More Detailed Review

[thgilles]

So I recommended this game soon after I tried it out, but I, unfortunately, have more to add. Yes, I still recommend the game. Let me explain, then I'll share my biggest concerns. I continue to recommend this game because it is relatively inexpensive and is a wonderful upgrade (in some ways) to earlier train sims. I have remained a pretty big fan of RAILROAD TYCOON 3, so I find myself comparing the two games often, and am pretty amazed that, despite RT3's many limitations (because it is so primitive), it does a lot of stuff better than TRAIN WORLD. Nevertheless, I believe the graphics and parts of game play (including longer distances, more platforms per station, more realistic-looking track layouts, etc.) in TW are much better than RT3 (perhaps due, in part, to TW's access to more recent computer innerworkings). Also, (this is a big deal imo) the developer (aka Dmytro) appears to be a great guy who welcomes and engages customers (even disgruntled ones), and appears to be eager to implement suggestions as they become feasible. He obviously is genius and has produced an outstanding concept! So I truly believe this game has great potential, and I hope more customers buy it and play it and offer their thoughts. As we cooperate in this venture, we likely have a better chance to see the game improve fairly quickly, and that's a good thing!

OK. Now for my concerns, which, unfortunately are too many to list comprehensively, but I'll try to be detailed enough to offer potential customers substantial assistance. I will offer a caveat that my criticisms might well be attributable to my own lack of understanding of the rules and strategies as well as to my own lack of computer-know-how, in which case I apologize to Dmytro. I also have played only one map (I believe the largest one, Pangea), so maybe some of my experience might change were I to play the smaller maps. But I will offer that I've played several 4x-type games with high degrees of complexity and have never been as frustrated as I've been trying to learn TW. After a bunch of hours spent on TW, and after having read through much of the related discussions, I believe I have a pretty good understanding of how the game works, and I believe many of my concerns have been echoed by several others (including ones who also recommend the game).

1. Rules orientation, tutorial, etc.: As many others have already posted, while some of the explanations are fine, too many of them are confusing or missing altogether. The learning curve is pretty big right now. I believe serious improvement in this area would vastly improve gamers' experience. It certainly is possible that some aspects of the game are meant to be complex, and there may be gamers out there who actually like the process of unraveling the mysteries, but, imo, the in-game context of figuring out better strategies should be our focus rather than trying to figure out how to interface with the mechanics.

2. UI frustration: Even after figuring out several rules and mechanics, I continue, after several hours of play, to come up against several UI issues. While the RESULT of laid track far outshines RT3, some of the track-laying PROCESS continues to drive me nuts. There is a kind of color-coded guide that appears at the end of new track that lets you know if your next addition to that track will work or not. That is probably a good thing. But often it is hidden by trees or construction signs, such that I have to zoom in to figure out if my track connection is right. This takes annoying extra time. And at least one of those color guides lets you know your connection is working, but once you lay the track, there appears an annoying glitch that you have to now go in and fix after all, and often you don't make this discovery until after you've laid a good bit of track and/or try to run a train on it. And, as others have pointed out, there is no good "undo" button, and the bulldoze button often bulldozes too much of what you've already laid successfully, forcing you to redo a section you worked hard to finish (especially true with bridges). These annoyances are even worse when trying to lay double track (something RT3 does much better), and often you have to revert from double track to single when laying a crossing (again, something RT3 does better).

I have mentioned this elsewhere, but another example of frustrating UI is that the button to delete a station is right next to the station settings button. Even after hours of play and getting to the point of being pretty fast with my mouse clicks, I still miss some of the pinpoint accuracy and hit the wrong button (or, in other cases, miss the required "spot" for the click to "take"). I have a pretty big screen, so I can't imagine how frustrating this has to be for those with smaller screens. RT3 is better about this kind of thing and provided an undo button--without the undo, such inaccuracy is painfully annoying!

Perhaps the most frustrating thing for me about the UI is the lack of "grouping" options (again, something RT3 does much better). That is, rather than micromanaging every single train and station (routes, consists, etc.), I want, for example, to be able to select a whole group of trains all at once and update or upgrade their status, routes, etc. TW does have a "replace" feature that allows you to replace several trains at once, but it is limited. It doesn't work for some engines and cars, and it doesn't feature a filter that allows you to upgrade certain cars or certain types of cars (based on age, model, power, etc.). I managed to finagle this replace function in TW to upgrade several trains at once, but still was frustrated by various details. I ended up replacing many engines that didn't really need replacing because I had just built a few of them, but it took less time and I didn't suffer too much financially by simply replacing all that "type" of engine at once. On the huge map that I like to play, better grouping options would improve playing greatly.

