Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I absolutely love both ideas.
Or course, the game would become much more complex if we have to supply people to resources, so I would suggest to implement it as an option.
I could not agree more with isidoro. I also want a more challenging game*. Without the main connection rule it would be too tempting to cheat and delete connections between cities to force users to take my trains 🙂
However, there is a difference between a hard game because it is well designed (rewarding good play and punishing mistakes) and a game that is hard because it badly coded. There are many times that I just want to replace a curvy road with a straight one or upgrade a small track to a larger track … With the main connection I must try over and over again to make detours and (sometimes they are not recognized as such even if they are short) then bulldoze the old line, replace the old track and hope I can bulldoze the detour (which has become a new main connection)… It is really a huge pain.
It would be much better if the game lets you bulldoze anything but charges you the cost of rebuilding the missing main connections. Even better, it would be if the game lets you enter some “building/planning” mode, build anything with the right to undo the different parts and then commit to the whole construction before reentering the “playing mode”.
* Suggestion to developers. I think that even hard is somewhat too easy that you must even not really pay attention to optimize anything and still make a lot of money. Because of that I lost most of the interest in the game since all plays are somewhat similar. I though I might try to modify the game – if possible – to increase maintenance costs of infrastructure like rail, road, stations, depots and probably even trucks. However to really bring some more replayability there should be:
1) more map diversity ( come on, developers, it should not be that hard to do and has been requested by several players … e.g. rectangular maps, cities and industries far apart, coastlines etc.)
2) some preconfigured maps ( I would love to connect regions or even better countries like Switzerland, France, England, Europe … just make some abstraction of the scale of the maps, put cities farther away from each other and slow the passing of time)
3) some maps with some quality objectives or scenarios (e.g. reach a really high coverage in certain areas, or implement a certain mix of transportation modes, connect certain cities or industries …)
4) bring more dynamism in maps, e.g. by spawning new industries over time (maybe complexifying the industry chains over time) and delete the most obsolete ones
5) competitors or other players to beat ( I know it will never be implemented in train fever, but I have hopes for your next game ).
I agree 100% with the fact that these six points are really annoying, even though I still find the game to be enjoyable. I still hope the developers will take care of some of these points. I believe that point 6 is already corrected (via an official option) and I doubt point 4 could be easily tackled, but I sincerely hope all other points will be corrected.
I think that the question was not well formulated: is it true that supplying the SAME CITIES by MORE INDUSTRIES disrupts the supply chains ? Some users reported problems in doing so. I myself never tried it… I usually supply cities from only one source (but more cities form one source) and never got these problems, but some users reported such behavior.
I agree on point 2, especially the possibility to access railway stations from the two sides, integrate rail and bus station and build integrated passenger/cargo stations.
I also agree on point 4. It would give a much more dynamic gameplay. At present once the tracks are laid out there is little to do than replace vehicles (or maybe optimize routes to better employ the added speed*)
* I am not sure about this point, since I read that most destinations are set and do not dynamically change during the game (except when a location is destroyed) so that would not really alter profits (at least for passengers). Is that true ?
The only advantage in using the lines already running is that you start from 25 production instead of 1. On the other hand profit is more based on distance and efficiency (if you are able to run your trucks full in both directions… something which with the new system is maybe not possible anymbore). Existing routes tend to be short (under 20 minutes in 15 km/h) so it is very much probable that a new route which is longer would yield more profit.
+1 from mee too 🙂
It would also be helpful to have other similar stuff like “replace immediately” or a “sell vehicle” options (e.g. by right mouse click on vehicles or on the line)
I also agree. Maps are one of the aspects that need more improvement… every play feels the same.
A map editor would even be better 🙂
@Night: I completely agree with you. While i like train fever, the industry system and map generation are probably the less enoyable aspects of the game (in addition to some “collisions” in building railroads). The possibility to buy and create industries would create a little bit of dynamism in the game (as would be industries appearing or disappearing depending on their performance and competition). The possibility to create map with realistic and diverse layouts would also increase replayability. I played some hundred hours but after three 150+ years maps it always feel the same…
@Tom Thank you. It’s nice to see that developers now participate in the forum 🙂
@Party In reality it sounds more complex than you give credit for, at least when cars do appear. As soon as there are cars, people may go whenever they want with cars and therefore if you want to transport them you have to adapt your network. In addition there is the whole matter of city growth, with residential, leisure, work and commercail areas… Of course you can have an influence on where people go, but this is actually realistic… If I live in an house and going to a place now become faster, I might consider going working/leisuring/shopping in that place 🙂 The simulation aspect is really the major thing I really love in this game (except for the 20 minutes limit, especially on goods) in addition to its cool graphics.
The developers never made clear how their simulation work except that the destination is picked within 20 minutes distance. If this would be true, then passengers could travel many more stops, provided you reach the destination – including all waiting and walking times – within 20 minutes.
However, it might also well be that the developers could not write an algorithm that does that correctly and limits itself to a few stops (maybe to save computing time)…
Still, in the case of bus stops, passengers are clearly able to go beyond two stops, so I don’t see why it should not apply to trains as well.
It would be nice to hear from developers (recently they started to participate a little in the forum, so there is hope).
@Traian I completely agree with you !
In the forums someone mentioned that there is a possibilty to have less cities and industries in a large map by modifying some parameters.
@PickPay I really like your idea. Definitively gives something more to ponder when designing lines! +1
In reality I don’t use trains asap (I might have misinterpreted you, I thought it was a general comment).
I usually start with cargo truck routes and some intercity and intracity bus routes to get a solid financial base and spur some city growth.
After a while (typically 10-20 years) I replace intercity busses with trains. I usually connect three or four cities on a straight line based on population, distance and terrain (I often start with two but then extend the line asap and more with faster trains). I try to place stations close to the residential area, but I immediately set up intra-city busses to the other areas (often so that residential is in the middle of the route like industrial <-> residential <-> commerce <-> leisure). I often use 6 passengers wagons or more with the newer locomotives. For the first 2-3 years the train are at a loss, but then they begin to make a profit.
I still am not sure if bus lines would be even more profitable… but hey I like to play with trains 😉
There are various mods to change any costs you want. Just have a look a train-fever.net. It also seems to be quite easy to change costs (or anything else) by editing the various files regarding the vehicles.
I agree that maintenance and building costs are too underestimated and maintenance costs are high. However, I don’t find it is too hard to make a profit with trains (hard difficulty, euro maps… never tried USA) at the point that after the initial 10-20 years I usually don’t have to worry about money. Perhaps the only point I regret is that using trucks and busses often seems to be more profitable, maybe unless you really have long routes… but hey this is quite realistic that busses>trains on short routes and viceversa…
