Industrial Sized Machines

[Nick]

Well I certainly would not want MUD to be one of the required resources.
That would put a certain few towns in way too much of an advantage.
And I don't believe projects can have a minimum number of participants..

[The Sociologist]

Well I certainly would not want MUD to be one of the required resources. That would put a certain few towns in way too much of an advantage.

Well, we want to reward large cooperative trading ventures, such as already did exist in the late medieval / early pre-industrial period. We surely do not want to reward the old pre-hematite feudalists who simply want to sit alone in their castles and smelt at ten times the rate!

[Anthony Roberts]

Nick is correct. At the moment, we can't define a minimum, only a maximum.

I would also like to point out that it's not possible to make the machine a building, where you apply resources in one room, and work on it in another. It's not even possible to make a machine a building, regardless. It'd have to be a large machine inside of a building, OR the machine outside because it's too large.

[formerly known as hf]

machine outside because it's too large.

That'd be the better option anyway I think, and I guess it'd appear on the objects list as it'll be coded as a machine... In which case, it should have a sufficiently grand description to indicate the giganormous size of the thing, like 'Great Big, Massive, Heavy Iron Works that's real HUGE and towers over everything, casting a long shadow across the town'

or something like that

[Nick]

Grrr....
No, I would not like to have the smelter subject to public use. That should be an option.
If the smelter takes a lot of resources, it will weigh a lot, and therefore decrease the ammount of things you can put into a room.

[formerly known as hf]

is it possible to limit what types of buildings a machine can be built in? There's the capacity limit of a building, but how about a new building named 'Smelting House' or somesuch, and the machine itself can only be built in that building - but the machine wouldn't need much stone - because it's assumed that the 'Smelting House' has been built with the specific design for the larger smelting machine?

[Schme]

I have to say, I don't think this is a good idea.

Once we start doing these kind of mass production operations, there will be able to make the best weapons very quickly and in large quantity.

Once this happens, almost everyone will be armed to the teeth, and people will be killing each other left and right, the old societies descending into anarchy.

Weapons will have almost no value, and the market will stagnate.

And that is just for weapons. The same goes for mass produced tools.


I really don't think it's a good idea, at least not yet.

[The Industriallist]

Once we start doing these kind of mass production operations, there will be able to make the best weapons very quickly and in large quantity.

Not if you only smelt iron in the furnaces...good weapons all take steel. Anyway, this wouldn't be all that fast.

Also, most of them take quite a few days to forge.

And do remember that the resource cost of metal in most cases is much higher than the manufacturing cost as things stand. Dropping the manufacturing cost doesn't negate that you have to bring together the 3 components.

Once this happens, almost everyone will be armed to the teeth, and people will be killing each other left and right, the old societies descending into anarchy.

Um, I can tell you that one location contains more crossbows than people, more sabres than people, and more shields than people.

Most of the people don't have any of the three.

Even if top-grade weapons were cheap, they probably wouldn't be availible to most.

Also, this makes shields cheap more than weapons...and iron shields are a powerful stabilizer, even if you assume that society itself wouldn't resist this disintegration.

Weapons will have almost no value, and the market will stagnate.

What market? Most people don't want to trade strong weapons, or even metal, once they have them. This can't make it any more stagnant...if iron did become common, you might actually be able to trade for it often enough to have a market going.

[Schme]

Of course you'd say that. Your an Industrialist!

[Anthony Roberts]

is it possible to limit what types of buildings a machine can be built in? There's the capacity limit of a building, but how about a new building named 'Smelting House' or somesuch, and the machine itself can only be built in that building - but the machine wouldn't need much stone - because it's assumed that the 'Smelting House' has been built with the specific design for the larger smelting machine?

Actually, yes, it is possible for such an option. Create a new building, and create the machine in side?

Actually, with some creative thinking, it would be possible to automatically place the furnace inside the building once the building is created, much like a lock is automatically created once a vehicle is finished. Hmmm...

[The Sociologist]

Actually, yes, it is possible for such an option. Create a new building, and create the machine in side?

Actually, with some creative thinking, it would be possible to automatically place the furnace inside the building once the building is created, much like a lock is automatically created once a vehicle is finished. Hmmm...

Either of those sound good. However, I think we should hold out for a minimum number of people > 1, even if that means waiting for a programming change. The whole point about this large smelter is that it must be a collaborative venture at all stages of the process. Not sure what The Industriallist thinks, but that's my opinion anyhow.

[formerly known as hf]

Actually, with some creative thinking, it would be possible to automatically place the furnace inside the building once the building is created, much like a lock is automatically created once a vehicle is finished. Hmmm...

I really like this idea - but I'd agree with sociologist - it really should need more than one person to operate it...

I'm not sure how projects and machines are programmed - but is it at all possible for two projects to be running on one machine at once? Then arrange so that both projects have to be running to get iron?

Or, can projects be dependent on each other - e.g: a 'requirement' for an 'iron smelting' project in the furnace is the existence of a 'support' project on the hoists and pulleys in the building?

[Nick]

The whole point about this large smelter is that it must be a collaborative venture at all stages of the process.

Actually no, I started this topic and that's not what I had in mind.
The extra resources are what should compensate for it's increased efficiency.
And I'm liking this building option.

[The Sociologist]

The whole point about this large smelter is that it must be a collaborative venture at all stages of the process.

Actually no, I started this topic and that's not what I had in mind.

Well, you called your own thread "Industrial Sized Machines". It is simply not the case that "industrial sized machines" are operated by one person. We are moving away from village blacksmiths now and your thread title says it all.

[Anthony Roberts]

Perhaps a minimum number of workers to operate the machine?

I obviously agree with what your suggesting, as I had posted earlier.

And no, Nick. If these machines are implemented, they MUST have a minimum work force. The larger the machine, the more buttons and knobs to turn. The more hands that will be needed.

You suggested it, but I modified it for balance in gameplay. If you want to be aggressive, I can play that game.

Tough