With all the new information recently, I was wondering what will happen in the age of electrical power in the end game. Power has been part of the Civ series for some time now so I anticipate it will remain in some form. Currently in Civ4 one resource of Uranium or Coal means that with a power plant any city can have power. Not only is this unrealistic, it is also strategically shallow and I think that by making Uranium and Coal strategic resources with respect to power then one could see them being an important aspect of the end game. For example one coal resource could power 5 cities with power stations, uranium 10, etc. Is there any current information that could support or detract from this idea or is it still an unknown?
Strategic Resources and Power Generation
- Thread starter TCB
- Start date
Ahriman
Tyrant
Still unknown. Certainly with limited strategic resources buildings *could* require coal, oil or uranium resources, meaning that more for power means less for military units.
That certainly seems possible. I'd be a little worried though about too many restrictions coming in to play. Coal and uranium will most likely already limit military units, so do they make a separate category for building requirements?
Ahriman
Tyrant
How many military units would require coal? Just some ships.
There wouldn't be a need for a separate "category"; they'd consume the same resources 1:1. You can have 1 tank *or* 1 oil power plant. 1 nuclear submarine *or* 1 nuclear power plant.
I can easily see a factory that gives +25% hammers, +25% hammers with power.
Coal power plant provides power, consumes 1 coal resource
etc. for oil and uranium.
Gives incentives for modern resourceless plants too.
I can see a bit of a problem though if tanks and aircraft and mech inf and naval units require oil. How common would oil have to be to get a decent army?
Still, I really hope that oil restrictions are such that a ww2 army still has to be mostly infantry. With a moderate oil supply, you could have a decent tank army *or* a decent navy, but not both.
There wouldn't be a need for a separate "category"; they'd consume the same resources 1:1. You can have 1 tank *or* 1 oil power plant. 1 nuclear submarine *or* 1 nuclear power plant.
I can easily see a factory that gives +25% hammers, +25% hammers with power.
Coal power plant provides power, consumes 1 coal resource
etc. for oil and uranium.
Gives incentives for modern resourceless plants too.
I can see a bit of a problem though if tanks and aircraft and mech inf and naval units require oil. How common would oil have to be to get a decent army?
Still, I really hope that oil restrictions are such that a ww2 army still has to be mostly infantry. With a moderate oil supply, you could have a decent tank army *or* a decent navy, but not both.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
It depends on how big a "decent army" is.
MM concerns indicate it should be small.. ie # of Units in civ 5 is like # of Stacks in Civ 4.
Another possibility with Power Plants if 1 Oil:1 powered city is too much oil needed...
1 Power plant can power multiple cities... ie provides power to all cities in a radius of 8 or 10
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
What about, like Rise of Mankind does, factories that produce aluminium or oil or whatever? They could be national wonders. Or you could have a choice like 'do I build an Aluminium Factory or an Oil Factory in this city'. If you decide to build an Oil Factory there, you can't have an Aluminium Factory, and the oil will only be for that city. Say it produces enough oil for 5 tanks, then you can build 5 tanks, but only in the city the Oil Factory is in. Or perhaps Workers can improve Oil Wells (and such) to generate additional oil (and such) at the cost of tile value, thus less hammers or food or gold but more oil.
I love the factory/refinery aspect of RoM, combined with 1 resource = X units it would be even better.
A small civ could be in trouble because of this though: few (but large and influential) cities => lower amount of cities to build such buildings => less powerful military. Could be potentially improved by trading though (5 refined oil for my rare resource of spices).
"Growing" tile improvements like Civ4's cottages would be cool too. Mine -> Shaft Mine -> Strip Mine; each time one or 2 more resource/tile. Same for Oil Well probably, being able to reach greater depts as tech and expertise progresses.
A small civ could be in trouble because of this though: few (but large and influential) cities => lower amount of cities to build such buildings => less powerful military. Could be potentially improved by trading though (5 refined oil for my rare resource of spices).
"Growing" tile improvements like Civ4's cottages would be cool too. Mine -> Shaft Mine -> Strip Mine; each time one or 2 more resource/tile. Same for Oil Well probably, being able to reach greater depts as tech and expertise progresses.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I think resource yield increases from tech are a far better mechanic than resource yield increases from improvement growth; more accurate, and less vulnerable to death-by-pillage.
On the other hand, resource improvements from tech can also be handled just by eventually making resources unnecessary for more advanced units; iron might be required for medieval units, but not for modern era units (even when those units need iron IRL). If there was a saltpeter resource, it might be needed for arquebuses, not not for muskets or rifles.
On the other hand, resource improvements from tech can also be handled just by eventually making resources unnecessary for more advanced units; iron might be required for medieval units, but not for modern era units (even when those units need iron IRL). If there was a saltpeter resource, it might be needed for arquebuses, not not for muskets or rifles.
thelibra
Future World Dictator
"On the other hand, resource improvements from tech can also be handled just by eventually making resources unnecessary for more advanced units; iron might be required for medieval units, but not for modern era units (even when those units need iron IRL). If there was a saltpeter resource, it might be needed for arquebuses, not not for muskets or rifles."
I disagree with this to an extent. Rather, I would say that more modern units of a type require -less- of a particular resource because they make more efficient use of that resource.
Hence, 1 iron might be able to support 1 plate-mail knight unit, but could conceivably support 2 cavary because less iron is wasted in the process and the iron that is use is put to far more effective use. The same 1 unit of iron could later support 3 advanced tank units because of, once again, the reduction of waste, the increase in efficiency, and the addition of synthetic materials like plastics and alloys.
