Fission Reactor Upgrade (Project)

[Malakai]

Effect:  Increases the efficiency of all nuclear reactions. Nuclear power plants use 1.9 tons (0.16/turn) of uranium per 1,000 infrastructure and can power up to 3,000 infrastructure. Operational costs are $10,800 a day ($900/turn).    

Cost:  Cash: $85M, Steel: 45k, Aluminum: 30k, Uranium: 12k, Iron: 10k

 

[BelgiumFury]

I have no idea if it is the right balance, but the idea is interesting.

[Solomon Ben-David]

Some ideas:

-Maybe call it Fisson Efficiency or Fusion Reactors? Nuclear power plants are by definition using fission, so it's kinda confusing.

For something like you're proposing, the cost sounds ok because of the Uranium project's cost. However, I would replace the iron with Gasoline instead to more or less reflect this and decrease the resource cost to maybe like 15k for each resource. (Uranium Enrichment Program costs $21m, 1k alum, 1k gas, and 500 uranium w/o Tech Advancement). This would probably aim more so toward larger nations, so I'd agree with moving it to 3k infra and the uranium's operational cost increase looks to be okay and consistent, but I wouldn't increase the monetary cost because no other project does that

If you want fusion reactors, I think it would be a better idea to ask for that as a new power improvement rather than a project.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

Call it Fusion and make building them more expensive too, like doubled cost, but slashes uranium usage by like 85%. Because every test fusion reactor out there only needs one jolt to get it going and then it powers its own reaction ad infinitum.

So I guess maybe make them cost uranium to build? 🤔

And then have nothing but monetary upkeep.

[lightside]

Your numbers are way off. A project for increaseing efficiently should lower uranium usage NOT increase it lol. 

6 hours ago, Akuryo said:

Call it Fusion and make building them more expensive too, like doubled cost, but slashes uranium usage by like 85%. Because every test fusion reactor out there only needs one jolt to get it going and then it powers its own reaction ad infinitum.

So I guess maybe make them cost uranium to build? 🤔

And then have nothing but monetary upkeep.

We cant call it fusion. Fusion doesn't use uranium lol. Also completely removing uranium upkeep would mess with the economy too much I think. I like idea of reducing usage but increasing upfront cost. A 30% reduction should be good.

Edited October 2, 2020 by lightside

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

25 minutes ago, lightside said:

Your numbers are way off. A project for increaseing efficiently should lower uranium usage NOT increase it lol. 

We cant call it fusion. Fusion doesn't use uranium lol. Also completely removing uranium upkeep would mess with the economy too much I think. I like idea of reducing usage but increasing upfront cost. A 30% reduction should be good.

Well nobody said it was entirely realistic! Plus it's be an expensive project and 3000 infra is basically for whales so it shouldn't hurt that much. Make it cost uranium to build the project too!

[Malakai]

OK. So the project is meant to modify the current output of a nuclear reactor (which is based on fission). All fusion reactors to date have not been able to have an output greater than the electrical input to run them and I want to stay as close to authentic as possible. I think it might be better to note that I used the word efficiency loosely. Perhaps I should have use capacity, which is why there is an increase in uranium usage, because the project upgrades their shielding, foundation, and ultimately their output capacity. Alliances are having their members purchase nuclear at the earliest possible convenience, making this a far reaching application, not limited to whales as it frees up slots and makes it possible to run a high infra city on one power plant. Maybe it would be better to balance the infra it would support by reducing it to 2800?

Below is the updated version, including the description and costs.
 

Quote

Project Name: Upgraded Fission Reactor or Advanced Nuclear Power Generation
Description: Upgraded Fission Reactors is a national project that increases productivity of Nuclear Power Plants. Upgraded power plants use 1.9 tons (0.16/turn) of uranium per 1,000 infrastructure to power up to 3,000 infrastructure. Operational costs remain $10,500 a day ($875/turn).

Costs: 

Cash $120M, Steel 45K, Aluminum 45K, Uranium 15K, Gasoline 10k, Iron 5K

What does everyone think?

Edited October 3, 2020 by Optima

[Shiho Nishizumi]

It's a waste of cash for whoever gets it, and a waste of dev time for Alex and the rest due to the (near) 0 usage it'd see.

