Regional Zoning Strategies [Archive]

Zodicus

06-19-2003, 11:41 PM

I figured I’d just get a discussion going regarding the various approaches to Regional Zoning used throughout the game. I’ve read the Development Plan Guide (or at least the first page or so) but it appears everyone mentioning Regional Zoning tends to pick one (usually either Natural or Specialized) and go with that policy for the entire game.

It is my opinion that Regional Zoning can be a dynamic choice in every bit the same way as dev plans. When I read the descriptions for Natural, Specialized, and Balanced, it would seem at first blush that either Natural or Specialized make the most sense. However, as I’ve been reading these threads, it seems that we’re learning more and more about the lesser DEAs like Recreation and Government and the powerful influences they can wield late game on an empire’s economy and production. As such, here is an approach I’ve been taking recently to the simple yet undeniably powerful regional zoning setting:

Early-Mid Game: Natural Zoning

Natural zoning seems to be a good fit for the nascent empire. It focuses first on needs then proceeds to specialize a bit (at least as described). This would appear to be exactly the sort of policy I might want in the early game when I’ve only got a few planets and surpluses are harder to come by as the technologies for enhancing production don’t exist. As such, every planet needs to service its own food and mining needs to a greater degree so I usually start with this policy (maybe that’s also why it is the default). I will also use this policy mid-game after I've got proper mineral/food surpluses having used a Specialized policy.

Early-Mid Game: Specialized Zoning

After I’ve got a few planets established that can feed themselves and have some basic industry, I switch quickly to a Specialized policy. At this stage, I don’t yet have powerful trade technologies so I’ll used specialized zoning as a way of generating a good tax base from surplus mineral and food production that will fund empire-wide taxes later when I want to use this cash to fund grants. Specialized is also an excellent approach to feeding new planets with the food/mineral surpluses generated from more established worlds. Again, the driving force behind a specialized plan is the need for extra resources when the technology for either enhancing their production or reducing the need is absent.

Mid-Late Game: Balanced

At this point, I’ve got a fair number of planets at the core of my empire, and am starting to really branch out. I’ve probably researched spaceports and have some government enhancing techs that can help with tax collection and industrial production. In addition, I've got a set of core worlds and most of my new planets are on the periphery and have more complex needs. The core planets are producing the requisite mineral/food resources so newer planets need less focus in these areas. In order to stay alive, they'll need to quell unrest and fight off invaders. As such, their development may require at least one or more of the following deas: recreation, military, or government. Each serves a purpose and just about every planet can benefit enormously from having at least one. As such, I’ll switch to a balanced zoning policy. Balanced, at first blush, doesn’t appear to produce efficient planets. However, with good dev plans in place to nudge a vic in the right direction, using a balanced policy, you can still obtain some limited degree of specialization while resting confident that every planet will get a good sprinkling of the odd-ball DEAs without your having to explicitly mention them in your dev plans. The end result is usually planets that develop more robustly than those that developed in the earlier stages of the game (unless you manually interven to remove deas in older worlds).

Occassionally, if I notice that I’m running a slim to zero surplus of minerals/food, I’ll switch to a Specialized zoning policy for a few turns. This is usually enough to generate a needed surplus w/o my having to change a single dev plan.

Those are just my thoughts but I’d be curious to see how others use regional zoning. During some of my testing long ago, I noticed significant differences between the three settings given the exact same dev plans. I also noticed that, when I ran 50 turn tests under identical conditions (i.e. only one active dev plan purely for testing purposes, I think it was a just an All Planet: mine/-/-), more often than not, a Balanced zoning policy actual came out ahead with Natural being the worst performer! I can’t draw any conclusions from that simple and unrealistic scenario other than to say that a Balanced Policy may have a role to play. As such, I think this is an area that needs some targeted discussion.

Fire away!

Edit: Clarifications and additonal content.

Beamup

06-20-2003, 10:08 AM

Well, I never use Balanced because I see no advantage to it. I place one Gov and one Rec when I colonize a planet, so I don't need to worry about getting the unrest DEAs in there.

I also (post-patch) never use Specialized because in my experience it is totally broken now. The Specialization priorities are apparently so high now they cannot be overridden by anything. Even manually zoning an Industry DEA and applying three Manu/Manu/Manu DPs can't get a Rich planet to build its first Industry before it's filled every mountain with Mines. This totally cripples the colony's development because it spends so long building DEAs before it gets any decent amount of Industry.

Natural, however, works pretty much perfectly in all situations, so I myself never use anything else.

joasoze

06-20-2003, 10:16 AM

I have always used specialized and I always end up with extreme amounts of minerals. Even if I micromanage my largest industry worlds I can never use all those minerals.

Will try natural next time.

Ericus1

06-20-2003, 10:35 AM

I'm curious if anyone has a solution to having tons of extra minerals. There are a ton of mining DEA enhancing techs, and all the techs that lower mineral consumption. The end result is that having enough minerals for the first 75 turns means you will have an excess in the 10K's in the next 75. Short of manually ripping out old mining DEA's, I've found no easy solution for this, and honestly I'm content to let the minerals surplus fund my planets.

I think that mineral consumption isn't balanced enough with industry DEA's. It should be as you develop all the mining improvements and reducers, they should keep pace in terms of mineral consumption of your Industry DEA upgrades, with maybe a small degree of excess forming as you progress.

Da_Blade

06-20-2003, 10:43 AM

Make sure you have strong plans, then mining isn't build much anymore. But there is no way you can go without ripping out some old DEA's. Fact is, mining is a big power in the beginning, but as industries get more effecient and cleaner, and mining gets effecient too, you need less mining DEA's. Your economy will have to evolve. What i do nowadays is sort planets on Minerals and rip out all mines on the very poor planets. Then i go do it for all poor planets, then all average etc.

But always keep in mind you need good surplusses, since techs can increase mineral usage enormously in one turn.

