Odd strategic resource effect on production speed in livestream

[ringhloth]

And no where did I say that this would allow you to "build" your way out of the war... IF you produce 50% with 0 infrastructure, you would have to spend the resources to build the entire region's infrastructure up 1 to gain a 3.33% bonus per level... That may not even be worth it to the player.

There are two situations. Either it is too weak to have an effect, and it's just pointless complexity that serves to make the game harder to understand for everyone for absolutely no gain, or it's strong enough to have an effect, and it takes away from the trade/strategic seizing of enemy resources part of the game. I don't like either.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

There are two situations. Either it is too weak to have an effect, and it's just pointless complexity that serves to make the game harder to understand for everyone for absolutely no gain, or it's strong enough to have an effect, and it takes away from the trade/strategic seizing of enemy resources part of the game. I don't like either.

No it would be be "strong" only in very select instances where there are large amounts of resources to extract, like extracting Coal from the Wyoming Coal basin (the largest coal basin in the US). You would likely never develop your entire country 100% infrastructure because it simply isn't worth the resources unless you just desperately need that extra 1 or 2 resources you'll get.

Let's say Wyoming, US is 1 region, and has a maximum of 100 Coal production, but has level 0 infrastructure giving it a current production of 50. That is something you probably want to invest in.. which is exactly what Germany and USSR did when they built their infrastructure up. They focused on the cheapest and largest resources to extract.

 

[1alexey]

"Funny" thing about Norilsk - some time ago, they started mining local top soil, because it was so heavily contaminated, that it contained enough metals to make topsoil mining profitable.
Living in Chernobil would be more healthy.

Well, the power station was working till 2003 or something.

IF we modelled the cost of extraction, infrastructure would play a key role in this, as lower levels of infrastructure would only allow mules/trucks instead of trains.

The point still stands that infrastructure makes large scale mining possible as you have to transport tons of stuff from place A to B. Not to mention big part of the reason why german industry stopped was infrastructure destruction.

So yes making it ALL about infra is wrong, but PART of is about it. Specially if Money is indeed removed and Manpower has no role in resource gathering, there is no other way to simulate improvement at local level than building infra. Just abstract it as more infra = more mines as well.

OTher POV: if you have no railroads you can´t extract and transport hundreds of tons of coal, thus having infra 0 and 200 energy is silly. What is transporting all that coal?

When you order a plant construction, you also order the necessary rail or road connections. I did already mentioned a very good example of such, Norilsk. Also, the infrastructure in Siberia is horrible, outside of the rails maintained for resource extraction.
The network required for transporting extracted goods is quite different to one that is required for large scale warfare.

Unless we will actually get the resources moving from location A to location B, having infrastructure influence resource extraction will be silly, as we will see 10 level infra regions in Siberia surrounded by 0 or 1 infrastructure places, because nobody will need to maintain the line up to the place where resources are consumed.

 

[Secret Master]

To be honest, there are a number of factors that play into resource extraction. Many of them are quite complicated. Consider the following examples.

Province A produced 10 units of iron in 1936 and 100 units of iron in 1996.
Province B produced 10 units of iron in 1936 and 100 units of iron in 1996.
Province C produced 00 units of iron in 1936 and 100 units of iron in 1996.
Province D produced 100 units of iron in 1936 and 00 units of iron in 1996.
Province E produced 10 units of iron in 1936 and 10 units of iron in 1996.
Province F produced 10 units of iron in 1936 and 100 units of iron in 1996.

Province A: Province A is in the middle of nowhere and there was insufficient infrastructure in place to allow for increased production in 1936. Some rail lines, roads, and a canal allowed it to increase production.

Province B produced iron of inferior quality until new technologies in iron extraction increased the effective output of the mine.

No one knew province C had iron until after the war was over.

Province D was a prosperous iron mine, but it eventually went dry. While it could technically produce some iron in 1996, no one feels it is worth the cost.

Province E has seen increases in infrastructure and efficiency, but it's also slowly running out of good veins offsetting the production gains.

Province F is in an area that was sparsely populated until well after the game's timeframe; only when it gained population did it also become a hub for iron production after people living in province D moved there to get mining jobs.


These are just the things I could come up with in a few minutes. There are countless other reasons production to change in a province. Infrastructure isn't the only factor at play.

I've played a game that had some of these factors in play, and it's called Vic2.