 minutes into game 5 of htem being on a ice or volc considering that the log space is 15% cheaper

also this thread was not made for ppl who already know who how to eco well, it was made for people who dont know how to make eco very well.

one more thing the rushing trade like ive ben saying is more designed for advent because thats who i mostly play

Since most MP games seem to be on fast speed, I decided to do the same experiment but on fast speed...

I loaded the same map and switched all the game speeds from normal to fast...unfortunately, you can't change to quickstart once a game has already been started, but that's only a delay of a few minutes at the most so I don't think it makes a big difference...

This is the replay of that game...the purpose of this particular game was not to rush trade early...however, I found that it was simply hard not to get trade early....I've never actually played on fast speed before until this game, but it seems that you accumulate resources faster than you can get your ships to take over gravity wells and expand--relative to normal speed....what I found is that on fast speed, if you don't research and build trade ports early, you end up having a large amount of resources that simply go to waste because they aren't being used efficiently...

After 40 minutes my economy was at 98.1 -- 9.8 -- 8.3 ...at a 4.5 : 1 conversion ratio, this would be equivalent to 179.6 credits per second...

Based off of this game, here are my conclusions:

On normal speed I do not at all think rushing trade early is a good idea....

I have suggested that there are many better things to invest in early in the game other than trade...on normal speed this seems to be true, but on fast speed game mechanics/balancing are slightly different than normal...all economic factors seem to be increased while military factors (damage per second and maybe in-gravity well ship speed?) seem to remain the same...therefore, your resource income is increased on fast speed more than your ability to expand is increased on fast speed...this means that if you have an established strategy on normal speed, following it on fast speed will result in large surpluses of resources that cannot be efficiently put into expansion...therefore, when playing on fast speed, I built trade much early than I would on a normal because otherwise I would have had a massive stockpile of resources...

In reference to this experiment, I was starting trade a full planet earlier on the fast speed game than I was on the control game under normal speed...

With quickstart, I would imagine that I'd have trade even earlier...

Therefore, it is my conclusion that on fast speed with quickstart, getting trade ASAP is a very good eco strategy...Warfleet's statement to get 2 trade ports up before you even have your first asteroid I think is a little exaggerated, but nevertheless I think he is essentially correct...early trade (I'd say before even your third planet unless its also an asteroid) is essential to good eco play on these settings...since most MP games seem to be on fast speed with quickstart, rushing early trade (at least as TEC) seems to be the most viable eco strategy...

@ Greg30007

Impressive replay, especially considering you had to defend yourself on that 2nd desert world while playing eco...

I'm not trying to detract from your performance at all, but you did end at 40 minutes with a Vasari envoy at every single one of your planets...that AI also had Mutual Threat researched and was actively using it on all your planets...since Mutual Threat triples the resource income of any planet (+200%), that is a huge resource boost...just something to keep in mind, as not all eco positions are going to have that advantage...I can't say how many games have turned against me because the other team was benefiting from Mutual Threat on every single planet while I was stuck with an Advent ally's envoys...

I figured you weren't a native english speaker, but nevertheless, your english is very good   Hell, its better than some Americans I know, that's for sure...

@Superfleet

Though I did all three of these experimental games as TEC, I have played extensively as Advent and I think early trade on fast speed would be viable for them...since you eco with advent a lot, I was wondering when you begin to start up culture if you are in an eco spot?  I usually go for culture first, then trade, but I haven't experimented with that so I was wondering what you do...

That may be true, but that doesn't mean veteran players can't learn something from this...I'm a solid player, not super-amazing or some SoaSE legend, but solid...even though I'm not a noob, I can still learn something from this type of thread...I watched Sagewon's and Greg30007's replays and then did my own experiments because I am looking to learn something and improve my performance, not because I'm trying to one up everyone and tell other people they aren't playing eco right...

Ultimately, it isn't about who's strategy is best, but what strategy is best....

This is a good thread, and not just for noob players...

As a strictly advent player, I find that it is better to drop a culture and get both terran pop upgrades before even thinking about trade other than to be mindful of logistics slots for my trade line.  You get a lot more early bang for your buck doing that than trade ports right off the bat.  Using faster you can get 3 or 4 more creds per sec on hw alone by culture and pop upgrades and its a lot cheaper than building 2 trade ports.  Thats not even counting the 10 percent allegiance boost to the resources you get.  The early culture gives it time to spread to more worlds to encompass your future empire and maybe your neighbor's empire with just a single culture center especially if you place it in the right well.  Trade is definitely needed as soon as you can but for advent culture and terran pop is better first.  Its harder to say this with other races but still a valid thing to do.  Just my opinion.

[_]-Greyfox

I guess i need to watch my own reply ....... I think I posted wrong one..... Will let u guys know

Yeah that reply was wrong one. LOL 

That was me on one of Dirty Sanchez maps doing 5v5 Cruel AI.

Sometimes when there is no one on ICO I play 5v5 (all cruel or vicious).

Anyway here is the one i wanted to upload in first place and description that goes with it.

Even though my starting position was handicapped (no trade line) I managed to get 152 cred ps in 41 min. Game was 5v5 random map with easy AI not to disturb my expansion since in eco position you are most likely not to be disturbed. I played tec and colonized as many planets as you would probably colonize if you are in eco position.

Until I got trade line of 4 planets my eco was going slow even though I had all slots filled with trade....

Good replay...I was impressed by your early expansion, expanding in two directions simultaneously...good use of turrets...I for one prefer to rely more on scouts and cobalts, but I will have to look into putting more emphasis on turrets...

Since that replay was on the faster game speed though I have absolutely no idea how to compare that to fast speed or normal speed...my guess is, through my experience on fast and normal, faster speed would put even more emphasis on early trade than fast or normal game speeds would...

Since I'm assuming you've played on all three game speeds, do you sense a difference in strategic priorities (expansion vs. trade) among the normal, fast, and faster speed settings?

I always play on faster ..... fast is too slow 4 me it feels like it takes ages for things to be done.

Before when I said fast I really meant faster.

I can understand that...until recently I had always played on normal, then I played a fast game yesterday, and when I played a MP tonight on normal speed, I felt like things were terribly slow...and that was just fast, not faster, I was coming from...

By the way, the game I played tonight, I built a starbase fairly early and immediately put culture on it...forced the vasari player to put 4 culture facilities on his nearby ice world...I must say that the culture from the SB helped me greatly...allowed for a trade port on a nearby asteroid, and he told me my culture forced him to scuttle a research facility and trade port on one of his asteroids...he tried to attack it early with a kortul, skirantra, and assailants, but my fleet and some repair bays drove him off, and starbase survived...I must say culture on a starbase did much better than I expected or have seen in previous games I've played...so thanks for the good suggestion on early culture starbases...

when im eco as advent i scuttle my cap fac and replace it with culture as soon as i finish my prog for those who wanted to know when to get culture. i usually dotn get culture till a bit later as TEC and vasari

Thats how culture on sb should be used IMO together with some fleet ......