No penalty for losing cargo

[CppMaster]

When a station is not big enough to store cargo, some cargo is lost. This should be problematic on a middle station that is not a source or destination station, because it doesn't go to either producer or consumer. It's probably stolen or broken, because of lack of space.

I, as a transport company, am responsible for the cargo, so I should pay fines for lost cargo as high as value of the cargo (don't confuse it with reward I'd get for transferring the cargo). However, there is no penalty for losing cargo in the game.

Not everyone would want that in the game though, so it may be better just as a mod. There could be additional components for stations that would increase security of a station resulting in losing less cargo.

Discuss

[juliejayne]

I would rather that they use the other empty platforms. The way the game works encourages/forces almost a single platform/track for each and every item. And whilst the planks (for example) may be falling off the end of the platform, the other 5 platforms at that station are pretty much empty... insane.

[Incrediblejimmy]

The mechanic is broken, you can basically create endless demand by having platforms that are too small...The town needs 100 items, you can transport 40 and the rest falls of the platform, so in the end you can ship 200 ( and get the transport fees for 200) while the town is undersupplied...

IMHO a vehicle should not be allowed to leave until it is fully unloaded, there should only be the option in the line manager to leave anyway and carry all the remaining items one full round around the line...

[CppMaster]

I didn't know that. Fees for lost cargo would prevent that as long as they are higher than reward for transporting it, so it's another reason to implement it.

[Yeol]

Resource industries start producing no matter if there is demand for it. You'll always have cargo falling of the platform. With TpF1 the simulation was totally demand based, and then it would be a great idea to charge for lost cargo. But with TpF2 you would be penalized for a wrongly implemented cargo demand system that produces at max capacity no matter if there is demand for it.

So, great idea, but UG should unwind the silly "produce-no-matter-what" rule, into a demand based one..

[genemead]

Lost, stolen, whatever. The cargo isn't "lost"- it just went by another type of carriage (like by someone else) and isn't available to you to move.

If you're "losing cargo", that's a sign that maybe you aren't moving enough cargo quickly enough?

[CppMaster]

Duh, obviously. We are not discussing how can we prevent this. It's about additional penalty. Though it makes sense if it's just moved by someone else to not pay fee for that.

[lozacenz]

Originally posted by Yeol:

Resource industries start producing no matter if there is demand for it. You'll always have cargo falling of the platform. With TpF1 the simulation was totally demand based, and then it would be a great idea to charge for lost cargo. But with TpF2 you would be penalized for a wrongly implemented cargo demand system that produces at max capacity no matter if there is demand for it.

So, great idea, but UG should unwind the silly "produce-no-matter-what" rule, into a demand based one..

TpF2's model was implemented because it solved even worse problems with the system used in TpF1. Because TpF1's system was Defective.

TpF2, for all it's problems, is a huge step up.
Meeting demand in TpF2 doesn't cause supply to stop existing, causing demand to collapse, causing the entire supply chain to revert to base upgrade level, which is what happened in TpF1. Note: there wasn't anything you could do about this, because Failing to meet demand resulted in supply accumulating at the supply point... which Also shut down supply leading to the same problem.

The raw materials in 2 are always produced simply because it solves the above disaster with very little overhead.

[Bautz]

I really do like that Idea. It would up the game dificulty. Right now, i just play sandbox. It's easy enough anyways even on hardmode, so why bother with it.

[Yeol]

The only thing in TpF1 that needed to be adjusted was the time industries would shrink their production. Everything else worked like a charm. If you have the entire yearly production in transit, then of course the factory stops producing, and waiting for fresh demand. TpF1 did i right, but unfortunately UG failed to up the shrink-time of resource industries.

TpF2 is a mere sandbox, where it does not matter any more. The model is wrong, resource industries just start producing without demand, the challenge is zero. It's boring and dumb. I tried to fix this but not possible with a mod. This is one of the major steps backwards of TpF2, and where I was very disappointed about. Hence the creation of my Senseless mod, tring to fix what to me went wrong with TpF2... within the limits of what's possible.

[Incrediblejimmy]

Originally posted by CppMaster:

Duh, obviously. We are not discussing how can we prevent this. It's about additional penalty. Though it makes sense if it's just moved by someone else to not pay fee for that.