[Malakai]

48 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

It's a waste of cash for whoever gets it, and a waste of dev time for Alex and the rest due to the (near) 0 usage it'd see.

I think you are failing to accurately take into account what you could put into the slots, not slot. You could easily use these slots for a basic resource gathering, refining, or a revenue booster, and they would net well over the $20k you've assigned to them. Your rate of return estimates might as well be based on empty slots. Additionally, this would enable all nations (top to bottom) to streamline their future development.

Every ruler can look at their nation and do Cities*(1) = Newly Freed improvement slots and from there the possibilities are vast.

Edited October 3, 2020 by Optima

[Shiho Nishizumi]

1 hour ago, Optima said:

I think you are failing to accurately take into account what you could put into the slots, not slot. You could easily use these slots for a basic resource gathering, refining, or a revenue booster, and they would net well over the $20k you've assigned to them. Your rate of return estimates might as well be based on empty slots. Additionally, this would enable all nations (top to bottom) to streamline their future development.

Every ruler can look at their nation and do Cities (1) = Newly Freed improvement slots and from there the possibilities are vast.

That's actually fair (I felt that something was off, but couldn't quite place my finger on it after having double checked most cells). But even after doing such, you're getting a ROI of over a year and a half. A project like Telecom (which is aimed at roughly the same audience) had a ROI of third of that. And Telecom is already considered to be a very long term project.

If you want to be generous and do 30k/slot instead, that'd be roughly 16 months before you get your money back.

There's also the issue that if a nation is doing over 3000 infra, then the project is useless because that'd require two power plants anyways, neutering the benefit from the extra slot. And if you wanted to run two NPP's in such an instance, then the project is actually losing you cash since it's using up more uranium. If you lower it to 2800 infra instead, then higher than 2800 the same issue would persist, albeit a bit sooner. Perhaps disproportionately sooner because 3k as a top for infra is fairly common for whales.

You're overstating the value this project would have for smaller people. For it's cost they could just get a new city (or several new cities) and get more improvements as a whole from them, alongside the benefit of more military. This is before we even consider the fact that it'd need them to go above 2k infra for the benefit to be relevant in the first place. Alternatively, they could get A/UP and recoup that investment far more quickly than with this project.

Basically, this project would be of most use for people who are large enough to where they can't just buy another city (or have that money contribute greatly towards their next) or set of projects, but also don't go above 3k infra ( and going above 3k isn't exactly uncommon for whales). 

Edited October 3, 2020 by Shiho Nishizumi

[Malakai]

2 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

That's actually fair (I felt that something was off, but couldn't quite place my finger on it after having double checked most cells). But even after doing such, you're getting a ROI of over a year and a half. A project like Telecom (which is aimed at roughly the same audience) had a ROI of third of that. And Telecom is already considered to be a very long term project.

If you want to be generous and do 30k/slot instead, that'd be roughly 16 months before you get your money back.

There's also the issue that if a nation is doing over 3000 infra, then the project is useless because that'd require two power plants anyways, neutering the benefit from the extra slot. And if you wanted to run two NPP's in such an instance, then the project is actually losing you cash since it's using up more uranium. If you lower it to 2800 infra instead, then higher than 2800 the same issue would persist, albeit a bit sooner. Perhaps disproportionately sooner because 3k as a top for infra is fairly common for whales.

You're overstating the value this project would have for smaller people. For it's cost they could just get a new city (or several new cities) and get more improvements as a whole from them, alongside the benefit of more military. This is before we even consider the fact that it'd need them to go above 2k infra for the benefit to be relevant in the first place. Alternatively, they could get A/UP and recoup that investment far more quickly than with this project.

Basically, this project would be of most use for people who are large enough to where they can't just buy another city (or have that money contribute greatly towards their next) or set of projects, but also don't go above 3k infra ( and going above 3k isn't exactly uncommon for whales). 

I can agree with some of that, my question is "How would you rebalance the costs to make it worth it?" Cut the cash, steel, and aluminum by a third?

Edited October 3, 2020 by Optima

[Shiho Nishizumi]

Cost slashing is a way to make it more appealing, even if it's a bit of the boring alternative.

