Running costs are too cheap

[Incrediblejimmy]

Having played TPF 1 a lot, I have to say the new industry system is vastly superior to the old one because it forces you to make complex goods networks in order to keep your trains full most of the time. However this is all nullified by running costs that are simply too low and make the game much too easy.

In TPF 1, on hard difficulty, you just looked for industries that used the same type freight-car and were far apart. So you start, get all the money from the banks, link the farm and food industry that are furthest apart by train, set up a truck route from the farm to the nearest city and you are done.

These tactics now get you nowhere - industry chains that only have two components now all need different freight cars, segments of chains which do use the same type now produce 2:1 (so far I've only spotted one exception) and on top of that: If you do find a route setup that might make you rich quickly you also need a city that requires the specific good, as luckily not all cities take everything anymore. On the other hand you might find an industry that can be supplied with a product that could fill one otherwhise empty destination...
So if you want to keep your trains loaded above 50% on average you really have to build quite complex networks. The big problem with this: It is not encouraged by the game mechanics. Even on hard difficulty one way transport, aka a train that is only loaded 50% on average turns a profit, where it should be at best exactly zero.

I would really quite like to see the devs or modders rebalance the running costs for hard difficulty or - if this is by choice - add a "very hard" mode.

[akemrir]

Openttd have customizable parameters for difficulty. Maybe this way everyone could set own level? In menu before game start. With saveable presets and three for start. Of course non standard ones will not count achievements.

[Incrediblejimmy]

Originally posted by akemrir:

Openttd have customizable parameters for difficulty. Maybe this way everyone could set own level? In menu before game start. With saveable presets and three for start. Of course non standard ones will not count achievements.

This would of course work, allthough I always find greater joy in a challenge that is given to me instead of ones were I make my own life difficult^^

[lozacenz]

Are you taking into account the fact that everything else has significant upkeep costs now?
The train upkeep isn't also covering the upkeep cost of the tracks, stations, signals etc (which it certainly seemed to do in 1). They're all billed separately.

Also, buying new trains seems to be a lot more expensive than it was in TpF1. (though that might be a combination of faulty memory and reduced skill at earning money early)

[Incrediblejimmy]

Originally posted by lozacenz:

Are you taking into account the fact that everything else has significant upkeep costs now?
The train upkeep isn't also covering the upkeep cost of the tracks, stations, signals etc (which it certainly seemed to do in 1). They're all billed separately.

Also, buying new trains seems to be a lot more expensive than it was in TpF1. (though that might be a combination of faulty memory and reduced skill at earning money early)

Well, I started my very first game on hard, 1850, water maxed, mountains maxed, and I do not know what to with all the money I earn - due to slow function still in steam age...but there wasn't a single period were I ran into financial problems.

[neldot]

I agree that the game is too easy for expert players, and not only because of reduced running costs, but also because lack of maintenance on old vehicles doesn't raise the running costs anymore like it did in TPF1, and also because loan rates are incredibly low if compared with TPF1.

Probably the game needs an ULTRA HARD difficulty setting with increased costs, and also an hoverhaul of the vehicle maintenance dynamics, that currently simply doesn't work.

[Incrediblejimmy]

Screenshot to show what I mean:
On highest difficulty, the train is running in one direction full with 280 logs and returns 50% filled with 140 planks, (not even full 100% of the time) the rest is done by trucks.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1941566781

It earns over 13mil in a three year period while costing ~5mil over the same period. This is my very first route, and I upgraded three times. Had a starter loco with 12 cars, the general with 25 and the baldwin with 40. Just seems too much, and really no challenge.

[Gregorovitch]

Originally posted by Incrediblejimmy:

Screenshot to show what I mean:
On highest difficulty, the train is running in one direction full with 280 logs and returns 50% filled with 140 planks, (not even full 100% of the time) the rest is done by trucks.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1941566781

It earns over 13mil in a three year period while costing ~5mil over the same period. This is my very first route, and I upgraded three times. Had a starter loco with 12 cars, the general with 25 and the baldwin with 40. Just seems too much, and really no challenge.

You're right about this of course. It is easy. Too easy? That's not such a simple question IMHO. I'd make three points about this subject.

