Arnesson
Warlord
Me too! Frustrating when that happens (although winning those 30% chance battles is kinda cool too).
Choosing the Right Kind of Power Plant
- Thread starter xGBox
- Start date
Me too! Frustrating when that happens (although winning those 30% chance battles is kinda cool too).
dragodon64
Noble
That's a bit like propaganda isn't it?
Don't think this has been answered in this thread yet....
But, is power... power ??
ie: apart from the obvious health debuffs, is one source of power just as good as the other??
It's good to know that you don't suffer the health debuff from coal, once you upgrade to hydro. I often hold off building the plants because I'll get 3GD. The city screen should show some indication of the health effects.... very misleading for nooobies like me
But, is power... power ??
ie: apart from the obvious health debuffs, is one source of power just as good as the other??
It's good to know that you don't suffer the health debuff from coal, once you upgrade to hydro. I often hold off building the plants because I'll get 3GD. The city screen should show some indication of the health effects.... very misleading for nooobies like me
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
yes. the factory just cares whether it has the yellow lightning symbol or not. if it does, it's happy and gives you more production. if it doesn't, it's lazy and doesn't give you as much.
3GD actually has a downside in BtS. it provides power to all cities on the continent, which means that it provides the free bonus 2
that BtS added to power. it gives that even to cities without factories yet, so they're not getting any benefit from the power. even brand new cities you build there after 3GD start out with an extra 2 . it's still worth it on a decent-size continent imo, since you save approximately a zillion hammers and tons of overall. and by that time you have enough resources so those baby cities will be fine until they're grown up enough to make 
buildings if they need to. but it's rather weird that now a world wonder has a bit of a negative attached to it.dragodon64
Noble
Well, new cities (in late game=after many wars of resource capture) have lots of health resources with just a cpuple of . And a granary or harbor could increase that in no time.
. And a granary or harbor could increase that in no time.
TheDS
Regular Riot
Also new to BtS (I think it is, anyway) is that you get unhealthiness from Coal and Oil, so when you build a Coal Plant, you typically get +6 unhealthiness, and if you build the Industrial Park, you get another +4. The Recycling Center will only remove the unhealthiness from the buildings themselves, which for Forge, Factory, and Industrial Park, adds up to -4 unhealthiness. You still get the malus for Power, Coal, and Oil.
This increase in pollution is meant to make Environmentalism a more useful Civic - I never used it before these changes. Envio has a lot of good health bonii, so much so that it was necessary to put in a substantial malus in the form of higher Corp payments.
Nowadays, I tend to get Coal power first, but I'm careful not to spread it everywhere - indeed, I'm hesitant to build them at all. I typically beeline for Plastics so I can build 3GD, and if I'm smart, I'll've built Ironworks in a river city and build 3GD there.
When 3GD isn't an option, Hydro power is best, only giving the +2 unhealth for Power, but there are so few places it can be built.... Why can't it be built in places with rivers on the city screen, not on the city itself? (Levees need this power too; they're difficult enough to justify building them as it is.)
If you have Ironworks in your capital and run Bureaucracy and Organized Religion, and you've got your Forge and Factory running, plus a Coal Plant, that's +275%. If you're Industrious, it's +325%. You should get it built in no time!
True, you can have Coal Plants built in all your cities in the time it takes to get the 3GD built, but your pollution will drop (meaning more people in your cities), and any newly gained cities won't have to waste the hammers on a power plant.
I don't build nuc-plants for two major reasons. First, I tend to get Fission well after Plastics, and second, they're more expensive. In cities that my 3GD doesn't provide power, those cities are generally small enough that the pollution hit doesn't affect them. That nuc-plants might explode plays a minor role in my decision, but just the same, if they're going to explode so violently and pointlessly, then what's the point of even having them?
As was said, there might need to be two different kinds - one that's cheap and failure-prone, another that's expensive and reliable. (But then, no one would ever build the cheap one, so again, why have it?) A better solution is to have a new event. Once you built a nuc-plant, the event triggers, and you're given a choice: spend no money and plants have a chance to meltdown (not explosively - just eliminate the building), or accept a -5 gold cost per plant and they remain perfectly safe. (Considering that one of the Quests give you a reward choice of a whopping +1 gold per harbor, -5 gold per reactor is both doable and relatively expensive. Where to put the -5 on the balance sheet then becomes important. If it's added in like any other income, then Banks and such will make it a bigger drain, but if it's a city expense, then Courthouses will make it smaller and Inflation will make it bigger. I don't think any of these effects should be present, but I don't know if this presents a special difficulty in programming it.
