Factorio Forums

After some talk of ske and me over in the "Conveyor Belts Optionally using electricity"-thread (viewtopic.php?p=138278#p138278) we have worked out a little concept for Engine/Generator Modules.

So the basic concept of Engine Modules is that inside of all the machines (Assemblers, Inserters, etc) there would be new Slots which accept various types of Engine Modules. These modules would give you the benefit that you can choose yourself how you want to power that type of machine.

1. Engine/Generator Module Types:
   
   • Stirling Engine: Turns Wood, Coal, Solid Fuel, anything that burns (efficiency depending on fuel type) into Mechanical Energy
   • Steam Engine: Turns Hot Water into Mechanical Energy
   • Diesel Engine: Turns Crude Oil, Heavy Oil, Light Oil, Petroleum Gas (efficiency depending on fluid type) into Mechanical Energy
   • Electric Engine/Generator: Turns Electrical Energy into Mechanical Energy OR turns Mechanical Energy into Electrical Energy

   

   Engine, Motor Module A.png (14.15 KiB) Viewed 8541 times

   Example how Electric Engine Modules could be placed in an Assembler:
   

   

   Assembler A.png (188.87 KiB) Viewed 8541 times

2. What this will allow:
   
   You could virtually power any machine with the energy type you want...
   
   Want to power Assemblers with Coal/Solid Fuel instead of Electric Power? -> Do it! Just place Stirling Engine Modules inside them.
3. List of Items/Machines that could be affected:
   
   Of course not all of them have to work this way, but theoretically they could.
   
   Interchangeable:
   
   • Belts: Stirling, Steam, Diesel, Electric
   • Inserters: Stirling, Electric
   • Mining Drills: Stirling, Electric
   • Furnaces: Stirling, Electric
   • Assemblers: Stirling, Steam, Diesel, Electric
   • Offshore Pumps: Stirling, Electric
   • Small Pumps: Stirling, Electric
   • Steam Engines: Electric (Special case... It requires a Steam Engine to produce mechanical energy and a Electric Engine which works as generator)
   • Pump Jacks: Stirling, Diesel, Electric
   • Refineries: Stirling, Steam, Diesel, Electric
   • Chemical Plants: Stirling, Steam, Diesel, Electric
   • Labs: Stirling, Steam, Diesel, Electric
   • Beacons: Stirling, Steam, Diesel, Electric
   • Radars: Stirling, Steam, Diesel, Electric
   • Rocket Silo: Stirling, Steam, Diesel, Electric
   • Locomotives: Sterling, Diesel, Electric
   • Tank: Sterling, Diesel
   • Car: Sterling, Diesel
   • Gun Turrets: Sterling, Diesel, Electric
   • Laser Turrets: Sterling, Diesel, Electric
   Built-in:
   
   • Flying Robot Frames: Electric
   • Modular Armors: Electric
   • Exoskeleton: Electric
   • Personal Laser Defense: Electric
4. Special Module Slots
   
   The current module slots would be called "Special Module Slots". They only work if there is an Electric Engine Module inside. It could be made so that for each Electric Engine Unit inside there could be attached Special Module Slot.
5. What the concept of Engine Modules would change:
   
   • First of all you would have the ability to power almost everything with fuel instead of electricity if you like doing so.
   • Second most of the machines would gain the ability use Special Modules when there is an Electric Engine Module inside.
   • Many of the items would probably gain additional speed benefits depending on the type of engine inside.
   • Some of the items gain additional abilities that aren't there yet (like locomotives eventually running on fluids or electricity if that ever gets implemented)
   • Over time there might be better versions of the various Engine Modules (like MK1, MK2, etc) which would offer additional speed/efficiency upgrades
   Additionally:
   
   • Only 1 Type of belt (Fast, Express belt would become unnecessary as the type and amount of engine units as well as special modules could influence the belt speed)
   • Only 1 Type of Assembler (different tiers become unnecessary as the type and amount of engine units and special modules could influence the crafting speed)
   • Only 1 Type of Inserter (different tiers become unnecessary as the type of engine units and special modules could influence the speed, a Range Module inserted into the special module slot could turn it into a long-handed inserter, an Electronics Module could provide access to Circuit Network/Logistic Network)
   • Only 1 Type of Mining Drill (the type of engine unit would decide what you get)
6. General stuff:
   
   Of course the engine modules would have to be balanced much better to place them in the right order in the technology tree. Electric Engine Modules would have to become available shortly after the start and thereby have to be much cheaper then Diesel Engines which require Oil industry (which means that Diesel Engines would have to be more powerful than electric engines to make them an option).
   
   The various machines would have to be rebalanced as well in resource costs because they would basically turn only into heartless frames that can't do much without a proper Engine Module.
   
   Also the player could continue using Coal to power all the machines much longer. Nobody would really force you to upgrade to Electric Engine Modules. You wouldn't be forced to establish Steam/Solar Power... which offers a complete different experience to the game.
7. Quoted original discussion from the other thread:
   
   Discussion

   [quote="ske"]I suggest the following motor types:
   
   1) Sterling burner
   - Runs on anything that burns e.g. wood, coal.
   2) Steam engine
   - Requires hot water like the power generator does now.
   3) Diesel engine
   - Requires gasoline. (=Light oil or Gas?)
   4) Electric motor/generator
   - Converts between electrical an mechanical power
   
   Make the items have slots. Make the slots take 0 on N items.
   
   Example: the basic inserter
   * has a slot for a motor,
   * communication electronics module,
   * filter electronics module.
   
   Motor slot usage:
   * Put in no module and it shows the red blinking motor sign like the power sign is now.
   * Put in a sterling burner and it is a burner inserter, slow but doesn't need electricity.
   * It wouldn't take a steam/diesel engine because it lacks a fluid port.
   * Put in one electric engine and it will be a normal inserter.
   * Put in ten electric engines* and it will be a fast inserter.
   
   With these slots we get the functionality of burner/normal/fast/smart inserter combined.
   
   With the long inserter, you get each functionality in long.
   
   Example: belts
   
   For the belts it would be similar. You get a special building which supplies some belts (how that supply is done exactly is to be discussed separately). This housing takes some motors, maybe even two motor slots for sterling burner (=backup) and electric/steam/diesel as main power source. With the sterling you get normal speed, with the more powerful motors you get faster speed.
   
   Example: Power generator
   
   The power generator takes one burner/diesel/steam engine as power source and some (big?) electric engine as electrical outlet. This also immediately gives us small power generators that work without steam and diesel power generators.
   
   *: Instead of ten electric engines there could be an item like: "big electric engine".[/quote]
   
   My thoughts are already in the concept thread here for the most part, so no need to post it all over again.

The concept is very cool.

What's not clear to me: How will you bridge the time between early game and mid game where you don't have such engines? Or eventually better question: When will this tech-part be researched in game?

And what is then the difference between a module (as now) and an engine - despite from the doubled complexity to produce both?

This is a very interesting idea!
But I think perhaps it's more suitable for a mod, or maybe an expansion/"Expert mode".
But I like it!


And ssilk - I think the idea is to have Stirling engines available from the beginning of the game... but I may be wrong

I like the concept, I think it can fit right into the game, having Stirling energy for early game, but I do think electric engines should become available once it reaches early mid-game, to avoid it from becoming annoying to create belts dedicated to coal or fuel, just to power and assembler.

It's interesting idea but putting it in everything is not that good.
For example inserters. Now, all we have to do is placing inserter in correct direction. We can event placing them by holding LBM and moving mouse (fast and easy). After implementig your idea we would have to place inserter in right direction, open it's menu, place engine, place module, check if there is no mistake, close menu. Now do it for 1000 inserters. If so far you still be sane then do it for 20000 belts.

My point is, that such micro management is not bad, but not for entities that are using massively.

Considering steam power and some electric stuff is available from the start of the game already, I'd say both Stirling and Electric engines both should be available from the off.

what having them work like modules would also allow though, is a MK1 through MK3, or even beyond versions of said motors. Higher level versions could offer bonuses in areas such as speed, power, and energy efficiency.

Also, machines should probably come with an engine pre-installed, it would get quite tedious being required to have the extra step of installing an engine in every machine, especially every piece of melt, not to mention the increased cost. Belts should be able to drive each other, so only setting up a single piece would be required, of course if a single engine drives a long belt, it would suffer side effects, such as lower speed.

Thanks for the kind words... Surely also from ske, since I don't know when he will be around.

ssilk wrote:What's not clear to me: How will you bridge the time between early game and mid game where you don't have such engines? Or eventually better question: When will this tech-part be researched in game?

And what is then the difference between a module (as now) and an engine - despite from the doubled complexity to produce both?

1. • From the beginning the Stirling Engine Modules (Early Game) would be always available.
   • After that could follow Steam Engine Modules (Early to mid game) together with Electric Engines (Early to Mid Game)
   • Diesel Engine Modules would be the last (Mid game, after Oil industry obviously) in the Tech Tree.
   • That is until some people come up with futuristic engine module types that turn other forms of energy into mechanical energy.
   So basically what this causes is that early on you will be spending a lot more time using Coal powered setups. You can leave it at that and use coal for the rest of the game because you can fit Stirling Engine Modules inside pretty much everything. Nothing would force you ever to upgrade to Electric Engine Modules at all if you like torturing yourself with Belt & Fuel Setups. So you can take your sweet time in Coal age. Downside would be that they would be weaker than other Engine Module types.
   
   After researching Electric Engine Modules, which could be a mid-to-late red or early green science tech you then have the foundation to produce and consume electric energy. The Electric Engine Module can be used both as Engine or Generator in that aspect. In machines it basically provides the convenience of not having to bring Coal/Fuel everywhere, making layouts easier. But you are also being less energy efficient because first you have to produce electric energy by turning some other type of energy into mechanic energy and then convert that mechanic energy into electric energy, which is basically where the Steam Engine Modules would roll in because they would be stronger than Stirling Engine Modules.
   
   After the Oil Industry becomes a thing you can create the most complex engine module type yet, the Diesel Engine Module. It would be a lot more powerful than the other Engine Modules, but also requiring pipes to bring in the liquid fuel, so it may not be used everywhere.
   
   
   A special word on Electric Energy: I imagine it could work so that for Electricity Production we would turn the current 0.12 "Steam Engine building" into a more general "Generator Building", which houses a lot more Module Slots than other machines. There would be 2 seperated grids for Engine Modules inside: On one side it can be filled with Electric Engine Modules which function as Electric Generators. On the other side it can be filled with either Stirling Engine Modules, Steam Engine Modules or Diesel Engine Modules. With Stirling Engine Modules you would have to directly insert Fuel into the Generator Building (low energy output), with Steam Engine Modules the Building would work exactly as it is now and you have to provide hot water through pipes (medium energy output), with Diesel Engine Modules you would have to provide Light Oil etc with Pipes (high energy output)
   
   What this means is that the Generators could become gradually stronger and stronger with new Engine types and you wouldn't have to build completely new power plants all the time, but you would also have to weigh the benefits and downsides.
2. As for the difference between an Engine Module and current Engines: Basically we would turn the current 0.12 Engines into Engine Modules.
   
   Which means that if you build an Assembler it would be just a dull frame that can't do much on its own. You would basically have to insert an Engine Module of your choice first to make it work and thereby specify how you want to provide energy for the machine and how fast/efficient it will work depending on the engine modules. The same would go for most other machines. Except if they have built-in engine modules, which also means they can't be swapped.
   
   So basically the Engines turn from a "fixed recipe requirement" to modules, thereby decreasing the cost of the initial machines, but also providing the flexibility of being able to swap the engines for stronger/efficient ones.
   
   And the Special Modules (Speed, Productivity, Efficiency) can only be used when there is an Electric Engine unit inside because they require electric energy to work, otherwise their functionality wouldn't change. That said I already thought about the possibility that other types of Special Modules may be paired with other Engine Module types, like for example a "turbocharger module" which increases fuel efficiency and that can be put inside a Special Module slot if there are Diesel Engines inside.

sillyfly wrote:This is a very interesting idea!
But I think perhaps it's more suitable for a mod, or maybe an expansion/"Expert mode".
But I like it!


And ssilk - I think the idea is to have Stirling engines available from the beginning of the game... but I may be wrong

Yeah, it could be a mod, and I would probably make it but I don't really know how to work with scripts and stuff. I am more of a think tank and problem solver than somebody who actually spends hours implementing all the stuff.

Expansion or especially Expert Mode would sound fine to me though. That's what I have been for all time.

And yeah, exactly... Stirling Engines would be there from the beginning to help the player to automate his first few machines.

ShizukaMiyuki wrote:I like the concept, I think it can fit right into the game, having Stirling energy for early game, but I do think electric engines should become available once it reaches early mid-game, to avoid it from becoming annoying to create belts dedicated to coal or fuel, just to power and assembler.

Yepp, for it to work the Electric Engines would become available much sooner, probably mid/end red science or so.

Neotix wrote:It's interesting idea but putting it in everything is not that good.
For example inserters. Now, all we have to do is placing inserter in correct direction. We can event placing them by holding LBM and moving mouse (fast and easy). After implementig your idea we would have to place inserter in right direction, open it's menu, place engine, place module, check if there is no mistake, close menu. Now do it for 1000 inserters. If so far you still be sane then do it for 20000 belts.

My point is, that such micro management is not bad, but not for entities that are using massively.

I thought about the problem myself. Micro Management can become tedious, like is a problem with most games.

I think that later on the problem is easily solved with Blueprinting. But of course there could be some kind of "placement help" early on, something like a keyboard shortcut that when pressed down while placing the machine it takes engine modules from your inventory and places them inside. And the same shortcut could be used to hotswap engine modules from your inventory with engine modules located in the machine. Something could be worked out for sure. So placing 1000 Inserters wouldn't be all that problematic anymore (altough I would consider myself using a blueprint with that many inserters ).

For belts there would be a "Belt Motor" that is located at the start or end (or both) of a belt, or maybe even be its own item that can be plopped anywhere along the belt, so you have to connect each entire belt only once and not every single tile of it.

But like sillyfly said, which machines provide the functionallity to swap engines could depend on setting an "Expert Mode", so if a player doesn't want it, he doesn't have to enable it.

bobingabout wrote:Considering steam power and some electric stuff is available from the start of the game already, I'd say both Stirling and Electric engines both should be available from the off.

what having them work like modules would also allow though, is a MK1 through MK3, or even beyond versions of said motors. Higher level versions could offer bonuses in areas such as speed, power, and energy efficiency.

Also, machines should probably come with an engine pre-installed, it would get quite tedious being required to have the extra step of installing an engine in every machine, especially every piece of melt, not to mention the increased cost. Belts should be able to drive each other, so only setting up a single piece would be required, of course if a single engine drives a long belt, it would suffer side effects, such as lower speed.

Yeah I considered myself that Electric Engines Modules could be available from the start, but since the game already starts off in coal-age we could leave the player for a while there so he gets accustomed to certain automatation tasks. If the tech for electric engines is a red science tech the experienced players can rush ahead if they like so, which is something experienced people do a lot.

And I also imagined that eventually there could be MK1, MK2, MK2,... upgrades or variants to various Engine Modules offering speed, power, energy benefits etc, as long as it doesn't get too ridiculously overpowered or cluttered etc. It is definitely a better, more centralized spot for "Speed/Efficiency" upgrades than having 10 tiers of Belts or 5 tiers of assemblers and stuff.

Yeah, a pre-installed engine module could also be a thing to reduce the placement tedium. Comparable to how currently Burner Inserters start off with a little bit of energy so the player doesn't have to insert coal into 50 burner inserters. It's definitely something worth discussing.

MeduSalem wrote:If the tech for electric engines is a red science tech...

...then we'll need a burner powered research lab!

bobingabout wrote:

MeduSalem wrote:If the tech for electric engines is a red science tech...

...then we'll need a burner powered research lab!

That could be interesting

bobingabout wrote:...then we'll need a burner powered research lab!

Pretty much, that's why I included it in the list in OP... Just put a Stirling Engine Module inside the lab and you are ready to go. You can always change to Electric Engine Modules later on.

But I see that this would be a matter of balancing. If people would like to have electric engines from the start, why not. I would not argue against it.



On a side note... Robots could be a problem in a full-fuel-based factory. They require electricity. xD

But the interesting thing could be... what if one pumps Light Oil/Petroleum Gas into the Roboports? Then Robots could fly there and refuel with Light Oil (given they have diesel engines installed). The ridiculous possibilities...

Thanks for the well done writeup to MeduSalem.

ssilk wrote:And what is then the difference between a module (as now) and an engine - despite from the doubled complexity to produce both?

The difference is that the current module system is neither sane nor necessary. Engines as modules are a step towards a module system based on logic. Everyone knows that you need some engines to make things move. The benefit is not so much in making thigs very different or complex but in a more consistent inner game logic.

The next step would be to add modules with very specific purposes such as a "precision 3 axis controller" and to add recipies which either benefit from such modules by increased speed and/or productivity or straight up require them.

Why do some recipies require a level 2 or 3 assembler right now?

---

Regarding the upgrade path:

I think it is possible to find an equivalent combination of "motorless frame" + "motors" + "modules" for each item currently in the game. Therefore, when implementing it, the old items could just be replaced by new versions upon importing.

For example: all "normal inserters" would be replaced with an "inserter frame" + "electric motor", all "fast inserters" would be replaced with an "inserter frame" + 2 "electric motors". All assembly machines 4 would be replaced with an "assembly machine" + 4 "electric motors" + an "precison axis controller".

For belts, we'll have to discuss how they will work in the future and what the intermediate steps are.

---

The inserters and assembly machines in the inventory could be replaced by the equivalent items plus a single item blueprint.

I don't know, factorio isn't the type of game where you tinker with every particular piece of machinery, there's too much of those.

If it's true modularity of entities, thousand of unique assemblers might be tough even for C++.

If it's just a few types of entities, then it's just a few more positions in crafting menu. Basically what people mod in for the tanks in order to have varied guns on them. Mostly it will result in a clutter of unused recipes, unless we'll get recipe submenus like in Rimworld where you change material of the wall by right clicking the building icon.

(Btw, there used to be that mod, which implemented an inserter gui, where you set up start\drop directions, speed and arm length.)

Don't forget the Tesla Fuelless Generator - Operates without any fuel input, but works very slowly - The current water pump and transport belts utilize this technology.

ske wrote:Thanks for the well done writeup to MeduSalem.

No problem.

ske wrote:Why do some recipies require a level 2 or 3 assembler right now?

I think it is mostly because Assembler 1, 2 and 3 support different amounts of ingredients. So you can't craft certain stuff with Assembler 1 or Assembler 2.

For our concept I would eliminate that limitation for the sake of simplicity...



... that said I have given the topic some thought as well, but yeah... it would make things even more "modular" or as some people would like to say "too complex":

Imagine that inside an Assembler you would have to place Inserter Modules or Small Pump modules. They would then determine the amount of ingredients the assembler can work with... 1 ingredient per Inserter Arm for example.... Or 1 Small pump for each Fluid input/output... and that's when we would go full modular.

Imagine that you only had various sizes of "Machine Frames", like 2x2 or 3x3 ... 5x5, etc. And the stuff you place inside those frames as modules would then determine the overall functionality of the "custom machine" and also determines what they are supposed to do, which recipes work inside them, how fast the recipes can be crafted, which energy is used to power the entire thing, etc, etc etc. ... and eventually assemblers, chemplants, furnaces, refineries etc wouldn't be needed anymore because you could just place enough modules inside the various machine templates to cover pretty much every aspect.

One could go completely insane with that.

ske wrote:Regarding the upgrade path:

[...]

Seems logical to me, but a script for converting several items would be the least of the problems.

Adil wrote:I don't know, factorio isn't the type of game where you tinker with every particular piece of machinery, there's too much of those.

If it's true modularity of entities, thousand of unique assemblers might be tough even for C++.

If it's just a few types of entities, then it's just a few more positions in crafting menu. Basically what people mod in for the tanks in order to have varied guns on them. Mostly it will result in a clutter of unused recipes, unless we'll get recipe submenus like in Rimworld where you change material of the wall by right clicking the building icon.

Well yeah, there are really some extreme games/mods out there for sure. I perfectly know what you mean.

A basic point of the concept is also that each machine would gain more importance as you could basically "build tall instead of wide", if you know what I mean.

Currently you use 100s of assemblers in a row producing the same item. That's a valid choice of course. But imagine if you could upgrade your machinery in a way that you could achieve the same with only 10 assemblers altough with a lot of love and investment. That would profit performance also a lot since people wouldn't be forced towards playing mega bases to compete with throughput. It would be a playstyle you can follow but you wouldn't have to follow it.

I haven't got the fastest computer around so I often tend to compactify my layouts, often using beacons and modules to no end to squeeze out even more throughput. It's the only way I can play beyond a certain point because if I would plop down 1000 assemblers and the infrastructure to power it I would kill my computer.

DerivePi wrote:Don't forget the Tesla Fuelless Generator - Operates without any fuel input, but works very slowly - The current water pump and transport belts utilize this technology.

...

MeduSalem wrote: A basic point of the concept is also that each machine would gain more importance as you could basically "build tall instead of wide", if you know what I mean.

Currently you use 100s of assemblers in a row producing the same item. That's a valid choice of course. But imagine if you could upgrade your machinery in a way that you could achieve the same with only 10 assemblers altough with a lot of love and investment. That would profit performance also a lot since people wouldn't be forced towards playing mega bases to compete with throughput. It would be a playstyle you can follow but you wouldn't have to follow it.

I haven't got the fastest computer around so I often tend to compactify my layouts, often using beacons and modules to no end to squeeze out even more throughput. It's the only way I can play beyond a certain point because if I would plop down 1000 assemblers and the infrastructure to power it I would kill my computer.

Well, my latest play ended up having around hundred and a half of asssemblers, and 600 inserters total and I find pesonal love for each too much already. And that's the scale, factorio starts to shine. Exchange that for a single assembler per a product type, and the main feature: the logistics of products in production line gets discarded. And lets be honest, adding a variant of simple shapes puzzle to assemblers doesn't make them spacechem reactors. Thus not bringing much of its own mechanics.

The more I think about this, the more I think, this is a change on a low scale, just turning some screws. I mean it isn't worth to implement, cause it generally doesn't change anything in general gameplay, what cannot be implement with more or less modded modules... I think it adds just a lot of complexity, which is quite OK for modules, but dangerous for the vanilla game.

And not to let this open and be totally negative: It suggests some new concepts with the module slots for the assembly, which I generally like to be implemented to enable modding into that direction, I think this is the essence of this suggestion.


[And to go off-topic:

What really would change something into more realism etc. is an idea like this: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20759 Functional Blocks
The explanation in that thread is pretty complicated, but to make it short, it describes in general a factory inside an assembly.
Good example is the NESTT mod, which is a factory inside of a train.

I mean that concept would really change anything and would go far beyond any game I know. And part of that idea is also this one.

So to come back to a conveyor belt: What if that idea wold be implemented and if I "open the inner" of a transport belt I can see a solar panel and an accumulator; or a sterling-engine? ]

Adil wrote:If it's true modularity of entities, thousand of unique assemblers might be tough even for C++.

A plug-n-play system is perfectly fine, it imparts minimal memory/CPU cost regardless of unique combinations. You're just going "power poles connect to me and I accept up to X kW", or "I now have a fuel slot and can produce up to Y kW".

MeduSalem wrote:Belts: Stirling, Steam, Diesel, Electric

I'd appreciate it if your ideas were worded around the current state of the game, so that they remain as separate as possible. It helps with balancing suggestions like this.

MeduSalem wrote:Only 1 Type of Mining Drill (the type of engine unit would decide what you get)

Don't forget that the initial mining drill is 2x2 and only mines the area it covers.

I'm not really on board with this idea, because it detracts from the core experience. A building should just work when placed, and not need messing with after placement (with the exception being burners). Having to fiddle with every machine so that it can accept power would be a pain, not to mention the extra inventory space cost, added complexity of automation, and annoyance when you mismatch counts of engines to buildings.

If it was instead something you add so that it can accept another power source (adding a burner engine to an assembler for instance), I think it'd be a nice addition. That way, you can build something and it runs fine, instead of building it in two parts.

I also think liquid-powered engines shouldn't be a thing, since they aren't anywhere else (even cars run on solid fuel). There's a nice theme mixture of advanced yet medieval-looking machinery (ignoring power poles, because they're distinctly modern-day), and diesel would push it towards modern-day tech.

ssilk wrote:...doesn't change anything in general gameplay, what cannot be implement with more or less modded modules... I think it adds just a lot of complexity...

I have a bit of a different feeling about this. At this stage, the idea (as I interpret it) feels very right. Yes, there are problems regarding the user interface that need to be solved in a way acceptable to beginners and more experienced players. The biggest problem with implementing it in the vanilla game is not that it is just "turning some screws" but that it changes the user experience in a very fundamental way. Something you want to think really hard about after attracting half a million players.

That said, I think it changes the game logic in a positive way and it contains a fundamental change I like to see expanded in factorio. It expands the steam age by providing the sterling engine and the steam engine to many more items. With the way both work, one basic physical fact is represented in the game more strongly: Everything needs energy to run. With sterling engines, you need some solid fuel supply routed throughout the whole factory where items visibly move and get consumed. With steam you get the problem that one pipe cannot supply an infinite amount of consumers and it cannot supply energy over a large distance. This is in a stark contrast to the electricity supply as it is now because there is a felt disconnect between power generation (solar farms somewhere out there in the desert) and the consumers (only connected by a single power line no matter how big the consumption is).

Regarding complexity, I think we have to split it into two categories:
- negative: "annoying hassle", "redundant work" and
- positive: "depth of gameplay", "consistent inner logic".

In order to get broad acceptance, we have to minimize the negative aspects while retaining the positive aspects (obviously). In order to really see what works, it needs to be implemented as a mod/fork and tested. In overall game engine functionality, yes, it is not that big of a change. The mechanics should be implementable as a mod. The hard part is more something that lays in the user interface and balancing.

Regarding the user interface aspect the engine modularity has the effect that many single items would be replaced by compositions of two (or more) items. Overall this reduces the amount of items while increasing the number of combinations possible but adds extra work for the player and introduces a new concept of "everything needs a motor and energy source to work". Maybe the extra work could be minimized by some clever interface concept (dropdown menu/preconfiguration/blueprints) that could only partly be implemeted as mod.

---

Regarding game experience I see two different partly opposed concepts:
1) Story mode where the player moves throughout different ages and items become obosolete/superseded by new concepts.
2) Sandbox mode where everything has its place in the endgame like the individuals strokes in a picture.

While I see a strong point for 1) in the campaign where the player is introduced to new concepts and follows a development path. The way most people play factorio the most hours is 2) and this is very important to me. If i build something it should become part of a big picture and not become totally obsolete once I reach the next technology stage. Every item needs a special purpose in the endgame. Every item should have some properties that make it unique, that make it have its place. Yes, there should be different ways to accomplish most things. In regards to transport you can have belts, trains, robots and none of them shall be better than every other. In regards to belts, inserters and assemblers tier 3 totally supersedes 2 and 1 which makes them obsolete. This is the main nagging gripe for me that seeded this frame+motor idea. It just feels wrong in sandbox mode to have items that have no purpose anymore, parts of your factory that you can basically tear down because they are obsoleted.

It is a matter of balancing to give the steam concept a purpose when electricity is available. Some items would be best/fastest/most efficiently produced using a particular kind of machinery. Having different ways to puzzle together a production line which are optimal regarding different aspects give the game depth.

Regarding the functional blocks:

I think that the idea as such is good but implementing it is very difficult because it is a very general idea. It is kind of systems design and so far I haven't seen anything that did it really well. There are many possibilities to combine items and this makes many edge cases arise. In order to avoid these edge cases, you have to put harder constraints on the possible combinations and it takes a lot of brain power to figure everything out (if it works at all).

That being said, motor "modules" could be part of the functional block concept but they are much more specialized i.e. the assembly machine already has slots with predefined connections and only modules of predefined type go into each slot. Much less possible combinations, much less to worry about. In order to realise a whole new concept of machine you need a new frame with different configuration possiblities.

Compared to the module system we have now, the engine concept (along with possible extensions) would be a major improvement though.

---

Hexicube mentioned an important point:

I'm not really on board with this idea, because it detracts from the core experience. A building should just work when placed, and not need messing with after placement (with the exception being burners). Having to fiddle with every machine so that it can accept power would be a pain, not to mention the extra inventory space cost, added complexity of automation, and annoyance when you mismatch counts of engines to buildings.

If it was instead something you add so that it can accept another power source (adding a burner engine to an assembler for instance), I think it'd be a nice addition. That way, you can build something and it runs fine, instead of building it in two parts.

The building should just work, but still be configurable. I totally agree with that. How would we get that?

Currently we have invisibly preconfigured the buildings to be either burner or electrically powered and cannot change the configuration. One idea with the rail laying is that you can place down one thing (curved rail tiles) but consume another thing (straight rail tiles). Why not make it the same with the other items? Place an assembly machine level 3 but consume 1 assembly machine frame + 4 electrical engines. This way the user experience when placing things is mostly the same but still it is possible modify the configuration. When you research the technology required some configuration (e.g. assembly machine 2 or the fast inserter) these preconfigured options become available as icons.

I think a good place for these icons is a dropdown-menu/popup-menu at the assembly frame icon. This is also the place where user defined configurations (single item blueprints) would be placed. When just the frame is selected, it automatically pics the last configuration used.

When an item is picked up it would automatically be decomposed into its contents.