1. The game suffers from "Golden Route" syndrome"

The two golden routes are logs->planks->tools and crude->oil->fuel. In both cases it's almost always possible to make a long route with wagons fully loaded both ways leading to ultra-profits. This makes the game one dimensional. There is literally no point in starting with any other type of route and once you have them in place you are rolling in so much money that it is impossible to spend it faster than you make it on normal speed.

However, because most cargo routes have to run empty one way (until late game where you may be able to construct complex cargo systems capable of running more trains full in both directions) it is necessary for transport fees and maintenance to be set such that full out/empty back delivers a reasonable profit. Which of course is what directly leads to the ultra-profits from the two "golden" routes.

This is not the only game to suffer from this - there was a space transport game released recently that also had this golden route problem. I don't know why these games are designed like this.

The solution is blindingly obvious:

a) You should be able to invest in a shunting yard at cargo stations enabling you to change consist mid-route, and
b) Train transport fees should be more or less halved.

2. Any sandbox financial sim game like this has a hard->easy tipping point. (non-sandbox games can screw you with out of the blue events, story related stuff, scary monsters etc)

TF1 was harder than TF2 financially. Or was it? In fact it wasn't harder, it just took longer to grind up decent profits. But the point is once you had slogged through the early game grind
to a make decent profits (and there is always a way to do it otherwise it wouldn't be a game, you would lose by definition) the game then became just as easy. There was a tipping point where you were making so much money that money was no longer an object as such. Just like TF2 but it just took longer.

3. TF2 is attempting to shift the challenge from early game grind to late game squeeze.

By making it much more difficult to deliver goods to all cities and by using emissions to constrain city growth (unless the player pays through the nose for increased maintenance) the game is trying to make city growth , as opposed to raw profit, the main goal and challenge of the game (outside of just building an uber model railway of course).

I would say in principle this a reasonable idea for addressing the tipping point problem but for me it's too early to tell if this idea works well, sort of works or doesn't work at all. The jury is still out.

[Fragtzack]

Agree with original poster. The game even on hard mode is way too easy. TF2 is step backwards from TF1 in regards to gameplay challenge.

I life the 2 cargo->city system, the emissions, the modular stations, cargo air new game play...but.. they ruined core game play by making the economy too easy.

Bottom line where Urban Games missed the mark is they tried to replace increasing with age operating costs with "emissions->bad condition". This was a very poor design decision by the Urban Games. Urban Game should have left increasing operating costs in the game, but added emissions penalties on top.

In addition to the above and a core problem with TF1 also: There needs to be increased maintenance costs based on tech progression. Paying the same amount of $ per year for tracks build in 1850 vs tracks built in 1950 is not realistic.

[Incrediblejimmy]

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

You're right about this of course. It is easy. Too easy? That's not such a simple question IMHO. I'd make three points about this subject.

1. The game suffers from "Golden Route" syndrome"

The two golden routes are logs->planks->tools and crude->oil->fuel. In both cases it's almost always possible to make a long route with wagons fully loaded both ways leading to ultra-profits. This makes the game one dimensional. There is literally no point in starting with any other type of route and once you have them in place you are rolling in so much money that it is impossible to spend it faster than you make it on normal speed.

However, because most cargo routes have to run empty one way (until late game where you may be able to construct complex cargo systems capable of running more trains full in both directions) it is necessary for transport fees and maintenance to be set such that full out/empty back delivers a reasonable profit. Which of course is what directly leads to the ultra-profits from the two "golden" routes.
[...]

I think they are on the right tracks to solve this, but didn't go all the way:

1. You are now limited by the 2:1 production relation, meaning that one way will be half empty (Oil is the only one where they seem to have forgotten - or left one oppurtunity deliberately)
2. To a certain limit Industries will take input without having to complete the full industry chain -> which means if this is limited correctly you could go 100% full on any route in the early game, but not/only on very weak routes in mid and late game
3. Cities don't take everything anymore, which means you will not find as many perfect/golden routes as in TPF1

-> If this was balanced correctly, even the golden routes could be treated as standard and made to turn just enough profit to keep the game going. So players on hard difficulty would be forced to focus on the golden routes and discard most others (except for supplying/enabling other golden routes) In early game this would mean filling open capacities with raw materials carried to open end industry chains, and in later stages players would be forced to make more and more complex networks, thereby be forced to grow not only in routes but also in complexity and thereby more and more challenging management gameplay (while smaller gaps could still be filled with open end chains).