This increase in pollution is meant to make Environmentalism a more useful Civic - I never used it before these changes. Envio has a lot of good health bonii, so much so that it was necessary to put in a substantial malus in the form of higher Corp payments.
Nowadays, I tend to get Coal power first, but I'm careful not to spread it everywhere - indeed, I'm hesitant to build them at all. I typically beeline for Plastics so I can build 3GD, and if I'm smart, I'll've built Ironworks in a river city and build 3GD there.
When 3GD isn't an option, Hydro power is best, only giving the +2 unhealth for Power, but there are so few places it can be built.... Why can't it be built in places with rivers on the city screen, not on the city itself? (Levees need this power too; they're difficult enough to justify building them as it is.)
If you have Ironworks in your capital and run Bureaucracy and Organized Religion, and you've got your Forge and Factory running, plus a Coal Plant, that's +275%. If you're Industrious, it's +325%. You should get it built in no time!
True, you can have Coal Plants built in all your cities in the time it takes to get the 3GD built, but your pollution will drop (meaning more people in your cities), and any newly gained cities won't have to waste the hammers on a power plant.
I don't build nuc-plants for two major reasons. First, I tend to get Fission well after Plastics, and second, they're more expensive. In cities that my 3GD doesn't provide power, those cities are generally small enough that the pollution hit doesn't affect them. That nuc-plants might explode plays a minor role in my decision, but just the same, if they're going to explode so violently and pointlessly, then what's the point of even having them?
As was said, there might need to be two different kinds - one that's cheap and failure-prone, another that's expensive and reliable. (But then, no one would ever build the cheap one, so again, why have it?) A better solution is to have a new event. Once you built a nuc-plant, the event triggers, and you're given a choice: spend no money and plants have a chance to meltdown (not explosively - just eliminate the building), or accept a -5 gold cost per plant and they remain perfectly safe. (Considering that one of the Quests give you a reward choice of a whopping +1 gold per harbor, -5 gold per reactor is both doable and relatively expensive. Where to put the -5 on the balance sheet then becomes important. If it's added in like any other income, then Banks and such will make it a bigger drain, but if it's a city expense, then Courthouses will make it smaller and Inflation will make it bigger. I don't think any of these effects should be present, but I don't know if this presents a special difficulty in programming it.
DrJambo
Crash-test dummy
I use Nuclear plants all the time and have yet to experience a single meltdown. What's the % chance for a meltdown?
King of Town
Adventuring
No one seems to have mentioned the Shale Plant which is toku's underrated UB. +10% production and no unhealthiness. can be built anywhere, a very handy thing.
TheDS
Regular Riot
No unhealthiness? Admitedly, the last (the ONLY) time I played as Japan was with Vanilla, and I'm pretty sure it caused pollution then. I take it BtS changed this? If so, it would make building 3GD almost pointless for Japan, saving a bunch of hammers.
King of Town
Adventuring
it gives the normal you have power pollution, but not the pollution of the coal plant. Yes 3GD is poitnless with them. In vanilla there were no shale plants.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
You should probably thank both a teacher and a vet. Since I doubt that Hitler's Third Riech, if he had been successful in implementing it worldwide, would have allowed you to learn English from a teacher to read this.
Of course, you would probably then be a German reading this in German. And Hitler would be one of the leaders in CivIV.
I am almost a bit surprised he isn't. Stalin made his way into the game...and more people died by his hand than hitler's...
As for nuclear plants melting down, remember that aside from realism, fireaxis had to consider something else: game balance. This is also why nukes don't cut a city pop to 1/4 and make most of its nearby tiles unusable.
If nuclear plants in the game didn't stand a decent chance of meltdown, then why even bother with hydro? Then again, if they melt down too much, then why build them ever? I don't know if the incidence of it is right or not...i almost never build nuclear plants because i need the production ASAP so I go coal and start taking the world...
skallben
Diplomat
Not really. Hitler's death camps had more total casualties. However it seems to be a trend to include Soviet victims to starvation to that deathcount, starvation that would likely have happened with or without Stalin. Stalin was insane and paranoid while Hitler was calculating carefully what he did, not attacking political enemies but attacking ethnical groups. Sorry for the derailing but I strongly dislike when the weight of Hilters crimes are diminished.
