Is coal too important?

[syndicatedragon]

It seems like you can be at an extreme disadvantage if you do not have coal. For one thing, you can't build railroads. Would it make sense if you could build railroads with oil as well (presumably, coal is the fuel for the trains)? Also, you can't build coal plants, meaning your only source of power is basically nuclear. Since nuclear has that stupid meltdown chance, I never build these. Would it make sense if there was an oil-fired plant you could build?

It just seems to me that coal is a tad too important. In the early game, if you don't get iron, you generally can get the "also-ran" copper. But there's no substitute for coal in the late game. It doesn't make sense that I can build a spaceship but still not railroads.

Anyway I'm just bitter because my latest game was going great until I discovered I didn't have coal, and now I don't even really have the prospects of getting it. I was wondering if anyone else thought that maybe coal was just a bit unbalanced.

 

[Gen.Rommel]

Lack of coal many times is devastating, but it still isnt as crippling as not having other crucial resources, mainly oil, and somewhat aluminum, assuming modern age. Ive had many instances where coal has prevented me from running my empire the way i want, but the easiest solution, other than waiting and praying for one of your mines to discover coal, would be simply to go to war, and conquer whoever has been hogging your coal.

 

[Sisiutil]

The AI is almost always willing to trade a resource for the right price. You should be able to get coal from a civ that's "Pleased" or "Friendly" with you, usually in exchange for two resources. That's assuming you want to stay peaceful.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

It's a good point, as in especially on huge maps, a complete railroad is absolutely essential for defensive (and offensive) communication between cities, not to mention the production bonuses.

In game terms, it's a little strange too, as all thats essential to actually build the rails is steel (or iron even). I suppose it assumes you need coal to power the trains, but steam power was actually known to the ancient greeks (possibly a long time before). Trains obviously now don't use coal anymore (in the vast majority that is), and even steam powered trains can and did run on other fuels, all that's necessary is the heat required to make the steam.

For a game that likes to give "alternative reality tech paths", e.g. no flight but space travel through rocketry, again it's a little strange to insist on an earth type industrial revolution through coal and the railroad.

My own personal preference would be as long as you have iron, you can build a rail network, but without coal, you don't get the production bonuses, and obviously can't build coal plants.

 

[the oob]

There should be a late game tech which makes coal obsolete (so it's like having 'free coal'). That is to say, this function should be added to an existing tech, rather than making a new tech for it.

 

[KMadCandy]

i had two or three games in a row where i had no coal at all in my lands. i got REALLLLLLLLLLLLY frustrated. the next few games i had hubby open up worldbuilder just to check that there was some, somewhere in the vicinity, not all on the other continent. now things have been better and i'm back to playing normally. *knock on wood*

 

[Vladesch]

To build railroad should require either coal, oil or researched electricity.

 

[vsipinen]

To build railroad should require either coal, oil or researched electricity.

I think that it is ok that railroads require coal first, but after suitable technology (perhaps combustion) is researched, oil should also be sufficient for railroads - and as suggested after electricity is researched neither coal nor oil should be necessary. However perhaps iron should be also always required to build railroads.

I think it could be even better, if only iron would be required to build the railroad, but you would not get any benefit from it unless you have necessary resource and/or technology.

 

[ferenginar]

I don't think that coal is such a killer as Iron, horses, oil, or aluminium.

 

[kristopherb]

I always have coal.

 

[ollj]

Coal is your equatoreal bonus for chopping jungle.

Railroads dont need coal just for running the trains but also for producing steel.
Eralier steel production needed a lot more coal, about 5 times as much for the same amount of iron ore, than later steel production due to better energy efficiency technology.

 

[syndicatedragon]

I like the idea of coal becoming obsolete. It would make it more like iron and copper are currently; after a certain point, you don't need them any more to make good units. I'm not sure where that should happen, though; clearly there should be some advantage for a civ to have it versus not having it.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

As was stated, coal is the primary source of coke, which is the other stuff you need to make steel. Without steel, don't even think about mass producing railroads.

I like the idea of coal becoming obsolete, too. In real life, as it stands now, they haven't actually reached that point just yet. There really is no substitute for coal.

They have been seriously studying cokeless ironmaking for a long time now, so they should be getting close to not needing coal for steelmaking. They have been studying the economic feasibility of the experimental "cokeless ironmaking" methods that were developed in the mid nineties, so it is only a matter of time. They have made progress in needing less coke for most of the processes, but so far, eliminating it completely is way too expensive.

edit - I actually looked into the "cokeless ironmaking" process and it turns out they are trying to find ways to replace high quality coke with regular coal to reduce cost. Darn, it looks like we aren't out of the woods just yet. Coal will still be a required part of high-quality ironmaking and steelmaking processes for the forseeable future. At least it's not required for fueling the railroad cars itself.

