To clarify, energy-free means running at 0 energy most of the time.
2.2.4 and 2.2.5 beta have made energy-free strategies more attractive. Critical energy shortage penalty doesn't apply to the mining stations and larger quantities of space minerals make the penalty rather minimal in the early game. -50% from jobs really means close to 30-40% less minerals from jobs due to it being an additive modifier and most of minerals are coming from the stations in the early game anyway. Not needing to spend minerals on energy stations (or districts) frees up minerals for other needs and not having any technicians frees up pops to do something more productive.
The downside of the strategy is that something has to be sold to raise energy for one-time costs (leaders, curator/artisan deals etc...), but you're still saving on all the energy upkeep you are not paying. This also makes larger number of starbases and bigger fleet much more affordable.
I am starting to lean towards running energy-free for longer and longer. At first -75% to your military might sounds scary, but even while at war it only matters when there are battles and for those periods of time one can sell something to raise the energy and get rid of the penalty for a few months. And then your fleet power suddenly jumps up and AI is probably regretting attacking you in the first place. If one feels particularly gamey one can sell 100 food every month (instead of buying large amount of energy) to get rid of the critical energy storage penalty. Curiously, this might make pacifists builds more attractive.
I find that the biggest drawback of these strategies is that you can't rival anyone early (on GAns) because your power is pathetic due to the fleet penalties.
When do you usually transition to a regular economy with the adequate power production and what are the reasons behind choosing the optimal switchover point? Has anyone tried to play complete game energy-free?
Thematically, this does seem strange to me. How is everything running without energy?
2.2.4 and 2.2.5 beta have made energy-free strategies more attractive. Critical energy shortage penalty doesn't apply to the mining stations and larger quantities of space minerals make the penalty rather minimal in the early game. -50% from jobs really means close to 30-40% less minerals from jobs due to it being an additive modifier and most of minerals are coming from the stations in the early game anyway. Not needing to spend minerals on energy stations (or districts) frees up minerals for other needs and not having any technicians frees up pops to do something more productive.
The downside of the strategy is that something has to be sold to raise energy for one-time costs (leaders, curator/artisan deals etc...), but you're still saving on all the energy upkeep you are not paying. This also makes larger number of starbases and bigger fleet much more affordable.
I am starting to lean towards running energy-free for longer and longer. At first -75% to your military might sounds scary, but even while at war it only matters when there are battles and for those periods of time one can sell something to raise the energy and get rid of the penalty for a few months. And then your fleet power suddenly jumps up and AI is probably regretting attacking you in the first place. If one feels particularly gamey one can sell 100 food every month (instead of buying large amount of energy) to get rid of the critical energy storage penalty. Curiously, this might make pacifists builds more attractive.
I find that the biggest drawback of these strategies is that you can't rival anyone early (on GAns) because your power is pathetic due to the fleet penalties.
When do you usually transition to a regular economy with the adequate power production and what are the reasons behind choosing the optimal switchover point? Has anyone tried to play complete game energy-free?
Thematically, this does seem strange to me. How is everything running without energy?