I'd probably try to encourage getting it by having it do something unique. The idea of ura cost upfront and no upkeep is such an aspect (even though yes, long term demand would be lower and it'd have an impact on uranium's value), since it means that you don't have to about restocking uranium to remain powered. This is a fairly minor convenience factor for peacetime, though it does mean that you can't go unpowered in a war setting where you're blockaded (so long you're not being bill locked that is). Obviously ignoring native uranium production, which may either not be a possibility for the person, or simply isn't economically worthwhile to do so.

Tweaking the max infra it could power would also address the problem of needing two NPP's anyways if you go above 3k infra, which is a worthwhile consideration for the target audience.

[Malakai]

36 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Tweaking the max infra it could power would also address the problem of needing two NPP's anyways if you go above 3k infra, which is a worthwhile consideration for the target audience.

I've never seen anyone above 3k infra, mostly due to the infra costs during rebuild. Do you see this as a means to encourage builds beyond 3K?

 

36 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

I'd probably try to encourage getting it by having it do something unique. The idea of ura cost upfront and no upkeep is such an aspect (even though yes, long term demand would be lower and it'd have an impact on uranium's value), since it means that you don't have to about restocking uranium to remain powered. This is a fairly minor convenience factor for peacetime, though it does mean that you can't go unpowered in a war setting where you're blockaded (so long you're not being bill locked that is). Obviously ignoring native uranium production, which may either not be a possibility for the person, or simply isn't economically worthwhile to do so.

So are you suggesting doubling (maybe even tripling) the uranium cost (making it 30k-45k total) and removing the 1.9 uranium per 1k infra upkeep requirement? I can't see removing the $10,500 as viable, however, I could see a reduction, perhaps dropping it to $6,500 a day instead. Its not the greatest savings, but it would be something.  Personally, it would drop my daily liabilities by a sizeable chunk.

Edited October 3, 2020 by Optima

[Shiho Nishizumi]

22 minutes ago, Optima said:

I've never seen anyone above 3k infra, mostly due to the infra costs during rebuild. Do you see this as a means to encourage builds beyond 3K?

Not so much to encourage it, but rather to avoid having a project which is directly detrimental in such a case.

23 minutes ago, Optima said:

So are you suggesting doubling (maybe even tripling) the uranium cost (making it 30k-45k total) and removing the 1.9 uranium per 1k infra upkeep requirement? I can't see removing the $10,500 as viable, however, I could see a reduction, perhaps dropping it to $6,500 a day instead. Its not the greatest savings, but it would be something.  Personally, it would drop my daily liabilities by a sizeable chunk.

More of what Akuryo had suggested. Yes, perhaps not fully realistic/authentic, but such aren't something I'm hugely bothered about considering some of the stuff you see in game (such as being able to repopulate/rebuild overnight).

[lightside]

Numbers are still way off. Once again a project to increase efficiency shouldnt increase your cost lol. Your overestateing the increase to 3000 infra. Most people who have a lot of infra would end up building 2 nuclear plants anyway even if they get this project as having an extra one let's you avoid having to rebuild infra if you loss it. Also with as it now anyone with more more then 3k infra who builds this project would actively be losing money from building it. Considering the project cost is directed at whales instead of the mid tier that fact alone will cause this project to never be built. A better number would be .9 per 1000 infra. That way it's always useful regardless of your infra level. Also the project cost should be reduced.

Edited October 3, 2020 by lightside

[Malakai]

5 hours ago, lightside said:

Numbers are still way off. Once again a project to increase efficiency shouldnt increase your cost lol.

Read the other comments. I explained that I was after an increase of energy output, thus the expansion of being able to cover 3,000 infra instead of 2,000 and the increased uranium costs.

Your overestateing the increase to 3000 infra. Most people who have a lot of infra would end up building 2 nuclear plants anyway even if they get this project as having an extra one let's you avoid having to rebuild infra if you loss it.

This logic only applies during a time of war. A mid level nation that is part of an alliance during peace time would likely only be affected by cockroaches like Arrgh and they are easy enough to squash. I've talked to nations ranging from 10 cities and up and most of them are very eager to see if this project can be streamlined and added to the server for testing because they want it.

Considering the project cost is directed at whales instead of the mid tier that fact alone will cause this project to never be built.

I'm already working on balancing it. I always over estimate the cost to allow for the natural back and forth. The attached image is my current costs analysis based on back and forth in this topic.