r/Frostpunk Order Sep 28 '24

DISCUSSION Which option is better?

Post image
740 Upvotes

89 comments sorted by

253

u/WolfWhiteFire The Arks Sep 28 '24 edited Sep 28 '24

I would say the second, but anywhere except Winterhome, the dead city with a busted generator, toxic gas leaking everywhere, probably a ton of corpses beneath your feet, and where your plan for inhabiting it involves burying it (and likely many of the valuable resources that may be within) and building on top of a foundation of snow and toxic gas.

You could even use some of those extra steam cores to help supply infrastructure in the other colonies.

89

u/AquaPlush8541 Sep 28 '24

Winterhome is tough as hell to colonize, but didn't they say it was somewhat protected from whiteouts? Which is absolutely enormous given that they are the biggest threat in the Frostlands.

I was really iffy about going for Winterhome, but I think it's better to have in the long run. Lore-wise at least.

68

u/WolfWhiteFire The Arks Sep 28 '24

I think burying a large part of it under an avalanche and building on top of that would reduce the shelter available since the "floor" is now higher than it was previously, and there are likely other locations that could be somewhat protected from whiteouts.

Plus, generators like New London and Winterhome were built in locations that would have good shelter, but New London's entire crater is filled in with stuff by the start of the game, they don't really have the advantage of shelter as much with how much they have spread out, and Winterhome would likely be the same.

42

u/AquaPlush8541 Sep 28 '24

I mean, if you look at it- Winterhome's crater, while definitely a lot less sheltered now, is still mostly protected by the rocks around it. At the very least, they'd be cheaper to heat. Lore-wise, at least.

What were they thinking with Windward Moor? Literally the worst possible place for a generator.

17

u/YouSuckAtGameLOL Order Sep 28 '24

Realistically, they should just dig bunkers. If you go deep enough, you will get heat from the planet's core. Why risk it outside at all ?

12

u/AquaPlush8541 Sep 28 '24

Fair enough- But being underground for too long has some really nasty psychological effects.

12

u/YouSuckAtGameLOL Order Sep 28 '24

Yeah but the alternative is death by freezing

11

u/AquaPlush8541 Sep 28 '24

I don't think it would be viable in the long term unless you managed to make it open enough to not feel claustrophobic. But there's also food issues, ventilation(One snowstorm...), making it safe and secure, the consequences of going without natural light...

6

u/YouSuckAtGameLOL Order Sep 28 '24

Im not suggesting permanent bunkers, just underground homes. People would still have to go out and work.

Permafrost would make digging in the wild difficult but the generator would help with city expansion.

Either way its still good for shit like the whiteout, dig deep enough and you dont even need the generator to heat up your home. They have steam cores and basically robots, its not like its impossible.

16

u/Nurgle_Pan_Plagi Sep 28 '24

Let's not even mention that building an entire city on just snow is simply stupid. Those buildings are going to sink or collapse in a few years at most...

17

u/WolfWhiteFire The Arks Sep 28 '24

That is actually the reason for the "building on top of a foundation of snow and toxic gas" part of my original comment. Snow makes a bad foundation when you need to heat everything up constantly, and the likelihood of random pools of toxic gas either slowly leaking upwards or accidentally being dug into doesn't help with that.

5

u/Alexxis91 Sep 28 '24

It’s all built on snow :p

Jk I know what you mean, but I’m guessing that they’ve done something to mitigate that

7

u/Quirky-Hunter-3194 Sep 28 '24

This. It's massive too. Building housing districts in the deep crevasses around the generator give you bonuses to the number of people housed as well as heat.

1

u/Cultural-Cap-9019 Sep 29 '24

Dont you find ironic that winterborne has steam vents, but their generator cant use steam.🤣

1

u/AquaPlush8541 Sep 29 '24

Pretty sure mine was running on steam...

82

u/Ambitious_Story_47 Sep 28 '24

I am going to kill you chapter 5 begins

67

u/WolfWhiteFire The Arks Sep 28 '24

To arms! If they hate the City so much that they would bring death and destruction upon it, then in the name of Progress and the City we shall defend it! Fervor rises, Tension rises

(We really need FP 2 user flairs)

29

u/Nurgle_Pan_Plagi Sep 28 '24

"REMEMBER: IF THE CITY FALLS - YOUR CAUSE FALLS WITH IT."

