[2.0.28] Casting Copper Cable Recipe Seems Imbalanced Compared to Other Recipes

[FuelPoweredCoder]

Game Version: Factorio 2.0.28
Mods Used: Space Age (v2.0.28),

Issue Description:
I’ve noticed an imbalance in the recipe for creating copper cables from molten copper using the casting-copper-cable recipe. When comparing this recipe to the standard recipe for copper cables and other casting recipes, it seems to produce disproportionate results.

Below are the details and comparisons:

1. Standard Recipe for Copper Cable (Screenshot Attached)

recipe 1

12-26-2024, 21-50-22.png (20.97 KiB) Viewed 763 times

This is the typical recipe for creating copper cables using copper plates:

{
type = "recipe",
name = "copper-cable",
enabled = false,
ingredients = {{type = "item", name = "copper-plate", amount = 1}},
results = {{type="item", name="copper-cable", amount=2}},
allow_productivity = true
}

From this, we can see that 1 copper plate produces 2 copper cables.

2. Casting Copper Plate Recipe

recipe 2

12-26-2024, 21-52-03.png (21.88 KiB) Viewed 763 times

The casting machine allows molten copper to be converted into copper plates as follows:

{
type = "recipe",
name = "casting-copper",
category = "metallurgy",
subgroup = "vulcanus-processes",
order = "b[casting]-b[casting-copper]",
icon = "__space-age__/graphics/icons/casting-copper.png",
enabled = false,
ingredients =
{
{type = "fluid", name = "molten-copper", amount = 20, fluidbox_multiplier = 10},
},
energy_required = 3.2,
allow_decomposition = false,
results = {{type = "item", name = "copper-plate", amount = 2}},
allow_productivity = true
}

Thus, 20 molten copper produces 2 copper plates, which aligns with the typical balance in Factorio recipes.

3. Casting Copper Cable Recipe

recipe 3

12-26-2024, 21-52-27.png (22.66 KiB) Viewed 763 times

Here is the recipe for creating copper cables directly from molten copper using the casting machine:

{
type = "recipe",
name = "casting-copper-cable",
category = "metallurgy",
subgroup = "vulcanus-processes",
order = "b[casting]-h[casting-copper-cable]",
icon = "__space-age__/graphics/icons/casting-copper-cable.png",
enabled = false,
ingredients =
{
{type = "fluid", name = "molten-copper", amount = 5, fluidbox_multiplier = 5},
},
energy_required = 1,
allow_decomposition = false,
results = {{type = "item", name = "copper-cable", amount = 2}},
allow_productivity = true
}

Here, 5 molten copper produces 2 copper cables, which appears unusually high compared to the molten copper → copper plate → copper cable chain.


Expected Behavior:

If following the standard recipe balance:

• Based on the recipe for **molten copper → copper plate**, 20 molten copper produces 2 copper plates. This means 20 molten copper should equivalently produce 4 copper cables, which simplifies to **5 molten copper producing 1 copper cable**.

• However, in the current recipe, 5 molten copper produces 2 copper cables, which is twice the expected output.



Questions for the Community and Developers:

1. Is this recipe intentionally designed to provide a bonus for using casting machines for copper cables?

2. If this is a balancing bonus, could we get clarification on the rationale?



Additional Notes:

• I couldn’t find related discussions in the forum. If this has been addressed elsewhere, please share the link.

• While this could be an intentional design, the discrepancy might cause confusion for players optimizing production chains.



**Thank you for your time and any insights you can provide!**

[boskid]

casting copper cables and casting iron gear wheels were intentionally made to be twice as effective to balance the productivity loss of not having extra step in the middle (molten iron/copper -> iron/copper plate -> gear/copper-cables). I am not going to give you anything more than that because i was against this change but it is a data change which is easy to change by mods if someone disagrees.

[FuelPoweredCoder]

Thank you for clarifying that this design choice was intentional. However, I would like to share some additional thoughts and perspectives regarding this system:

1. Unusual Design Choice in Factorio

Factorio players, myself included, are accustomed to balancing efficiency and complexity in factory setups. The casting machine’s direct copper cable recipe feels unusual because it disrupts the typical expectation that increased complexity should lead to better productivity.

2. Impact on Factory Planning

When considering whether this design might be revised, it affects how players approach factory planning. If the chances of a revision are low, it helps players commit to the current system without worrying about future changes.

3. Comparison Between Two Approaches

1. Foundry for Molten Copper → Copper Cable:

• This approach uses a single machine type (foundry) to process molten copper directly into copper cables.

• It involves two productivity bonuses: one for smelting ore into molten copper, and another for converting molten copper into copper cables.

2. Foundry and Electromagnetic Plant for Copper Plate → Copper Cable:

• This approach uses **foundry** to process ore into molten copper and then into copper plates, followed by **electromagnetic-plant** to process the copper plates into copper cables.

• It involves **three productivity bonuses**: one for smelting ore into molten copper, a second for molten copper into copper plates, and a third for copper plates into copper cables.

• This setup requires **two machine types** and **three machines** in total, consuming more power and involving more complexity.

3. Intuitive Expectation vs. Actual Outcome:

• Intuitively, one would expect the second approach, which involves three productivity bonuses and more effort, to result in higher overall productivity.

• However, in practice, the first approach (foundry for molten copper → copper cable) offers higher productivity. This outcome feels counterintuitive and may create a sense of imbalance for some players.

4. Concerns About Broader Perception

I believe other players might share this sense of imbalance or unusual design. If there are examples of similar concerns or discussions that led to this decision, I would appreciate any insights. Additionally, I understand that the chances of revisiting this design are low, but it would be helpful to confirm this to set expectations for future planning.