To be fair, you shouldn't compare FIDS, but only look at IDS. Food is just a means of getting more population, which will in turn give you more IDS. Setting all planets to food exploits also means you aren't getting very much from all those extra population.

I usually give them whatever their best at. It's probably a bad idea, but it works(ish)

Dragoon wrote:
Is that still true with the latest patch changes 1.0.16?

I think that just deals with where new pops are assigned by default, not how fast they appear.

Well I organize my systems really, eh, normally (don't know)? It's pretty much common sense- if the system contains many planets where science is better produced on (ie. gas giants[thecertainone] arctic etc.) , then I build science improvements/exploitation (of course first food for population) and vice versa for other systems. If the system is all food based, then i end up switching back to production or use it to crank out settlers. Overall, it also depends on what you need, if you're in lack of tech then it's definitely better to build science based (production does well too for you can indo-> science, but solely building science seems to do you better), same for dust. But in the end, as long as you are winning then it doesn't matter :P

I generally build 1 food exploitation planet per system, and build industry or science exploitations on any planets that give them a bonus. Planets without ind/sci bonuses get whatever I think I need (usually industry). If the system fills up, I'll switch over the food planet to something else. In high population systems, I'll generally use improvements to boost food production. I will basically build science improvements in every system and industry improvements in most systems. If I played multiplayer, I might not have as much time (since I would need more of a fleet), but I don't usually have a problem with the computer, even if he has a larger fleet than me.



I (almost) never build dust exploitations because I tend to keep my tax rate low (20% or below), so that basically kills the efficiency of that improvement. Frankly, even Hydrogen Giants aren't worth exploiting for dust in my experience. I can convert industry->dust in the early/mid game to stay solvent if need be and I don't really need dust for much else. In the late game I can have no expansion unhappiness and all the morale improvements I need to push the tax rate up high, but by then I make money hand over fist even with a low tax rate and I don't really need thousands of dust.



Frankly, I think it's bad that I find computer systems I conquer are super-specialized, with all planets producing dust, or science or (worst of all) food; I think the game generally rewards balanced systems, especially if you have time to build the improvements to maximize them.

ccgerm wrote:
Frankly, I think it's bad that I find computer systems I conquer are super-specialized, with all planets producing dust, or science or (worst of all) food; I think the game generally rewards balanced systems, especially if you have time to build the improvements to maximize them.

Thanks for the feedback. The origin of this thread is from a discussion about AI modding in the less-frequently-visited modding forum. In the community bug fix mod, ail (the OP of this thread) has modified the AI so that it builds all food exploits if the system is at less than max pop; then switches each planet to whichever exploit gives it the best bonus. We were discussing if there is a better approach. I recommend you try out the community mod, which avoids the problem you mention in the quote.

M11xStryker wrote:
Although food does become exponential expensive, population is one the best way to increase fids, and hence is important. In my opinion, the only case in which planet exploitation should be changed to industry is when large system improvements are being done, or when large amounts ships are to be queued up.

You have to consider whether Food or Industry will increase your FIDS faster. In general, it looks like improvements are more efficient for increasing FIDS than Food once you have a good population base; early game we're looking at perhaps 150 Industry for 1 base FIDS per population (if we figure that e.g. Xenotourism Agencies affects about half the population) to about 375 Industry per late game (e.g. Non-Baryonic Shell, Predictive Logistics). If we figure 15 FIDS per population early game, that puts the break-even point at about 11 population (the 11th pop costs 258.2 and produces 15 FIDS for a cost of 17 Industry per FIDS; the improvement costs 150 Industry per 10 FIDS for 15.0 Industry per FIDS). If we figure something like 40 base FIDS per population late game, the break-even point is about 22 population (the 23rd pop costs 750.5 and produces 40 FIDS for a cost of 18.75 Industry per FIDS; the improvement costs 375 Industry per 22 FIDS for 17.0 Industry per FIDS).



I think if we had the AI switch over at about 15 population it could work out well enough.

Evil4Zerggin wrote:
I think if we had the AI switch over at about 15 population it could work out well enough.

All food below 15 pop; that is doable. But above 15 pop, I don't think there is any way to "keep back" one planet on food, which is what I do. That decision may be "too global" to mod. Perhaps above 15 pop, we put each planet to its specialty, which would include terrans and jungles on food. Then at max cap, one additional term could switch terrans and jungles off food.

I think that would be best. By the time you reach 15 pop you probably have enough Food improvements to be self-sustaining anyhow.