I disagree with this to an extent. Rather, I would say that more modern units of a type require -less- of a particular resource because they make more efficient use of that resource.
Hence, 1 iron might be able to support 1 plate-mail knight unit, but could conceivably support 2 cavary because less iron is wasted in the process and the iron that is use is put to far more effective use. The same 1 unit of iron could later support 3 advanced tank units because of, once again, the reduction of waste, the increase in efficiency, and the addition of synthetic materials like plastics and alloys.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
Yeah, so if you have no iron, it's game over because you can't build any unit besides Warriors...
Ahriman
Tyrant
Units requiring fractional amounts of a resource would be incredibly confusing. It would be far easier to increase the resource yields, or to eliminate the resource requirements for more advanced units.
I'm sure that archer type units won't require any resources, neither will most infantry. Most cavalry (other than *maybe* knights) probably won't require any resource except horses.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
Hence, 1 iron might be able to support 1 plate-mail knight unit, but could conceivably support 2 cavary because less iron is wasted in the process and the iron that is use is put to far more effective use. The same 1 unit of iron could later support 3 advanced tank units because of, once again, the reduction of waste, the increase in efficiency, and the addition of synthetic materials like plastics and alloys.
Yes, that was a quote withotu quote tags. So, he says that Cavalry, Tanks, and probably Infantry and Rifleman and Musketman and whatever besides Warriors and Archers and Longbowmans and wooden ships and perhaps something else (yeah...) should require iron.
I sure hope they won't.
Yes, that was a quote withotu quote tags. So, he says that Cavalry, Tanks, and probably Infantry and Rifleman and Musketman and whatever besides Warriors and Archers and Longbowmans and wooden ships and perhaps something else (yeah...) should require iron.
I sure hope they won't.
thelibra
Future World Dictator
From a reality point of view, yes, if your civilization doesn't have access to iron, it should be game over. The Industrial Revolution would have been impossible without iron, as would modern building techniques, materials, etc.
It is therefore quite fortunate that iron is the single most common element on Earth, with incredibly widespread distribution across the crust. Honestly, iron shouldn't even be a "strategic element" because you would be hard pressed to find a single civilization that didn't have access to it in large quantities.
IMHO, iron should be removed from the list of strategic resources because it should just be assumed that enough of it exists in an area the size of a country to supply one's needs. The reason most countries don't forge their own steel products isn't for lack of iron, it's because it requires a specialized labor force, the factories are expensive, the profit-margin is quite low (because the metal is so common and the temperatures required are so high), and as a result, you need a large labor pool of people willing to work long hours in uncomfortable and dangerous conditions for crap pay.
It is therefore quite fortunate that iron is the single most common element on Earth, with incredibly widespread distribution across the crust. Honestly, iron shouldn't even be a "strategic element" because you would be hard pressed to find a single civilization that didn't have access to it in large quantities.
IMHO, iron should be removed from the list of strategic resources because it should just be assumed that enough of it exists in an area the size of a country to supply one's needs. The reason most countries don't forge their own steel products isn't for lack of iron, it's because it requires a specialized labor force, the factories are expensive, the profit-margin is quite low (because the metal is so common and the temperatures required are so high), and as a result, you need a large labor pool of people willing to work long hours in uncomfortable and dangerous conditions for crap pay.
Hail
Satan's minion
Egypt and Mongols experienced iron shortages in their civs' life spans. in Egypt's case it was pretty severe
as to power/electricity/energy generation i think it would be a lot more interesting if it was a separate tile yield like food and hammers. obviously without power power-requiring buildings should produce nothing
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
My thinking exactly (both points).
Ahriman
Tyrant
I don't think this makes sense.
a) Wouldn't apply for most of the game (electricity is a 19th century invention)
b) Power plants are mostly near (or in) cities, not out in the hinterlands. And even if they are out in the hinterland (near a coal mine, or a high value area for hydro or Wind or whatever) then the transmission grid is still designed so that they're serving the city.
And they don't take up a lot of space; its not like you couldn't have a coal plant and a farm on the same tile.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
It Make sense for Certain Power Plants
Wind, Solar, Hydro...
There could be an improvement that allows a Windmill/SolarPlant/Hydroplant on a tile to only produce 'Power' instead of production/Food/gold
I could see power being Treated like a 'Resource' for those purposes. (as a city should require Multiple Hexes of Solar/Wind Power to support an industry.)
Coal/Oil/Uranium Plants would be able to turn those Strategic resources into Local Power Resources
1 Coal/Oil/Uranium=20 "Power" resources.
Perhaps a Factory gives you 1 Hammer for Every Power Resource you have in the city, instead of a % Bonus
Ahriman
Tyrant
This sounds unnecessarily complicated. If you really wanted a power-plant improvement that boosted industry, just make it produce hammers directly.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well, but it would require a Factory.
That would be the idea... Power plants are Included in Factories
so
Factory= +25% production... can consune 1 Coal/Oil resource
+20 production and +20 'pollution/unhealth' if using a Coal/Oil Resource
+1 production for "Solar Panels", Windmills (tech increases to +3)
+3 production for "Watermills" (tech increases to +5)
Nuclear Plant: upgrade from factory..
+25% production can consume 1 Coal/Oil/Uranium Resource
+20 production and +20 'pollution/unhealth' if using a Coal/Oil Resource
+20 production if using a Uranium resource
+1 production for "Solar Panels", Windmills (tech increases to +3)
+3 production for "Watermills" (tech increases to +5)
Similar threads