Ericus1

06-20-2003, 10:48 AM

I place all my DEA's by hand, so I never have mining DEA's on anything less than a Rich planet, and never in anything but Mountain. I still end up with the 40K surplus, but whatever. I just wish there was a better solution than manually having to rip out DEA's.

laxrulz777

06-20-2003, 11:05 AM

I've used specialized and natural and don't notice a huge difference in macro level performance. There is a huge difference in individual cases but I don't find one to be more superior overall.

The mineral surplus is a tougher nut to crack. I usually set Rich planets to be Mine/Mine/Mine early on and Mine/Mine/Trade later... That tends to supply more than enough minerals for my worlds after turn 50 or so... Every 15 turns or so I go and check mineral production and make sure there aren't any new mines popping up on poor planets... usually I'll find one or two that I change to Industry (or Research or whatever)

I have come to a tentative conclusion about things though... I've found that when I plan out Dev Plans that cover all the bases I usually get what I want... It's when the AI is using unspecified Dev Plans that he tends to do nutty things like building mines on very poor plains and bioharvest on toxic mountains...

Zodicus

06-20-2003, 06:20 PM

Posted by laxrulz777
I've used specialized and natural and don't notice a huge difference in macro level performance. There is a huge difference in individual cases but I don't find one to be more superior overall.

That's the notion I'm trying to address in this thread. The incorrect notion that one zoning policy is superior to another. They are different and your dev plans should be structured around the regional zoning policy you have chosen at any given moment. The regional zoning forms the foundation of a viceroy's decisions, dev plans tweak that foundation. Right now, most people are trying to fight the vic with dev plans and hacking planets occasionally. Without a solid understanding of how to employ regional zoning, we are only looking at half of the development picture.

As one example, I had a Balanced Regional zoning policy after about turn 80. Most of my dev plans were resource oriented (farm, mine, research) as a result because I knew that the vic would put a gov/rec/mil dea as a result of this overall regional zoning policy. As such, I didn't need to specify such things in my dev plans (I would if I were using Specialized, however). Instead, I focused making sure that Rich planets got a little extra care with respect to mineral development, low biodiversity got a few extra research deas, etc. Things that the vic wouldn't otherwise do with a Balanced policy. Now, after 30 or so turns, my mineral and farm surpluses were diminishing somewhat. I simply switched to a Specialized zoning policy for 10 turns and eureka! I had increased my mineral and farm surpluses to a healthy figure w/o changing a single dev plan. I then went back to Balanced and went on my merry way. Since then, I haven’t had to switch back to Specialized since my technology advancements have kept my resources surpluses well
Ahead of my requirements.

Posted by Da_Blade
Make sure you have strong plans, then mining isn't build much anymore. But there is no way you can go without ripping out some old DEA's.

Da_Blade: I'm not sure what you mean by strong dev plans. Do you mean a plan that is stacked (mine/mine/mine) ? I think that dev plans must be constructed with Regional zoning in mind at all times. If you choose a balanced zoning policy, and configure your dev plans with this in mind, you won't need to rip out any (or nearly as many) mine DEAs. I see a lot of people on this board using Specialized zoning and quoting dev plans for Mineral Rich that have mine in the primary slot. In my experience and testing, this just exacerbates the vics predisposition towards building mines on a mineral rich world. There really isn’t much need for mining in the Primary slot if you are using specialized unless you REALLY want a large mine surplus (which makes sense if your empire is cash/resource strapped and it is early in the game). I would argue in this case that mining, if present at all, should assume a secondary or tertiary role. However, if I were using a Balanced policy, it would take a primary slot. To me, a strong dev plan takes regional zoning behavior into account and serves to flesh it out.

Posted by joasoze
I have always used specialized and I always end up with extreme amounts of minerals. Even if I micromanage my largest industry worlds I can never use all those minerals.

If you find yourself heading into extreme surplus territory, I would actually switch to Balanced as even Natural will tend to favor what a planet is especially suited for (i.e. more mines).

Da_Blade

06-20-2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Zodicus
That's the notion I'm trying to address in this thread. The Da_Blade: I'm not sure what you mean by strong dev plans. Do you mean a plan that is stacked (mine/mine/mine) ? I think that dev plans must be constructed with Regional zoning in mind at all times. If you choose a balanced zoning policy, and configure your dev plans with this in mind, you won't need to rip out any (or nearly as many) mine DEAs. I see a lot of people on this board using Specialized zoning and quoting dev plans for Mineral Rich that have mine in the primary slot. In my experience and testing, this just exacerbates the vics predisposition towards building mines on a mineral rich world. There really isn’t much need for mining in the Primary slot if you are using specialized unless you REALLY want a large mine surplus (which makes sense if your empire is cash/resource strapped and it is early in the game). I would argue in this case that mining, if present at all, should assume a secondary or tertiary role. However, if I were using a Balanced policy, it would take a primary slot. To me, a strong dev plan takes regional zoning behavior into account and serves to flesh it out.

What i mean by strong dev plans is stacked, but not like mine/mine/mine. But also make sure as much dev plans are used as possible. I try never to stack within the same plan, rather i choose 4 main focusses in my plans (farm, mine, manufacture research in beginning of game, farm and mine get replaced by trade and infrastructure later on), and make plans that try to emphazise all 4 directives by stacking of the three applied plans (All panets, classification 1 and 2). This way you make strong emphasis.

Oh and i use Natural Zoning almost exclusively, except in early game where i tend to prefer specialized, even though i tend to micromanage a bit more early in the game. I do think you're really on to something, although i still find it hard to find a use for the 'balanced' policy.

Zodicus

06-20-2003, 10:55 PM

Posted by Da_Blade
What i mean by strong dev plans is stacked, but not like mine/mine/mine. But also make sure as much dev plans are used as possible. I try never to stack within the same plan, rather i choose 4 main focusses in my plans (farm, mine, manufacture research in beginning of game, farm and mine get replaced by trade and infrastructure later on), and make plans that try to emphazise all 4 directives by stacking of the three applied plans (All panets, classification 1 and 2). This way you make strong emphasis.

