Boreholes, condensors, etc...does anyone actually use them?

[Question]

Boreholes particularly. Ive noticed that with 2 normal rocky mines + a slew of forests/kelp farms, i hit the mineral limit very quickly. Before centauri preserve i think the limit is around 18 minerals without incuring eco damage. I never end up using boreholes because they take forever to build and i cant really use them without eco damage anyway.

For stuff like condensors...well they dont affect forests, so yea...

Ive heard of echelon mirror/solar collector farms but ive never actually tried it, seems too time consuming and you need a nice large mountain to do it with(preferably sunny mesa).

 

[Petek]

Your post suggests that you aren't familiar with the nuances of eco-damage. Apologies if you already know about the following.

There are two strategies for dealing with eco-damage: Embrace it or prevent it. The first strategy involves allowing some eco-damage (but not so much that the sea levels rise) and then harvest the native life that appear from fungal pops. I won't go into this strategy, since I rarely use it.

The second strategy allows you to increase the clean mineral limit (= the number of minerals a base can produce without incurring eco-damage) of all your bases. Here's a brief description of how to go about this:

1. In one base raise your mineral output (crawl mines, for example) to around 40. This should produce a fungal pop within a few turns. (Try to defer this step until after you can build Tree Farms.)

2. Don't build any Tree Farms, Hybrid Forests, Centarui Preserves or Temples of Planet in any base before the pop occurs.

3. Each pop raises the clean mineral limit in all bases by one. The same is true for each facility listed in the previous item, if built after the pop. You also can scrap any of these items and rebuild it to raise the clean mineral limit.

By employing this technique, you can easily have bases that produce lots of minerals but no eco-damage.

To address your other concerns:

Boreholes - Build the Weather Paradigm and/or use multiple formers to build boreholes quickly.

Echelon Mirrors/Solar Collectors - You don't need to build an energy farms on a hill because you can use formers to raise the elevation. You also can drill to the aquifer, creating rivers that provide even more energy.

Eco-damage usually occurs when a base generates 16 minerals, but could be lower if you are working mines or boreholes.

There used to be an article on Apolyton with detailed information on eco-damage, but it appears to have been lost in the server upgrade/migration. However, it still can be found on the Internet Archive site: http://web.archive.org/web/20060525233207/http://apolyton.net/misc/column/175_ecodamage.shtml.

 

[Question]

Thanks for that link. That wasnt stated anywhere in the ingame datalinks. Are there any undocumented things i should know?

Ive noticed that when you destroy all units garrisoning a base, the base pop drops by one unelss it has a pressure dome. Is that one of those things?

 

[Petek]

You can install GooglieBooglie's Comprehensive Datalinks Update. He added lots of information, including the eco-damage material, to the vanilla datalinks.

I didn't know (or forgot) about Pressure Domes preventing population loss. Perimeter Defenses provide the same effect, though.

There's lots of undocumented information about the game. GB's update helps a lot. The rest is spread across several forums. Go ahead and ask questions here. We'll be glad to answer as best we can.

 

[Question]

But i still dont understand, why would causing MORE eco-damage increase your clean material limit?

 

[Petek]

But i still dont understand, why would causing MORE eco-damage increase your clean material limit?

It's not realistic, just a game mechanic. It was discovered when some players noticed that the clean mineral limit increased as the game went on. Much testing led to the article that I linked to.

 

[Question]

Is there a way to see what your current clean limit is?

 

[Petek]

Is there a way to see what your current clean limit is?

Not that I know of. I usually keep a mental note of the number of pops and use the F3 screen to view how many Tree Farms, etc. I've built. The F3 screen sometimes returns wrong numbers, but it's close enough for this purpose. Also, if a base has really low eco-damage, then the number of minerals that it produces is necessarily just over the limit.

 

[chuft]

But i still dont understand, why would causing MORE eco-damage increase your clean material limit?

I think "eco-damage" really refers to Planet's reaction to what you are doing. This makes more sense if you have played the game though to completion (it has a plot which reveals information about Planet).

So Planet essentially "punishes" you every time you push the eco-damage higher than it has ever been before, regardless of location. If you get punished too many times in a row, global warming occurs.

