Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post Reply
delor
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:21 pm

Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by delor »

I decided to fire up a new campaign with the launch of 0.80 and I'm really appreciating some of the new councilor GUI stuff.

One thing I'm wondering: I took a strategy that got me to the moon pretty late. I looked at the moon a while back, saw two bases and that I was 3+ months out from being able to settle the moon, and sighed and contented myself with leftovers. Time passes, and I get back and see what you see see here minus my Resistance site I just dropped out; see attachment.
moonmining.png
moonmining.png (82 KiB) Viewed 4486 times
So, let's allow that the first two bases may have been Copernicus and Mare Tranquillitatis. I get it- ample common metals, some fissiles, and in one case a nice influx of noble metals. I seem to recall from my last game some months back that you want a lot of water early on, but maybe those picks are cool. Why did the AI pick Mare Imbrium, Korolev Crater, or Tsiolkovskiy Crater over the site I was eying, Percy Crater? It feels like the AI prioritized common metals over (almost?) anything else.

Does this make sense to anyone who has played the game more than I, or did the AI pick bad initial moon sites?
delor
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:21 pm

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by delor »

Unrelatedly and for funsies... some random screenshots to show off the state of play at 2025. Veteran difficulty, and I would characterize my opening land grab as "garbage". Basically I grabbed the middle-east and refurbished it for the opposition because I had to give it all up when I took the United States. Ooops. But, hey, I have the US now.

Here's the incomes of me and the AI, who has basically no Ops generation but a ton of cash and MC:
(although, I do rather think The Initiative giving me $3.5k for a one-star org and calling the trade "generous" was a bit of a stretch, good cash income or no...)
factions2025.png
factions2025.png (975.62 KiB) Viewed 4473 times
And here's Humanity First's EU train. I've integrated stuff before, but I hadn't realized the EU claims were quite so generous without any unification techs researched. They've since added Denmark, too. EU is goooooo!
unificationtrain.png
unificationtrain.png (628.48 KiB) Viewed 4473 times
PAwleus
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:58 pm

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by PAwleus »

delor wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 10:02 pm Does this make sense to anyone who has played the game more than I, or did the AI pick bad initial moon sites?
Looks like they plan to heavily invest in radioactive sites :) Still, my first 3 picks would be clear: Shackleton Crater, Mare Tranquillitatis and Peary Crater. There is a random element in their choices (perhaps too big as your example proves) so you were very lucky they left both these craters for you.

BTW, my next two choices would be Copernicus and Tycho Craters so they left another one for you although Tycho I would consider as first debatable one.
2alexey
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:52 am

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by 2alexey »

In a generic case of getting all of resources - their choice seem to make sense.
In a human understanding that moon is at best a source of fissles or a waste of MC/boost - it doesn't.
PAwleus
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:58 pm

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by PAwleus »

2alexey wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 3:30 pm In a generic case of getting all of resources - their choice seem to make sense.
In a human understanding that moon is at best a source of fissles or a waste of MC/boost - it doesn't.
In a human understanding I would guess you haven't played the game for quite a long time - you currently need every bit of Base Metals to upgrade hab modules in radioactive sites, especially Mercury and Io sites. Not to mention that having all those resources saves a lot of Boost when you try to establish mines on Mars and makes it possible before your competition.
2alexey
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:52 am

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by 2alexey »

PAwleus wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 6:34 am
2alexey wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 3:30 pm In a generic case of getting all of resources - their choice seem to make sense.
In a human understanding that moon is at best a source of fissles or a waste of MC/boost - it doesn't.
In a human understanding I would guess you haven't played the game for quite a long time - you currently need every bit of Base Metals to upgrade hab modules in radioactive sites, especially Mercury and Io sites. Not to mention that having all those resources saves a lot of Boost when you try to establish mines on Mars and makes it possible before your competition.
In process of finishing game under 0.7.8, didn't feel any particular issue with base metals. In fact, started total war with ~130k base metals in the bag. As usual volatiles and rare metals are the bottle neck. I assume playing whack a mole on Mercury is painful, but I managed to completely avoid it.