Right, that’s what I figured. Well, I read your Dev Plan thread and I agree that stacking is not a good idea in general. However, I think that if you find yourself needing to stack a dea to get the results you need, you might try looking at the regional zoning policy first. Odds are you are stacking because the regional zoning policy strongly opposes what you’re telling the vic to do. An example would be trying to build farms on a mineral rich world when regional zoning is set to Specialized. In this case, you are better off using either Natural or Balanced.

The only point I would disagree with you on has to do with the notion that stacking on a particular plan is worse than stacking across plans. The way I see it, if you’ve got the following situation:

All Planets: research/mine/trade
Mineral Rich: mine/manf/mil

…then, with respect to mining, the emphasis would be the equivalent of:

Mineral Rich mine/mine/mil

It’s a minor point but having read your thread, I think you understand that anyway.

Posted by Da_Blade
Oh and i use Natural Zoning almost exclusively, except in early game where i tend to prefer specialized, even though i tend to micromanage a bit more early in the game.

I think that Natural zoning responds the most dramatically to dev plans because it is the closest policy available to “middle of the road.” As such, the vic will generally have a predisposition to building according to what any given region is best suited for based upon its base efficiency in that area. It is understandable and logical that you prefer this setting. However, this forces you to do a lot more dev plan work as you must constantly be updating plans as needs change (i.e. I want more government deas here now and some military deas there….). Overall, Natural will build farms on a given planet where they make the most sense and if they are needed, and mines similarly. What it won’t do a good job of are deas like: government, military, recreation. This will require more input from your dev plans. Unfortunately, you’ve only got three slots on any given plan and each slot is not equal. As such, it is hard to adequately put proper emphasis on these deas using a Natural zoning policy. That is why, for me, Natural makes the most sense early on and works well when your needs are specific and few in number.

If I’ve got only two planets, the second planet is generally going to need to build at least a farm or two where it makes sense since my main planet isn’t producing much of a surplus. A Natural zoning policy is going to do this for you with or without a dev plan. I might throw a manuf target in there or research but I trust that farms and mines will get built as needed where they make sense. Alternatively, I could see using a Specialized zoning policy early on to generate surpluses and then going to Natural as a way of ameliorating that. This choice would depend on the particular planets in your mix and will require some more experimentation.

Ultimately, I see specialized and Natural as good early-mid game zoning policies but I’m pretty sure that Balanced will make more sense in the mid-later stages of the game when your development needs can be more complex.

Try out Balanced on occasion Da_Blade. It makes the most sense when you want a more complex DEA mixture (which is usually later in the game). Dev plans can still be used to tweak a balanced policy. You’ve posted some very detailed stuff in the past on dev plans and I think some more work and understanding in this area will make the dev plan thread complete.

Without a fair amount of experimentation in the zoning area, however, I feel it’s like trying to develop a plan for a house without having a clue as to what the foundation looks like. Unfortunately, I think that that is exactly why people are so frustrated with the vic. The proper use of regional zoning and the resulting impact it should have on your dev plans is poorly understood (in no small part because of a lacking manual) as is evident in the almost complete lack of any threads discussing it. Regional Zoning needs to figure prominently in any overall development approach and my theory is that it should not be static. By sticking to one zoning plan throughout the game you just end up making it harder on yourself.

Norfleet

06-25-2003, 08:46 AM

I zone manually. The AI can't be counted on to zone effectively, period, frequently doing stupid things like putting mines on the plains, instead of in the mountains, even though it clearly says that the mountain has a better mining efficiency, and no matter which policy I use, or which devplans I use, the AI still can't be convinced that this is stupid, or that he should stop building bioharvest DEAs, particularly in subsistence areas, when the empire food surplus is currently 12x what I actually need, seeing as I am the SILICOIDS and don't actually EAT food.

Da_Blade

06-25-2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Zodicus
The only point I would disagree with you on has to do with the notion that stacking on a particular plan is worse than stacking across plans. The way I see it, if you’ve got the following situation:

All Planets: research/mine/trade
Mineral Rich: mine/manf/mil

…then, with respect to mining, the emphasis would be the equivalent of:

Mineral Rich mine/mine/mil

The all planets plan weighs twice a single classification plan. And the reason i do not like stacking in one single plan is because it can give too much emphasis on a single thing.

For instance you want mine to be important, thus the second place in all planets, but you want it to especially important on mineral rich planets. This is why you have a little weight in non-mineral rich planets, and a lot of weight in rich planets.

I think that Natural zoning responds the most dramatically to dev plans because it is the closest policy available to “middle of the road.” As such, the vic will generally have a predisposition to building according to what any given region is best suited for based upon its base efficiency in that area. It is understandable and logical that you prefer this setting. However, this forces you to do a lot more dev plan work as you must constantly be updating plans as needs change (i.e. I want more government deas here now and some military deas there….). Overall, Natural will build farms on a given planet where they make the most sense and if they are needed, and mines similarly. What it won’t do a good job of are deas like: government, military, recreation. This will require more input from your dev plans. Unfortunately, you’ve only got three slots on any given plan and each slot is not equal. As such, it is hard to adequately put proper emphasis on these deas using a Natural zoning policy. That is why, for me, Natural makes the most sense early on and works well when your needs are specific and few in number.

If I’ve got only two planets, the second planet is generally going to need to build at least a farm or two where it makes sense since my main planet isn’t producing much of a surplus. A Natural zoning policy is going to do this for you with or without a dev plan. I might throw a manuf target in there or research but I trust that farms and mines will get built as needed where they make sense. Alternatively, I could see using a Specialized zoning policy early on to generate surpluses and then going to Natural as a way of ameliorating that. This choice would depend on the particular planets in your mix and will require some more experimentation.

Ultimately, I see specialized and Natural as good early-mid game zoning policies but I’m pretty sure that Balanced will make more sense in the mid-later stages of the game when your development needs can be more complex.