It has been speculated that it was also easier for the programmers to keep track of global eco-damage for an empire, than to keep track of it for each base, therefore you have one overall "clean mineral limit" rather than one at each base which is affected only by that base's eco-damage and special buildings that have been built there (each of which increase the clean mineral limit). As a result they had to allow scrapping of buildings and building them more than once, with the clean mineral limit being increased each time permanently, because otherwise, large empires would always have a higher clean mineral limit than smaller ones because they could have one of each building per base and they have more bases. Obviously this would be silly, and would make large maps less polluting than small maps since there would be larger empires and more "clean" buildings, etc. so there has to be scrapping and rebuilding so small empires/empires on small maps can reach the same clean mineral limit that larger empires can.

 

[xchen08]

Echelon Mirrors/Solar Collectors - You don't need to build an energy farms on a hill because you can use formers to raise the elevation.

Does that ever actually pay off? I remember I tried it once, but it costs a good amount of energy to raise terrain, and each level only returns +1 energy/turn. I remember coming to the conclusion that an energy trawler sitting on a tidal harness combined with a thermocline transducer is strictly better, but haven't done the actual math. Actual, natural 3000 meter land is still good of course.

Since my SMAX stopped working, I can't test the costs of terrain elevation to check for sure.

 

[vyeh]

The energy credits for raising land is a one-time charge, while solar collectors generate energy every year. Note that there are facilities which multiply energy and lab credits.

 

[xchen08]

The energy credits for raising land is a one-time charge, while solar collectors generate energy every year. Note that there are facilities which multiply energy and lab credits.

Well, yeah, but it's compared to alternate means of funneling energy into your maximal multiplier base.

With a large enough patch of land raised to 3000m and a checkerboard pattern of collectors and mirrors, you get approaching an average of 6 energy per tile if crawled. Of course, that requires an unrealistically large area, with 5.4-5.5 energy per tile for realistically sized energy farms. This costs whatever it takes to raise all that land as well as tons of terraforming turns.

Use that land for condensor farms instead, and you can feed specialists. So 2 specialists per condensor farm, or 6 energy per tile, more with engineers, yet more with soil enrichers. This costs 2 colony pods per tile, 3 with soil enricher, if you need to bypass population limits, and after 8 tiles/16 specialists, you are limited to empathi with lower yields until you get to transcendi. On the other hand, extra population gives you more votes for governor, more unit support if you have a high enough support rating, and could potentially be used to trigger a Golden Age for that base for +1 Econ. It can also potentially allow the base to exploit more satellites, though I guess nobody ever gets enough for that to be an issue.

Or you can use ocean shelf tiles instead. A tidal harness and a trawler plus thermocline transducer yields 4 energy per tile. This is lower than the other 2 options, but it doesn't use valuable land. There's always way more shelf tiles than you can use, and if there wasn't, it's still cheaper to raise ocean to shelf than to raise sea level land to 3000m. It costs the negligible cost of the transducer and the extra cost for foil chasis per crawler/trawler. (I haven't thought about it before, but can the AI plant seabases on top of your trawlers? If not, that would be a damned big plus for this strat.)

I remember concluding that (2) or (3) or possibly a combination of the 2 are simply better than (1), though my SMAX not working keeps me from actually doing the math. I mean, maybe if there were a good sized patch of land averaging 2000+m, but you never see that. Even the Sunny Mesa is only 9 tiles that would still need 2 raise lands each to hit 3000+m.

 

[vyeh]

The technology for advanced specialists is more advanced than echelon mirrors. If you have the technology, than it is certainly more efficient to build condensor/farm/soil enrichers.

According to the manual, tidal harness should only be +2 energy. Themocline tranducer adds another + 1 energy. So I think you only get +3 energy from the tidal harness + trawler + thermocline inducer. Note that fission trawlers and fission sea formers are significantly more expensive than fission crawlers and fission formers and a thermocline inducer costs 80 minerals, so I wouldn't call these negligible.

 

[xchen08]

The technology for advanced specialists is more advanced than echelon mirrors. If you have the technology, than it is certainly more efficient to build condensor/farm/soil enrichers.

Well, even with just librarians and technicians, it's still 6 energy per tile rather than 5.x, and I'm pretty sure condensor farm + 2 colony pods is cheaper than collector or mirror + 2-3 raise land.

As for technology, without the mirror or raise land, land energy farms are also far less efficient/impossible. If you get the Weather Paradigm, condensor farm comes at the same time as mirror/raise land, and if not, condensors still come at the same time as the mirror with EcoEng, while raise land is later at EnvEcon.