IO I don't really understand, there is non-radioactive planet in Jupiter system, why bother with anything that isn't low tier mine on Io?

Unless you are lucky with one site, and it has all/most of base resources, savings in boost aren't a lot.

Granted I don't play rush total war in 2020s game, maybe it is different in 0.7.8.
delor
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:21 pm

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by delor »

PAwleus wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 6:57 amLooks like they plan to heavily invest in radioactive sites :)
Well, they may or may not have picked Shackelton and Tranquilitatis early, but then they picked a whole bunch of sites with absolutely no fissiles and left me to grab Peary as the last person to the moon. So clearly "have fissiles" wasn't the dominant factor because they completely ignored the second largest source.

I don't feel bad about my choice, certainly, having hit 2030 now. Water I need. Fissiles I'd be really sad if I didn't have because they're scarce. Common metals... not so much.
delor
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:21 pm

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by delor »

2alexey wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 3:30 pm In a generic case of getting all of resources - their choice seem to make sense.
Does it, though? For example, are 12.8 common metals and nothing else better than 6.9 water, 2 volatiles, and 10.3 common metals? Is 1.1 volatiles and 11.5 common metals better?

I'd have to say "clearly not."
PAwleus
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:58 pm

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by PAwleus »

2alexey wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 11:54 am In process of finishing game under 0.7.8, didn't feel any particular issue with base metals. In fact, started total war with ~130k base metals in the bag. As usual volatiles and rare metals are the bottle neck. I assume playing whack a mole on Mercury is painful, but I managed to completely avoid it.

IO I don't really understand, there is non-radioactive planet in Jupiter system, why bother with anything that isn't low tier mine on Io?
I understand from this you don't have tier 3 mines on Mercury, perhaps even tier 2 as on Io, and you don't have Supercolliders around Mercury in substantial numbers (both need a lot of Base Metals but I grant it: they can be built in other places) - I wonder how long you waited until you had enough resources and tech to start your total war and how costly it was for Earth?

I eg. bother with mines on Io because, as you mentioned, Volatiles are a bottle neck otherwise. If Rare Metals are bottle necking you so much that you don't feel the pressure on Base Metals in any point of the game then I would say that your strategy of using and acquiring resources unnecessarily slows your progress.
delor wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 8:15 pm
PAwleus wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 6:57 amLooks like they plan to heavily invest in radioactive sites :)
Well, they may or may not have picked Shackelton and Tranquilitatis early, but then they picked a whole bunch of sites with absolutely no fissiles and left me to grab Peary as the last person to the moon. So clearly "have fissiles" wasn't the dominant factor because they completely ignored the second largest source.
You misunderstood me: with investing in radioactive sites I meant that it's currently needed a lot of Base Metals to build higher tier bab modules in sites with high levels of radiation.
2alexey
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:52 am

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by 2alexey »

PAwleus wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 9:59 am
2alexey wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 11:54 am In process of finishing game under 0.7.8, didn't feel any particular issue with base metals. In fact, started total war with ~130k base metals in the bag. As usual volatiles and rare metals are the bottle neck. I assume playing whack a mole on Mercury is painful, but I managed to completely avoid it.

IO I don't really understand, there is non-radioactive planet in Jupiter system, why bother with anything that isn't low tier mine on Io?
I understand from this you don't have tier 3 mines on Mercury, perhaps even tier 2 as on Io, and you don't have Supercolliders around Mercury in substantial numbers (both need a lot of Base Metals but I grant it: they can be built in other places) - I wonder how long you waited until you had enough resources and tech to start your total war and how costly it was for Earth?

I eg. bother with mines on Io because, as you mentioned, Volatiles are a bottle neck otherwise. If Rare Metals are bottle necking you so much that you don't feel the pressure on Base Metals in any point of the game then I would say that your strategy of using and acquiring resources unnecessarily slows your progress.
I do have fully decked T3 stations on surface of Mercury, and 3 T3 stations around it, mostly shipyard and 6 supercoliders in total. That said, I don't strictly speaking need those, as I'm positive on money from space hotels and other sources like funding.