Try out Balanced on occasion Da_Blade. It makes the most sense when you want a more complex DEA mixture (which is usually later in the game). Dev plans can still be used to tweak a balanced policy. You’ve posted some very detailed stuff in the past on dev plans and I think some more work and understanding in this area will make the dev plan thread complete.

Without a fair amount of experimentation in the zoning area, however, I feel it’s like trying to develop a plan for a house without having a clue as to what the foundation looks like. Unfortunately, I think that that is exactly why people are so frustrated with the vic. The proper use of regional zoning and the resulting impact it should have on your dev plans is poorly understood (in no small part because of a lacking manual) as is evident in the almost complete lack of any threads discussing it. Regional Zoning needs to figure prominently in any overall development approach and my theory is that it should not be static. By sticking to one zoning plan throughout the game you just end up making it harder on yourself.

My main gripe with balanced zoning is that it will build mines and bioharvest as well on any planet. The reason natural zoning is so nice is because it has no zoning preferences, and thus the VR can be more easily overriden with your preferences. If there was a single zoning policy that would near-almost let VRs ignore mines and farms, i'd take that in late game...

But i agree i haven't really tested the zoning policy's yet, except for their listening qualities to dev plans...

Zodicus

06-25-2003, 03:44 PM

Posted by Da_Blade
The all planets plan weighs twice a single classification plan.

Really? That's news to me. Is this specifically indicated in the developmentplans.txt (as I recall...) file? I only saw (1/0.7/0.3). When I was doing test runs a couple of months ago, I also didn't see this level of bias.

Posted by Da_Blade
My main gripe with balanced zoning is that it will build mines and bioharvest as well on any planet. The reason natural zoning is so nice is because it has no zoning preferences, and thus the VR can be more easily overridden with your preferences.
This is only half true. Indeed, a balanced plan will usually put a BioHarvest DEA on a planet otherwise classified as mineral rich (for example). However, this is not always a bad thing. One must realize that most planets of any given size usually have at least one region that is well suited to a task that is quite different from what the classification might suggest. For example, on all of my mineral rich worlds of decent size (say 5+), there is usually at least one zone that has a pretty decent (sometimes excellent) bioharvest efficiency. As such, placing one there really isn't a complete waste as that slot wouldn't have made for a good mine (and the vic will usually put deas where they are most efficient when they are added-not always but usually). Now said zone might have made a decent industry or research facility but I find that a dev plan that places the appropriate emphasis on such things is usually enough to nudge the bioharvest dea out of contention. I know this because I've been using a balanced policy for 120 turns in my most recent game and I have plenty of worlds that haven't got any bioharvest deas.

Secondly, having at least one bioharvest dea confers and advantage should the planet be subject to a blockade. By having at least SOME capacity to feed itself, you can slow the attrition rate due to starvation and, should you place FARM in the dev plan of such a world, at least it has a fighting chance of building a regional improvement that can keep it fed since it has a bioharvest dea to enhance.

As another example, let's take HIGH BIODIVERSITY. I've got plenty of worlds that bear this classification and the natural inclination would be to figure a FARM plan proximately. However, take a closer look at some of these planets. What you see is diversity alright, meaning "alluvial" in some spots and "hard scrabble" in plenty of others. In fact, I've had some 6+ sized worlds so classified that really only had above average bioharvest efficiency in 1/4 - 1/3 of the regions. As such, building lots of bioharvest deas really wouldn't be the most effective strategy. I've got plenty of such worlds that would be better served with a few mine deas on them as well.

Remember, dev plans do have a significant impact. As indicated earlier, I've got plenty of worlds that are completely absent a bioharvest dea.

With respect to natural zoning having no preferences, I would disagree. As stated, it will build what the planet is best suited to. Now, I don't claim to know the algorithm so I'll just fall back on my testing data. When I ran tests using the exact same game (saved game turn 1) for 40 turns ('til all available regions had deas) I noticed that a world on natural developed fairly primitively and with a CLEAR zoning bias (note, no dev plans used because I was trying to establish a "control" for behavior). What I mean by that is, I think the algorithm for natural zoning is as follows:

1) What do I NEED (i.e. food, minerals, that are not being imported). Build the requisite dea in the zone that has the highest efficiency for such a resource. On natural, the first dea will likely be Industry. As such, the first NEED will likely be minerals (if they are not being imported).

2) What am I good at within reasonable limits? Natural will prefer building mines with a threshold mining efficiency. Similarly with bioharvest deas in regions with a threshold bioharvest efficiency. I believe that specialized simply lowers the threshold efficiency so that more zones would be considered for mine/bioharvest deas and fewer other deas.

As such, I recall one planet that was average for mineral richness, yet low in biodiversity, and size 6 developed as follows using Natural zoning:

10 mines
2 industry

Now, this planet was importing food so there was never a need for such a resource. In addition, it was low in biodiveristy so, having food, it simply proceeded to focus on what it was most efficient at, mines. As such, Natural DOES have a zoning preference, more so than balanced. The same world on balanced developed more roundly:

4 mines
5 ind
2 research
1 gov

As such, I think that the zoning preference you are referring to is really a "one-of-everything" preference. I believe that Balanced sizes up a planet and prioritizes dea ratios based on a planet's size. As such, not every planet is going to have a military or a rec dea. However, larger planets most certainly will (dev plans notwithstanding).

Now I’m starting so sound like an advocate for Balanced. I’m really not, and I’ll be the first to admit that the jury is out since virtually no one on these boards tries it other than me (so it seems). I think that, for people that have a dev plan-oriented focus to their development, Natural is likely the way to go (…likely). However, I have found dev plans to be a bit limiting late game and I see Balanced as a way of solving that. Even using Balanced late game I’ve still got food and mineral surpluses of 100%.

I’m still working it out but I’m slowly coming up with new dev plan approaches and I hope to post again with more concrete advice. My only advice now is: experiment.