Edit: And I am an idiot for Necromancing threads
Need to remind myself to not browse new and old threads simontanlesously.
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
I strongly dislike when people derail threads that I'm otherwise interested in reading. I'm sure you have a doctorate-level degree in history and have published many papers in peer-reviewed historical journals, but even so, can we please keep such opinions to the off-topic forum?
That said: I am curious if there's really a reason to build nuclear power at all the way the game is set up. I mean, all it takes is a Recycling Center to eliminate a lot of pollution worries. I suppose it could be an issue if you don't have coal but DO have uranium....but in that case you've other things to worry about, too.
That said: I am curious if there's really a reason to build nuclear power at all the way the game is set up. I mean, all it takes is a Recycling Center to eliminate a lot of pollution worries. I suppose it could be an issue if you don't have coal but DO have uranium....but in that case you've other things to worry about, too.
skallben
Diplomat
I think the Nuclear Plants are slightly cleaner than Coal, else I'd guess it's what you said, when you got Uranium but no Coal. I still is available more easy than Hyrdro and doesnt require rivers. Personally I build them late in the game in cities that has no other plant and are not eligible for Hydro's or connected to the Hoover Dam.
jkp1187: You are of course correct and I actually agree with you. However Im sure you also recognize the feeling when you feel so extremely strongly about something that you just have to say it. History shouldnt be rewritten in a movie, book or even a message board. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
jkp1187: You are of course correct and I actually agree with you. However Im sure you also recognize the feeling when you feel so extremely strongly about something that you just have to say it. History shouldnt be rewritten in a movie, book or even a message board. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
SpaceCowboy_MA
Chieftain
Sorry if I missed a post that answers this in another thread. I couldn't find an answer to my question and this seemed like the best place to post it... I read through this entire thread (even all the off-topic blech) and still couldn't determine if there is any advantage to nuclear plants?
Civ3 balanced the meltdown chance with increased production, but I can't seem to find any corroborating evidence for this in Civ4. If there is still the meltdown chance but no increase in production over the other available plants, why would anyone use nuclear power?
(I was holding off for 3GD but just missed it without a GE or the coin to rush it in a late tech game. Now I need to build some power plants and have all of them available to me. Trying to decide which way to go...)
Civ3 balanced the meltdown chance with increased production, but I can't seem to find any corroborating evidence for this in Civ4. If there is still the meltdown chance but no increase in production over the other available plants, why would anyone use nuclear power?
(I was holding off for 3GD but just missed it without a GE or the coin to rush it in a late tech game. Now I need to build some power plants and have all of them available to me. Trying to decide which way to go...)
dragodon64
Noble
They don't require you to have coal, thereby preventing massive unhealthiness. Frankly, I don't even connect my coal (no road) if i have oil in my territory for early IA, then when its time for power plants, if i have no uranium, and a significant number of non-riverside production cities, I have to connect it. But if I do have uranium, I go nuclear anywhere I can't go hydro (if I don't get 3GD). But in most games, no I don't build any nuclear plants.
Well this thread was started a long time ago, but generally I'll say this, from best to worst:
Hammerwise: Coal Plants (cheapest), Hydro Plants, Nuclear Plants.
Techwise: Coal Plants, Nuclear Plants, Hydro Plants
Healthwise: Hydro Plants, Nuclear Plants, Coal Plants
Availability: Coal Plants, Nuclear Plants, Hydro Plants. Hydro plants can only be built in riverside cities.
Eventwise: Coal Plants, Hydro Plants, Nuclear Plants. Hydro plants have a random event that sucks:
But that event doesn't suck nearly as much as a nuclear meltdown, which is equivalent to getting nuked. Coal plants are better than the other two, but will accelerate global warming, which will render random tiles useless. This could permanently cause some cities to lose population. Meanwhile, Coal plants have a positive random event:
The health problem of coal plants can be enough to reduce the population of your cities. But if your city has limited growth anyway due to overlap or food shortage, there's no penalty besides climate change.
Personally I will build plants in some cities, especially coal in those that can afford the health hit, but try to get the three gorges dam for most of them unless I'm on an archipelago or something. I definitely be sure to have power in the city that's building the three gorges dam. It's a cost benefit analysis. Will this plant pay for itself before the three gorges dam is built? If so, is it worth not spending these hammers on something else?