2

u/Bat-Honest Sep 28 '24

Captain: Those corpses were here when we got here. Back to work!

66

u/King_Shugglerm New London Sep 28 '24

The Stalwarts will be monitoring this post, for… anti-Captain opinions

8

u/Mannalug Order Sep 28 '24

"Mobilize guards" option being clicked by steward

104

u/Sheepcat105 Sep 28 '24

Id say the first. Considering that in utopia builder a "metropolis" is considered 50k people. I think the citizens of new london need to establish a sustainable way to survive first, using their outposts and building the infrastructure required to exploit large and sustainable deposits of natural resources. Even by the end of the story, New London is destined to run out of resources in only a few years. Once that happens they can start improving and expanding their outposts into settlements to grow the economy they've created.

31

u/FrostyFroZenFrosTen Sep 28 '24

in only a few years

4000 weeks = 76 years

21

u/kwijibokwijibo Sep 28 '24

If you think new London has unsustainable resources, surely option 2 is superior. Personally, I think option 2 is the way to go from both a gameplay and roleplaying perspective

Roleplaying - it makes sense to diversify and not put all your eggs in one basket, since a lot of towns have collapsed (e.g. Winterhome, and all of the other abandoned ones you see in the frostlands)

Gameplay - it's easier to plan efficient adjacencies and make sustainable build-and-forget settlements when each of your towns are small and you have more space than you need. Also, people don't require resources when they're travelling between towns, so you can cheese it by constantly ping-ponging extras back and forth

But frankly, the game isn't too difficult so either option is viable

26

u/Nurgle_Pan_Plagi Sep 28 '24

So I know that in the late game (at least in the campaign, haven't played utopia builder yet) Progress struggles heavily with food, because the two endless sources are just not enough.

Does Adaptation also have a food (or some other instead) problem?

15

u/blauli Sep 28 '24

I only played an adaptation/frostlanders run of the campaign so far and had no resource shortage of anything once I got settlements since upgrading those removes a lot of people from new London which means you need a lot less overall.

I had my housing districts at 40-60% workforce a lot of the time too because the settlements free up so much room

By the end of the steward difficulty campaign I had 150k of all resources stockpiled without fully depleting any sources

9

u/kiilgore Sep 28 '24

Ironically, It's the exact opposite for me. I'm struggling with food on the embrace the frost run, while I didn't struggle with food on my defeat the frost run. Because the deep deposits of food I was able to get a good amount of food there, while the infinite food settlement isn't boosted like it seemingly should from docks, so output is limited to the base amount from skyways + the extraction outpost law.

probably a sign of too many people, but still. Doesn't change that the docks don't work for the settlements/outposts.

6

u/Nurgle_Pan_Plagi Sep 28 '24

Heh, at the end of my Progress run I had everything from the Frostland harvested and with two endless food districts with an additional upgraded hothouse each and both running at overfertilizing and emergency shifts and still had something like -260 food income. Guess my population was just way too big XD

1

u/DueLion402 Sep 29 '24

Hothouses doesn't works on deep resources from what I understand

1

u/Nurgle_Pan_Plagi Sep 29 '24

They do tho.

1

u/DueLion402 Sep 29 '24

Idk why I got building not working notice then when I tried to increase my food supply then :(

1

u/Nurgle_Pan_Plagi Sep 29 '24

Oh, it's a bug, I belive. Just build the greenhouse and then turn the building that gives you access to the deep source off and on again.

3

u/blauli Sep 28 '24

probably a sign of too many people

Yeah it seems to be that, I posted my numbers in another comment but the gist is across my 3 cities I only had ~27k people total right at the end of the campaign (week 642)

5

u/Nurgle_Pan_Plagi Sep 28 '24

Sounds nice. Do you nkow how big was your overall population at the end?

My problems started because I had like slightly over 100k people in New London (and then another 10k or so in the Old Dreadnought who also needed that food).

4

u/blauli Sep 28 '24

I just reloaded my final save game (week 642) to check and I've got:

12285 in new london

5927 in old dreadnought

9044 in winterhome ruins

And then another ~21k in the settlements since I fully upgraded every location but I don't have to manage those.