Started total war around 2036-2037 or so, not sure it costed earth anything since aliens never really had any presence, and I managed to beat them on earth badly with just parity in miltech. My gate to war was plazma, since battlestations are fairly useless without it.
PAwleus
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:58 pm

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by PAwleus »

2alexey wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 11:58 am I do have fully decked T3 stations on surface of Mercury, and 3 T3 stations around it, mostly shipyard and 6 supercoliders in total. That said, I don't strictly speaking need those, as I'm positive on money from space hotels and other sources like funding.

Started total war around 2036-2037 or so, not sure it costed earth anything since aliens never really had any presence, and I managed to beat them on earth badly with just parity in miltech. My gate to war was plazma, since battlestations are fairly useless without it.
Strictly speaking you can't have any "stations on surface of Mercury" in in-game terms but I know what you mean - I stand corrected, then. Taking under consideration your other info I can agree that perhaps my impression about validity of focusing more on Basic Metals is too far-fetched in slower strategies. However, there are 2 important factors I lack in your info: on what map you are playing and on what difficulty as resource management is substantially easier on smaller maps and lower difficulties - perhaps we talk about different kind of games.
2alexey
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:52 am

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by 2alexey »

PAwleus wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 1:52 pm
2alexey wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 11:58 am I do have fully decked T3 stations on surface of Mercury, and 3 T3 stations around it, mostly shipyard and 6 supercoliders in total. That said, I don't strictly speaking need those, as I'm positive on money from space hotels and other sources like funding.

Started total war around 2036-2037 or so, not sure it costed earth anything since aliens never really had any presence, and I managed to beat them on earth badly with just parity in miltech. My gate to war was plazma, since battlestations are fairly useless without it.
Strictly speaking you can't have any "stations on surface of Mercury" in in-game terms but I know what you mean - I stand corrected, then. Taking under consideration your other info I can agree that perhaps my impression about validity of focusing more on Basic Metals is too far-fetched in slower strategies. However, there are 2 important factors I lack in your info: on what map you are playing and on what difficulty as resource management is substantially easier on smaller maps and lower difficulties - perhaps we talk about different kind of games.
Full solar system, veteran, humanity first.
I also have slightly more generous then usual base metal mars(237% mining bonus):
Image
However I think the real saver was not having to rebuild stuff on Mercury.
PAwleus
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:58 pm

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by PAwleus »

Your Mars is amazing in every resource even taking under consideration the mining bonus but a site with even close to 1138 Base Metals I haven't seen in my last game with 342% mining bonus in the whole Solar System. Now, I understand why you think such Lunar sites are a waste.
2alexey
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:52 am

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by 2alexey »

PAwleus wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 6:29 am Your Mars is amazing in every resource even taking under consideration the mining bonus but a site with even close to 1138 Base Metals I haven't seen in my last game with 342% mining bonus in the whole Solar System. Now, I understand why you think such Lunar sites are a waste.
Lunar sites are still some of the least productive, unless it has some decent fissles income it is better to get mine on asteroid or a station in interface orbit for some bonus.

I`ve seen various Marses and Mercuries, some good, some really poor, but luna is just one of the worst period. I guess it makes sence from game`s perspective, but still.
2alexey
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:52 am

Re: Does this make sense? (AI mining site preference)

Post by 2alexey »

PAwleus wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 6:29 am Your Mars is amazing in every resource even taking under consideration the mining bonus but a site with even close to 1138 Base Metals I haven't seen in my last game with 342% mining bonus in the whole Solar System. Now, I understand why you think such Lunar sites are a waste.
I tried again, and Mars is really random. Sometimes yoy get really bad yeld, like this:
Image
Sometimes amaising like this, if you luck into +25% or +50% on that 100 base metals side you will get over 1k with t3 mine and orgs:
Image

Sometimes even luna can be pretty good:
Image

all of this is 7.80 branch.
Post Reply