FIRS Industry Replacement Set - Development

[George]

the production code is already quite complex, and going to get more so. For example, some industries will produce a little more if supplied with multiple cargos. Handling that with some cargos enabled/disabled might be hideous.

Who said complex code?
Just make your industries in the way independent of defined cargoes, and where would be no problem.
First should go the cargo code, defining the combination of cargoes. Then goes the cargo translation table and later the industries.
Because some cargoes would be not defined, the industry would simply not produce/accept it. All you need to change in your code is the producing code that would work without the cargo. ECS is done that way and it works with any combination of vectors and NO industry checks for other Vectors being loaded. The only checks are the checks for cargo availability. For example, ECS Factory can process any combination of glass, steel, dyes and even none of the them into goods.

[andythenorth]

I decided the first proposal for FIRS basic sucked. I've added proposal #2:
http://tt-foundry.com/sets/FIRS/schema/ ... proposal_2

[Kogut]

"Oil Refinery" and "Fuel depot" without oil cargo? And without oil producers? And why my favourite waste are deprecated?

[CommanderZ]

How many sprites are missing from this proposed basic set?

[Nite Owl]

In my humble opinion the complexity issue is not one involving the number of industry or cargoes but one of the number and use of cargo chains. In the standard game a maximum cargo chain is, at most, three stops long. As an example - Farm (produces livestock and grain) -> Factory (produces goods) -> Town (accepts goods, produces nothing in this chain). As soon as you introduce the concept of 'back supplying' you go from simple towards too complex. By back supplying I am referring to cargoes that increase the output of a given industry. This concept of back supplying worked well in the Railroad Tycoon series because you could reassign wagon cargo types on the fly without a depot stop and with no concern about the now unused wagons. Adding to this cargo chain complexity would be the need for multiple raw materials (either refined or unrefined) to be brought together to produce an end product. If you keep the cargo chains simple with very limited or no cross contamination of one to the other then I think the number of industries involved should not be a concern.

[DJ Nekkid]

all in all i think you actually might be on to something here...

[NekoMaster]

True, the idea of supplies is a little complex, and waste is also another complex one, but thats how it is IRL, industries need supplies (tools, vehicles, materials) to function and towns need to get rid of waste some how.

[andythenorth]

"Oil Refinery" and "Fuel depot" without oil cargo? And without oil producers?

Oil is boring to transport, but the products of oil are necessary. IRL, a great deal of crude oil moves by pipeline, so in FIRS Basic the refinery is just connected by pipe to oil fields "somewhere".

And why my favourite waste are deprecated?

I guess you're not in the target audience for "basic" The list of basic cargos / industries is just the default option...there will be more options for players like you

As soon as you introduce the concept of 'back supplying' you go from simple towards too complex.

I think you've described it exactly right. I should probably also consider eliminating the supply cargos from FIRS. I'll think about it.

The supply cargos are purely production boosters and are supposed to be fun. If they're not delivered, the standard production increase / decrease behaviour runs unchanged from the default game. The amounts required are aimed at running trucks, a couple of wagons added to a train for a backload, or even helicopters (dunno if that would make money though!)

cheers,

Andy

[el koeno]

I haven´t played a FIRS game in a while, so I´m not completely sure of the current state of affairs but here are my thoughts:

• I agree that supply cargoes are simply too complex. They require a completely different sort of network planning, one which transport tycoon doesn´t handle well.
• Scrap metal never really worked for me. I just didn´t really like it.
• I did like waste, but I´m a fan of town cargo because the demands it puts on the infrastructure near cities makes for a fun challenge.
• I´m ambiguous towards farms producing two types of cargo that each have a different destination. Sometimes I think it´s fun, sometimes I just want to build simple lines.
• One thing I miss is the changing of industries over time. Is this simply to going to be an aesthetic change, or are the industries in the early 1900s going to be radically different from the ones in 2000?

[FooBar]

As soon as you introduce the concept of 'back supplying' you go from simple towards too complex.