CKHO2

06-25-2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Zodicus
This is only half true. Indeed, a balanced plan will usually put a BioHarvest DEA on a planet otherwise classified as mineral rich (for example). However, this is not always a bad thing. One must realize that most planets of any given size usually have at least one region that is well suited to a task that is quite different from what the classification might suggest. For example, on all of my mineral rich worlds of decent size (say 5+), there is usually at least one zone that has a pretty decent (sometimes excellent) bioharvest efficiency.

acturally I have some planet that is rich but the best bio effeciency region I found there is only 0.9. its no point building any bio harvest there. (its green hab too just not fertile enough)

Zodicus

06-25-2003, 05:53 PM

Posted by CKHO2
acturally I have some planet that is rich but the best bio effeciency region I found there is only 0.9. its no point building any bio harvest there. (its green hab too just not fertile enough) I agree. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though.:bulb: Would a balanced policy build a bio dea in a 0.9 eff region, maybe, maybe not. It's really not a given. Factors such as planet size clearly have an impact. If your Rich planet in question was small, you might not see a Bio dea built regardless. Either way, if you had any dev plans at all for Mineral Rich planets, they would ensure that the planet develops sensibly.

The main point of this whole discussion is to bring to the fore the idea that you have three foundations from which to choose from:
Specialized
Natural
Balanced

Left to their own devices, I can assure you that none of these policies will develop sensible worlds (actually, balanced comes pretty close). The whole point is, pick your foundation, realize what it is going to do for you, then establish dev plans that build on that foundation.

Quick example. If you choose a specialized regional zoning policy and we use your planet above, you are sending the following message to the vic:

1) whatever this planet tends to be most efficient at, build lots of those deas.

In this case, that would be mines. Now, since your regional zoning plan accomplishes this for you, your dev plans don't need to. As such, when you develop a dev plan for this world, it would essentially be to say:

2) BTW, while your building mines, be sure to also make room for the following: <insert_primary><insert_secondary><insert_tertiary>.

Now if I were using a balanced zoning policy, message 1 would be:
1) Build a mix of deas as best you can starting with (insert algorithm here if you know it 'cause I don't).

As such, my dev plans would then be structured to communicate the following message:
2) Tip the balance in favor of <insert_primary><insert_secondary><insert_tertiary>

This is the way I structure my dev plans and it appears to work just fine for me. It requires experimentation though because one of the big unknowns is how MUCH of an impact a primary, secondary, or tertiary priority will have for Specialized/Balance (seems to be well established for Natural). Once that is known with some certainty, it should be quite easy to take full advantage of any of the three zoning policies. Right now, you might choose Balanced, and put say, Research in the primary slot of your dev plan. The end result might be too many research deas since even Balanced tends to build these in larger numbers than Rec/Mil/Gov deas. As such, a secondary or tertiary "nudge" might be all that is needed or wanted.

Experiment. ;)

RobNelson

06-26-2003, 04:27 AM

I think you have a convert. :D

I've been trying out the different plans to pretty good effect. I usually have a slow growth in the beginning due to low mineral production. So now I start out specialized. Does the homeworld still become uber-strong real fast? No, but my other colonies develop faster (since they are no longer mineral starved). Once I have a decent surplus, I switch to natural to emphasize my dev plans. If I expand too fast, causing shortages, I go back to specialized (usually only need to for 5-10 turns). Haven't been playing with balanced, yet.

Preach on, Zodicus. I've been MOOed again! :D

MooMaster

06-28-2003, 12:30 PM

Yes.
I agree with RobNelson, since reading this thread I have been experimenting somewhat with the zoning policies, and indeed up until i read this thread i don't think i have ever set my empire to balanced.

But this game i have used every zoning policy for at least 15 turns or more each and I have only just gotten past turn 100.

I started off on speciallized due to resource shortages early game. Then whenever i noticed the resources getting plentiful, (since it was early game you want to make sure u have enough resources, but if you have too much that is just as bad cause you are wasting production) I would switch to natural to let my dev plans take over a bit. Then by turns like 60+ I wouldn't bother with natural, I would use balanced instead, and i would see really cool things happening, like Gov and Mil DEAs popping up right where they should be and my plans were geared towards research primarily and manufacturing secondly, with emphasis on mine in mineral right and farm on high bio, obviously. Also I never chaged these dev plans when i needed my empire to focus on something else, I simply changed the regional zoning policy. Say after 25 turns on blanaced, my minerals would start running low, because of new techs being discovered, or just not enough resource producing DEAs being built, or whatever. So i just switch to either natural or specialized and within 10 or so turns, i have a healthy surplus of resources again, ready to go back on balanced and actually make usefull worlds.

Like in Z's post a few up from here, he mentions how the one world ended up 10 mines and 2 industry, now even on a very rich world, I would probably not call this preferable.

however the nicely balanced with industry, mines, research, and gov dea world that resulted from the balanced policy is a much better world all around, will produce more industry, obviously, much more research, and sure a little less mines, but how many worlds do you know that are size 6+ with only 1 region that is not a mountain. I have come accross maybe 1. so the 10 mines and 2 industry is a highly inefficient dea combo, and these highly inefficient dea combos pop up all over the place when you stick with speciallized zoning for the whole game. and can even be present to a lesser degree with natural zoning.

Keep in mind tho, that i hate manually doing things in this game and avoid it, i like to use the macro tools as much as possible, and only when absolutely necessary, do it manually.

So i urge you all to try out Balanced, and do not be hesitant about changing the zoning policy every 10-20 turns in need be, it is alot easier to change then the dev plans, and i think it will have more of an effect.

The dev plans can then be used to put emphasis on your balanced policy, like for me it's research, cuz I hate being behind on research, and what do you know, using my approach as outlined here, i am almost 3 complete tech levels ahead of the best AI player, who is Eoladi by turn 100, and at turn 40 or so i was 2 or 3 behind him.

I made manufacturing my secondary, and while it shows when i try to mass produce a fleet in 5 turns, I still am capable of having the third largest fleet in the game, with of course the highest tech level.

I think this is because I have a blance of supporting deas like gov deas, which as we all know (or at least should know) by now is the big bonuses gov deas can give to a planet especially (or only, not sure) to industry.
Ex. a world with 5 indusrty deas, produced less then a world with 4 industry and 1 gov dea. Which is what you get with balanced.

The End.

Alexandre

06-30-2003, 10:32 AM

Zodicus

06-30-2003, 05:52 PM

Posted by Alexandre
I'd also argue that the VR can't take the strategic situation into account. For example, I want chokepoint worlds to produce food even if they really are bad at it in case they are beseiged. They should also have a push towards industry rather thanresearch so that they can crank up system ships quickly. There is nothing as annoying as having to use up my star fleet to counter an enemy's attack. That fleet should (mostly) be used to deliver the counter-punch
In the interest of keeping this thread on-topic ;) , I'm responding to your comment. You chokepoint example would be an excellent example of when to switch to a Balanced zoning policy. This action would largely achieve exactly the effect you are looking for. As such, your Frontier dev plan would augment this with Manuf as a secondary target. Then, you'd get a planet that has some capacity to provide for itself, and has a little extra industry boost.

I've been done some testing over the weekend and hope to either update this thread and/or start a new thread based on my observations. I'll give you a glimpse into what my thoughts and observations thus far (to be explained later)...

* (Theory alert)We tend to use too many dev plans at once because we don't understand regional zoning behavior. Dev plans should be relatively few in number, targeted to augment/modify well understood regional zoning behavior, contain a specific and limited number of targets and be based upon current strategic needs.

* Regional zoning doesn't care what a planet is classified as. Regional zoning is the macromanager's "micromanagement" tool. As the name suggests, this is 'regional' zoning behavior. Expect to see huge variations from planet-to-planet that, upon closer inspection, will make lots of sense. The AI is not perfect, but 80% of the decisions are logical (My observations indicate that specialized and balanced are more logical than natural.....more on that later. I plan to notify QSI of what I think are clear bugs such as a rec dea being built on Alluvial plains whereas a bioharvest dea gets stuck in a broken-fertile zone. This stuff does happen occasionally).

* One notion I'll dispel right now is the notion that a Balanced zoning policy is grossly inefficient and results in too many farm/mine deas for a given planet. Believe it or not, a Balanced zoning policy DOES appear to acknowledge a planet's strengths (if the planet has one). As such, a mineral rich world will, usually, end up with many more mine deas than bioharvest. Planets that are 'average' usually tend to have a balance of farm/mine (as expected). Those bioharvest deas that are placed on mineral rich worlds, for example, are usually few in number and are often intelligently placed. It is often the Natural zoning policy that results in the most baffling and inefficient behavior. I've been able to detect some clear trends for all three though. For a later discussion, (got work to do...).

More on this topic later, just food for thought for now...

MooMaster

07-02-2003, 12:16 PM

hehe, most ppl have been saying for quite some time now that natural is the way to go to get what you want to happen to happen, like to make the DEV plans have the most effect and stuff. Now we may just have some real evidence showing how it messes things up, and that other regional zoning strategies make more sense to get what you want, you just need to go about it in a different way (read above if no idea what i am talking about)

I would love to see what you have come up with Zodicus

Gudea

07-03-2003, 02:24 PM

I have had great success with specialized. Granted, I tend to micro planets that have good potential for growth (ie large planets with green1 and green grav.). However, i have noticed that planets with "extra" mineral and bio output have more AU's available; hence, they can overdrive and outproduce other planets. Furthermore, I sometimes will make a mineral producing colony in a system with a better planet for industry. I make the better planet the system seat. With many industrial DEA's AND the taxes from the other planet coming in, I now have an enormously successful dreadnought producing planet. The one problem with this has been addressed, though. It takes several turns for this system to be fully utilized; therefore, it is good for only diplomatic races who do not need to expand at rapid rates. I use Raas, Trilarians and Gasbags most often....I seem to have success with this plan since I can outproduce any species after turns 70-100. The thing I have found is to remember that economics and industry are very intertwined.

Nolondil

07-03-2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet
I zone manually. The AI can't be counted on to zone effectively, period, frequently doing stupid things like putting mines on the plains, instead of in the mountains, even though it clearly says that the mountain has a better mining efficiency, and no matter which policy I use, or which devplans I use, the AI still can't be convinced that this is stupid, or that he should stop building bioharvest DEAs, particularly in subsistence areas, when the empire food surplus is currently 12x what I actually need, seeing as I am the SILICOIDS and don't actually EAT food.

Actually, that's because the VR is a planetary AI only. It is not supposed to consider the strategic situation. You are. :) You should make changes to the DevPlans to reflect the strategic situation. The VR is supposed to consider only the planet it is working with in relation to the Dev Plans.

That said, yes the VR seems to be Not Very Bright about DEA placement. I've seen some of the stupid things you describe too.

Wouldn't it be great if you could set specialized/natural/balanced for each planet individually? Just have a clickable button that displays the current policy somewhere in the planet screen.

But... just a contrarian note: I'm playing as the Meklar and mineral excess is definitely not one of my problems. The dual food/mineral consumption of my population has kept me close to or in the red for most of the 100 turns I've played so far in this game. Every time I colonize a new world or two with Mek population mineral demands suddenly jump and I'm in the red again. So remember that the 'game universe' has to serve everyone when you consider if mining is too effective. :)

MooMaster

07-03-2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Gudea
I have had great success with specialized. Granted, I tend to micro planets that have good potential for growth (ie large planets with green1 and green grav.). However, i have noticed that planets with "extra" mineral and bio output have more AU's available; hence, they can overdrive and outproduce other planets. Furthermore, I sometimes will make a mineral producing colony in a system with a better planet for industry. I make the better planet the system seat. With many industrial DEA's AND the taxes from the other planet coming in, I now have an enormously successful dreadnought producing planet. The one problem with this has been addressed, though. It takes several turns for this system to be fully utilized; therefore, it is good for only diplomatic races who do not need to expand at rapid rates. I use Raas, Trilarians and Gasbags most often....I seem to have success with this plan since I can outproduce any species after turns 70-100. The thing I have found is to remember that economics and industry are very intertwined.

