Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
0 
Report this post
Option to make available all in-game locomotives at one map playthrough.
Though for some wacky reason they decided to give the two DLC maps the american appearance. Wooden trestle bridges in the swiss alps...
1. Better supply / demand metric capabilities for clusters of cities / clusters of resources.
Example: Perhaps I have a cluster of 3 cities, all using warehouses to share goods back and forth. How much lumber is needed for that cluster? Allow me to turn on/turn off cities, and turn on/off suppliers, and show a running total of the supply and demand and net difference on the screen somewhere. Take into consideration any lumber being consumed by businesses. Bonus = somehow show what production level (1-5) of the supplier is needed to meet that combined demand.
2. On that same "Flow of Goods" display, show number of wagons per route are needed by the selected supplier to meet a demand of the selected cities.
Example: If total cluster demand for product X = 2 wagons/week, and the supply train route length for X = 55 days, then the wagons / route needed is given by:
Wagons/route = (55 days/route) / (7 days/week) * (2 wagons/week) = 15.7 wagons/route needed. So, effectively 2 trains with 8 wagons each.
This admittedly might be confusing or hard to implement if there is more than 1 supply line for that cluster for product X.
3. Additional warehouse detail reports
It is very useful to be able to hover the mouse of the Inventory quantity and see exactly how many are going where. It currently just shows the detail for the quantity in inventory. Extend that idea by adding the "On the Way" wagons to that report.
Example, perhaps I see there are 8 wagons of grain in inventory, and 3 wagons OTW. By hovering my mouse, I can see exactly where the 8 wagons are bound, but not the 3.
4. Better (or corrected?) detail on Flow of Goods (FOG) display for Warehouses.
FOG display for Suppliers = Production Rate, and Local Inventory
FOG display for Consumers = Consumption Rate, and fulfillment fraction
FOG display for stations with Warehouse = Local Inventory, Quantify OTW, and faction fulfilled
The issue is, for a station that both a supplier, and also has a warehouse, you don't see the Supplier metrics for that station. Same is true if a station is both a consumer and also has a warehouse. You don't see the Consumer metric.
A related issue = many cities are both suppliers and consumers of certain products (particularly products from city factories). For those cases, it is not clear if the FOG display is showing the Supply or Demand data in that case. I *think* the FOG is just showing the Production info, as there have been multiple cases where I have a task to provide product X to a distant city, the FOG display is happily showing a green production rate, but nothing is being shipped. Very confusing, until I finally figured out that the city was consuming everything being produced. So the city was not a Supplier at all, it was actually a Consumer.
Hotels should also be buildable in cities, where in fact they would make more sense as opposed to rural stations, and provide another bonus, such as increasing passenger travel.
Allow building of separate networks/stations in a map - i.e. no need to connect a station to the rest of your network before moving on to the next. Would make things easier to build in certain circumstances, and allow for more flexible playthroughs in general. In real life, it is not unheard of lines having different separate sections opening first before the connecting middle ones, and there are also companies with rail networks with fully separate tracks that are not connected with each other.
2) You can use sidings now, with manual signals.
3) Yep. The more locos, the better.
4) Meh. Not a big deal to me.
5) Maintenance at the stations should be done taking the trains out of the platforms (see above).
6) Yep. This would be awesome.
7) Yep.
8) Yep. This also would be awesome.
9) OK.
10) Definitely. This should have been in RE1 also.
11) Ditto...
12) Tech tree is a little cluttered. Not a big deal to me, though.
Thanks for starting this discussion. Some great ideas. I'm always up for more realism in the game. Hopefully this thread will get some attention...
I don't like the idea of a totally separate line, not connected to the mainline. It's assumed the locos and cars are transported to new stations along existing lines. To make disconnected stations and lines means the locos and cars had to be transported overland? I don't find that too realistic.
