Ship vs truck vs train start

[gc]

Are ships a valid alternative than a train or truck start ?

Hi, I just rolled a map (medium 1:1 hard seed "G") that seemed perfect for a ship start, with a long almost straight river with an oïl well and a fuel industry just near the river far away from each other.

The results were disappointing. The line gains money, but much less and slower than a train line.

I tried the same line with trains and I were able to gain a lot more and a lot faster (it takes half the time to get the first revenues!). Even tough the investment is a little higher, I feel it will pay off much faster.

I did not try the same line with trucks (too far away), but I think they would have similar results than ships, compensating their slower speed with a higher frequency and thus a faster rampup of production.

Has anyone found any case where a ships line is more profitable than a comparable train or truck line ?

[Dan]

Ships have the benefit of a long lifespan combined with low maintenance costs, so you can throw a few on a route and forget about then for 50 years.
If you’re playing on a fairly flat map, then I would think rail will invariably be more profitable - the costs and income are both proportional higher, so the margins are also higher.
The time when ships are useful is if you’re playing a treacherous mountain map (especially if you’re playing a custom map or have tweaked the mapgen config settings to up the challenge) - if it's going to cost 10-million+ just to build the rail, then ships can be a much better hard-mode start, as the initial investment is far lower, and you can get a few different routes set up for the same money, and not have to worry about the dreaded replacement expense creeping up too soon.

Again, it becomes a lot more useful on a map you’ve tweaked to have more water (and thus more impediments to building a cheap rail link too)

[maculator]

Always use trains.




IF you can't use a train (inner city distribution, extremly short line, extreme inclination, etc..) use trucks.

Ships are only good for routes you don't care about, when a bridge would be too expensive or you really want to use ships.

No matter wich difficulty you choose, sooner or later you'rr hit the point where money doesn't matter anymore. From this point onwards trains are the way to go.

[genemead]

Each has their place. Here's my take:

Shjps: good for short trips only, ie across a lake, etc. as the above said. They''re way too slow for long trips say up and down a river. They may haul quite a bit at a time but take forever. Money will be hard to come by, especially if half the trip is empty.

Trucks: also good for short trips only, especially if the terrain is too hilly for trains. Investment is lower, but the results (profit, fequency, etc.) are low also.

Trains: Haul more, faster, make more money in the same amount of time, and they're better for longer hauls, BUT only if the terrain is fairly flat. They're more expensive to set up (especially if you have to build tunnels or bridges), but you'll be in the green and they'll pay for themselves much faster.

SO, bottom line, make sure to use the best transport system for the map's situation. In general, I'd go for trains first, trucks for short trips or if tney're required, then ships. Remember, when starting out on a new map WHERE you start is the most important consideration.

[ChunkHunter]

Ships in 1850 are quite a bit faster even than trains - I had a very profitable ship line running for many years on a recent map.

Just a pity that the passenger ships (except hovercraft) are often very dsappointing.
(in the early days you just can't get enough passengers to make them profitable and later on ttrains are much faster).