Introduce coal into the game

This is an interesting idea, coal could be used as a required resource to power many of the common buildings, some would need more than others. The main ones would definitely be the industrial complexes because those are required to build almost any unit. On top of that, coal should be required to upkeep infrastructure, but at a much lower cost (this would still keep people from spamming infrastructure everywhere and potentially be the point to hurt the bigger players). Preferably coal would be overly abundant in your core and the non-cores would be even further reduced compared to most resources to weaken the large players' economies, but that doesn't seem likely.

Regarding your railway idea, I'm not a fan, I'd rather keep the current speeds as they are.

Not sure I like the idea of a new resource; there are plenty as it is. But it wouldn't be bad.

On the idea of a railway station to load slower moving troops on trains to take them to the front; I love it. This would be perfect for moving the anti-units and infantry. It probably would have the same load/unload time as convoys.

Great Idea!

I am all for the coal idea - or anything that makes IC having some cost, after their creation.

On the railroad now, I would put some "embark/disembark" time, but shorter than for the ships. On the other hand, I would like it to require Infra Lvl1 in all the provinces the railroad crosses, which would also open the possibility of sabotage across the line (as happened too often in WWII).

Great thoughts, but IMO we should just give Rare Materials that function. Make more provinces produce it, and force us to waste it aswell on some upkeeps.

Coal would certainly introduce another set of scenarios, and allow for a more variable strategy game play. During WW2 coal was frequently used, third Reich industrialists made synthetic oil from coal , yes it was used on core infrastructure.

Edepedable wrote:

Introducing a resource like coal could mean that it is more beneficiary to produce a lot of units in 1 place (like the core) while other bigger countries might want to produce more units all over the place.

Make a coal plant? Is this what you are suggesting? Also that the nuclear factory should in my opinion generate uranium rather than costs, however, to balance out these alternatives would mean further constitutionality of COW industry, and so why not just make an alternative COW 1942 scenario, or a new version.

Also that the market should be limited to neighboring countries, in WW2 this was the case and means gaming history is more accurately depicted.

Thanks for the responses everyone.

bigboss_ironfist wrote:

Make a coal plant? Is this what you are suggesting? Also that the nuclear factory should in my opinion generate uranium rather than costs, however, to balance out these alternatives would mean further constitutionality of COW industry, and so why not just make an alternative COW 1942 scenario, or a new version.

Also that the market should be limited to neighboring countries, in WW2 this was the case and means gaming history is more accurately depicted.

Glad to reply.

I still can't agree with adding coal as a consumption for Industrial Complex. It's the essential building block for all your units, I can't see them being dependent on coal. Morale would be very tricky on that part.

But the coal+railway idea? Pure genius.

General Nightman wrote:

Glad to reply.

I still can't agree with adding coal as a consumption for Industrial Complex. It's the essential building block for all your units, I can't see them being dependent on coal. Morale would be very tricky on that part.

But the coal+railway idea? Pure genius.

- No food, well troops already trained remain unharmed.

- No oil, well the naval base stops working and you can no longer build new oil requiring units. Everything that already had the motor running will still drive, fly or sail around.

-no goods, metal, rares or money? Well nothing happens really.

Introduce coal and require IC to use coal to function and you get this.

- No coal, no production of new troops.

While this is an odd scenario since of course with some provinces giving coal it would just mean that you can not produce at every IC instead of produce nothing at all. But it would add some new and cool ways to attack enemies. Provinces now useless would become important because they have coal. Also, level 5 IC producing the same as 2 level 1 IC but costing less coal to run than 2 IC would be advantageous to smaller nations. In my opinion that is a very cool way to keep things more even throughout a game.

Combined with the train idea it would mean that even big countries would likely still use their core with high level IC for production throughout the game and then use train transports. It could open up a world of new strategies.

New things introducing coal could do:

- hamper enemy economy would become a more viable strategy

- combined with the train transports it could make hampering transports a cool new way to fight enemies

- logistics/transport of troops would be a bigger part of the game

- small countries can play vital roles in the market if they happen to produce coal.

- could open up the possibility of a new type of map. A tyrant map. This is where 1 experienced player playing a big country fights multiple newer players with small countries. They would have to work together in order to win. Taking the coal provinces could help them do it. More so than taking food or oil.

