1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Wind/Nuclear/Solar/Hydro Plant ideas

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by wobuffet, Apr 22, 2019.

  1. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,002
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    re the new power strategic resource, it solves a few problems:
    • XCOMs are incredibly spammable and annoying
    • Any late-game production building has only a few dozen turns to pay for itself, so it has to do something else too in order to be worth it.
    It's not a new mechanic, really, because it's just a strategic resource that is supplied by a building, and we have tons of those already
     
  2. a1nosugar

    a1nosugar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    41
    excluding solar and tidal, I think that there should be a chance of consequences for building a plant, possibly best dealt with by events.

    A hydro dam should generate more benefit that most other options but may lead to flooding/drought elsewhere. Like real dams do

    Nuclear plants...well, no risks there. /s

    Coal plants, should cause global warming, preferably globally cumulative.

    Wind, should damage food or gpp to reflect their ecological damage.
     
  3. FaarmAnimal

    FaarmAnimal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2019
    Messages:
    67
    That's because the balance is wrong.

    The late game units should be so expensive (and powerful) that you should have to build plants to get them.

    The exponential for production should be increased hugely, so that building late game units without plants is infeasible.

    Otherwise the guy who says remove them is right, and the debate should stop now.
     
  4. Bhawb

    Bhawb Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    500
    Or you can do a variety of other things because game design isn't that simplistic.
     
  5. FaarmAnimal

    FaarmAnimal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2019
    Messages:
    67
    That's nice, Bwawb.

    I'm not sure what you point is, but I'm always interested to hear more about game design.
     
  6. Bromar1

    Bromar1 King

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    811
    How do terrain restrictions increase player choice? I think they do the opposite. On turn 25 when you are settling your first new city, are you really thinking "I'll settle off of freshwater so that in 350 turns I can build a wind plant for the Great Scientist boost because I want to pursue a science victory"? There is no real choice if you are locked in to one plant type thousands of years before you can build it.
     
    vyyt, Bhawb and Rekk like this.
  7. Bhawb

    Bhawb Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    500
    The issue is when you stack these plants they can sometimes trivialize late game production. This doesn't happen in every city, or even every game, but your answer is to either up production costs of all late game buildings and units, to prevent a single specific abuse case, or remove the buildings entirely. It is very obvious why that is an overly simplistic view. Multiple people have pointed this out and given other solutions, but you still present this black or white "more production or remove, ez" as though that's the only possible answer.

    The issue is not production costs of late game units and buildings. Those are basically fine already. The issue is how we properly balance late game production buildings. If you spend 1000 production to build a production building, and it produces 25 production, it will take exactly 40 turns before it pays for itself, and then it needs enough turns afterwards to make up for the economic cost of not having built something else in that time. This is generally true for anything you'd produce late-game, but doubly true for any resource you spend to make more of itself. So for plants to be meaningful, they have to be powerful, but when you stack two huge powerful production bonuses you end up with cities with over 1k production (my capital last game), and those trivialize late game production costs to the point that my civ was beating other civs in world congress projects with just my capital.

    But the answer isn't just to delete production buildings, these are incredibly iconic buildings to modern humanity. The question is how we properly balance their production costs and their benefits.
     
    crdvis16 likes this.
  8. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,002
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    I completely disagree with you, just like G did, because that would invalidate previous era buildings. The balance between buildings of all eras and tiles simply does not ramp up like you are proposing. It can't. It won't. Move on.
     
  9. Bromar1

    Bromar1 King

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    811
    We should settle on one core functionality for the plants. So far, -2 urbanization as a common boost seems good. I think phantomax is onto something as well:
    Late game units are already balanced around that +50% :c5production: , and it's a fairly easy bonus to get. If we make it universal, there will be minimal impact to balance.

    Also, I think there are ways to diversify the plants without bloating the number of actual buildings.

    What if we moved the various proposed boosts to social policies and tenets instead of more buildings?

    Some examples,

    Power plants receive +33% GP production to all GP that you can normally buy with faith (and not TTGoG).
    Tradition Civ -> +33% Great Engineers,
    Progress Civ -> +33% Great Writers,
    ...

    Add power plants to existing Industry policy for +2% :c5production:/:c5gold:

    Statecraft finisher: power plants produce +1:c5war: power for every 8 CS alliances.
     
  10. FaarmAnimal

    FaarmAnimal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2019
    Messages:
    67
    Of course the balance can be adjusted. What a silly argument.
     