My idea of warehousing is that all products can be handled at the same time. Stations themselves should have a much smaller storage cargo capacity. There should be an option to allow them to handle cargo storage automatically, instead of players having to choose which cargos to handle, as it is the case at the moment - a significant decrease of micromanagement in this aspect.
As for networks, simply two or more fully separate networks, each capable of handling passengers and cargo separately. No overland transport involved, though it would certainly be realistic to many types of goods and passengers, to a degree, even if significantly slower - i.e. carriages, canals, etc.
My statement above referred to cargo, but could apply to train sets - i.e. transportation via ships.
Furthermore, it is a game so there are compromises in realism. The same argument also applies to many single networks - i.e. starting places like Las Vegas or Phoenix, in the middle of the desert, to other similarly isolated places.
As stated, separate networks are not unheard of, even if the eventual aim is to unify them together - i.e. lines with different separate sections opening first. Plus, would allow for the self-made simulation of secondary companies/networks, rather than having to depend on AI for that.
Does not need to be available in campaign/scenarios, but would be a welcome option addition in custom maps.
I heavily dislike how tracks always aim to just be a boring straight line and how sometimes a more straight set of track is much slower than one with a lot of curves. In Transport Fever, the more straight a track was = higher speed, more curvature = slower speed, tracks also didn't try to be straight like a pole, they will naturally always curve unless you chose for it to be a straight piece of track. Railway Empire is definitely going against logic and physics at some points.
edit: Also, when you do build some tracks with a lot of curvature, like through mountains, you can build a segment that goes for max speed and the next segment will curve the previous segment, reducing its top speed. This can be easily countered by just building the first segment until that point and then continue with the next segment.
Yes, there are a lot of things from that game series that can be adapted here - tracks do not even get proper height control in this game... Modding, map editing, modern infrastructure and vehicles, etc. etc.
My suggestions above all take heavily from Transport Fever.
Trainsets there can be individually customized and you can even mod out vehicle and station capacity - i.e. drastically increased capacities to use fewer and bigger vehicles; i.e lines with >30 min frequencies.
Expand this message to:
"Waiting for goods to be produced"
"Waiting for goods to be demanded"
2. Add better info to help track down incorrect signalling / track directions
Right now, you get a warning when you go to add a train, something similar to "Warning, your train travels significant distances without any signalling, and this could cause traffic jams. Proceed anyway?" I'm paraphrasing that message obviously, but that's the gist of it.
That warning at train-creation time is the only time you receive that warning. Sometimes it is as desired, and sometimes it is because I failed to set track directions correctly. It would be nice if you could see some highlight, like the gridiron or bridge or tunnel highlighting, showing you the track section in question, so you could know better whether to accept the warning or fix it first.
Perhaps add an option to turn on/off "no signalling present" sections of track.
3. Let me tune the factory production level downward without having to downgrade it.
Upgrading a factory level should upgrade its max capacity, but I should be able to operate that factory at <100% capacity without having to downgrade it. Give me the ability to set that production level, between 0 and Max.
Reason: Sometimes I am trying to tune the factory production volume. I might wish to raise output quantities to meet demands, but doing so will also raise the input quantities, and that might snarl/traffic jam my supply train system. It can be a bit of a balancing act. Currently the only way I have to adjust factory output is by upgrading/downgrading the level, and although going down is free, going up costs me money each time I do it.
I should be able to "idle" part of my factory any time I need it to slow down, and "reactivate" that part of the factory again when I need to ramp production back up.
Right now, if I have a warehouse W serving 3x cities, A, B, and C, and the warehouse is much closer to A and B, it can be VERY difficult to force the system to send things to C.
Given that resources are "born" or created knowing their ultimate destination, it seems that resource prioritization is being done at birth/creation time, without regard to whether a warehouse is in play, and that is what is driving the uneven distribution from the warehouse. It might make sense to prioritize destination selection using the resource-to-warehouse distance, if a warehouse is involved, rather than the complete resource-to-ultimate-customer distance.