Introduce coal into the game

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Introduce coal into the game

      The idea itself is pretty simple, introduce a new resource into the game. Coal.

      Why? First of all it has always seemd a bit strange to me that we have all these industrial complexes around that just run on thin air. The industrial complex is also a building that can be upgraded onto level 5 and have it give a huge benefit without it really costing that many resources. Giving the industrial complex a coal upkeep that increases with levels would be a lot more challenging. So what is the point here? It should be more challenging to produce your units very fast.

      Introducing a resource like coal could mean that it is more benificiary 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. But this will cost them. So the upkeep for the industrial complex should not be all that steep. The initial upkeep would be somewhat bigger than the additional cost. So upgrading IC would be more convenient than having a lot of level 1 industrial complexes. The point is that it should benefit smaller countries more than bigger ones. Then again, bigger countries will likely have enough coal anyway.

      Railway station suggestion
      Also, a previous suggestion that I made about introducing a railway station that allows units to be put into trains for faster traveling will be linked to introducing coal. Using the railways stations should also cost coal. They should have an upkeep of coal that is.

      So yeah that. Coal was a very important resource in the second world war. Could make the game even more interesting according to me.

      What does the community think?
    • 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.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • 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!
      General Nightman
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • 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).
    • 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.
      No I mean that smaller countries would be better of by producing all their units in level 5 IC and that their production cost in coal would be lower in comparison to a player that would use double the amount of IC on level 1. Meaning that the coal increase with every level of IC becomes less steep. For example: level 1 IC would cost 100 coal to run all day while level 5 IC will cost 175. The point is that upgrading your IC is better for your coal use than simply having a lot of IC. This would disadvantage bigger countries with plenty of IC around.
    • 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
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • 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.
      The main thing about having IC cost resources to produce for me is that it adds strategy. There is no need to link coal with morale. Food already does that. My idea is to link coal to production. In the game there is hardly any way to defeat an enemy player by taking away his resources. Yet we do have units that focus on destroying buildings (strategic bomber). I'd like to see unit versus economy warfare as a more viable, common and rewarding strategy.

      - 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 :thumbsup:
    • 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.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • 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.
      General Nightman
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • 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.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • 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?
      How to turn CoW into a dead game that no one plays in a few simple steps!
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
    • 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?
      Have to agree, the game has enough resources as it is.
      General Nightman
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • 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.
      Now this is an ad absurdum. Take my suggestion to add 1 resource to mean 'owh why not add these other 5 as well'.
      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.
      Then produce commandos and rockets. They extremely cheap, if you can afford the oil.

      Edepedable wrote:

      Adding train transports and having them cost coal would also add reality and might mean choices between training or transporting.
      I like the idea of coal in trains. I just think it's a bad idea for the Industrial Complex's. If you can't produce units; your dead in the water.
      General Nightman
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • 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..

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :whistling: