Remove the coverage gap between small/med poles

[npuldon]

I made it already in my original post. Again, change small poles area to 3.5 and medium pole to 4.5 so that the coverage matches the wire distance.

[mexmer]

I made it already in my original post. Again, change small poles area to 3.5 and medium pole to 4.5 so that the coverage matches the wire distance.

that's not constructive, because you have not thought what effect will have it on game.
you just don't like current state, so you typed whatever did fit in.

but fact, that you effectively make small pole into medium pole, and medium pole even stronger (so even less reason for people to use substation) obviously didn't come trough your head.

medium poles come into game in right time, when you need them. and small poles cover exactly what needs to be covered in early game.

like i said, small pole perfectly cover 2 furnaces with 2 inserters on each side. you can even stuck it between 2 assemblers, and still have 2 inserters on each side, when you in dire need of 3 inserters, you either use different layout or medium pole. from building perpective their coverage fits exactly when you get them.

if you make small pole to have coverage of current medium pole, only reason to replace small pole with medium would be production automation. in that regard and in compliance with your suggestion, would be better to get rid of medium pole, and make small pole from iron stick and copper cable, so it can be automated.

[npuldon]

I never replace small poles with medium ones because there is no reason to and I never use substations outside of megabase/beacon play which are totally different setups than med pole setups since that is the only way the cost of substations can be justified compared to medium poles.

You seem like a big fan boy of the current system and that is fine. I am not. To me, the coverage gap is a big inconsistency that doesn't make any sense, does not make the game more fun, and as such, I see no reason to keep it.

[ikarikeiji]

-1 to all of this. Please keep the supply and reach distances as they are. I like the gaps.

Having the gaps gives a more interesting gameplay experience, it means your poles are not overpowered in terms of supply, while allowing you to jump power from one side of a large object / layout to the other.

I would suggest those who prefer equal supply and reach distances use a simple mod for this. You might even find from playing that it doesn't quite work out how you expected, too!

[Melfish]

-1 as well

I personally think if people were that into non-gap, max range power poles, the better way would be to nerf the max range, instead of increasing the coverage of the pole.
This of course because even further buffing a small pole to reach over an assembler seems insane to me. Medium poles I care less about, but I see no reason to simplify base design.

[npuldon]

-1 as well

I personally think if people were that into non-gap, max range power poles, the better way would be to nerf the max range, instead of increasing the coverage of the pole.
This of course because even further buffing a small pole to reach over an assembler seems insane to me. Medium poles I care less about, but I see no reason to simplify base design.

The change I suggested is for small poles to be 3.5. This does means a pole can power up to 3 spaces away which is NOT the other side of a assembling machine if placed on the opposite side. If not placed on the opposite side and instead placed in the middle of the orthogonal side, small poles can already give coverage to the other side. This is a very common setup in green circuit production blocks for instance.

[BlueTemplar]

But it *is* the other side of a furnace.
(Though you also *did* propose instead lowering the wire lengths, so...)

[steinio]

If you lower wire reach now you will break a lot of bases.

[BlueTemplar]

They could make a note for 0.18... (if they feel that the change might be warranted)