According to the manual, tidal harness should only be +2 energy. Themocline tranducer adds another + 1 energy. So I think you only get +3 energy from the tidal harness + trawler + thermocline inducer. Note that fission trawlers and fission sea formers are significantly more expensive than fission crawlers and fission formers and a thermocline inducer costs 80 minerals, so I wouldn't call these negligible.

From my Alphax.txt:

Improved Sea, 2, 1, 3, 0, * Mineral +1 with Advanced Ecological Engineering

I'm pretty sure that means the tidal harness gives +3 energy. As for the cost, nobody can really afford full energy farms before fusion anyway, if there's one at all, it's not going to be the kind of large 3000+m collector/mirror checkerboard that maximizes yield, way too many terraforming turns needed. A checkerboard on the Sunny Mesa without further raise lands will only give 3.3 energy/tile. Since trawling for energy can be at maximum efficiency from the moment the energy cap is lifted, early on, it's equal or higher yield with similar or lower costs, while later it's lower yield, but cheaper, and most importantly, uses no land.

 

[vyeh]

Well, even with just librarians and technicians, it's still 6 energy per tile rather than 5.x, and I'm pretty sure condensor farm + 2 colony pods is cheaper than collector or mirror + 2-3 raise land.

condensor takes the same amount of former time as an echelon mirror; collector takes less former time than condensor; the farm is additional former time. A colony pod is 40 minerals plus there is also "turn advantage" loss as the producing base is not producing something else. That is a considerable cost.

As for technology, without the mirror or raise land, land energy farms are also far less efficient/impossible. If you get the Weather Paradigm, condensor farm comes at the same time as mirror/raise land, and if not, condensors still come at the same time as the mirror with EcoEng, while raise land is later at EnvEcon.

I concede the point.

From my Alphax.txt:

I'm pretty sure that means the tidal harness gives +3 energy.

I think you are right about this.

As for the cost, nobody can really afford full energy farms before fusion anyway, if there's one at all, it's not going to be the kind of large 3000+m collector/mirror checkerboard that maximizes yield, way too many terraforming turns needed.

I don't see the logic here. If you have WP, you can raise land and build echelon mirrors with fission formers and harvest the energy with fission crawlers. You would need a lot of formers, but that can be provided by a lot of bases.

A checkerboard on the Sunny Mesa without further raise lands will only give 3.3 energy/tile.

Not sure how this is relevant. If you can't raise land, you can't create more ocean shelf.

Since trawling for energy can be at maximum efficiency from the moment the energy cap is lifted, early on, it's equal or higher yield with similar or lower costs, while later it's lower yield, but cheaper, and most importantly, uses no land.

I don't think you have made the case that the cost is similar or lower.

Since sea squares can become land squares, it does use potential land.

 

[xchen08]

condensor takes the same amount of former time as an echelon mirror; collector takes less former time than condensor; the farm is additional former time.

A condensor farm takes 16 terraforming turns. A mirror/collector checkerboard will take an average of 32 per tile assuming 2 raise lands are needed for the typical square. edit: check at bottom for empirical results.

A colony pod is 40 minerals plus there is also "turn advantage" loss as the producing base is not producing something else. That is a considerable cost.

And the energy credits sunk into raising land costs turn advantage as well, since you could have used it for rushing, or to bump up your research, or whatever.

Not sure how this is relevant. If you can't raise land, you can't create more ocean shelf.

Who ever runs out of ocean shelf? Even once all your own shores are colonized, there's still lots around the poles. The possibility of creating more ocean shelf is only relevant late game if you somehow use up all existing shelf. The point is given roughly similar terraforming investment, sea trawling is more efficient than an energy farm, albeit more expensive mineral wise.

I don't think you have made the case that the cost is similar or lower.

Since sea squares can become land squares, it does use potential land.

I can hardly do so when I don't know the exact energy costs for raising land. I'm seriously considering deleting/reinstalling SMAX and seeing if that fixes the problem just so I can settle this issue once and for all. Now if only I can find my disks... The business with the cost apparently depending on distance to the nearest base as well as raised land also raising adjacent land to some extent likely makes this fiendishly complicated. (another advantage for trawling which can be as haphazard and incremental as you please)

As for the second point, potential land if lots of cash and terraforming time is invested is hardly even close to being as valuable as actual land.

