get off my bandwagon plz.

its mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ice/volc colonization is not top priority.

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

The word you're looking for is "proactive"

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

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

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

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

Game 1 - Control

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

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

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

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

Game 2 - Rush Early Trade

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

--ALL FILE LINKS ARE AT BOTTOM--

Observations:

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

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

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[_]-Greyfox

Yeah that reply was wrong one. LOL 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before when I said fast I really meant faster.

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