Here's how I let the AI do it now:



[CODE]













((($(../ClassStarSystem:Population) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:MaxSystemPopulation) or $(../ClassStarSystem:FoodSurplusToProductionBonus) gt 0) and ($(PlanetTypeTerran) or $(PlanetTypeAsteroid)) or $(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) ge $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax))) and !$(../ClassStarSystem,StarSystemOwnerSower)



((($(../ClassStarSystem:Population) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:MaxSystemPopulation) or $(../ClassStarSystem:FoodSurplusToProductionBonus) gt 0) and ($(PlanetTypeTerran) or $(PlanetTypeJungle) or $(PlanetTypeOcean) or $(PlanetTypeAsteroid)) or $(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) ge $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax))) and !$(../ClassStarSystem,StarSystemOwnerSower)



((($(../ClassStarSystem:Population) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:MaxSystemPopulation) or $(../ClassStarSystem:FoodSurplusToProductionBonus) gt 0) and ($(PlanetTypeTerran) or $(PlanetTypeJungle) or $(PlanetTypeOcean) or $(PlanetTypeTundra) or $(PlanetTypeArid) or $(PlanetTypeAsteroid)) or $(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) ge $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax))) and !$(../ClassStarSystem,StarSystemOwnerSower)





($(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax) and !($(PlanetTypeBarren) or $(PlanetTypeArid))) or $(../ClassStarSystem,StarSystemOwnerSower)



($(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax) and !($(PlanetTypeBarren) or $(PlanetTypeArid) or $(PlanetTypeArctic) or $(PlanetTypeDesert))) or $(../ClassStarSystem,StarSystemOwnerSower)



($(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax) and !($(PlanetTypeBarren) or $(PlanetTypeArid) or $(PlanetTypeDesert) or $(PlanetTypeArctic) or $(PlanetTypeOcean) or $(PlanetTypeGasHelium) or $(PlanetTypeGasHydrogen) or $(PlanetTypeTerran))) or $(../ClassStarSystem,StarSystemOwnerSower)



$(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax) and ($(PlanetTypeArid) or $(PlanetTypeAsteroids))



$(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax) and ($(PlanetTypeArid) or $(PlanetTypeDesert) or $(PlanetTypeAsteroids))



$(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax) and ($(PlanetTypeTerran) or $(PlanetTypeArid) or $(PlanetTypeDesert) or $(PlanetTypeGasHydrogen) or $(PlanetTypeAsteroids))



$(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax) and ($(PlanetTypeBarren) or $(PlanetTypeAsteroids))



PlanetaryImprovementScience2

$(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax) and ($(PlanetTypeArctic) or $(PlanetTypeBarren) or $(PlanetTypeAsteroids))



$(../ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) lt $(../ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax) and ($(PlanetTypeOcean) or $(PlanetTypeArctic) or $(PlanetTypeBarren) or $(PlanetTypeGasHelium) or $(PlanetTypeAsteroids))[/CODE]

Wait, you can define new variables? O.o This reopens some interesting possibilities...

Evil4Zerggin wrote:
Wait, you can define new variables? O.o This reopens some interesting possibilities...

Yes, could not have done it nearly as good as I did without them. See the Thread "Question for ThorTillas". He explains it pretty well there.



But it's still rough to use them. For example if you make comparisions with them in the AIPathsPrerequesites they always get rounded. That's why I multiplied both of them with 100 so I don't compare 1 and 1 when I want to compare 0.5 and 0.98.

Evil4Zerggin wrote:
There are diminishing returns for Food; or equivalently, the amount of Food between population levels increases with population. See http://endlessspace.wikia.com/wiki/Population_table . Though now that you mention it, it does get pretty expensive at high population--perhaps it's a good idea to switch to Industry perhaps somewhere between 10-20 population if you're into warring, though most systems can only hold about that many early-mid game anyways. Either that or use the trick of exporting population from a low-population system using colony ships.

Is that still true with the latest patch changes 1.0.16?

Changed the way a planet is chosen when increasing pop, it is now based on the best FIDS and the best growth.

Shivetya wrote:
food till full. then it comes down to location in the early game. Back systems go research and make dust when nothing else avails.. nearer to the front they are the more likely they are industry.

I play similarly to Shiv! I'll typically do lots of food on my first few systems early game, and go for N-Way Fusion as fast as I can. My home system gets at least one industry exploitation. The further the game goes on, the less dense my food production gets. Each system will end up with one, rather than some being so dedicated. I often make a transition to industry with back systems being used for science/dust.



