I would like to ask Firaxis how to mod (if possible) or patch the game so that we can hold the cargo in a station to be picked up later by another train. The value of the cargo would decline as it sits there with the same (or another) formula as it does in transport now.
I have often run into the situation where :
Station A,B,C
A==B==C
I need cargo to go from C to A but (esp. with hard routing) I cannot(except with great difficulty or loosing value of cargo thru cluttering up the line) get the cargo from C to A. But if I have trains running from A to B, and B to C I can easily "stack" the train loading so that I carry different cargos on different trips.
This would solve a lot of "hard" routing problems as you can very easily run out of tracks or the routing of trains becomes very complex.
Firaxis -- Let us hold cargo at stations
-
The_Commodore
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:57 pm
Personally I think solving the routing issues is part of the challenge of the game. Might not look all that neat, but getting effecient routing through stations is usually the thing I spend most of the time trying to do.
If you have the cash, simply building the relevant industry in B is a quick solution. Or build a bypass around B, then the challenge becomes trying to get the train to use it consistently.
If you have the cash, simply building the relevant industry in B is a quick solution. Or build a bypass around B, then the challenge becomes trying to get the train to use it consistently.
-
The_Commodore
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:57 pm
rapheous -- yes but I think the idea is efficient use of resources. If we were playing Civ4 we would not take Cavalry to fight against a spearman, if that Cavalry was necessary to win a fight of numbers against Cossacks. Here the resource is not the resources on the map, coal, grain, etc. but money. If we use money sparingly, laying down efficient routes at least cost generating the most income then we gain an advantage over our opponents.
So with "drop shipping" we can store cargo at stations to be picked up later ... involving the saving of track costs & engine cost (new & maint) with the downside of only the loss of value of stationary cargo. The real life railroads do this all the time.
This saving of money means faster expansion and the building of industries in strategic places, among other things.
Without letting the cat out of the bag, it adds extra depth and a certain "fog of war" to the game.
So with "drop shipping" we can store cargo at stations to be picked up later ... involving the saving of track costs & engine cost (new & maint) with the downside of only the loss of value of stationary cargo. The real life railroads do this all the time.
This saving of money means faster expansion and the building of industries in strategic places, among other things.
Without letting the cat out of the bag, it adds extra depth and a certain "fog of war" to the game.
Notice how there are dirt trails from towns to industries nearby? I think they're going on the premise that if you don't move the goods, they will slowly move themselves, similar to RRT III but not so obvious.
Of course, if the industries really did move raw materials to the towns on their own, you'd have a unit of finished goods ready to rail out of there every now and then, and that doesn't happen. I guess the dirt roads are just so employees can go to work!
--Mike
Of course, if the industries really did move raw materials to the towns on their own, you'd have a unit of finished goods ready to rail out of there every now and then, and that doesn't happen. I guess the dirt roads are just so employees can go to work!
--Mike
I have created a 'yard' of sorts using the Scenario Manager. You find an industry that will not be used and add it to the map.(US maps, use 'hospital') Then you tell it to 'input' each goods and 'output' the same goods, 1:1. If the town needs an item it will go there. It does take the normal processing time, you can't drop it and then pick it up right away, but it is there after a while.
I'm correct 97% of the time..... who cares about the other 4%....
Hey Snoop I can check into making this an actual industry item and make it a pak addon. Like you said though it would use up an industry slot in a city and there is nothing stopping someone else from raiding it though.
It will be on the bottom of my things to do though. I have the mideast map, then the alaskian map to finish up first. It will be sweet if more mappers and modders came on board that understood the way things are done. I am sure some of us feel swamped in requests and its a pretty slow pace making mods and maps right now.
Daryl
It will be on the bottom of my things to do though. I have the mideast map, then the alaskian map to finish up first. It will be sweet if more mappers and modders came on board that understood the way things are done. I am sure some of us feel swamped in requests and its a pretty slow pace making mods and maps right now.
Daryl
You're right about the raiding, but how many of us have dropped a station into an AIs city and reapped the rewards? I know I have, he makes the steel and I walk off with it!
Can the yard be set so it is just outside the cityso it is yours? Of course we all run tracks into the other guys mines or fields or whatever. Don't we?????
Can the yard be set so it is just outside the cityso it is yours? Of course we all run tracks into the other guys mines or fields or whatever. Don't we?????
I'm correct 97% of the time..... who cares about the other 4%....
This issue is a major annoyance for me. I used to play Transport Tycoon Deluxe (with the ttdxpatch mod) and perhaps i am setting my sights too high! But the ability for passengers to disembark from one train and get on board another is a fundamental key to a real-world train network! That we have to have a dedicated line between Washington and NY to get those victory points seems silly to me. same same for the transfer of other commodities; it's just common sense! i think i might go back to ttdx!! (oh but railroads is sooooo pretty!!! 
)
like the other posts in this thread, I really do hope someone from Firaxis is reading this! (and if not this, which forums to they actually read..?)
)like the other posts in this thread, I really do hope someone from Firaxis is reading this! (and if not this, which forums to they actually read..?)
-
keotaman
So if you could force the passengers remain on the train it would allow the train to stop at other stations prior to Washington, at which they then disembark. But i would still need an uninterrupted track and a train to go the entire distance, yes?
The logic which satisfies the condition of linking the three cities doesn't seem to require that the links be via uninterrupted track (which i think is great), yet to actually move the passengers in accordance with the victory condition requires such track, yes?
My point is that this requirement results in duplication and over complication. say i already have track between A and B, and i want to link A to C. if B to C is shorter, what sense does it make to create track that goes the longer way around? i want to drop off my cargo at B and have it picked up from there. no redundant track required, and no messing around with the additional routing.
The logic which satisfies the condition of linking the three cities doesn't seem to require that the links be via uninterrupted track (which i think is great), yet to actually move the passengers in accordance with the victory condition requires such track, yes?
My point is that this requirement results in duplication and over complication. say i already have track between A and B, and i want to link A to C. if B to C is shorter, what sense does it make to create track that goes the longer way around? i want to drop off my cargo at B and have it picked up from there. no redundant track required, and no messing around with the additional routing.
-
keotaman
You can; you use A to B segment, then a short crossover lets you use the B to C segment! And no time wasted unloading/loading to get the work done.DeputyJ wrote: ...
The logic which satisfies the condition of linking the three cities doesn't seem to require that the links be via uninterrupted track (which i think is great), yet to actually move the passengers in accordance with the victory condition requires such track, yes?
ANSWER: Yes, you need connected track, because the train that the immigrants are on has to go all the way from NY to Wash. Other trains can use the SAME track for their work. In fact, I make the immigrant trains do local work on their way back to NY for the next immigrant run!
My point is that this requirement results in duplication and over complication. say i already have track between A and B, and i want to link A to C. if B to C is shorter, what sense does it make to create track that goes the longer way around? i want to drop off my cargo at B and have it picked up from there. no redundant track required, and no messing around with the additional routing.
Cities can "hold" goods store them and then other trains can pickup goods from them. They can be set for how much goods they store onhand as well. Don't think anyone has done this yet...but the setting are there. I was thinking about using it on my larger sized cities...till I placed two distrabution centers on my map. All goods from every town go to either the north or south centers...then they take back what ever they need from the centers as they drop off their goods. The Florida Gold map should be out this week or next...in the last stages.