But it isn't moved by someone else. If it was, it should arrive at its destination at some point, and ie limit demand by towns.

[juliejayne]

Originally posted by Yeol:

The only thing in TpF1 that needed to be adjusted was the time industries would shrink their production. Everything else worked like a charm. If you have the entire yearly production in transit, then of course the factory stops producing, and waiting for fresh demand. TpF1 did i right, but unfortunately UG failed to up the shrink-time of resource industries.

TpF2 is a mere sandbox, where it does not matter any more. The model is wrong, resource industries just start producing without demand, the challenge is zero. It's boring and dumb. I tried to fix this but not possible with a mod. This is one of the major steps backwards of TpF2, and where I was very disappointed about. Hence the creation of my Senseless mod, tring to fix what to me went wrong with TpF2... within the limits of what's possible.

I understand what you are saying but from my view, both TPF1 and TPF2 fail in the industry/products tycoon side of the game, because in the real world you build the factory that needs planks next to the sawmill that produces them, and it is next to the forest that supplies the trees. Then you transport the finished tools to wherever they are needed.

Even if you use sandbox to set up your map accordingly, TPF will penalise you for not transporting goods across the entire length of the map.

[theSeb]

Originally posted by juliejayne:

Originally posted by Yeol:

The only thing in TpF1 that needed to be adjusted was the time industries would shrink their production. Everything else worked like a charm. If you have the entire yearly production in transit, then of course the factory stops producing, and waiting for fresh demand. TpF1 did i right, but unfortunately UG failed to up the shrink-time of resource industries.

TpF2 is a mere sandbox, where it does not matter any more. The model is wrong, resource industries just start producing without demand, the challenge is zero. It's boring and dumb. I tried to fix this but not possible with a mod. This is one of the major steps backwards of TpF2, and where I was very disappointed about. Hence the creation of my Senseless mod, tring to fix what to me went wrong with TpF2... within the limits of what's possible.

I understand what you are saying but from my view, both TPF1 and TPF2 fail in the industry/products tycoon side of the game, because in the real world you build the factory that needs planks next to the sawmill that produces them, and it is next to the forest that supplies the trees. Then you transport the finished tools to wherever they are needed.

Even if you use sandbox to set up your map accordingly, TPF will penalise you for not transporting goods across the entire length of the map.

Yes, but not always. Hence why we have massive logistical systems across the world, or are you saying that planks never get transported more than 1 km because a factory is always right next to a saw mill? This is simply not true.

[gGeorg]

Originally posted by juliejayne:

I would rather that they use the other empty platforms.

Buffer for over loaded platforms that iis the role of station buildings. Buildings now only consume maintenance, they need to do something as reward. Buildings are waiting room(passanger) or storage yard, they have role, functionality.

Nice mechanic for train stations could be, when they work as incoming OR/AND outgoing buffer. This way you can solve peeople unloading the long train to overloading BUS stop, they simply wait in the train station, until adjaced BUS station can accept them.

[CppMaster]

Originally posted by genemead:

Lost, stolen, whatever. The cargo isn't "lost"- it just went by another type of carriage (like by someone else) and isn't available to you to move.

If you're "losing cargo", that's a sign that maybe you aren't moving enough cargo quickly enough?

Originally posted by Incrediblejimmy:

Originally posted by CppMaster:

Duh, obviously. We are not discussing how can we prevent this. It's about additional penalty. Though it makes sense if it's just moved by someone else to not pay fee for that.

But it isn't moved by someone else. If it was, it should arrive at its destination at some point, and ie limit demand by towns.

Does not compute. One of you is wrong. Fight!

[juliejayne]

Originally posted by gGeorg:

Originally posted by juliejayne:

I would rather that they use the other empty platforms.

Buffer for over loaded platforms that iis the role of station buildings. Buildings now only consume maintenance, they need to do something as reward. Buildings are waiting room(passanger) or storage yard, they have role, functionality.

Nice mechanic for train stations could be, when they work as incoming OR/AND outgoing buffer. This way you can solve peeople unloading the long train to overloading BUS stop, they simply wait in the train station, until adjaced BUS station can accept them.

Very much more logical, and it ought to be easy to implement.