I believe in the power of population and industry! So my playstyle revolves around them.

im putting on first planet of a system food, on second and nexts whatever get bonus (arid - dust, laval prod etc. ).Unless its really lacking food for any growth , then i put all on food.



I also wonder if going all food until max pop woudnt be better..

Grubsnik wrote:
To be fair, you shouldn't compare FIDS, but only look at IDS. Food is just a means of getting more population, which will in turn give you more IDS. Setting all planets to food exploits also means you aren't getting very much from all those extra population.

That's exactly what I've done and why I prevent the AI from getting too many food-buildings.

Ail wrote:
I think I have a pretty good plan/formula/algorithm now:



Planets with bonus for food shall use food-exploit always until maximal population has been reached.

For planets without bonus for food they shall use the food exploit only when: FoodConsumption/TotalFood >= Population/MaxPopulation, otherwise use the exploit that generates most fids.



This equotation leads to a situation where, the closer the population is to the maximum amount and the more food already exists, the higher the tendency to not build food-exploits.

Regarding planets without bonus for food and using the exploit with most FIDS, can you take into account if there is a hero present? The best option may be to take advantage of the hero bonus, not most FIDS based on pop.



Regarding exploiting food until population is maxed, it may be faster to start the planet on industry and build the food improvements, then once all available food improvements are built, switch to food exploit. I haven't crunched the numbers but I'm sure there are cases when this would be advantageous.



Also, in low max pop systems (10 or less) I don't use food exploits at all, only the food improvements. May not even need food improvements if there is a nice anomaly/resource present. This way the system can be geared up for sci/dust/industry a few turns faster.



Also, after all +pop improvements have been built and max pop is reached, scrap food improvements as long as population can be sustained.



I haven't tried modding yet, but I hope implementing these sort of approaches is possible.

BriGuy wrote:
can you take into account if there is a hero present?

Excellent point, but today the "moddable" parts of the AI cannot see that.

it may be faster to start the planet on industry and build the food improvements, then once all available food improvements are built, switch to food exploit

Interesting. I have also not crunched the numbers. On the first planet in a system, I build heavy isotope first and food exploit second, then all the farm improvements unless I am building mag shields. On the system with my admin hero, the +15 makes this go fast enough that the order doesn't matter much. On other systems, it would be interesting to find out which is optimal.

Also, after all +pop improvements have been built and max pop is reached, scrap food improvements as long as population can be sustained.

"All +pop improvements built" is an endgame point, because of sustainable supercities and (whatever the name is of the thing that converts all food surplus to industry). I had originally complained bitterly about the AI being unable to scrap farms, but now I am not sure this is worthwhile.

I do like most and food everything until they are full or close to it. After that I "go with the flow" as much as possible. By that I mean go with the natural bonuses of a particular planet. If I have an urgent particular Empire need I will try to satisfy that need with planets that don't have a strong bias against the needed resource or for another one. I feel this methodology pretty much maximizes my overall FIDS output.



Zazen

My experience with my Mod is that:



The AI will still most likely build the Food-Exploit but it will rarely ever build food-improvements at all because I use the result of this comparision to determine if it should:



foodconsumption/foodsurplus > population/maxpopulation



I haven't yet seen this to lead to more than 2 Food-Improvements on AI-Planets at all.

And I've not found to hurt it. Yes, it will slow growth but not significantly. If more tests show it to cause too little food to be built one can easily tweak it by a multiplier to foodconsumption.



So instead of Ind-Exploit to make food-Buildings it makes Food-Exploit to make Ind-Buildings.

Ail wrote:


The AI will still most likely build the Food-Exploit but it will rarely ever build food-improvements at all because I use the result of this comparision to determine if it should:



foodconsumption/foodsurplus > population/maxpopulation

Doesnt that prevent them from building towards super-systems later? They do have a tendency to prioritize them and too soon, and make the F->I converter before the planet is full, but it sounds like you are hobbling them.





In one of the recent updates, they have the game prioritize and put new pop on the planet with the best FIDS benefit. So, colonizing a new planet before the last one(s) are full is less of an issue. You will still loose the gains from the colonizer, but the game wont put anymore people there unless it is a best fit. Makes for less micromanagement and fretting over timing. Allows you to grab that Absurdium deposit without totally wrecking the growth rate of the system.

Zutonix wrote:
Doesnt that prevent them from building towards super-systems later? They do have a tendency to prioritize them and too soon, and make the F->I converter before the planet is full, but it sounds like you are hobbling them.





