Cantr II Discussion Forum

Harvesters, drillers and other expensive machines give a big boost to the production of a location. After a period of pay off, they are big advantage.

And after another period, they become unused. I mean: the machines produces too much, and the people need to use it sporadicly (they can use it continuously just for filling the storages till the roof, but they don't need it for anything)


Requiring some fuel for each proyect of drilling/harvesting will encourage the use of fuels, and will give some extra (automatic) steps to the process of harvesting (the production of fuel), bringing some variety. It is logic that a city with a big machine has enough resources to build a pot still or other machines for fuel production.


Harvesters have no motors, but they are machines, and we can suppose (imagination!) that there is a kind of motor inbetween all that iron and steel.

May I be first to cast a stone?

formerly known as hf wrote:May I be first to cast a stone?

Let's throw anything, I have an iron shield and a load of coconuts.

Good suggestion. Have all harvesters start with a full tank though.

I don't like fuel, but as it has been implemented, it should be used for all machines that use fuel. Not only ovens and firepits.

I like the principle of the suggestion, but it will have some major ramifications for many towns, especially with limited resource slots. I am looking forward to seeing the discussion that develops around this.

Geez, did you have to mention it?! Of course it's logical, having looked at harvesters on Google picture search, they are clearly mechanical. Why not add an engine too while we're on it? But they should consume less than cars since the distance they travel is only from the end of a field to another.

This is a realistic change... it might be a real pain in the butt but it's realistic. Maybe dung forks would get back in fashion if harvesters required fuel.

Harvesters are generally too easy to build (thank god says my lonely stranded character). So include a small engine and some fuel consumption, just make it balanced. Hmm, and how can you add an engine on a vehicle like machine you cannot board? Either the machine should be portable, so that you could lift it up and add it into the project, or then we just include some magnesium in the requirements. Anyway, existing harvesters wouldn't need an engine built in afterwards, only fuel.

Why assume mechanical power? Drills are expensive and need only be hand operated. A harvester need not be motorised, but even if you insist that it's not operable by 2 people, (and why should 2 people double the output if it's machine driven?) wait for animal domestication to give that alternative for harvesters.

If it ain't got an engine, it don't need fuel. Simple as that.

(Edit: Took my rant as a general one to the rant thread. Sorry about that.)

Doug and tiddy og are right, if it doesn't have an engine of some sort, it doesn't need fuel and doesn't mean that it's not Cantrian powered.

I doubt cars had engines in the beginning either. Things change. Harvesters should have engines, and yeah, allowing only one worker would make sense. Maybe the output could be upped a bit to compensate for the fuel thing / loss of a second worker. Until we get animals to pull a plough, dung forks can bridge the gap somewhat.

I think it's too minute of a reality issue to worry about. Not all mechanized things require an engine to run.

It seems, that now that there's a lot of technology in some places, the thing to do is make technology even harder for new small, developing towns trying to achieve higher technology levels, because that's the only way to make it harder for the places that are high tech.

Yes, let's get rid of fuel. Starting with grilled meat. Only meat and time should be needed. Fuel should be ignored as are containers and lots of other things.

It's not the same thing, and you know it. Like I said, not all mechanized things have engines and require fuel (petrol or other heavily processed fuels, as apparently it's confusing).

Why is fuel to burn cooking fires any different from fuel to burn in engines? It's the same fire.

you try running a car on a motor that burns wood. Then you'll notice the difference between the fuels.