That is a good point indeed. Although I do think it might be a nice touch for certain structures.
Why for instance should fossil fuel plants, as an example, still be used in 2050 or so when better alternatives exist?
Getting rid of the problem of destroying them when too old, they would fail to operate.
Furthermore, nuclear power plants are not expected, as I understand it, to last more than a maximum of 40 to 50 years. Once the time of one turn a year is reached it would certainly allow for further realism I believe.
That can also be extended to other major buildings or structures such as geothermal plants whos supply of usable warm water would decline over the years and decades.
Perhaps we would need to look a bit more thoroughly into this matter...
Why for instance should fossil fuel plants, as an example, still be used in 2050 or so when better alternatives exist?
Getting rid of the problem of destroying them when too old, they would fail to operate.
Furthermore, nuclear power plants are not expected, as I understand it, to last more than a maximum of 40 to 50 years. Once the time of one turn a year is reached it would certainly allow for further realism I believe.
That can also be extended to other major buildings or structures such as geothermal plants whos supply of usable warm water would decline over the years and decades.
Perhaps we would need to look a bit more thoroughly into this matter...
Comment