This is why I think for a real hard-mode, running costs could just be increased by (probably) close to 100%

[BobthenotsoGreat]

Hardest Level is hard mode and x4 speed. The devs have given much more flexibility on difficulty. Revenue has indeed increased but so have station and vehicle costs. But profitability overall is higher. (then there's the running costs Doh!).

In additional the fixed E/M and H there are time adjustments (from stop to x4) as well as map adjustments.

I personally dislike the extra cash as this means I have to choose an extreme map full of problems to maximise the challenge. This turns it into a puzzle game. Once I have 2 -3 "golden" lines, then its paint by number as the cash rolls in. Problems can be solved by throwing money at them. But hard mode on x4 with max industries and max towns would still be a challenge as the time will fly by and you will struggle to keep up with the tech.

In Tpf I would have a revenue of 5M by 1860 and could double that every 10 years.

In Tpf2 on normal speed this would be at least 10M and you could quadruple it every 10. On x 4 though.........

[Incrediblejimmy]

Maybe 4x Speed does the trick, but thats honestly not how I'ld like to play (and enjoy) the game...I'm not even sure I'll ever want leave the dirty steam-years ... But I honestly think if the devs offer a tool like the date stop, they should come up with a way to balance against it...possibly the simple solution is to calculate everything by mileage...

[BobthenotsoGreat]

That's the thing though. In a game so complex, with so many pre-start choices as well as in game ones, I do not think there is a simple solution.

I personally would prefer a system that incorporates the goods into the building process. So in order for cities to grow they need con mats and workers, workers need extra food......

Steel works making rail and workshop items for trains. Placing build orders for trains and they are produced on the basis of how well you feed them. ....

Other food..Fisheries.....fish works, fish and fish oil..

Maybe TpF4

But I still love TpF 1 for what it is. Havent played enough TpF2 to judge it yet.

[Incrediblejimmy]

Originally posted by BobthenotsoGreat:

That's the thing though. In a game so complex, with so many pre-start choices as well as in game ones, I do not think there is a simple solution.

I personally would prefer a system that incorporates the goods into the building process. So in order for cities to grow they need con mats and workers, workers need extra food......

Fisheries.....fish works, fish oil..

Steel works making rail and workshop items for trains. Placing build orders for trains and they are produced on the basis of how well you feed them. ....

Maybe TpF4

But I still love TpF 1 for what it is. Havent played enough TpF2 to judge it yet.

That would really be something...but thats more a city sim than a transport sim...the only game I know that does that to the extreme is Workers&Ressources, and that can be in a way quite frustrating - because you are bound to make a mistake somewhere^^

[BobthenotsoGreat]

Originally posted by Incrediblejimmy:

Originally posted by BobthenotsoGreat:

I personally would prefer a system that incorporates the goods into the building process. So in order for cities to grow they need con mats and workers, workers need extra food......

Steel works making rail and workshop items for trains. Placing build orders for trains and they are produced on the basis of how well you feed them. ....

That would really be something...but thats more a city sim than a transport sim...the only game I know that does that to the extreme is Workers&Ressources, and that can be in a way quite frustrating - because you are bound to make a mistake somewhere^^

Doesn't have to be though. You don't own the workshops. They just create demand. If you feed it you get time/cash discounts. It could have production levels to and a warehouse stock. You could "import" if you don't want to wait and pay the full price as well.

[Gregorovitch]

Originally posted by Incrediblejimmy:

1. You are now limited by the 2:1 production relation, meaning that one way will be half empty (Oil is the only one where they seem to have forgotten - or left one oppurtunity deliberately)

Problem is there are a lot of forests and oil wells usually scattered all over the place and you just need one (later two) near the saw mill or oil refinery to double the the input of logs/crude for them therefore creating full loads in both directions, e.g......

Forest-----Tool Factory----------------------------------------------------------------------Saw Mill-----Forest

... and the forest-sawmill-tool factory run makes millions. Same difference for oil.