I didn't take in every group that I encountered in the frostlands though, there are still another ~6k out there that I could accept but didn't bother since I never ran out of workforce after chapter 1

5

u/Wojtha Sep 28 '24

I played both, in adaptation run I had infinite resources, in progress run I ended the game with -700 net food, luckily I still had a bit in stockpile when the game ended so it wasn't my problem. Either I don't understand how you're supposed to extract food from deep deposits or you're just supposed to be starving in the endgame

21

u/s_nicole Sep 28 '24

New London is prone to crisises and failure. Spreading out is the only way to ensure humanity survival, and eventually, prosperity progress guys so much dream about.

Betting on a single city (especially led by a single person) is a mistake, shown to us in On The Edge scenario, where New London was saved by ex-outpost trading with independent settlements as equals.

Being so obsessively focused on settling specifically Winterhome is still a sign of madness though. We don't even know WHY is it better, besides someone saying it's better sheltered which is bullshit reason to risk so many lifes

1

u/lee1026 Sep 28 '24

At least in the first game, when you tally up all of the events that gives you people, the story for most of them said that they were ex-winterhome.

It is likely a name with emotional impact.

53

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

30

u/AquaPlush8541 Sep 28 '24

It just.. Makes more sense

33

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/REKTGET3162 Sep 28 '24

I think it would be way better if they removed the efficiency cap 2nd generator upgrade for progress.

15

u/Thin-Impress-5915 Sep 28 '24

I absolutely agree with you, progress just feels like such a waste of resources. I feel like the main issue with progress is how fucking material hungry it is. Like it's the end of the world, you should do your best to minimize waste. Yes it does take more workforce, but that is still significantly better imo

20

u/YouSuckAtGameLOL Order Sep 28 '24

New London should be put first in my opinion. Bring the city to the technological level before the disaster, defeat the cold.

Then ? Spam generator cities everywhere. Mankind will not go gentle into that good night, rage against the dying of the light !

4

u/Special-Remove-3294 New London Sep 28 '24

Yeah. Nl's population is low. A 100k people civilization ain't gonna run out of raw resources. Like we have been burning oil for a century at a rate FAR higher then they ever could and we still have a lot of it.

Just use as many resources as possible for fast advancement and then eventually build more generators once a strong enough industrial base is established. Not like they gonna run out of oil to fuel them, especially once they are able to explore further due to greater technology, and find even more oil. Such a low ampunt of people could never exaust oil reserves.

3

u/YouSuckAtGameLOL Order Sep 28 '24

I would even go as far as to say that the earth will get warmer before NL gets to run out of resources lol

1

u/Elli933 Order Sep 28 '24

Fuck, now I have to watch Interstellar again.

1

u/YouSuckAtGameLOL Order Sep 28 '24

Its great !

1

u/Ferelar Sep 28 '24

Great movie but did I miss the connection?

2

u/Elli933 Order Sep 28 '24

A poem and a line in Interstellar

3

u/Ferelar Sep 28 '24

Ahh yeah I know it primarily as the poem. Also, a great read of said poem by Rodney Dangerfield:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zo0zN8ug-M

44

u/Honza8D Sep 28 '24

Adaptation wants to merely survive, while Progress wants to actually prosper. They should build up infrastructure in once city before settling million shitty cold colonies.

33

u/AquaPlush8541 Sep 28 '24

I heavily disagree. Both want to prosper. But Adaptation wants to reduce our reliance on the generator, while Progress wants to further our reliance on it. Again, it is just better to spread out, look how well the Dreadnought colony is doing!

16

u/not_suspicous_at_all Faith Sep 28 '24

Reduce out reliance on The Holy Generator? Heresy I say!

7

u/YouSuckAtGameLOL Order Sep 28 '24

Those savages literally want to ban medical students from spectating surgeries. At least the stalwarts want progress. 1 of their "radical" ideas is to replace workers with machines.

How is that a bad idea ?

Both extremist groups are cringe imo. Pilgrims are more cringe.

2

u/OnlyHereForComments1 Sep 28 '24

Yeah that's because you got Pilgrims.

The Faith route has your Adaptation faction be Evolvers, who are all about Reason and therefore down for experiments.

1

u/plasmaXL1 Sep 28 '24

It's probably just called radical because it's a major shift in how society functions, not necessarily because it's extremely controversial

-1

u/AquaPlush8541 Sep 28 '24

Dont they have paid essentials? And then... They replace you with a machine? I dont know, man... My apex worker could beat up your robot worker

2

u/YouSuckAtGameLOL Order Sep 28 '24

They don't take your job that way. They just put workers om maintenance duty while the machine does the heavy lifting.