I think you've described it exactly right. I should probably also consider eliminating the supply cargos from FIRS. I'll think about it.

They could become optional, like waste as a cargo can become optional as well. Not much difference there. On the other hand, the *supplies cargos are already optional, as you don't have to do anything with them, as you just described.

So they can become a parameter, or you can just ignore them while playing. Personally I'm in favour of leaving them in, because taking them out would be like taking the soul out of FIRS. Exactly stuff like the *supplies is what separates FIRS from any other industry set out there.

Right now, my ideal FIRS would be:
- As much of the original TTD industries as possible, in order to ease the transition;
- A few extra FIRS industries and cargos, but not too much;
- The *supplies production boosting facilities;
- A bitmask parameter value to enable additional cargos, with them come additional industries.

One thing I miss is the changing of industries over time. Is this simply to going to be an aesthetic change, or are the industries in the early 1900s going to be radically different from the ones in 2000?

The idea was that classic industries disappear and are replaced by more modern industries. For instance, the blacksmith should disappear at some point in time, where other industries will take over the coal and iron acceptance. Ofcourse, the new industries should be available before the old disappear, so that one can make the transition by rerouting ...errr... routes. This feature isn't really in FIRS yet, as the exact details haven't been decided on yet.

[CommanderZ]

Right now, my ideal FIRS would be:
- As much of the original TTD industries as possible, in order to ease the transition;
- A few extra FIRS industries and cargos, but not too much;
- The *supplies production boosting facilities;
- A bitmask parameter value to enable additional cargos, with them come additional industries.

I 100% agree. I think since the supllies ale mostly voluntary, you should leave them in.

The idea was that classic industries disappear and are replaced by more modern industries. For instance, the blacksmith should disappear at some point in time, where other industries will take over the coal and iron acceptance. Ofcourse, the new industries should be available before the old disappear, so that one can make the transition by rerouting ...errr... routes. This feature isn't really in FIRS yet, as the exact details haven't been decided on yet.

As soon as you introduce the concept of 'back supplying' you go from simple towards too complex.

I think you've described it exactly right. I should probably also consider eliminating the supply cargos from FIRS. I'll think about it.

They could become optional, like waste as a cargo can become optional as well. Not much difference there. On the other hand, the *supplies cargos are already optional, as you don't have to do anything with them, as you just described.

So they can become a parameter, or you can just ignore them while playing. Personally I'm in favour of leaving them in, because taking them out would be like taking the soul out of FIRS. Exactly stuff like the *supplies is what separates FIRS from any other industry set out there.

Right now, my ideal FIRS would be:
- As much of the original TTD industries as possible, in order to ease the transition;
- A few extra FIRS industries and cargos, but not too much;
- The *supplies production boosting facilities;
- A bitmask parameter value to enable additional cargos, with them come additional industries.

One thing I miss is the changing of industries over time. Is this simply to going to be an aesthetic change, or are the industries in the early 1900s going to be radically different from the ones in 2000?

The idea was that classic industries disappear and are replaced by more modern industries. For instance, the blacksmith should disappear at some point in time, where other industries will take over the coal and iron acceptance. Ofcourse, the new industries should be available before the old disappear, so that one can make the transition by rerouting ...errr... routes. This feature isn't really in FIRS yet, as the exact details haven't been decided on yet.

I hope you are going to do this once the basic in industries are in. This is from the very beginning themost promising feature for me.

[andythenorth]

So they can become a parameter, or you can just ignore them while playing. Personally I'm in favour of leaving them in, because taking them out would be like taking the soul out of FIRS.

I agree. Players can ignore them. The production code for Farm and Engineering Supplies has been finished for a few months, and it works. I've played a couple of games through with it, it does what I intended.

- As much of the original TTD industries as possible, in order to ease the transition;
- A few extra FIRS industries and cargos, but not too much;

Oh I think I do prefer 'FIRS basic' with fewer original industries. Otherwise it has a bit of "what's the point?" I've compiled a version with about 40% original cargos and industries and it didn't look very enticing

A bitmask parameter value to enable additional cargos, with them come additional industries.

I should explain the 'economy' feature that we've implemented. Single simple parameter will control nearly all of the available variations. You might be able to work it out by reading the code, but probably easier if explained on irc

The idea was that classic industries disappear and are replaced by more modern industries.

I'm deliberately leaving off coding this until I have the basic industry and production code worked out. It just makes testing that bit harder if I have to deal with industries unavailable at some dates

Several people have said that industry closure would irritate them. We'll include it anyway to see how it plays out.

[mrMann]

Playing with FIRS at the moment - embarrassingly for the first time! Its very good.

[Hyronymus]

Playing with FIRS at the moment - embarrassingly for the first time! Its very good.

Don't feel shame, mrMann. First time for me too and sofar I like it .

[Kogut]

The idea was that classic industries disappear and are replaced by more modern industries.

I'm deliberately leaving off coding this until I have the basic industry and production code worked out. It just makes testing that bit harder if I have to deal with industries unavailable at some dates

Several people have said that industry closure would irritate them. We'll include it anyway to see how it plays out.

Maybe additional parameter
0 - always rebuild old-style industry into modern (no need to change routes)
1 - sometimes 0, sometimes 2 (default?)
2 - close old, new in random place

[CommanderZ]

Several people have said that industry closure would irritate them. We'll include it anyway to see how it plays out.

These people can play modern-era game where all industries are already opened

Maybe additional parameter
0 - always rebuild old-style industry into modern (no need to change routes)
1 - sometimes 0, sometimes 2 (default?)
2 - close old, new in random place

This would lead to unrealistic situations, like early 1900s blacksmith or windmill next to aluminium processing plant.

Maybe the basic FIRS could lack this feature (there would be no early industries that later disapera, only the newly opening ones that remain for all time).

[Kogut]

Maybe additional parameter
0 - always rebuild old-style industry into modern (no need to change routes)
1 - sometimes 0, sometimes 2 (default?)
2 - close old, new in random place

This would lead to unrealistic situations, like early 1900s blacksmith or windmill next to aluminium processing plant.

Why it could lead to that situations?
Why it would be unrealistic?

[el koeno]

Several people have said that industry closure would irritate them. We'll include it anyway to see how it plays out.

Just a thought here: I was thinking that perhaps older industries (e.g. blacksmith) should have a low production cap, and non-stringent placement demands, while more modern industries (e.g. foundry?) would have high production caps, and need a location near power and large cities. Perhaps these larger industries should also have a favorable conversion rate of raw materials compared to the smaller ones.

So in the beginning you'll have small scale networks where rural blacksmiths serve a couple of villages, whereas later you'll probably want to use stronger trains with higher capacity wagons to switch to the more modern industries that are able to produce large quantities of goods. So instead of facing the irritating closing of industries, the players themselves will reroute their networks to the more modern ones, leaving the old ones to close. Should the player prefer a more artisanal mode of industrial production, he/she could even choose to continue supplying the blacksmiths allowing them to continue operation. After all, one if the joys of transport tycoon is that you have you own little sand box economy.

This might just be a brain fart, and it might just add unwanted complexity for little benefit. But I think I might like the production chains to be a bit more dynamic.

[andythenorth]

I improved the industry info on the FIRS website: http://tt-foundry.com/sets/FIRS/schema/industries

-

@ El Koeno, me and FooBar talked on irc, we like your suggestion about allowing 'outdated' industries to close because players have moved service elsewhere.

I have to make it work also with the desire that secondary industries don't close (too much) when not serviced. I think it's possible to balance the two aims.

[George]

Personally I'm in favour of leaving them in, because taking them out would be like taking the soul out of FIRS. Exactly stuff like the *supplies is what separates FIRS from any other industry set out there.

ECS machinery / fertiliser
As for manufacturing supplies, it is more lucky to be a material, not a production booster. But a secondary material, that does not work without the primory ones. Like Dyes and Glass in ECS.