3. Game strategy: This area of frustration is the biggest for me. It appears (at least to me so far) that your railroad is not rewarded for connecting--or challenged to connect--ever growing cities which might be ever farther away. Some of the tutorial implies that you will make more money by transporting goods and passengers for greater distances, but it doesn't really work out very realistically in TW. On the huge map that I've played, the map is divided into "regions" which you are challenged to gain access to and "service". So far, so good. But each region is more or less a copy of every other region. There is one big city and 3 neighboring smaller cities in every region, and each region's cities are laid out pretty much the same way across the entire map. There really is not much strategic variation at all. I would expect that some cities might be huge, while others might be more or less small towns. You then would need to plan your connections accordingly, something I believe is a pretty basic strategy in a train game. Instead, TW already has pre-set connections which you are compelled to fulfill, even when the distances and terrain would suggest more strategic routes. Often I find myself planning an express line (that bypasses smaller stops) to maximize profits from passengers who want to get from A to B faster, but then I am stymied by the "connections" preset. Often those same passengers can get from A to B faster on a local that is slower and makes many stops precisely because there is no long-distance connection set in the game (again, with no apparent relation to whether or not the terrain compels a decision). In other words, the very same passengers who could get there faster are actually only fulfilled when they take the slower route. It's simply counter-intuitive and not how high speed rails operate in any known real world context. Indeed, in TW, passenger service is fulfilled only from one connecting city to a neighboring connecting city. Through passengers don't appear to be a thing at all. This is a total buzz kill for me. I believe Dmytro has some ideas for working this out in TW, and I certainly hope he succeeds!

But even if this "through passenger" idea was included, I'm still frustrated with the generic-ness of the map. Why not have coal at one end of the map which you then would need to transport to more than one location (to distribute to several production centers that require coal)? You'd start small by building shorter, neighboring routes, but, as you manage your finances, you are able to expand. Instead, you have to pick a city (within that coal mine's "region") to be the sole producer of a coal-based product. Essentially, every "region" becomes its own little world. Like the passenger issue, there isn't much reason to try and connect cities with long routes. I believe TW would vastly improve if we could have more varied maps that would call for more long-range planning (this is especially true since TW does, ironically, provide for very long distances, something it apparently does better than any other train game on the market).

It also appears to me that TW doesn't allow a change of consist en route. A train more or less runs its route, then "returns to depot", so to speak, at which point you must click on it manually to get it to run that route again. Even the one-time contracts in TW are problematic. So far I've built a train to run each "one-time" route, after which it returns to depot, but that same route appears on the one-time list shortly thereafter, at which time I click it to run again (so I don't have to build a new train for that route). This repeatability happens especially with hauls of raw material (coal), such that I don't know why we can't just put that route on auto pilot and let it run its route continuously (until we have some reason to change it). So I believe the "one-time" designation is misleading, as every route appears to repeat. I suppose one could use the same train to run several different routes, but then you have to take the time to micromanage and reset that train's consist and route (this takes time!). On a huge map, it's much easier (and pretty lucrative to boot) to just set up a train to run a particular route, and you are pretty much guaranteed that "contract" will continue to come up repeatedly throughout the game. An auto button would be so much better! But, also, if cities and regions were more varied, there might be more reason to change a train's route and consist more often. And as for the consist issue, there is a way to run a single train to carry more than one type of cargo, but the way cargo lines are set up in TW, you can't change the consist DURING a particular stop, so this necessitates including your varied cars from the starting point (meaning you will have to run the train half empty for at least part of the route, meaning you are wasting precious power and space).