So yeah that. I see lots of ways in which these would be awesome.

Thanks for the support on the train idea

I am slowly being won over to the idea of coal.

I am won already.

Just imagine the next step: Synthetic Oil industries that consume (lots of) coal to produce (small quantities of) oil. How realistic!

I think the coal would make the game much too complicated and mess with the basic dynamics of the game. It seems like and ad absurdum attempt to make the game hyperrealistic when the mechanics are realistic enough to be historical but also playable. Also, a railway station is what infrastructure is: infrastructure is supposed to be a more general representation of all the various rails and roads you can build.

Would coal have to be produced in every country at equal rates, or will they vary like other resources?

Ex) Germany has 2 coal provinces creating 6,000 coal while France has only 1 that creates 5,000 coal

Ex 2) Germany has 2 coal provinces creating 6,000 coal while France has only 1 that creates 6,000 coal

Ex 3) Every nation has the same number of coal-producing provinces and each province produces the same amount of coal.

All countries have variations in resources, some have more than others.

There would be no point to conquering someone if it wasn't for the resources and land.

If the role of "coal" is to be able to produce units at all (while existing stuff is unaffected), it is just the same as food (for infantry) and fuel (for all mobile stuff) already are.

Strategic movement (including railroads) is a much-desired feature, but is is unrelated to coal as long as it doesn't exist.

From a historical viewpoint, yes coal was the prime fuel for industry, but I don't recall any industry shutting down because of shortages, simply because coal reserves were SO overwhelmingly abundant in all major powers.

While we're at it, why don't we introduce phosphates (needed for ammo, especially artillery, bombers and battleships), cotton (for uniforms), rubber (tires for non-tracked transport), and silk (to produce parachutes) as well?

I mean, adding a resource in a simulation game requires a broad and strong usage, which is distinct to all the resources already present. The case for coal (industry and railroads) isn't strong enough.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

While we're at it, why don't we introduce phosphates (needed for ammo, especially artillery, bombers and battleships), cotton (for uniforms), rubber (tires for non-tracked transport), and silk (to produce parachutes) as well?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

While we're at it, why don't we introduce phosphates (needed for ammo, especially artillery, bombers and battleships), cotton (for uniforms), rubber (tires for non-tracked transport), and silk (to produce parachutes) as well?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

While we're at it, why don't we introduce phosphates (needed for ammo, especially artillery, bombers and battleships), cotton (for uniforms), rubber (tires for non-tracked transport), and silk (to produce parachutes) as well?

I mean, adding a resource in a simulation game requires a broad and strong usage, which is distinct to all the resources already present. The case for coal (industry and railroads) isn't strong enough.

Some reasons for adding coal would be:

1) producing units does not require anything, this benefits large countries. Having production cost resources would make things somewhat more equal for smaller nations

2) adding strategy

3) historical accuracy.

As for saying that it makes the game to complex. I disagree. You want to build a building and you need resources. You build units then you need industry and thus run a building and thus need coal. Does not seem that complex to me at all.

Adding train transports and having them cost coal would also add reality and might mean choices between training or transporting. Having train transport cost coal is a choice made because of hostorical reasons and to have mobility not cost oil but sometimes coal if chosen to. Which is a new strategical layer that would be added to the game. It would also mean that countries without oil, could transport slower infantry branch type units at the cost of coal instead if oil. Choices and strategy would be added.

I think that makes the case strong enough. Whether or not you do can be argued of course. But honestly, some resources in the game have a more limited presence already. Like rares, which are a neglectable resource if you do not mass produce rockets and/or commandos.

Edepedable wrote:

Like rares, which are a neglectable resource if you do not mass produce rockets and/or commandos.

Edepedable wrote:

Adding train transports and having them cost coal would also add reality and might mean choices between training or transporting.

well..

..instead of coal, why not adding medications as a rare and not-long-storable "resource"?..

..needed for epidemics like dysentery, cholera, typhus, pox, malaria, etc..

..especially when units stay longer in lower percentage of state they are endangered of coincidental illnesses occured by an X-factor..

..in addition medical supply logistics could brought in..

..and if no timely medical supply takes place, the unit dies..

just so everyone is aware, we already have railways in cow. level 3 infrastructure is railroads, and level 2 and 3 infrastructure increase movement rates.