In one of the recent updates, they have the game prioritize and put new pop on the planet with the best FIDS benefit. So, colonizing a new planet before the last one(s) are full is less of an issue. You will still loose the gains from the colonizer, but the game wont put anymore people there unless it is a best fit. Makes for less micromanagement and fretting over timing. Allows you to grab that Absurdium deposit without totally wrecking the growth rate of the system.

I am not hobbling them! What kind of Improve-the-AI-Modder do you take me for?



It doesn't prevent them from making supersystems because:

...

$(ClassStarSystem:ConsumptionPerFood) ge $(ClassStarSystem:PopOfMax) and $(ClassStarSystem:Population) lt $(ClassStarSystem:MaxSystemPopulation) or $(ClassStarSystem:FoodSurplusToProductionBonus) gt 0

...

When they have the Food=>Ind-Building I allow them to build all Food-Improvements anyways.



Also they cannot make the Food=>Ind-Building too soon because

...

$(ClassStarSystem:Population) ge $(ClassStarSystem:MaxSystemPopulation) and $(ClassStarSystem:HabitatsBuilt) ge 1

...

I made it require Supercities built and Max-Pop.



Also the AI already did that automatic-Pop-Movement before. Was the same as when you used Governors. The Patch changed it so, that even without using Governors it won't hurt you so much as the player. It was not needed for the AIs because they already moved their Pop according to their needs.

In this particular regard I'd just change the improvement to not remove the food surplus after giving the industry bonus.

This would simplify the AI coding immensely and since you pay 3600 industry for the improvement, it won't be top of the list for developing systems anyhow.



On the Food exploit before HIR, my immediate testing shows that it's about equal for Ocean and Terran worlds, you get a higher pop for doing food first, but it takes a turn longer to finish up both improvements. So if you want the science and dust, I'd suggest doing food first. For jungle and desert worlds I expect that food first will definately be an improvement. For Arid and Tundra, going HIR first is almost certainly best, with extra focus going to actually purchasing HIR once you've pushed some production into it.

With enough industry you can switch all systems exploitations to anything in a single turn, so industry is the best choice generally.

I always switch them to production. If advanced enough I'all terra form them to ocean/jungle and switch to food again and eventually build the 100% food and food to industry improvements.

Specialization doesn't really work in ES--because resources are generated randomly and are uncorrelated, you don't get the massive variation in resource production from system to system that you see in e.g. Civ 4 where you tend to get clumps of Gold, flood plains, etc. Plus there's not that many single-resource percentage-based bonuses. Really the only clear specialization is putting your Corp hero and trade improvements on the most remote, highest-population system you have.



So I'd say the Food-exploitation-until-full strategy is probably close to optimal in almost all cases.

Suppose you have a mid-game system with three inhabited planets, where at least one of them has less than its full pop cap. You have three exploits to choose. Do you put three food? One food and two industry? Something else? Personally I put one food and two industry, because I prefer the industry to build all the buildings I want. For example, using two industry exploits to build a farm faster gets more pop growth than three food exploits. I've rarely/never been in a position where all the buildings I want there are built, and there is nothing to do but grow pop.

You can never go wrong with industry or dust.

Usually I go for whatever it is I feel that I need most at the time. Sometimes I have nearly every system pumping out science, other times I have them all pumping out dust. In one game where I was using an administrator (the modded version of the economic administrator by davea) on a single system with the highest industry, with every other system pumping out dust. I could buy out 10 battleships at a time doing that. I couldn't have produced near that many in a turn had I set the systems to industry and had them each building ships.



In anycase, I agree with the second poster. There really isn't much room for specialization in this game. The food to full is best to begin with, then it is either a question of specializing your entire empire, doing as the OP suggested and try your best to optimize the exploitations as best as possible with the planets, or just try not to be too weak in any one area.

davea wrote:
Suppose you have a mid-game system with three inhabited planets, where at least one of them has less than its full pop cap. You have three exploits to choose. Do you put three food? One food and two industry? Something else? Personally I put one food and two industry, because I prefer the industry to build all the buildings I want. For example, using two industry exploits to build a farm faster gets more pop growth than three food exploits. I've rarely/never been in a position where all the buildings I want there are built, and there is nothing to do but grow pop.

This is always something to consider, but the planet has to play a role in the decision also. What if the planet has very high industry bonuses but low food? I'd prefer three food in that case. I'd get more built in the long run, I think. If the planets are relatively high in food though, but industry is a little weak, what you suggested might be the better approach.