4. Huge maps and game progress: I really love the huge distances provided in TW, but, as I've mentioned above, this is an aspect of TW that really doesn't come into strategic play nearly as much as it could. And I believe the decay in engine life span needs to be much slower. As it is, on a huge map, I can run a train maybe across the map once or twice, but after that it already is decaying and needs to be replaced with a new copy of itself (or a new engine altogether). Yes, TW gives the newer and better trains longer life spans, but they still don't appear to match up proportionately to the map's longer distances. Maybe Dmytro would consider limiting a scenario to only one age (say, only the modern high speed age) and decreasing life decay a bunch, making the whole feel of watching your rail network more realistic (ie, watching the same trains run routes several times before they begin to decay). Dmytro has explained his thinking in the discussions, and I'm still trying to wrap my brain around them. But I guess I'm not sure why algorithms can't work that derive reward and payment for conquering greater distances and getting cargo to those destinations more efficiently (more power, speed, etc.). This surely is how real train companies work, and I believe it is the way most train games work. This certainly is how RT3 works. A good design that implements these tried and true strategic parameters doesn't need "reputation" or "prestige"...if you're managing well, you'll make more money, and you can then expand. By the way, RT3 includes an editor that allows you to create your own world with your own parameters (train decay, pricing, what and where materials and cities are included, etc.). Such an editor would be outstanding in TW. What I would give for a game that combines the best of RT3 and TW! Anyway, that's it...for now! Any comments welcome!

[Jimmy C]

Originally posted by thgilles:

And, as others have pointed out, there is no good "undo" button, and the bulldoze button often bulldozes too much of what you've already laid successfully, forcing you to redo a section you worked hard to finish (especially true with bridges).

You can place signals at either end of a piece of track you want to delete. The bulldozer will only cut track to the nearest signal. You can delete exactly what you wish and nothing more this way. Yes, it may be an extra step, but it gives you killer precision.

[Dmytro]

I strongly suggest trying smaller maps. The experience is noticeably different from playing the Pangea. Pangea was a proof of technology and ability to make such big maps. Unfortunately, the cost is that it is a bit boring in my opinion.

The tutorial is a pain point for every game developer. It is a necessary and very important aspect of the game and often the most complicated part of the development process. Also, it has to reflect every change that is made to the game. I will try to improve the tutorial as much as possible in the future. I return to the tutorial and help sections every once in a while after a lot of changes have been made, and the update to those sections is much needed.

UI elements: I am committed to improving UI and user experience on a constant basis. I will listen to any feedback or suggestions regarding UI on a case basis and be ready to update it. I already adjusted the waypoint remove button.

The "Undo" button is problematic as I can't reverse the simulation for all of the entities in the game. Once you build a rail segment that connects to other rails or place a signal, routes for all trains are updated with new rail sections, paths, and other data. I am not able to reverse this process as I am not storing the snapshot of the whole game, even if I did have it, the reverse process would be the same as loading a game from a save file. I thought a lot about the "Undo" button, and I don't have a way to implement it at this stage. The game is too complex.

Replace feature has an option to replace only old locomotives. If you need more options, we can discuss them in more detail. Note, I am not a fan of doing "automatic" anything though, especially things that affect player resources (money).

I also plan to add an ability to replace passenger wagons with a new type with an option to sell old ones that don't fit due to length constraints.

Global strategy. Early on, I had to make a decision on what to do with passenger transportation. Limiting the number of passenger connections had a number of reasons: the ability to display a readable and understandable UI for the connections, economy balance, and train amount limit (I have to limit make a game playable with a number of trains that can be simulated on an average computer). Scale is a great thing in Train World, but it comes with a price tag in computing power that is required to run the game. There are also the reasons I don't have growing cities. One other important reason is my limited resources: I don't have a team of programmers and a huge budget to spend on optimization, models, sounds, etc. I have to make do with what I have.

Repeating one-time contracts often happens only if a small number of regions are opened, and a few productions are added. The algorithm randomly selects available production and generates a contract.

I am planning to add a feature that will allow you to pause a train at a waypoint. At this point, you will be able to change wagons, add and remove waypoints, and send the train to fulfill another contract.

[Jimmy C]

Personally I don't see a need for an un-do button. The bulldozer is all the un-do I need.

[thgilles]

To Jimmy C's point above: the RT3 undo button undoes only the track you just laid...no further steps needed. Maybe, as you and Dmytro imply, using your method of placing temporary signals would work (I've already tried this a bunch), but on Pangea, once you unlock and expand throughout the entire map, these extra steps become very tedious.

To Dmytro: thanks so much for your (usual) attention to customers' comments. Your point about automation is well taken, but, especially on Pangea, not being able to auto-update connections, runs, and lines becomes extremely time-consuming and tedious. I'm actually OK with a lot of time and effort and a certain amount of micromanagement (as you may know, I've played many hours), but the runs are so repetitive that it is much easier for me to designate a certain train to run a particular haul (even on so-called "one-time" contracts), leave that train in depot, then just click on that train and tell it to go whenever it's contract gets repeated. It's simply tedious. There is nothing strategic about it. I just do it because it takes less time than setting up a new route for that same train. As I've opened up every region on Pangea (before the modern age), this is an auto function that would greatly improve my playing experience. I will certainly try some smaller maps, but, again, not sure why we can't include more strategic options for the huge map. Your plan to include consist options en route sounds great. Keep at it! (your limited staff notwithstanding!)

As for passenger lines, I had hundreds of trains running on several lines in Pangea (say, the northside line running horizontally across the top edge, the eastside line running north and south on the east edge of the map, diagonal lines running the fullest length of the map, hubs located at the ends and sometimes mid-points of the map, etc.), and, obviously from my success at opening all regions, I was making decent money. But when I had to update a line's route (ie, an entire line with several stations), I couldn't just update all the trains at once--had to do it one train at a time--and it simply took way too long. It was easier to just let all those trains die, create a single new train for the updated route, then clone that train 20 times to get that line up and running again. Kind of expensive, but I made it work. Grouping and auto options would fit such a big map and expanding network much more enjoyably. I'm also still puzzled as to why you can't include through passengers. In a given station, say, you might have a mix of passengers (randomly generated...or formulaic?), some of whom will pay to go to the neighboring city, some of whom will pay to go further. And if those passengers (especially the long-distance ones) are transported at higher speeds (along the same rail lines), so much the better (more revenue!). So...longer and faster yields higher returns. I guess I'm not sure why this won't work. I don't need you to explain the computer innerworkings, as that's totally out of my league and would likely be a waste of your time, but I guess I would love to see something like this implemented in TW. I just can't really get into local passenger routes serving as the only way to get from long-distance A to B (unless, of course, you just arbitrarily force longer routes to respect designated pre-set "connections"). And even if you don't include "growing" cities, I'm not sure why you can't include more varied ones (small ones, big ones, bigger ones, and real huge ones...the huge ones often serving as hubs and stops for the fastest, biggest expresses, the smaller ones served by slower locals). Anyway, I hope to continue engaging you and all TW fans, and I look forward to further discussion!

[6toros6]

@Dmytro: maybe undo can be more feasible is only allowed in pause mode. And routes aren't updated in pause mode of course.

[whisper]

I'm not even halfway into my map or into the final era but i've already encountered many industries that require inputs not made in the same region, requiring long distance hauling. I'm not sure why the OP seems to suggest that everything is local.

[thgilles]

to "whisper" above: I've only played the largest Pangaea map so far...so that is what my review is based on. I agree that you can find long-distance hauling opportunities, if you sort of force them (which I believe is counter-intuitive), and certainly the "one-time" contracts ask for reasonably long-distance hauling. But, as best I can tell, the basic default option presented in each new region is that you pick one main industry and assign one of that region's cities to it. You then are compelled to haul the local raw materials (in that region) to that very city. Could you haul those raw materials to a city in another region later in the game? Yes, but, that is counter-intuitive. If the city of production can get its materials from nearby, why haul from greater distances? Forcing that runs counter to good business and real life, imo. More importantly, I still am frustrated by the "one-time" idea. If these contracts truly were one-time, then we'd need to re-invent a haul for each of them. As it is, Dmytro doesn't want these hauls automated (because he is opposed to too much automation), but the contracts themselves appear to be totally automated and repetitive. My best response is to assign a train for a specific long haul and wake it up from its depot sleep whenever that haul comes up. So far it works. Like I mentioned above, I opened all regions on Pangaea before ever getting even close to the modern era, so it's working. So I don't know why these contracts are called "one-time". I actually would prefer if we had a mix: some one-time runs, some quite repetitive (which could be put on auto). This, to me, would be truer to life.

[whisper]

I'm not talking about forcing it by doing anything counter-intuitive, I'm talking about inputs that literally aren't produced in the same region. This has always been at the second or third stage of a production chain; consumers for the industries that are pre-placed have always existed in the same region.

edit: Here's an example. As you can see, flour cannot be produced in this region. The only way to support this industry is to bring it in from another one.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3413993159

[Dmytro]

I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Let me clarify, in the game, we have freight connections and one-time contracts.

