Energy

[Aussie_Lurker]

When Civ3 was still in its development phase, a lot of the same kinds of ideas were floating around the forums as are currently doing the rounds now! One of these ideas was ENERGY! I'll see if I can remember how it went.

1) You had energy resources, like coal, oil and uranium-each with an 'Energy Value'. In addition, certain terrain types-like deserts, rivers and hills-had an energy value as well (perhaps represented by a lightning bolt?!)

2) Energy Improvements had an 'energy multiplier' which multiplied the energy value of their required resource to give you X 'Energy Points'. For instance, a coal plant might have a multiplier of x4, a nuclear plant might have a multiplier of x6, wheras a wind farm or Solar plant might have a multiplier of x1 (of course, the latter types of improvements might just give a fixed no. of 'Energy Points'?!)

3) These points were then used to power improvements that required them-on a '1 for 1 basis'. For instance, you have a city with 8 power requiring improvements, and your city produces 6 energy points. This means that you can only power 6 of these improvements-leaving another 2 unpowered.

4) This system could be made more complex by having certain improvements need multiple energy points-and industrial/modern age cities might automatically require 1 EP just to keep it functioning.

5) Lastly, like shields and food, it should be possible to 'trade' energy points within your internal and external trade network. Though a bit of an abstraction, you could put EP's into your national pool, then allocate them to cities that need them!

Anyway, I think that was how it worked. As I said, this WAS someone elses idea, but I was just wondering what people thought of it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Vizurok]

I really like it!
Only one question: What does unpowered imrovement mean exactly? It doesnt work at all or it works on half power etc.

 

[akhicks]

I guess it really depends on the city improvement. A library without power is not a travesty but a factory could be much harder hit.

I suggest a rating for each of the improvements. Those that require electricity to function, and those that benefit if energy is provided to them.

 

[pirke]

I like it, but I think it should also be government specific. Cities in a democracy use more energy then communism or anarchy.

 

[Shyrramar]

This system could be made more complex

More complex? I was expecting less, but hey, it's your suggestion (based on someone elses idea, though). I think it only adds more to the micromanagement, complexity and annoyance-levels without really adding anything to the game. I think that energy is implemented in the infrastructure, and rightly so.

 

[pirke]

You could have workers build energy nets from city to city, so if 1 city has a powerplant and the other doesn't, they can both benefit from that powerplant if it produces enough. Another improvement fun to bombard!

 

[Shyrramar]

Another improvement fun to bombard!

Yeah, and another improvement for workers to build all over the place. Well I'll leave you to it - I am against the idea as it is now. But I guess nobody really had any doubts about that!

 

[pirke]

You can combine it with roads and railroads. Normal road doesn't have electricity available, improved road does and railroad has it already. You can upgrade from road to improved road to railroad, or from road immediatly to railroad if you want.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh, sorry Shyrramar, once again I did NOT explain myself correctly.
Pirke pretty much hit the nail on the head. If your city is connected by a RR, then you can recieve excess energy points from other cities.
Also, only sensible improvements, like factories, mfg plants and other late-industrial, modern improvements/wonders would need energy.
Also, such improvements would automatically be powered when built IF sufficient energy exists. Otherwise, your domestic advisor will pop up and tell you that improvement X is unpowered (or X number of Y improvements if my multiple improvement idea was used !)
Anyway, hope that helps.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[perryrutherford]

@pirke what do you mean communist governments require less energy than democracy? I don't think so. Energy is energy. If democracies have historically used more energy it's because they have used more. Don't forget that China is a communist state that is using more and more energy, much more a function of population multiplied by standard of living than political science.

Now as far as it being an abstraction; not really. Coal, oil, natural gas (all associated with each other) can be burned to generate electricity which can be transmited regionally. The amount requried to run something is typically billed by "kWh" or killo-watt-hours. Solar, wind and hydro will perpetually generate a limited amount of kWh per turn per infractructure improvement (you shouldn't be able to build solar plants too far from the equator!!!) while coal, oil and natural gas can generate any ammount per turn because you can allways build more infrastructure to utilize these resources. However, they will all eventually be used up -- or at least to the point where it takes more kWh to extract it than will be rendered by burning it.

SMAC had it right when it called energy currency; countries that invest in nuclear power, solar wind and hydro, save money by not having to buy 'bareled' oil to use as energy.

At the advance "Electronics" comercial improvements should consume energy to function. the orange market in Tangiers would do fine if there was a blackout, but my Walmart Supercenter would be less fortunate if we lost our reactor.

The advance "Superconductor" should make your energy economy hum. A new advance is required; "Hydrogen Economy" (this is what the Americans are researching now that Fusion Power got deleted from the Tech Tree) presumably in CivIV it would allow you to build oil units w/o the oil resource.

Civ is all about rates and growth, and the lost child, viz., RoN got it down very well in the rates category but I think most Civers are in it because it's turnbased rather than reflex based RTS.

I don't think we need "Energy" a a concept because it does one of two things: increases production (like it does now) and increases money (like it SHOULD in CivIV) .

-kpr

 

[dh_epic]

I DO think we need an energy concept because it's a huge part of international relations. People trade for energy, some nations become huge providers of energy sources to nations who have less, nations hoard energy, and nations fight wars over energy.

That's something you can't yet say, because when you industrialize you only really need one source of coal to build an entire network of rails, increase the standard of living, and become a productivity powerhouse. Obviously if you had a supply of coal that was converted into energy, along with other sources like hyrdo or even solar, you would have to manage your energy.

This would make such so-called strategic resources more "strategic".

 

[searcheagle]

I agree- Skip the Energy concept. The additional is Proably included the cost to build the city improvement. It makes the game more complex without adding anything (I think)

 

[GeZe]

I like this idea.

 

[socralynnek]

I'm not rally sure about this idea, it would do the modern age good, they need to make it more interesting (and longer...)
If they do a nice user-interface, I'm in favor of this idea!

 

[dh_epic]

Either energy should be an issue, or there needs to be more complexity in resource needs and management. More measurable.

I'd like to be able to choose a strategy between "acquire more oil" and "reduce dependency on oil" ... instead of the seemingly infinite (or immeasurable supply) now.

Or, conversely, choose a strategy between "hit their biggest producing cities" or "hit their oil supply". As of now, you have to take out EVERY oil supply, generally speaking.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: We need a better formula for the disappearance of resources.
As it currently stands, and as DH_Epic has pointed out, there is no real link between resource use and resource depletion.
IMHO, the larger your empire, the more strained your resources should be and, therefore, the more likely said resources should be to disappear.
Also, any improvements that which, realistically, require a resource on an ongoing basis (like coal for power plants) should also impact on resource disappearance rates!
This should be even more the case for oil, as you not only have the domestic use of oil, but also its value in running tanks and other mechanised units!
Perhaps the number of functioning, oil-requiring units you currently have in operation should put additional strain on your oil resources.
Of course, this latter suggestion would work even better if the CtPII idea of 'troop readiness' were included-as units on 'Low Readiness' would be considered to be using less oil and, therefore, contribute less to the chance of oil disappearing!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

I agree. With 2 oil sources within your border it is practicaly impossible to run out of this resource. Can you imagine WWII with unlimited oil for the Wermacht ?(i dont dare to)....