Cantr II Discussion Forum

This idea is under discussion in RD, I just thought I would throw it out to the public as it is a fairly noticeable change to the way vehicles are built.


Engines will be split into a few parts that can be manufactured anywhere and then assembled inside the vehicle.

Engine A = engine block + ignition system + pumps and belts
Engine B = engin block + ignition system + fuel injectors + pumps and belts

The motorcycle engine will look like Engine A.


The materials will stay the same, there will likely be a few new tools (mostly some currently cheap but unused ones) added to the process, and the total assembly times will be trimmed down from the current ones by a day or so.


Advantages:
It lends itself to specialization. We could actually have engine factories if the players wanted to.

Parts could be manufactured on site where the resources are located and then distributed, rather than simply hauling resources off to the assmebly site.

It adds another level of realism at decreased net labor to the character.

Disadvantages:
You have to initiate four projects instead of one.



The big question is: What other reasons are people going to come up with to despise this? If it isn't going to completely destroy the game, then I don't want to add it.

I love this idea. And it makes way for other engine options as well, such as:
Engine B parts + Supercharger makes Engine C, with increased speed but also increased fuel consumption...

More tedious work... but more variety and possibilities... such a hard call. >.<

And blah to fuel consumption.

Really like this one.

Yeah going to be lots of fun. (serious, no sarcasm)

What's the fuel going to be?

Yeah, I like the engine part idea






PLEASE GOOD GOD DON'T IMPLEMENT FUELS!

deadboy wrote:PLEASE GOOD GOD DON'T IMPLEMENT FUELS!

You're forgetting... if we need fuel, then we can get motor vehicles for cheaper... Despite the evil facade, RD really does like a touch of balance to things... maybe


But anyway, I like the seperation into pieces... and if we get that many seperate motor funtions, then it could maybe be switched out of the "manufacturing" skill...

Go for it.

I'm not sure it would lead to compnent parts being made, and then distributed, as the way people play Cantr tends not to lead to that sort of common-sense thinking, but it will make vehicles at least seem just a bit more realistic...

formerly known as hf wrote:the way people play Cantr tends not to lead to that sort of common-sense thinking

Why would that be, actually? Is it that there is too much commonality between the requirements for the different parts? I.e. if you built up the infrastructure for one of the parts, manufacturing the other parts is relatively easy? If you would need entirely different machines and different resources for the different part, especially if those different machines also need different resources, then it would gradually become more sensible to manufacture the engine parts nearer to the sources for that part of the engine, would it not?

It's a stupid idea, just as it always has been.

If there is no difference to the affect of the parts, then what is the point? Just more complication (just look at the x-bow for the lesson of why that is pointless). It is unnecessary, and the supposed IG benefits are vastly overestimated... learn the lesson, players cannot be shoehorned into an idea through force. Societies develop naturally, as do economies, and trying to force them like this fails. Each and every time.

And fuel consumption? Even more moronic. Let's punish the successful and longterm players. Yay!

I like this idea, and just want to add a point that differant engines should be able to be put into the same frame, for example a sports car frame could have a normal engine or a sports engine which could require the addition of a super charger or turbo, and how about being wear of engines and being able to take them out to replace or upgrade them

Jos Elkink wrote:

formerly known as hf wrote:the way people play Cantr tends not to lead to that sort of common-sense thinking

Why would that be, actually? Is it that there is too much commonality between the requirements for the different parts? I.e. if you built up the infrastructure for one of the parts, manufacturing the other parts is relatively easy? If you would need entirely different machines and different resources for the different part, especially if those different machines also need different resources, then it would gradually become more sensible to manufacture the engine parts nearer to the sources for that part of the engine, would it not?

It's not a problem with the design of the resources, but with the nature of the game.

The turn-over of characters is often too great for long-term arrangements to last.

And travel distances are so great, that without access to a sloop or a dirt bike (other forms of transport can't handle roads, carry the gear or are too slow) it just isn't profitable.

Most large organisations and governments just send out their own people to gather what they need. They can't rely on anyone else. Thus, it's likely to be the same with component parts.

It is just safer, easier, and faster to just do it yourself.

The Surly Cantrian wrote:It's a stupid idea, just as it always has been.

If there is no difference to the affect of the parts, then what is the point?

I agree. The suggestion doesn't really add anything to the game except added complexity.

wichita wrote:The materials will stay the same, there will likely be a few new tools (mostly some currently cheap but unused ones) added to the process, and the total assembly times will be trimmed down from the current ones by a day or so.


Advantages:
It lends itself to specialization. We could actually have engine factories if the players wanted to.

Parts could be manufactured on site where the resources are located and then distributed, rather than simply hauling resources off to the assmebly site.

It adds another level of realism at decreased net labor to the character.

It will add nothing?

Right now the guy building the vehicle has to climb into the vehicle and sit there for several days installing the engine. Might be fine for the bus if you can get 15 people in there to crank out an engine in a few turns, but for most vehicles, one or two guys would have to sit there and spend an afternoon on it.

In parts, three guys could be working on cranking out parts to hand to the installer, who is a fourth guy that slaps them together inside the vehicle in a day. Now we can have an assembly line. Vehicles get built faster in that system than they would without it.

At the very least it takes one less day to build an engine.

wichita wrote:It will add nothing?

Right now the guy building the vehicle has to climb into the vehicle and sit there for several days installing the engine. Might be fine for the bus if you can get 15 people in there to crank out an engine in a few turns, but for most vehicles, one or two guys would have to sit there and spend an afternoon on it.

In parts, three guys could be working on cranking out parts to hand to the installer, who is a fourth guy that slaps them together inside the vehicle in a day. Now we can have an assembly line. Vehicles get built faster in that system than they would without it.

At the very least it takes one less day to build an engine.

So it will make it quicker if you have the labour. Meh. It might acts as a counter to the new disincentive (fuel) to make vehicles. But still: Meh!