Freight connections require constant resource deliveries. They appear as new production is added to the cities. On rare occasions, they can change the origin city if a better resource source is available (non-port, local, or a closer one).

One-time contracts are always freight and are randomly generated. They will start to appear as soon as a second region is opened. You need a second region since one-time contracts are always delivered to the capitals or ports. One-time contracts have a fixed amount of cargo that needs to be transported to receive a reward. As you add more production and open new regions the variety of one-time contracts will grow.

One-time contracts are not required for game progression and contracts can be cancelled with no penalty. Regular connections must be serviced for reputation gains in order to progress in the game.

[thgilles]

to Whisper and Dmytro above: I took your advice, Dmytro, and played a smaller map with a port city. As you and Whisper assert, there indeed are several freight connections that never came up for me in Pangaea. The smaller map was much more involved and strategic and realistic re: freight shipments, so many thanks to both of you for your valid points. I would go so far as to suggest that some kind of note be included when picking a map to play. I like long distances and huge maps, so I was attracted to TW and picked Pangaea to play first. Spent many hours on it. I wish I had known that Pangaea was not representative of the smaller maps. So I'm much happier with the way freight connections work now. The smaller map, by the way, also had much better terrain variation and terrain challenges (these are almost non-existent on Pangaea). I hope you have plans to make a huge pangaea-like map that has all these features.

Nevertheless, I still maintain that many of the hauls occur repeatedly throughout the game and would work wonderfully on auto. Maybe other gamers are different, but, for me at least, the heart of the strategy and game-playing is strategically laying out your tracks and making connections in a way that is efficient (eg, do I build a bridge or tunnel and keep a straight track line, or do I lay track around the difficult terrain, etc.). I also enjoy deciding which engine to use and how many of them on passenger lines, and figuring which passenger connections bring the most revenue (something I wish TW allowed more of). But, once a route has been established and repeats, while I like watching the trains work, it is very tedious for me and completely non-strategic to simply have to go in every time a haul is done and click on it to do the very same thing, again and again, for the rest of the game. An auto function in this regard (and/or allowing freight lines to loop like passenger lines) would greatly enhance game play (for me...).

As for the "wait till full" issue: I certainly agree that often passenger trains will wait longer at certain points on a given route (change directions, wait for an express to pass, etc.). I often have my trains do this at terminals at the endpoints of their loop. But can't we do that by just adjusting their time to wait (I thought that was what that button was for)? To me, "wait until full" (even if we allow we are being somewhat metaphorical or inclusive of several factors) goes against every grain of my passenger line psyche.

And I'm still holding out that Dmytro will give us some scenarios/maps that will include a greater variety of city size and more freedom to choose connections we deem effective (vs being compelled to fulfill pre-set connections). Sure, in real life, we pretty much know which cities are the big ones and which are smaller, and the major hubs and connections are already more or less set before a train company lays track and builds stations (at least in the high speed age), but I feel like the preset connections in the game are too contrived, a way to get us to have to lay track that is counter-intuitive just to make advancing in the game more challenging (I believe this criticism applies especially to regional connections). I guess I would love to be challenged to make connection decisions myself and see if they pan out rather than being told every city and town has to be connected to (practically) every neighbor lest your "reputation" suffer. Just doesn't feel real to me. Once again, I love TW's long distances, and I believe the track-laying options and graphics far outshine the old classic RT3, but the strategic options are another matter.

[Jasper T. Reynoldois]

I should not try to speak for Dmytro but I believe I've heard him say before that the Pangaea map was intended as a test bed to show that such a large map was possible within the game. I agree with you, it's not an especially fun or interesting map to actually play on, and some kind of steering of new players with map advice would be great. I would even go so far as to recommend taking the Pangaea map out of the game until it gets a makeover, or at least giving players a clear warning that it is the largest but not the most fun map.

[Dmytro]

Yes, Pangea was a proof of concept map, a maximum possible size map. I will look into making Pangea optional or maybe an unlockable map.

To bring the same level of terrain detail that small maps have to Pangea would require a significant time investment. I would have to develop some version of high-map data streaming. That is a complex task, and I am not ready to start it now.

[Jasper T. Reynoldois]

Fair enough!