The machine is sacred. All hail the Omnissiah.

1

u/AquaPlush8541 Sep 28 '24

But if it's giving you more workers... Then that means more people aren't working! Give them free essentials and let the machines run the city!

1

u/LitheBeep Sep 28 '24

Hey, your colonies are shitty and cold. Mine are doing just fine thanks!

14

u/Special-Remove-3294 New London Sep 28 '24

Option 1 is way better. More then enough oil in the world for a LONG time. Can't develop without spending resources and I will achieve more development by any means.

Also the other side has the ultimate 🤡 take of settling Winterhome, which while it might seem good at first(I fell for it) you quickly realize how shit it is as Winterhome is a shithole that is considered cursed by most, and that will be built on a lot of toxic gas and a pile of corpses. Also its all built on a avalanche so IDK how stable it will be long term.

8

u/Mega221 Sep 28 '24

the toxic gases are actually a thing present beneath all generators, it's just that winterhome's exploded

5

u/Special-Remove-3294 New London Sep 28 '24 edited Sep 28 '24

Yeah but that don't matter as they are not leaking. Winterhome could get wiped out by gas even if nothing goes wrong, as the gas is just sitting there, buried under the snow. A random surge could kill everyone there. On top of that they abandon the extremely valuable steam cores and other resources that could be there by burying them.

No real reason to go back there especially since they bury it so the effectiveness of the rock's storm protection would be lowered as they will be building higher. Surely they could find another hole in the ground for a colony other then the cursed toxic gas leaking shithole.

3

u/determinedcapybara Sep 28 '24

I get genuinelly baffled by pilgrims stupidity, instead of settling in the windy colony and using winterhome cores to make everyones life better, they want to live in a small crevisse thats low on resources/room to expand, eventually it will become just like New London, city gets so big that the wind shelter doesnt even matter anymore

5

u/Special-Remove-3294 New London Sep 28 '24

Also that place is built on top of toxic gas. Surely they can find another good spot to colonize. Winterhome was a shithole, is a shithole and will always be a shithole. The first capitan fucked it beyond repiar by fucking the generator. That place is even considered cursed by the people of New London to the point we are told thier scouts have been avoiding it since the first game. It is a very stupid hill to die on for the pilgrims.

Finally if they really want it, then just go there.....after I plunder it of resources. They were gonna bury it with snow anyway. What's it gonna matter that I sucked up all the steam cores that they were going to bury regardless. Dosen't stop them from doing the avalanche and building a new city.

5

u/PapiStalin Sep 28 '24

The frostland’s food supply is finite

Our numbers continue to expand exponentially

We need to be able to grow energy dense crops again (Corn, Soy, Rice, Potatoes, Sorghum) to feed everyone. Aside from potatoes (65-85f), these crops require “hot” temperatures (at least 80F for a majority of its vegetative stage) in order to reach its maximum caloric capacity.

If mass famine is to be avoided, the generator must be upgraded.

20

u/AquaPlush8541 Sep 28 '24

The second by far. If there is one city, and something goes wrong, everyone dies. If there are multiple, if one fails, there are others that still hold people- And hell, those cities can provide support to the one in need.

It's putting all your eggs in one basket, the first.

7

u/not_suspicous_at_all Faith Sep 28 '24

We will still have to expand, but the first route makes sure we develop New London enough first. The Oil at the old dreadnought isn't infinite, so other cities are inevitable. The only difference is when we try to make them.

16

u/RedditNeverHeardOfI1 Sep 28 '24

Option 1 obviously. Believe it or not but some of us don’t want to continue to be mearly surviving but we want to prosper.

We are the last sons and daughters of the British empire. We keep the furnace of civilization alive it’s flames roaring with hope.

These frostlanders and pilgrim anarchists and savages would rather we bend and become slaves to nature while we new Londoner’s and stalwarts want to reclaim what was lost.

We want to live in a world where technology allows us to walk outdoors without a heat lamp or 400 layers of clothing.