edit: so I up and did a reinstall and things...don't quite work right. I've a pretty good computer and it takes like 3 minutes to start up SMAX with a lot of wierd changes to the color scheme while grinding away...but it works. So for a 3x3 energy farm with one center edge 2 tiles away from the nearest base starting with the Sunny Mesa, it takes 612 energy credits to raise all 9 tiles to 3000+m. Oddly enough, it's the same for a 3x3 patch simply centered around a single tile over 1000m, with all the others near sealevel due to the way raising the center tile raises the ones around as well. 10 raise lands are necessary, 2 for the center tile, 1 for each of the surrounding. It's definitely cheaper than I thought at just over 1 raise land (call it 13 terraforming turns) and 68 credits per tile. You can reduce that a bit by making a circle of cities such that every tile at the edge of the farm is only 3 tiles from the nearest base, but increasing the size of the farm won't decrease average cost as it increases the average distance per tile to the nearest base.

So a 3x3 energy farm costs 9 land tiles, 188 terraformer turns and 612 credits and 270 minerals worth of crawlers for 48e/turn. To get that return with pre-fusion specialists takes 8 condensor farms at 128 terraforming turns, and 480 minerals worth of colony pods if all 16 specialists need to be podboomed and 240 minerals worth of crawlers. To get that with sea trawling takes 12 shelf tiles with tidal harness at 48 terraforming turns, an 80 mineral facility that is sufficiently otherwise useful to be a gimme, and 600 minerals worth of trawlers. Post fusion, specialists get tricker due to the output spread for engineers, but call it 5 condensor farms and 10 engineers to equal the energy farm, at 80 terraforming turns, 300 minerals of pods, and 150 minerals of crawlers, while trawlers stay at 48 terraforming turns and the 80 mineral facility, but the trawler cost falls to 360 minerals.

Ignoring the land used and canceling out the same resources, prefusion, specialists vs energy farm is 450 minerals vs 60 terraformer turns and 612 (484 if minimized as mentioned earlier) energy credits, while trawlers vs farm is 410 minerals vs 140 terraformer turns and 612/484 credits. It seems about a wash, though surprisingly, it seems trawlers are the most efficient, achieving the same yield as specialists at 40 minerals and 80 terraformer turns less. Post fusion, specialists vs farm goes 180 minerals vs 108 terraformer turns and 612/484 credits, while trawlers vs farm goes 170 minerals vs 140 terraformer turns and 612/484 credits. Again surprisingly, trawlers are definitely the most efficient as long as you don't run out of ocean shelf (or if you're the Pirates), and both trawlers and specialists are more efficient than the energy farm, as I originally surmised, though the difference is less than I expected and there might be rare instances where the farm wins out.

 

[vyeh]

A condensor farm takes 16 terraforming turns. A mirror/collector checkerboard will take an average of 32 per tile assuming 2 raise lands are needed for the typical square. edit: check at bottom for empirical results.

I forgot about the raise land, although the number of raise land depends on the starting terrain. If you have mountainous terrain, the 2 raise lands might be more than needed.

And the energy credits sunk into raising land costs turn advantage as well, since you could have used it for rushing, or to bump up your research, or whatever.

I don't think you understand "turn advantage." It comes from the fact that a base can only build one unit, facility or secret project at a time. The thing that disturbs me most about the use of colony pods to create specialists to convert condensor farms into energy is that those colony pods could have been used to create additional bases.

Who ever runs out of ocean shelf?

There was a democracy game (ACDG5) that won through diplomatic victory. Ocean shelf was very valuable for the three nutrients that could be produced with kelp farm.

Even once all your own shores are colonized, there's still lots around the poles. The possibility of creating more ocean shelf is only relevant late game if you somehow use up all existing shelf. The point is given roughly similar terraforming investment, sea trawling is more efficient than an energy farm, albeit more expensive mineral wise.

If you mean it is quicker to terraform existing ocean shelves than raise land that is less than 2000 meters to over 3000 meters, I agree. However, your assumptions assume an unlimited supply of ocean shelf that is defended while assuming no 3000+ land squares. I'm not sure those are fair assumptions.

As for the second point, potential land if lots of cash and terraforming time is invested is hardly even close to being as valuable as actual land.

Sea squares are more "efficient" than land squares in terms of return on former time. You've already shown that for energy. It is equally true for nutrients where a kelp farm plus aqua farming facility in a base can result in four nutrients per sea square.

it takes 612 energy credits to raise all 9 tiles to 3000+m.

