Mechanism constructing without workers

[Konrad]

I think this is a good game mechanic, because it allows you to construct at remote positions, and it warrants investing in machinery (in addition to the increase in build speed).

I do wonder why the crane does not function in the samme manner though, and I would propose to petition that it gives the same benefit as a buldozer, excavator, roller or asphalt layer on a construction project. It would aid greatly in constructing bridges remotely.

[Storpappa]

There are two cranes, mobile and tower. Tower needs an open haul to take it to the construction site. You can see the crane assisting in construction steps, such as steel work framing. Are you looking for a number of worker workdays = KwH of a crane type formula?

[Konrad]

I think you misunderstand. Other mechanisms on a construction site such as buldozers and rollers, dont need workers to operate and continue constructing roads even if there are no workers. A crane however, does not function in the same way, with the result that you could build a road network far from your construction office, except bridges. I propose that cranes function in the same manner as other mechanisms in this regard.

[ryantheskinny]

Or maybe... Everything should require workers

[TheAmishStig]

I don't know why the decision was made for Cranes to be a productivity bonus while all other mechanism types generate workdays...struck me as strange from the day I discovered it, but I'm sure Peter has a good reason.

I'm of two minds on it...on one hand, it'd be nice if there was at least one Crane-class mechanism that generated workdays (even if the 'best' ones were still productivity bonus only), specifically because remote tunnels, remote oil rigs, and things like that are a pain to get workers to, and that literally every other class of mechanism also works by generating workdays.

On the other, at least one phase requiring workers does mean that COs are more than just 'slower but cheaper auto-build', they can't be set up and forgotten specifically because they need workers too.

Maybe an easier alternative is that COs adopt the "Deliver workers to the CO, not the jobsite" mechanic used by RCOs? Could keep the "workers can wander in on their own" side to get bonus workers, but as a core mechanic the 'CO buses' go to the source of workers and then return to the CO, at which point those workers are distributed to assigned construction sites.

That'd eliminate the headaches with remote job sites, without having to retool and rebalance all the construction stuff. [Though me personally...I would do that *and* make road cranes generate workdays, while tower cranes remain as giving a bonus]

[TheAmishStig]

Thinking about it more...it'd also be nice if mechanisms listed their 'Generated Workdays' and 'Productivity Bonus' separately. It would've made that deep dive into rail cranes a lot easier, since the data I have suggests the really wild one does both.

[Konrad]

Good input, TheAmishStig. I agree CO could operate more like RCOs in this regard as a solution that would seem more logical.

While it might seem gamey for there to be an autobuild functionality with mechanisms on site, I still think this is a good solution in lack of the afore mentioned possibility. I also think it is slightly more balanced than autobuild because the mechanisms still need to be transported to site, either under their own power or by flatbed, and they also need fuel to function. Thus it does require some infrastructure to be in place for the mechanisms to function at site. Not to mention that you also need to aquire said mechanisms, either by purchase or by building and transporting them to your COs. Therefore I am not against there being an autobuild function with mechanisms (why are they not called machinery btw?), since it does require a significant investment to use them.

[TheAmishStig]

It's amusing, because it's a cognitive dissonance I don't have, even as I sometimes argue 'That doesn't make sense from a realism perspective' and 'That bit of realism doesn't make sense from a games must be fun to play perspective'.

I see the 'generates workdays' the same way someone else sees passive vs active factory connections, when it comes to 'why does it make sense for them to work without workers':

The mechanisms generating workdays are the permanent employees of the CO [or the small forklifts owned by the building] and skilled tradesworkers, while the delivered workers are the army of unskilled contractors [or shuttles dedicated to building-to-building transport] brought in on an as-needed basis when it's helpful to throw more manpower at a project.

My concern on 'should cranes generate workdays' is entirely striking that balance where they're not completely useless in automatic mode, but also not so good that there's no reason to use workers ever. If that balance can be struck? Yes, they should.

[Konrad]

In my opinion, as it stands now, cranes are not usefull enough to warrant their space in a construction office (atleast at the start of a game) because their bonus on site are not noticable, and as you say there is no way of telling in game how much they actually benefit. Thus they could be considered a waste of space that could be better used for a dumper or another more usefull machine.

On a personal note though, I still prefer using them because it looks good and I love this really unique part of the game where there are different types of machines that you can use to aid in construction.

This is why I would suggest a change to their functionality, to have them serve as more than mere eyecandy. Thank you both for your input thus far.

[vantuz58]

I agree with the suggestion.
It would be good for:

• 1) Building at remote locations. I don't see a reason why not. It won't break the game.
  
• 2) Consistency and transparency. The less hidden details we have the better it for the learning process.
  We can't make all mechanisms to provide "production bonus" because we need excavators to work at the quarries and tracktors to work at the farms without workers.

As an extra suggestion, it could be made into a difficulty option. At "easy" all mechanisms work by themselves. At "hard" all mechanisms require a worker to operate (yes, including quarries and farms)

[TheAmishStig]

Even an early-game road crane can cut the crane-enabled phases by a 1/4 to 1/3, if not more...I'd have to do an RCO-style deep dive to suss out the underlying math. Really, I should take that unfinished guide and make an entire series of guides dedicated to this game. Maybe that's what I'll do this weekend, it'll give me an excuse to update for the new version.

IIRC the really wild track layer generates 25 workdays plus modifies the number of actual workers on site to be ([workers]x2) + 5, so I wouldn't be surprised if regular cranes are similar. The benefits can be hard to notice at super low worker counts [and painfully obvious at high ones, especially with multiple cranes present], but it's not negligible.

In the early game, especially on the harder modes, a tower crane is a hard sell...you have very limited CO space and tower cranes mean having to distract (your potentially only) flatbed to haul it around...but a road crane, especially that ugly SOB that guzzles fuel but has a 25+ rating, will make a sizeable impact on the early game build-out.

The more I think about it...the more at least one Crane-class mechanism that generates workdays, and the more 'deliver workers to the CO to teleport them to worksites', appeal to me.

[Storpappa]

See another player joins the cosmonaut difficulty team

Originally posted by vantuz58:

I agree with the suggestion.
It would be good for:

• 1) Building at remote locations. I don't see a reason why not. It won't break the game.
  
• 2) Consistency and transparency. The less hidden details we have the better it for the learning process.
  We can't make all mechanisms to provide "production bonus" because we need excavators to work at the quarries and tracktors to work at the farms without workers.

As an extra suggestion, it could be made into a difficulty option. At "easy" all mechanisms work by themselves. At "hard" all mechanisms require a worker to operate (yes, including quarries and farms)

[Storpappa]

My assumption

A bulldozer is equal to 25 workdays. When a job needs 24 workdays the bulldozer won’t go to the job

If the job requires 500 workdays a bulldozer could be doing the flickering lights dance through a day night cycle and finish the job

I have not tried to get exact numbers and this is just from observed conduct from the CY

I assumed cranes were just requirements in the building due to a size mechanism. In building mods you need to specify the cranes location. I didn’t think they had a workday value

[RP-BOOST]

Originally posted by ryantheskinny:

Or maybe... Everything should require workers

that's it

[RP-BOOST]

Originally posted by Storpappa:

See another player joins the cosmonaut difficulty team

Originally posted by vantuz58:

I agree with the suggestion.
It would be good for:

• 1) Building at remote locations. I don't see a reason why not. It won't break the game.
  
• 2) Consistency and transparency. The less hidden details we have the better it for the learning process.
  We can't make all mechanisms to provide "production bonus" because we need excavators to work at the quarries and tracktors to work at the farms without workers.

As an extra suggestion, it could be made into a difficulty option. At "easy" all mechanisms work by themselves. At "hard" all mechanisms require a worker to operate (yes, including quarries and farms)

Perhaps it is not so difficult for the developer to apply this, since there is this same option for education, energy and fuel.

[Konrad]

Originally posted by RP-BOOST:

Originally posted by ryantheskinny:

Or maybe... Everything should require workers

that's it

While I dont disagree with this, it would further complicate the game (not a bad thing for my sake, but does add to the learning curve) and would certainly need some fine tuning.

How would you solve this with trucks, forklifts, buses and trains especially?

Would every vehicle just stop after 8 hours of driving and the driver teleport home, like other jobs? How would that disrupt infrastructure? Add bottlenecks in your cities because of empty vehicles abandoned en masse? I think this scenario would not add much to gameplay, other than frustration, while not feeling more realistic.

Alternatively, you could have specialty buildings that employ drivers. Teamsters offices for trucks transporting goods, bus depots employing drivers, same with train depots etc... Or employ drivers at factories and buildings directly. Would these have an area of affect the like of construction offices and hospitals maybe? Still wouldnt solve abandoned vehicles though.

Maybe we should stick with construction offices for now, at least, and add some consistency to game logic. If one mechanism adds workdays, shouldnt all? Either everyone or none I would say. Id prefer all to be honest, seeing how other vehicles are simulated without drivers.