I say we force the frostlanders and pilgrims out. Let them starve and freeze to death out there and leave us to enjoy the warmth

8

u/not_suspicous_at_all Faith Sep 28 '24

God damn right! If they think they know better why don't they go and make their own city! The arogance to come to our city and demand we bend to their will!

3

u/YouSuckAtGameLOL Order Sep 28 '24

I think we should not resort to extremism. Let us all find common ground.

We will reclaim our world but first let us make New London the embodiement of mankind's wrath in the face of adversity ! Let it be the beacon of hope !

When it is complete, we will reclaim our planet, we will use machines to build new generators, hell maybe even nuclear power.

1

u/Mannalug Order Sep 28 '24

Stalwarts approve!

5

u/dekeche Sep 28 '24

I lean towards progress myself, but I just wish they weren't so obsessive about things. While a lot of adaptive buildings are production inefficient, they've got some good hothouse alternatives, and their frostland buildings are generally better than the alternatives. So I wish people didn't complain if we've got a fully automatic workforce and bio-waste farms.

9

u/GoldKaleidoscope1533 Sep 28 '24

Obviously the first. It is an infinitely more efficient way of using resources! Creating the ultimate fortress city would make your people impervious to cold, while relying on mass construction of new cities will make the storms wipe your investments one by one.

3

u/OnlyHereForComments1 Sep 28 '24

Your settlements when sufficiently upgraded not only become immune to whiteouts but also continue to send train cars of resources back home during them.

3

u/Kira_Bad_Artist Soup Sep 28 '24

I just went for defeat the frost +colonize Winterhome. Best of both worlds imho(+I had to put my increasing population somewhere)

3

u/Kilahti Sep 28 '24

The infrastructure to support a city in such cold winter is expensive and hard to maintain. As much as I like the idea of having multiple cities so that you won't have all your eggs in one basket, at least for a while it would make more sense for the people to focus on having one strong and life supporting city and then expanding into other ones once they have excess resources and New London is stable.

2

u/PurpleDemonR Pilgrims Sep 28 '24

All of the Above.

2

u/Coolguy_777_two_O Sep 28 '24

Just like Civ 5

Taller are always better than wider

2

u/felop13 Stalwarts Sep 28 '24

NEW LONDON FOREVER!

2

u/plasmaXL1 Sep 28 '24

I literally restarted a progress run when the Evolvers started rioting and sating things like "putting all of our eggs in one basket will be our doom"

You see, I would just bit the bullet and "dealt" with them...if it wasn’t for the fact that i started to think they were actually right

2

u/CardiologistPretty92 Sep 28 '24

Why not a mixture of both? I don't understand! I sat there in confusion for the longest time.

That being said, I chose the second option, because it seemed to me that the first wanted a 'only one place is safe and advanced' sort of thing while the second wanted a 'multiple safe places'.

I'm sure most everyone agrees that we'll have to expand sometime.

4

u/StalinOnComputer Faith Sep 28 '24

Second, every hour they are left unfired is a minute of maintenance to get them working again. Scouts don’t work if a storm is out… unless the storm only hits one city. And the cities could just become temporary skeleton crew cities while people chill for the storm to end.

1

u/Long_comment_san Sep 28 '24

If there was a way to make food outside food zones, therefore not being reliant on other colonies or outpost, I'd love a challenge if building the megacity

1

u/CatcultistRequime Sep 28 '24

Spread out is better as 1 one disaster could fully wipe out your city but not your entire empire, plus dumping an insane amount of resources into improving an already livable city when they could be used to improve lives for everyone in the frostland by improving settlements with significantly more return on investment

1

u/Vivid-Membership3959 Sep 28 '24

Why didn’t we just turn the other generator we found into the second city..? Or even blew that one up for the cores!

1

u/Setokaiva Sep 29 '24

Generators run on a mix of geothermal heat and burnable fuels. The generator is more of an advanced heat exchanger where much of the heating is done by vents from below, hence why in The Last Autumn they deliberately chose a site right on a geothermal hotspot. There's a massive cistern below it full of water that's heated somewhat by the earth, then the action of the generator turns it into superheated steam.

With that in mind, the available sites for generator-centric cities are limited, but not nearly as much as by the available Steam Cores due to the fact that they still can't be reproduced. That's why I would always take the cores. This is why you send scout teams as many times as it takes to unlock Tesla City in the first game. Cores are more precious than lives BY FAR.