Specifically Require 40 or 80 Wind Turbines for End Game

[Bazookar]

Request one of the following:

• Require a specific number of wind turbines for end game goal; or
• Reduce Wind Turbine recipe costs

Currently, the players have a choice of building Solar Generators or Wind Turbines for the end game goal. The two recipes have a significant cost difference, with wind turbines being much more expensive (the added costs). The cost for setting up water pipes for solar generators is only a fraction of the added cost because the generators can share one single water source.

As a result, players tend to and are inclined to pick the path of least resistance - solar generators. In the past two cycles, the generators built are: 160 solar generators, and 118 solar generators + 42 wind turbines respectively. When players, or maybe just me, suggest wind turbines over solar generators, these suggestions face significant opposition. It is understandable that players want to pick the easier recipe because no one can say for certain that WT end game goals would be complete. In my personal gameplay, every cycle feels impossible to complete and every cycle there are people who say "this is not possible". This would inevitably drive players towards building only solar generators.

The added cost is not insignificant, but bearable because most of the end game requirements are currently in the laser recipes. For reference, solar generators cost roughly 2700 euro and turbines cost 3500.

This suggestion is made because I have had to fight an uphill battle to attempt a wind turbine power plant, and it's not very fun to have to fight against the game recipe and arguably a governor's constitutional duty towards fulfilling the end game goal (i.e. governors should have chosen the cheaper version to ensure goal completion), to see something nicer than a square plot of solar generators built.

[DanielKispert]

disagreeing on the "square of wind turbines is nicer than a square of solar gens" but if the state can build their powerplant at the water the solar gens are really the better solution. I wouldn't lower the wind turbine recipe cost as they're intended to be the expensive but can place anywhere tool.

[Bazookar]

But what about my main suggestion? Is there an issue with requiring turbines for the end game? It's just a matter of where the resources go if difficulty is a concern. Water is so easily accessible I can't imagine the turbine ever being used. If that is intended, I am asking for a change.

The rationale for the request is: promote a variety of items used.

My firm belief that this requirement is not harsh comes from the latest successful cycle where there are 200+ solar generators in the world. If you would recall, a citizen with over 35 generators.

The quote "square of wind turbines is nicer than a square of solar gens" is a matter of opinion, and I'm advocating for people, and myself, who thinks that way. Clearly, most other people don't care. Also, I didn't build a square plot of turbines because I didn't think it's realistic.

If you don't wish to lower the cost of wind turbines, I can understand why. That's merely an alternative option to my main request as stated in the title.

[DanielKispert]

if you figure out an equitable way to decide which two states to tell that they drew the short ends of the stick and have to build wind turbines now, sure. That's how it originally was intended, 2 wind turbine plants and 2 solar gen plants.

Further thoughts: wind turbines are not really placed in a "powerplant" or "square" fashion anyway so having it all be solar gens is kinda fitting. Maybe the path ahead is requiring the states to provide X kw of renewable power each to the global power network. Or we just balance it with the laser power requirements and have this implicit, but the motivation of all of this was that the states were crying for more things to do without having to make their own goals.

[Bazookar]

I left out part of my suggestion because I prefer one thing at a time. My next request is to ensure that turbine power plants have over 25% bonus. For turbines, they need to be pretty high up (I've checked, I think height 125 gives 22%). Naturally, a state with mountains would take on turbines (path of least resistance) - this is a natural selector. If 25% for turbines is too hard, it can be less while keeping in mind that the city is generally 70-75 high.

My thoughts: 25% wind turbines, 50% solar generators.

I think a kW measurement would overwhelmingly favour solar generators. I have not tested, but I heard it's easy to get 50% bonus on solar generators (aka 1500 kW).

Costs: Similar to IRL, some states tend to have more costs on certain things based on nature and location. If your state is icy, snow plowing cost, the heating cost goes up. They should get funding based on needs (equitable eligibility).

I would note that regardless of natural selector, or (in absence of bonus power requirement) the senate agreeing that X state builds turbine, it comes down to Senate solving the "give more money to states who need to build turbines". This would be an interesting political addition to the game.

States that were decided to get turbines should be eligible for additional funding to cover the cost difference. I note that there's no requirement to equitably budget. In the end, I think it can be a problem for the senates to solve. If the Senate really fail to solve a simple problem of "give more money to states that can most easily take on wind turbines to cover the difference", I think it's fair that such a government suffers from retaliation from the particular state not wanting to build the turbines and ultimately fails WT end game goal.