A lil space inefficient isn't it?

Chemical or wood powered generator is 2x2 space for 1000W, this is 4x4 for 2500W if we used the same space, you can plonk down four chemgens for 4000W.

I personally prefer a higher cost in exchange for a more denser energy producer especially now with gravships.

Originally posted by The Blind One:

A lil space inefficient isn't it?

Chemical or wood powered generator is 2x2 space for 1000W, this is 4x4 for 2500W if we used the same space, you can plonk down four chemgens for 4000W.

I personally prefer a higher cost in exchange for a more denser energy producer especially now with gravships.

i feel as though 3000w would be solid right? almost like a geothermal generator but smaller especially since the fuel lasts so long

I'd personally put it at ~5000W so it's a clear spatial upgrade to other energy sources, this is nuclear power we are talking about after all. One generator should power a small base or ship (nuclear carriers / submarines anyone?). Alternatively, you could make the generator smaller, like a 3x3 while maintaining the same power production.

It already has drawbacks in it's capacity to explode violently and being a late game tech so it's inaccessible for most of the run but one thing especially it could use is to be made more expensive requiring plasteel and more (advanced) components to work. Something like ~8 advanced components, ~16 components, ~160 plasteel, ~300 steel wouldn't be out of the question (assuming it would produce 5000W). It's a massive up front investment but one that pays off in reliable steady power.

Making it this expensive also makes it more of a thing you have to plan for by obtaining the resources, it's a different kind of economic trade-off compared to the other energy sources in vanilla. I think the reactor you have now is a bit too cheap with 300 steel and 2 advanced components for 2500W especially with the fuel rod system it is absurdly cheap but spatially inefficient.

Most of the vanilla energy sources have some gimmick and trade-off. Windmills and solar panels are already spatially inefficient and depend on the environment. Chem and wood gens need constant refueling and resources. Geothermals are the best being free but are limited by the amount of them on a map and require a costly tech.

It'd be nice to have an actual good high power producing alternative for the late game besides geos but with its own gimmick. That's why there's a niche place for a high priced nuclear reactor with its own drawbacks.

If I could I would have it produce toxic wastepacks as a balance but that would require C# code which is probably out of the question in this case.

Considering it is powered through fuel rods at 15 uranium per rod and 4 rods for an entire year worth of power at 60 uranium and 20 steel respectively. That's waaay too cheap imho even with the 2500W power it produces at the moment.

I'd make each uranium rod cost ~60 uranium and ~20 steel. That would mean it would cost 240 uranium to power it for one year. Four times the cost for two times the power. Even if you decide not to increase the power it provides I still think it's a good idea to double the base cost of the building and the uranium cost of the rods. They're just incredibly cheap right now.

Even with these changes, if you have a pretty big base, you'd want to run 4 of these reactors, the cost per year would be 960 uranium a year which is a little less than half a uranium node. This will increase the need for uranium to the point it actually matters keeping a check on your uranium expenditure and maintaining a healthy supply. Right now in late game colonies i'm swimming in uranium and have nothing to really use it on and don't even bother drilling for it so if you want to make uranium a resource the player cares about, this would be the way to go.

Anyway this is my ted talk, thanks for listening :D

P.S
I did some spreadsheeting and right now the uranium fuel rods are about 4x cheaper to burn than chemgen for the same watts. That's why I don't think it's bad to double the cost of these even if you don't double the power.

4.5 chem per day at 6 silver for 1000W = 96W per silver (chemfuel generator)
~1 uranium per day at 6 silver for 2500W = 416W per silver (nuclear reactor)

Generally agree with the above.
More power output to make the power-per-tile more competitive with alternatives.
More expensive fuel to compensate for the output and convenience.

And just a personal nitpick/preference, but an odd size (3x3 or 5x5) would be nice.

Came to this discussion after my own quick mental math that led me to a lesser version of the same conclusion about energy/space density as The Blind One.

This is Oddbase's mod and thus their design choice ofc, but math-wise count me as a +1 to TBO's very thorough breakdown.

Originally posted by The Blind One:

I'd personally put it at ~5000W so it's a clear spatial upgrade to other energy sources, this is nuclear power we are talking about after all. One generator should power a small base or ship (nuclear carriers / submarines anyone?). Alternatively, you could make the generator smaller, like a 3x3 while maintaining the same power production.

It already has drawbacks in it's capacity to explode violently and being a late game tech so it's inaccessible for most of the run but one thing especially it could use is to be made more expensive requiring plasteel and more (advanced) components to work. Something like ~8 advanced components, ~16 components, ~160 plasteel, ~300 steel wouldn't be out of the question (assuming it would produce 5000W). It's a massive up front investment but one that pays off in reliable steady power.

Making it this expensive also makes it more of a thing you have to plan for by obtaining the resources, it's a different kind of economic trade-off compared to the other energy sources in vanilla. I think the reactor you have now is a bit too cheap with 300 steel and 2 advanced components for 2500W especially with the fuel rod system it is absurdly cheap but spatially inefficient.

Most of the vanilla energy sources have some gimmick and trade-off. Windmills and solar panels are already spatially inefficient and depend on the environment. Chem and wood gens need constant refueling and resources. Geothermals are the best being free but are limited by the amount of them on a map and require a costly tech.

It'd be nice to have an actual good high power producing alternative for the late game besides geos but with its own gimmick. That's why there's a niche place for a high priced nuclear reactor with its own drawbacks.

If I could I would have it produce toxic wastepacks as a balance but that would require C# code which is probably out of the question in this case.

Considering it is powered through fuel rods at 15 uranium per rod and 4 rods for an entire year worth of power at 60 uranium and 20 steel respectively. That's waaay too cheap imho even with the 2500W power it produces at the moment.

I'd make each uranium rod cost ~60 uranium and ~20 steel. That would mean it would cost 240 uranium to power it for one year. Four times the cost for two times the power. Even if you decide not to increase the power it provides I still think it's a good idea to double the base cost of the building and the uranium cost of the rods. They're just incredibly cheap right now.

Even with these changes, if you have a pretty big base, you'd want to run 4 of these reactors, the cost per year would be 960 uranium a year which is a little less than half a uranium node. This will increase the need for uranium to the point it actually matters keeping a check on your uranium expenditure and maintaining a healthy supply. Right now in late game colonies i'm swimming in uranium and have nothing to really use it on and don't even bother drilling for it so if you want to make uranium a resource the player cares about, this would be the way to go.

Anyway this is my ted talk, thanks for listening :D

P.S
I did some spreadsheeting and right now the uranium fuel rods are about 4x cheaper to burn than chemgen for the same watts. That's why I don't think it's bad to double the cost of these even if you don't double the power.

4.5 chem per day at 6 silver for 1000W = 96W per silver (chemfuel generator)
~1 uranium per day at 6 silver for 2500W = 416W per silver (nuclear reactor)

i'm definitely going to take a look at implementing this! the only thing i do slightly disagree on is the uranium rod cost being that high lol. uranium is very well know for having incredibly high energy compared to mass but i will surely try my best

update: i have published an update to make balance hopefully better while still not being too crazy feel free to check the changelog or check ingame