 

[Rusty Edge]

As was stated, coal is the primary source of coke, which is the other stuff you need to make steel. Without steel, don't even think about mass producing railroads.

I like the idea of coal becoming obsolete, too. In real life, as it stands now, they haven't actually reached that point just yet. There really is no substitute for coal.

They have been seriously studying cokeless ironmaking for a long time now, so they should be getting close to not needing coal for steelmaking. They have been studying the economic feasibility of the experimental "cokeless ironmaking" methods that were developed in the mid nineties, so it is only a matter of time. They have made progress in needing less coke for most of the processes, but so far, eliminating it completely is way too expensive.

edit - I actually looked into the "cokeless ironmaking" process and it turns out they are trying to find ways to replace high quality coke with regular coal to reduce cost. Darn, it looks like we aren't out of the woods just yet. Coal will still be a required part of high-quality ironmaking and steelmaking processes for the forseeable future. At least it's not required for fueling the railroad cars itself.

I think iron was made with charcoal in colonial times, before they found & developed sources of coal.

I don't really know what point I was trying to make with that comment, I just found the thread to be interesting & wanted to bump it up.

Where there's a will there's a way? That there is no economically viable alternative?


No coal is tough, but I think I'd agree that no iron or no horses or no oil can be a worse problem.

 

[Mutineer]

It is matter of scale. How many treess you need to produce enogth steell to build RR?
Mass railroads become posible only after Besmeir process was discovired, retting to produce good steel from coal in mass amounts.
What ever you say, you will not make XXXXMil ton of char coal currently used
by steel industry. I do not know exec number, but my aprohimaiton would be about 500Mil ton Coal.

 

[vsipinen]

Railroads dont need coal just for running the trains but also for producing steel.
Eralier steel production needed a lot more coal, about 5 times as much for the same amount of iron ore, than later steel production due to better energy efficiency technology.

Perhaps coal should be required for railroads, but so should iron. It is strange that iron becomes quite obsolete in the later stages of the game. I think that it would be better, if you would need it for example to build railroads.

Also it should be necessary to have suitable resoruces (coal or oil) or technology (electricity) in order to get any benefits from the railroads. It would then not be enough to acquire the resources just for the time to build the railroad.

 

[bonafide11]

Perhaps coal should be required for railroads, but so should iron. It is strange that iron becomes quite obsolete in the later stages of the game. I think that it would be better, if you would need it for example to build railroads.

Also it should be necessary to have suitable resoruces (coal or oil) or technology (electricity) in order to get any benefits from the railroads. It would then not be enough to acquire the resources just for the time to build the railroad.

Yeah, I never understood why Iron becomes so worthless in the later game. It's still a significant resource...

 

[majk-iii]

Even in the later part of the game, iron is still giving an extra 50% production to the IW-city, and isn't it the resource that provides prod.-bonus towards building the eiffel-tower? ...And neccesary to build frigates, ironclads etc?
Still, it's not much, but the late-game shouldn't be about having ancient resources... but rather about securing new ones... right?

 

[Rusty Edge]

It is matter of scale. How many treess you need to produce enogth steell to build RR?
Mass railroads become posible only after Besmeir process was discovired, retting to produce good steel from coal in mass amounts.
What ever you say, you will not make XXXXMil ton of char coal currently used
by steel industry. I do not know exec number, but my aprohimaiton would be about 500Mil ton Coal.

I'm not trying to argue. I'm suggesting a way around coal should there be a desire to do so. Coal is a commodity & therefore fungible.

I don't think charcoal is economically viable or practical
...

Unless maybe you're clearing a continent of old growth forest to make farmland anyway, & haven't discovered many uses for steel besides hardware , tools & weapons.



Personally, I think that in this game it's a resource distribution issue rather than a rule problem.

While I like the idea that not every continent has every resource, I think that each continent should lack only one strategic resource. I don't think stone should be scarcer than gold, either.

I think it's perfectly fine to be forced to kick or kiss some butt to get something you need in this game, but not multiple resources. It's an interesting challenge on occasion, but as a regular occurrence, it feels more like work than play.

 

[Quagga]

Coal being needed for railroads makes sense to me.

What does not make sense is that there is no option to burn oil (or natural gas) for power. If you don't have coal, aren't by a river, and can't/don't-want-to build nuke plants, then you can't power your factories. There should be a petro-fueled power plant.