Also, I don't think I would ever find myself in that position. I wouldn't colonize another planet in that system until the first was full or close to it. Depending on it's size, I'd probably already have most of the food buildings built, and if not, I'd certainly have most of them built. At that point I'd need to know whether or not there was a diminishing return on the quantity of food that I had vs population growth. Is there? If there is, going food all the way until full population would definitely be sub optimal at times. In that case, It would certainly be better to go with something other than food exploits and let the food buildings or hero handle that job.

Really? Maybe I've just played too few games but I very often find myself at a situation where I think: "None of the buildings I could currently build are worthwhile right now, let's make a few ships instead."

And it is mostly "having more population" that turns buildings from not beingworthwhile into being worthwhile.



On the other hand, let's say I have a system that lacks maybe 3 pop but has 15 already and a bunch of food-improvements anyways.

Another food-improvement on maybe a lava-planet won't really cut it and maybe reduce the amount of turns for the system to grow out from 16 to 14 or so. While at the same time having the Lava-Planet on Industry would make the difference between building 5 more ships or only 3.



Or if I had financial problems that could easily be solved by putting an Arid to Dust.



There are indeed scnarios imaginable where more food does not make that much sense. Especially if the time to grow won't even change by more food.

You can never have enough ships.

Igncom1 wrote:
You can never go wrong with industry or dust.

I like indy not only because it makes building every thing else that much faster but you can convert it to dust at any time in the game.

True, but I do love my 60% taxes.....My people sure as hell don't however.

While trying to improve the AI via modding we stumbled about an interesting topic:



What exactly is the best strategy when it comes to choosing the planets exploitation?



In my opinion it would be to maximize growth by putting all planets on food and then, when the population-limit has been reached or almost reached, switch it to whatever gived the most IDS for that planet.



Now, while this sounds "not too bad", it might well be that good players have way better elaborated approaches in this regards. Specializing the systems? Some wacky maths? Minmaxing?



Discussing that issue will not only help me to improve the AI but also to improve the general gameplay of everyone who has something to learn here.

Ever thought about an approval exploit?

I feel like that might be hard to balance seeing as approval can affect more then a single system.

Igncom1 wrote:
True, but I do love my 60% taxes.....My people sure as hell don't however.

Ahh Hahaha Stupid small people should be thankful to even be paid! All glory to the empire!

Its hard being on top, but it is comporting to look at all the people on the bottom.

food till full. then it comes down to location in the early game. Back systems go research and make dust when nothing else avails.. nearer to the front they are the more likely they are industry.

Shivetya wrote:
food till full. then it comes down to location in the early game. Back systems go research and make dust when nothing else avails.. nearer to the front they are the more likely they are industry.

That's a very solid strategy.

Ail wrote:
Really? Maybe I've just played too few games but I very often find myself at a situation where I think: "None of the buildings I could currently build are worthwhile right now, let's make a few ships instead."

And it is mostly "having more population" that turns buildings from not beingworthwhile into being worthwhile.



On the other hand, let's say I have a system that lacks maybe 3 pop but has 15 already and a bunch of food-improvements anyways.

Another food-improvement on maybe a lava-planet won't really cut it and maybe reduce the amount of turns for the system to grow out from 16 to 14 or so. While at the same time having the Lava-Planet on Industry would make the difference between building 5 more ships or only 3.



Or if I had financial problems that could easily be solved by putting an Arid to Dust.



There are indeed scnarios imaginable where more food does not make that much sense. Especially if the time to grow won't even change by more food.

This was pretty much the point of my previous post. However, there may be times that you want to build more food buildings even though they won't do you any good. That food to industry building is one case, but my real thought here is when considering the exploitation on the planet. You may need more of something other than food, like industry or dust, but you don't have any of the buildings left that you would like to build. In that case, putting up a food building and then changing the exploitation on the planets to industry or dust (or vice versa) would be the correct approach.

I think I have a pretty good plan/formula/algorithm now:



Planets with bonus for food shall use food-exploit always until maximal population has been reached.

For planets without bonus for food they shall use the food exploit only when: FoodConsumption/TotalFood >= Population/MaxPopulation, otherwise use the exploit that generates most fids.



This equotation leads to a situation where, the closer the population is to the maximum amount and the more food already exists, the higher the tendency to not build food-exploits.

Sounds good to me.

There are diminishing returns for Food; or equivalently, the amount of Food between population levels increases with population. See http://endlessspace.wikia.com/wiki/Population_table . Though now that you mention it, it does get pretty expensive at high population--perhaps it's a good idea to switch to Industry perhaps somewhere between 10-20 population if you're into warring, though most systems can only hold about that many early-mid game anyways. Either that or use the trick of exporting population from a low-population system using colony ships.