That is 67 credits per tile. Does this figure drip for 4x4 or 5x5? For 3000+, the average energy per tile approaches 7 as the energy farm becomes larger and larger. For an energy farm built on 1000-2000 elevation, the average energy per tile would approach 5. So it would take 34 years to return the investment on the cost to raise land. (Of course this ignores former time and the cost of the additional formers.)

So a 3x3 energy farm costs 9 land tiles, 188 terraformer turns and 612 credits and 270 minerals worth of crawlers for 48e/turn.

3x3 is way too small. The amount of energy returned per tile will go up as the energy farm becomes larger while the terraforming turns, credits invested and minerals of crawlers per tile will remain constant.

 

[Petek]

Interesting debate. Allow me to comment:

1. I play on really large maps (256x256 or larger), so that could affect the strategies.
2. I generally bee-line to Environmental Economics and Bioengineering, and only pick up DocFlex afterward. That means that I can start building land-based energy parks sooner than sea-based ones.
3. How does the need to defend energy parks affect strategy? It seems to me that land-based ones are easier to defend. However, this might be a function of playing on large maps. On smaller maps, it's difficult to defend against air raids.
4. How does running Free Market affect the two strategies? Does the extra one energy/tile favor a land-based park or a sea based one?
5. Sorry to nitpick, but a checkerboard pattern of Solar Collectors and Echelon Mirrors may not be the best way to setup a land-based park. Alternating rows of Collectors and Mirrors is slightly better. I can supply specifics upon request.
6. I have a game going right now where I employed a hybrid strategy: Started off with a land-based park, then switched a to sea-based one when I ran out of room on land. Perhaps the optimal strategy depends on specifics such as map size, proximity of opponents, SE choices and ratio of land to sea.

 

[xchen08]

That is 67 credits per tile. Does this figure drip for 4x4 or 5x5? For 3000+, the average energy per tile approaches 7 as the energy farm becomes larger and larger. For an energy farm built on 1000-2000 elevation, the average energy per tile would approach 5. So it would take 34 years to return the investment on the cost to raise land. (Of course this ignores former time and the cost of the additional formers.)

It trends to 6. Mirrors and collectors give 1 energy + 1 for each 1000m elevation, which maxes at 3 (for 3500m). As an infinite checkerboard would have each collector bordering 4 mirrors, and equal numbers of collectors and mirrors giving an average of ((4+4)+4)/2=6.

And no. This is because only one tile has to be raised twice if you can find a single 1000m+ tile to start with, but all other tiles need to be raised once, from 2000m+ to 3000m+. And raising from 1000m+ to 2000m+ is cheap, 36 credits for the center of a 3x3. Actually, I made an error in my earlier calculations in that if you start with a 1000m+ tile at the edge of the square for the double raise, you can save a bit of cash for the same end result, ie the first raise can be done for 27 credits, saving 9 over my earlier numbers.

On the other hand, as you get larger, the average distance of the tiles to the nearest base increases, driving up the cost of the final raise needed for all tiles. For raising 2000+ to 3000+, it seems to go up 16 credits/tile/unit from nearest base. So while the farthest tiles in a 3x3 cost 80 credits to finish raising (64 with the circle of bases idea), a 5x5's farthest tiles would cost 112 (80 with a circle of bases).

As for the second part, you need 2000m+ to get average energy approaching 5, but I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

3x3 is way too small. The amount of energy returned per tile will go up as the energy farm becomes larger while the terraforming turns, credits invested and minerals of crawlers per tile will remain constant.

Only minimally. You aren't getting 6 per tile until you get an infinite sized square. A 5x5 averages 5.44 energy/tile. And as you get bigger, costs per tile for raising are going to start going up as well, as mentioned earlier.

I don't think you understand "turn advantage." It comes from the fact that a base can only build one unit, facility or secret project at a time. The thing that disturbs me most about the use of colony pods to create specialists to convert condensor farms into energy is that those colony pods could have been used to create additional bases.

As my numbers demonstrate, post fusion, the energy cost of building an energy farm can more than cover the additional mineral costs of the other 2 options simply through the mechanism of rush build, completely ignoring a more nuanced comparison of the relative value of the various factors of production, or the cost of all the extra terraformer turns.

If those colony pods (or the minerals going to trawlers that could have gone to pods) could have been used to create additional bases for greater value than adding output to a maximal multiplier base, something that's not at all certain, spending energy credits on an energy farm is also inferior to just using it through rushbuilding to increase the production of pods. That ICS dominates pod boosted specialists or energy trawling (which I'm not granting, I'd want to see some numbers first) does not change the fact that both of the latter still dominate energy farming.