  11. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,825
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Hold off on the strategic resource idea - no-EUI VP already has a premium on top bar space, let's not go crazy.

    G
     
  12. Rekk

    Rekk Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,048
    Add gas and coal plants (consume oil and coal respectively), are available earliest and produce unhappiness, have no terrain restriction (coal comes before gas and produces the most unhappiness and least power).

    Hydro plants and solar plants are terrain dependent, consume aluminum. Reduce specialist unhappiness. Don't boost terrain.

    Wind plants produce yields based on unforested terrain, no terrain requirement to build, costs aluminum, reduces specialist unhappiness.

    Nuclear plants give the largest boost, but cost uranium.

    Probably DOA, because this scheme relies on trashing coal/gas plants in order to build better ones later on if desirable and I don't know if that's a feasible mechanic.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2019
  13. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,157
    If we go with the core 4, I like the idea that the terrain held plants don't require resources.

    Nuclear/Wind - Strategic Resource
    Solar/Hydro (require specific terrain) - No strategic resource
     
    wobuffet likes this.
  14. Bhawb

    Bhawb Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    500
    I don't particularly think we need a new resource either, especially for such a late game application and to solve very specific issues (XCOM are busted and annoying). I'm pretty sure just fixing XCOM in some way (unit limit, require Aluminum/Uranium, weaken their stats, drop distance, etc.) would be fine, no other unit that late in the game is as busted and annoying. I think opening up to 5 plants, to allow for 4 tiles (grass/plain/tundra, desert, river, coast/ocean) plus a terrain neutral, then what we can add besides production, is good enough as far as plants go.
     
  15. Enginseer

    Enginseer Salientia of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Messages:
    3,217
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in California
    I have a better idea(that I will just make into a modmod either way). We introduce the power grid system. All 4 plants require the Electric Power building which is only supplied by a national wonder: Power Grid constructed in the Capital first. The Power Grid provides an Electric Power building in all cities. If an enemy captures a city with an Electric Power with no Power Grid in their Capital, then they can build plants, but they still need the power grid(the power grid comes before these plants become available anyway).

    Electric Power: 2 Specialists do not contribute to Urbanization Unhappiness. Receive +1 Production from the Power Grid. Receive % Production Bonus from Nuclear/Wind/Hydro/Solar Plants.

    Now here's the fun part, these four plants are still mutually exclusive, but can now contribute to a national power grid. So you don't get penalized for not building the right plant, you get rewarded for trying to power your nation instead.

    So if you have 4 cities that have nuclear plants built, they can provide +16% Production to every city.

    I figured why don't we just make a strategic resource icon and have it hover over all the strategic resources to save space. I think that would fix a majority of the problem. I don't think anyone actually hover the resource to check which city has unimproved resources.
     
  16. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,825
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    We can but we have to edit three versions of the top panel and any modmods that alter it.
     
  17. Enginseer

    Enginseer Salientia of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Messages:
    3,217
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in California
    havent heard of a modmod that alters toppanel and it wouldn't conflict since we're just merging resource icons into one.
     
  18. doublex55

    doublex55 Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2016
    Messages:
    475
    Ok so after all this you still didn’t fix the problem. The 4 plants need to have interesting bonuses that differentiate them.
     
  19. Enginseer

    Enginseer Salientia of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Messages:
    3,217
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in California
    Well I didn't expand it after mid-interrupted by a new post.

    It was essentially that solar panels get super strong in desert where it actively and passively gains production from desert tile.

    Wind Panels get powerful from Mountains and Hills.

    Nuclear Plant is naturally powerful with nearby uranium near the city making it potentially stronger.

    and of course Hydro Plant seems strong already as if you have a lot of rivers, most of your tiles can benefit a lot.
     
  20. wobuffet

    wobuffet Barbarian

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,223
    How about a 2x2 design?

    Build costs vs Building maintenance

    Wind & Solar: :c5production:Expensive to build, but :c5gold:no maintenance and/or :c5gold:discount to Building maintenance (because wind & sunlight = free fuel).
    Hydro & Nuclear: :c5production:Cheaper to build, but relatively :c5gold:expensive to maintain.

    Resource requirements vs Geo-locks
    Solar & Hydro: No strategic resource requirement, but geo-locked to Desert / River (with some corresponding tile bonuses).
    Wind & Nuclear: Require Aluminum / Uranium, but no geo-locks.
     

Share This Page