Deep mines should be buffed

[kendy4thestate]

I have three quarries, I’m still buying stone. I have two deep iron mines, I’m still buying ore and iron. I have two deep coal mines, I’m still buying coal. All have 16 labourers. I have 13 wainwrights, hardly any of them pick up materiel from the mines but will rush to my trading centre to transfer ores and metals, instead preferring to stock temporary shelters, which hardly get used. I think a priority system for wainwrights should be introduced.

[Ranamar]

@OlPioneer

If we admittedly get less output from deep mines than from ordinary mines, what’s the point of them? Just that they’re of infinite productivity?

Yes, precisely that: They exist (AIUI) so that a very late game doesn’t require importing every single resource after all local deposits run out.

[OlPioneer]

@Ranamar

@OlPioneer

If we admittedly get less output from deep mines than from ordinary mines, what’s the point of them? Just that they’re of infinite productivity?

Yes, precisely that: They exist (AIUI) so that a very late game doesn’t require importing every single resource after all local deposits run out.

I’m sorry, but that defies logic. You have twice the employees and are able to use heavy tools, which should facilitate drawing the ore out of the ground, yet you produce less product. Regular limited-content iron mines have fewer employees and no tools; logic would indicate they would produce less product. The way it is doesn’t make any sense. That which makes no sense bothers me (it’s my personal curse! LOL!)

[Jabarto]

For a lot of resources, you just aren’t likely to need deep mines to begin with. A single hill can easly have 20k+ iron in it, clay deposits can hit 14k or so if you’re lucky, and even if you’re not the ability to request goods from traders has done a lot to make resources less finite.

[OlPioneer]

Apparently so. . . . (psst! But it still doesn’t make sense . . . )

[Ranamar]

@OlPioneer

I’m sorry, but that defies logic. You have twice the employees and are able to use heavy tools, which should facilitate drawing the ore out of the ground, yet you produce less product. Regular limited-content iron mines have fewer employees and no tools; logic would indicate they would produce less product. The way it is doesn’t make any sense.

So, I really do think it’s a balance-first thing, so the argument I’m going to make is weirder for both clay and sand, which I don’t think have underground extraction, but there’s a logical argument to be had here, especially for iron and coal:
The regular mines are for surface-accessible deposits. If you can drive the mine straight into the side of a mountain, or even dig it right off the surface of the ground, for example, you don’t need too much in the way of equipment, because it’s right there. Meanwhile, the deep mines are for harder-to-access ores that are, for example, below the water table and require serious pumping and ventilation infrastructure. Hence the “deep” part of the mine: It’s pretty far from the way in.

[OlPioneer]

@Ranamar

So, I really do think it’s a balance-first thing, so the argument I’m going to make is weirder for both clay and sand, which I don’t think have underground extraction, but there’s a logical argument to be had here, especially for iron and coal:
The regular mines are for surface-accessible deposits. If you can drive the mine straight into the side of a mountain, or even dig it right off the surface of the ground, for example, you don’t need too much in the way of equipment, because it’s right there. Meanwhile, the deep mines are for harder-to-access ores that are, for example, below the water table and require serious pumping and ventilation infrastructure. Hence the “deep” part of the mine: It’s pretty far from the way in.

Good argument. Well done. I will accept that.