You'd just conclude that ICS dominates all, and start considering what to do if you just don't want to ICS, which goes back to the beginning.

Pre-fusion is another question, but it's clear that the advantage for the energy farm (if any, the other options are both still considerably cheaper in FOPs and terraforming turns) is going to be very small, and I find it exceedingly unlikely that anyone would ever gain enough advantage in those turns to trump later, though I'm certainly willing to hear arguments from personal experience.

There was a democracy game (ACDG5) that won through diplomatic victory. Ocean shelf was very valuable for the three nutrients that could be produced with kelp farm.
...
Sea squares are more "efficient" than land squares in terms of return on former time. You've already shown that for energy. It is equally true for nutrients where a kelp farm plus aqua farming facility in a base can result in four nutrients per sea square.

Given that 1) unlike energy, food has to be spread across many bases, requiring multiple aquafarms for maximal exploitation of seabased nutrients, and 2) the aquafarm not being a particularly good facility due to its upkeep, 3) the given cost calculations, and 4) the soil enricher being available by the time it's at all conceivable that one might run low on shelf tiles, clearly that only reinforces my point.

With a given amount of land and shelf for energy and nutrient farming, using the land first for nutrients (6/tile, potentially absurd values with nutrient bonuses or jungle) and shelf first for energy dominates the reverse.

If you mean it is quicker to terraform existing ocean shelves than raise land that is less than 2000 meters to over 3000 meters, I agree. However, your assumptions assume an unlimited supply of ocean shelf that is defended while assuming no 3000+ land squares. I'm not sure those are fair assumptions.

Individual 3000+ land squares are meaningless (though I can't recall ever seeing any, maybe they show up on nonstandard settings) because energy farm efficiency depends a great deal on arrangement. I did my tests starting with the Mesa. I strongly doubt it would be possible to improve on that under ordinary circumstances.

As for the question of defence, it's a whole another issue that I would be happy to hear cogent arguments about, though it's relevant here to point out that it's much cheaper to armor foil chasis trawlers than crawlers, and the advantages of 4 movement.

 

[xchen08]

Interesting debate. Allow me to comment:

1. I play on really large maps (256x256 or larger), so that could affect the strategies.
2. I generally bee-line to Environmental Economics and Bioengineering, and only pick up DocFlex afterward. That means that I can start building land-based energy parks sooner than sea-based ones.
3. How does the need to defend energy parks affect strategy? It seems to me that land-based ones are easier to defend. However, this might be a function of playing on large maps. On smaller maps, it's difficult to defend against air raids.

Yeah, this is the kind of thing that I would really like to hear about. I haven't played in so long that I can't remember a damn thing about optimum tech beelines. Isn't getting sea probes and all those sea Unity Pods a major issue? As for defense, it seems to me that cheap armor and free deep radar for trawlers should make defense against the AI reasonably easy, certainly I found it so, but I would appreciate input as to how that would work against humans. Back when I played multi, my friends and I were all so bad that none of this was an issue.

4. How does running Free Market affect the two strategies? Does the extra one energy/tile favor a land-based park or a sea based one?

It really should benefit sea. I mean, the big advantage of land is that it's 5.3-5.5/tile rather than 4/tile. The benefit is less if it's 6.3-6.5 vs 5.

And one of my earlier thoughts was combining the specialist and trawler tactics, mixing in enough empathi to dope the base into a Golden Age, and run wealth to get that +1 without running FM. Haven't worked out just how the numbers would pan out though.

5. Sorry to nitpick, but a checkerboard pattern of Solar Collectors and Echelon Mirrors may not be the best way to setup a land-based park. Alternating rows of Collectors and Mirrors is slightly better. I can supply specifics upon request.

Hmm, can you? It seems intuitive that every mirror (ideally) boosting 4 collectors is better than each boosting 2, but maybe I'm just tired. Are you talking nonsquare shapes?

6. I have a game going right now where I employed a hybrid strategy: Started off with a land-based park, then switched a to sea-based one when I ran out of room on land. Perhaps the optimal strategy depends on specifics such as map size, proximity of opponents, SE choices and ratio of land to sea.

That seems certain. I seriously doubt anyone is going to come up with an "absolute, trumps all others under all circumstances" strategy so many years in. Do you have ideas on how each of those might affect things? And can you tell us how much of that land energy farm you had up and for how long before Fusion?