Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Powerplants.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Not positive but I suspect the non-military facilities like Power plants do not use "staff" in the same way that the military ones do (Barracks, Fabrication plants, sea piers, etc.). The Personnel will be employed from you citizens I suspect so unless you want to keep unemployment higher (which one may in fact want to do) I wouldn't guess the personnel is that much of a consideration.

I haven't played the game much and certainly haven't done the maths, which I tend to think would be very context-dependent for the simple reason that: not all regions are equally positioned to acquire the resources needed to construct and run all the power plants. These kinds of 'opportunity costs' would be difficult to quanitify I'd say.

The rule of thumb I follow is: long-term try to fill out all hydro slots that are available. Yes they are expensive to build (about 10x petrol power for example) but as far as I can see neither petrol or hydro 'cost' maintenance in SRCW (thought they did in SR2020). After you have a hydro built that is basically free permanent electricity, so if you can afford to initiate the building of one I say 'why not?'

I would say the same thing about most of the other 'resource free' ones: once you can build them, if you have the fiscal/industrial goods ability to get building why not? If I could get all of my hydro slots filled I'd happily deactivate all the petros or coals or nukes that I could.

If you have no hydro hexes but you do have coal then go for coal; if you have no coal then go for petro; if no petro then I guess the question of 'which one is best' really boils down to either (a) which non-resource type can you get to fastest in terms of techs or (b) which resource commodity is likely for your region to acquire cheaply in the long-run? The answer to that (b) might seem to be a simple economic question about market fluctuations in coal, oil, uranium . . . But if you are in a position to quickly conquer a neighbor who has tons of uranium then I'd say it is once again, more of a strategic costs analysis and not a simple economic one.
 
Anthropoid said:
Not positive but I suspect the non-military facilities like Power plants do not use "staff" in the same way that the military ones do (Barracks, Fabrication plants, sea piers, etc.). The Personnel will be employed from you citizens I suspect so unless you want to keep unemployment higher (which one may in fact want to do) I wouldn't guess the personnel is that much of a consideration.

I haven't played the game much and certainly haven't done the maths, which I tend to think would be very context-dependent for the simple reason that: not all regions are equally positioned to acquire the resources needed to construct and run all the power plants. These kinds of 'opportunity costs' would be difficult to quanitify I'd say.

The rule of thumb I follow is: long-term try to fill out all hydro slots that are available. Yes they are expensive to build (about 10x petrol power for example) but as far as I can see neither petrol or hydro 'cost' maintenance in SRCW (thought they did in SR2020). After you have a hydro built that is basically free permanent electricity, so if you can afford to initiate the building of one I say 'why not?'

I would say the same thing about most of the other 'resource free' ones: once you can build them, if you have the fiscal/industrial goods ability to get building why not? If I could get all of my hydro slots filled I'd happily deactivate all the petros or coals or nukes that I could.

If you have no hydro hexes but you do have coal then go for coal; if you have no coal then go for petro; if no petro then I guess the question of 'which one is best' really boils down to either (a) which non-resource type can you get to fastest in terms of techs or (b) which resource commodity is likely for your region to acquire cheaply in the long-run? The answer to that (b) might seem to be a simple economic question about market fluctuations in coal, oil, uranium . . . But if you are in a position to quickly conquer a neighbor who has tons of uranium then I'd say it is once again, more of a strategic costs analysis and not a simple economic one.
Click to expand...
Well, i have a tendency to run nations at full employment basically all the time(1.5-2% unemployment). Even war devastated regions like west Germany get to full employment in a few years(usually at full employment by 51), and hadn`t if fell down to 2
for all the game.
Then in 70s i ran out of hexes to construct in w. Germany. So i feel like space consideration and labour requirement are very importaint, in fact often more important than the cost, since you usually can afford almost anything with 50+ million nations.

Also I`m conserned about coal overall requirement of labour. It would be great if coal is cheap and plentifull to import, but i usually hit the cap of how much i can import, and i`m still conserned that nuclear power can provide more bang per labour required.

After all, it`s cool to be a benevolet ruller trying to maximist the life standart as much as possible, as long as economy is sustainable.
 
I'm jealous that you've had the persistence to play through to the 1970s. My curse with gaming is: I 'figure it out' (or think I have) and get bored and move on to the next game (aka. "Major Gaming Slut" ;) )

Yeah, running out of land to build on . . . that is yet another factor that a simple mathematic analysis of build/running/output ratios would never address.

You probably already knew it but: there is a downside (supposedly) to having low unemployment (which is exacerbated by high inflation). Supposedly labor costs go up the closer you get to full employment so in the long-term, deactivating (or even scrapping) facilities that you really do not need is (supposedly) a wise choice.

Also I`m conserned about coal overall requirement of labour. It would be great if coal is cheap and plentifull to import, but i usually hit the cap of how much i can import, and i`m still conserned that nuclear power can provide more bang per labour required.
Click to expand...

Sounds like, as in real life, diversifying is the way to go. A power grid based on a limited number of schemes is likely to be an unsound power grid!
 
Anthropoid said:
Supposedly labor costs go up
Click to expand...
WEll that is kind of a point.

The other one is emigration. Having 120+millions of population and higher GDP/c then quatar is kinda fun.

The third point is to always be a net importer of industrial goods and keep their price quite high, to deny other countries development.

So i want to get the most labour intencive powerplants, to get as many workplaces.
 
About nuclear energy, I am going to research the tech. I don't really know, what happens if a Nimitz Class sinks, in the ocean. No Admiral will say, his ship is not indestructible. HHas it been researched, what a leak in a power plant which is nuclear, can do to marine flora and fauna?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back