Your strategy sounds like a good one, but considering the level of micromanaging you need to pull it off, i doubt it would really matter at all if you used natural, specialized or balanced, since you are microing it so much and these tools are there so you don't have to micro. What i am trying to say is that with using the regional zoning policies dynamically you do not need to micro manage like crazy. That world you make in that system will likely outproduce my world in the same scenario, however i spent 30 seconds to make that world and 50 more like it, and you spent 10 to 15 minutes over multiple turns to do your one planet, also most of the planets in my empire become usable for just about anything with this approach.

Zodicus

07-03-2003, 03:38 PM

Posted by Nolondil
That said, yes the VR seems to be Not Very Bright about DEA placement. I've seen some of the stupid things you describe too.

Actually, there is a logic to this move. It's just not obvious to the player especially if you are looking at a planet after all deas have been placed. I've been studying the viceroy behavior under controlled conditions turn-by-turn and am seeing a clear pattern of behavior that, all things considered, makes sense. I can now rationalize planets that put mines on plains with an efficiency rating of 1.2 when a broken region having twice that efficiency is available. I plan to write a thread weekend that will go into great detail regarding regional zoning and planetary development in general.

The bottom line is this; the viceroy does the best he/she can under the circumstances, given the instructions in hand, at any given moment. I am now 100% convinced of this. It does act in a logical way and I hope to expose this soon....

James1701

07-03-2003, 04:06 PM

This week on 20/20 " Are you're viceroys' building practices putting your empire in danger?"

Longspur

01-07-2004, 11:07 AM

Lot'sa stuff to think about here.

Sangrolu

01-07-2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Alexandre
I'd also argue that the VR can't take the strategic situation into account. For example, I want chokepoint worlds to produce food even if they really are bad at it in case they are beseiged. They should also have a push towards industry rather thanresearch so that they can crank up system ships quickly.

That sounds like a job for player defined dev plans to me.

Visionary

01-07-2004, 03:03 PM

“I’ll be the first to admit that the jury is out since virtually no one on these boards tries it other than me (so it seems).” Zodicus

Zodicus your initial thread got me into using balanced zoning. I have good success with it. I follow a procedure similar to your own, except that I never use specialized zoning and I do manually assign DEAs to my largest planets. I believe that specialized zoning can result in an undesirable surplus of minerals/harvest in the later game that may be fixed only by changing DEAs manually on many planets - but I could be wrong. I am convinced that manually assigning my DEAs gives me exactly what I want, but it is too much trouble except for my largest planets. I currently do the following (copied from my beginner instruction and strategy thread). My games have proven that this is an effective strategy; however, it may not be optimal. I would like your input Zodicus (and others) concerning possibility of an even more effective strategy.

Turn 0: Load your initial developmental plans and leave the zoning set as the default natural. The natural zoning selection allows the greatest influence of your own development plans. It also is most likely to create the greatest number of mines and self-sufficiency, both of which are needed in the early game. The set of initial development plans will have a primary purpose of solving food and mineral shortages that you will have. Other objectives are to make sure that some research is going on and that infrastructure is being built in the more developed planets and the junk planets. The first development plan is (presented as category [primary, secondary, tertiary]): All planets and mineral rich (mine, manufacture, research), primary and secondary (manufacture, research, infrastructure), mineral poor (farm, research, infrastructure), high biodiversity (farm, manufacture, research), small (mine, farm, research), and large (mine, manufacture, farm).

TURN 75-125: As soon as you have a mineral and food surplus
• Change to balanced zoning. Under this setting, planets will probably be self-sufficient. It is the best setting for the most economically powerful empire. The combination of self-sufficient planets and strong economic potential without micromanagement makes balanced zoning the best choice after the initial mineral and food shortages are met. Balanced zoning will help insure that there is food and minerals for the industrial giants.
• GRADUALLY, change the DEAs of the ten largest planets and all size 11 and 12 planets to the following: 1 military, 1 recreation, 2 governments, 2 research, and 0-1 mining or bioharvest (only when efficiency is greater than 8 for mining or 5 for bioharvest). The remaining DEAs will be industrial. Eventually, I will change the largest planets to concentrate even more on industrial.
• Place DEAs in all newly colonized size 11 and 12 planets as above.
• Install new development plans (presented as category [primary, secondary, tertiary]: all planets, secondary, primary, and core (manufacture, research, infrastructure); mineral rich (mine, manufacture, research); and high biodiversity (farm, manufacture, research). The theme here is manufacturing is most important, followed by research; however, the planets that may (depending on terrain) be best suited for farming and mining should still do so.

Awsric Armitage

01-07-2004, 06:52 PM

IMHO the regional zoning settings place emphasis on the respective efficiencies of the planets differing regions in differing weights.

It seems that Specialized will place an extremely strong emphasis on the efficiency of the zone and thus place mines or bioharvest first and repeatedly ignore Dev Plans besides the initial industry because of the higher weight placed on the efficiency of the region. Natural is a lower weight and Balanced is a lower weight still.

If using the Specialized I see no reason to include Mining nor Farming in your Dev Plans besides to build the appropriate DEA improvements that come later after technological improvements. Using Mining or Farming in the Dev Plans places even more weight behind something already carrying more than enough emphasis already. Use the slots wiser by placing things that will actually get considered after the AI is done considering the higher weighted planetary regional efficiencies using multiple slots of the same tags for added emphasis if necessary.

Natural and Balanced provide more room for your Dev Plans to be considered weighted on a more even scale with the planetary regions efficiencies. This casues the AI to actually seem to pay attention to your plans more than less because of the reduced amount of weight placed on the regional efficiencies.

I used to be a big proponent of Specialized but with the obvious increased weights in using the efficiencies of regions rather than the emphasis placed on the player defined Dev Plans I have adopted more of a preference for Natural. This still allows for mining and farming placements in rich mountains or high biodiversity plains because of the relative weights of their respective regional efficiences and the ongoing reduction of need for minerals and food for consumption with excessive surpluses.

mellman

01-12-2004, 05:00 PM

Lotsa good stuff in here. Missed this thread and glad it got bumped.

One thing I've theorized is that once all the DEAs are set for a given planet, Zoning is kinda moot. Improvement builds, terrrafroming, infrastructure, etc. should be based on Dev Plans. This is assuming (pitfall, I know) that Zoning is used solely to place DEAs and has no effect once they are placed. So in late game, Zoning will only effect your newer colonies (with remaining DEAs to place) while the Dev plan will effect all colonies.

Just a theory

mellman

Awsric Armitage

01-12-2004, 05:26 PM

I would have to agree.

That is what makes the middle to late game more interesting or should I say complicated especially if playing on a huge map with plenty of room left to develope at that point. Balancing the placement priorities of new planets DEAs and the development of the older worlds DEA improvements becomes more of an issue. If the DPs are layered with classification transitions planned ahead from new to frontier to secondary to primary then it is a little easier to handle. Still needs to be tweaked from time to time but it still can be accomplished with a relatively static set of DPs and judicious use of the zoning policies IMHO.

Zodicus

01-12-2004, 06:00 PM

Wow! This thread survives?! I browsed my e-mail one day to see that someone actually responded to two of my threads long since quiet. Anyway, thought I'd say hello to those still plugging away at MOO3. :) :up:

I'd been meaning to update this thread, but it's been sooo long since I've played MOO3 (the lack of continuing support has been a huge factor in that decision along with some new hobbies).

As written, the opening post is a bit simplistic and was written without the wisdom/knowledge gained when researching the Planetary Development Concepts and Tools (http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=306415) thread.

That said, having read the last couple of posts by Awsric Armitage and Visionary, here are some of my (highly abridged and probably outdated) thoughts on Regional Zoning.

I tended to progress from Natural -> Balanced (much as described in the beginning of this thread) and use Specialized on an "as needed" basis. Every zoning plan has it's use but Natural and Balanced tend to serve better as long term zoning policies than Specialized for the reasons Awsric Armitage described (for an example wherein specialized may serve for the long term, read Skymage's posts at Specialization: Against the Viceroy's nature? (http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=313776) )

The above is just a general approach, is hopelessly vague, and is one I violate frequently based upon my situation.

My "situation" might include:
* presence/lack of technology (i.e. no bioharvest / mining upgrades in sight = specialized zoning for awhile).
* Nothing but yellow/red planets (i.e. Since I've got few bioharvest powerhouses to feed the masses I may risk running out of food. Perhaps this is the time to use a balanced zoning policy to ensure that each planet does it's level best to put food on the table for themselves).
* Playing a race with few unrest issues, average tech picks, and I've got planets with many mineral/bioharvest rich zones. I'd probably go with the default pattern: Natural -> Balanced (with a touch of Specialized when I need it).
* Playing a race with significant unrest potential I tend to favor a balanced policy here as that tends to zone more unrest reducing DEAs.
*Most of my worlds are now on the periphery and subject to blockades go with
balanced so they can survive blockades long enough for help to arrive.
*Lot of mineral rich planets with many good regions for minerals I’d steer clear
of specialized and stick with Natural or Balanced. In this case, Specialized would
aggressively mine the hills resulting, very likely, in a large late-game surplus of minerals.

I guess the bottom line is that I see many, many factors that go into the zoning decision. I just don't think you can wave your hand and say "you should always do X because Y is always lame." If that were the case, MOO3 would be a very uninteresting game full of simple choices.

That is a segue into my next batch of thoughts (feel free to skip)....

In general, though I think specialized threads like these on Regional Zoning and Dev Plans are great, it is disappointing to see that there aren’t more planetary development threads. From what I can see on these boards, the discussion of planetary development strategy is still heavily bogged down in dev plan-centric discussions. People want dev plan files and treat them like purple pills. Just load the right dev plan file and you're good to go for all of your planetary development needs. It's like there is some magic combination that is the "best." When I was conducting testing long ago on Regional Zoning with the original intent of updating this thread (but which ended up turning into the Planetary Development "book" listed above), I realized that, when it comes to planetary development, you just can't completely separate all of the various components so neatly. Yes, yes dev plans are important, but so are many other things. Technology pics are HUGE influences as are Regional Zoning decisions. Even immigration can have a substantial impact. If people don't realize or appreciate these things then MOO3 is going to be a mind-numbingly confusing (ok, *more* confusing) experience for a looooong time.

I cringe every time I still see my Planetary Dev thread listed as a "DP" thread :rolleyes:. It is *not* a dev plan thread. It is about planetary development of which dev plans are just a part. I hope we start seeing more "planetary development" oriented threads and far fewer (for the love of all that is...) "perfect development plan" threads.

When I see people asking for dev plan files it reminds me of a friend of mine who discovered the game "Civ I" (long ago). He was frustrated and asked me the following question: "How do I get a big military force?" To which I replied, "There is no one answer to your question. You'd have to learn how to play and understand all facets of this game to perform that task well." He disagreed angrily and replied, "Of course there's a simple way! Now just tell me how do I build tanks!" At this point, I simply replied, "when you understand how building a coliseum can translate into increased war production, then you'll understand what I mean." Of course, he didn't understand that, by building a coliseum, he would reduce city unrest, thereby resulting in increased productivity, thereby permitting more resources to be devoted to production / research efforts so he could research the technology to build tanks sooner as well as build them more quickly. So it is with MOO3. Focusing too much effort on and asking for dev plan files I think completely misses the point. The key is how the various pieces influence one another.

I've often considered starting a thread called
"How to obtain more Industry DEAs through the wonder of Deep Extraction Mining".

I wonder if anyone would actually understand what I mean by that.;)

Anyway, enough ranting. I look forward to participating more on these boards, though I think many that have been posting here are more adept at MOO3 than I.