Uber, Please can we talk about the Energy System?

So if those alternative energy sources were pure aesthetic (here we go again), would you then be pleased enough if that was implemented?

You place a 'power plant' on a moon... it'll look like a solar plant.

You place one in the water... it'll look like a tidal generator.

Place one on an earth or tropical land planet... it'll look like a wind turbine.

And T2 power plants are nuclear.


All these power plants produce the same (except adv. of course), they just look different depending on the climate you put them in. They don't affect gameplay, they are only visually different.

Geo is the only one that can be implemented easily and affecting gameplay. That one is a bit more strategic, desires map control.


So I'm saying that I already would happier if the power plants looked more interesting, instead of having to mess with gameplay and balance.

Not true at all.

Just because it has an extra barrel on it, doesn't mean it's WYSIWYG. Just because the unit is on a smaller planet so it has different range, doesn't mean it's WYSIWYG.

WYSIWYG in Planetary Annihilation means I can look at a strategic icon an know exactly what its capabilities are. Always.

If I can't look at a building and know exactly how much power it does, or look at a unit and know exactly how much damage and range it has, then it is not WYSIWYG.

When things start having different production/capabilities based on a bunch of different variables, it isn't consistent. That is bad.

Also, we play at the strategic icon level. If we're forced to zoom in and look at a model to play the game, then this is no longer a macro game.

Again, not true at all. As I have explained several times.

If I spawn on a metal planet while my opponent spawns on a tropical planet with a bunch of moons around it, they now have more efficient power generators. That is bad. That means my opponent has a huge advantage because of their spawn.

Again, as I have explained several times.

If we spawn on a tropical planet and you have waterside spawns and I don't, you have a huge advantage because of your access to hydro plants.

Fair enough. Any change in energy generation would need to be reflected in the Strategic Icons too. Shading out a portion of the icon could do this.

This 'huge advantage' you're talking about is a -/+100 Energy difference for T1 Wind and Tidal. That means their output would be either +400 or +500 or +600.
T1 +800 volatile Nuclear Energy would be of comparable cost and ubiquitous. Therefore you're right that somebody on a planet with many moons and a sea would have an advantage. However it would be a tactical advantage confined to that particular planet (non-volatile energy), not an economic advantage.

I understand your worry about lakes. Not allowing Naval to be built in very shallow water could be one thing which might help balance this. At greatest, this hypothetical waterside player would be able to build +600 Tidal. The other person would have (at lowest) the options of +400 Wind and +800 T1 Nuclear.
So yes, the player who had or sought out T1 Tidal Energy on a heavily tidal planet would have an advantage. However I wouldn't call it a crippling advantage if we have T1 Nuclear, and Geothermal and Solar soon after that.