Maximum Income Distance Patch

Forum for technical discussions regarding development. If you have a general suggestion, problem or comment, please use one of the other forums.

Moderator: OpenTTD Developers

wleader
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 123
Joined: 18 May 2007 09:04

Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by wleader »

Update!
I've created a new patch that modifies the time factor constants instead of enforcing a maximum distance.
http://www.tt-forums.net/download/file.php?id=88285
===========================================

I've been playing a lot of multi-player games lately, and one of the things that bothers me is that it is simply too easy to join a game, build a long haul route across a huge map and be loaded with cash quickly. It doesn't take long for game to degenerate into a contest of who can build the most long distance routes. They don't even need to be particularly well built or managed and a profit can be made.

So I started looking into how distance is used in the income calculation and what I found is that is it just a simple multiplication:

Code: Select all

Economy.cpp ~ line 1274
return BigMulS(dist * time_factor * num_pieces, _cargo_payment_rates[cargo_type], 21);
If you take a look around near this code there are a couple of things going on. One of the things affecting income is the time_factor. I must admit I don't fully understand whats going on here, but my basic understanding is that if cargo takes too long to get there income is decreased. There is a maximum placed on this time factor, and this means that the time penalty is limited. Once a certain amount of time is reached there can be no further penalty. To me this is what makes the long haul exploit possible. The time penalty stops while the distance bonus continues to accrue.

Due to my lack of understanding about the time penalty, In an attempt to close the exploit, I chose to limit the distance bonus, similar to the limit on time penalty. I'm sure there are arguments about why this is the wrong approach. I'm also going to recognize the quick and dirty nature of the change. So to hopefully stimulate further discussion of the changes, I'm posting this patch here.

Basically what I have done is made the maximum distance value used in the calculation a configurable option. Setting the option to zero disables the patch. Setting it to any other value sets the maximum distance value used. For example if you set the value to 256, then any cargo delivered less than 256 tiles will be calculated normal, and routes that are longer will have their income limited to what it would have been paid had it traveled 256 tiles.

I've been testing this on my machine for a couple days now and I must say that it does up the game difficulty a great deal. Since a route that is too long becomes unprofitable, the player is forced to make a network that consists of many smaller runs before they can generate the enormous profits we normally see on the long runs.
Last edited by wleader on 23 Mar 2008 10:09, edited 3 times in total.
Iguanna
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 100
Joined: 21 Nov 2007 00:06

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by Iguanna »

I like this idea - a simple option like this would be a good change and may help bring some challenge back to the game. I'm not sure what's going on with economy balancing, but it might not happen for a while, so getting something small and simple now would be good.

How about, rather than making really long trips unprofitable, make it so they generate the same profit as short ones after running costs is taken out? This way people can still do really long routes if they want, but there is no financial advantage or incentive to do so and the extra expense of setting up the infrastructure is a bit of a deterrent.

One way I can think of to do this would be to work out the running costs for the time the trip took and add that to the cap. E.g Income from taking 100t coal 256 tiles is $110 and running cost is $10, so profit is $100. If taking the same cargo 2000 tiles has running cost $500, cap income at $600 so profit is $100. That way the player gets the same $100 for their 100t coal for anything longer than 256 tiles. I guess there is also the return trip to consider, so maybe add 2x running cost to the cap, or something like that. You might be able to see from the cargo when it was picked up and work out the running cost from that - working the time out from the orders might be hard if way points. etc are used.

Also if you haven't already (I didn't try the patch), it might be good to put note or something at the bottom of the cargo payment rates graph in the game telling people that profit is capped for trips longer than whatever distance the option is set to.

There's some info in the wiki/manual that explains about payment rates too.
User avatar
PouncingAnt
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 357
Joined: 09 Nov 2004 22:33

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by PouncingAnt »

I like your idea. I think you're approach of limiting the effect of distance to the equation is probably along the right lines.

I'm inclined to say that long distance routes should be unprofitable. This follows much closer to real life, for one thing.

Before I'm branded an idiot for saying that, my reasoning is that after testing this patch and ironing it out (if it needs it), subsequent patches can be created to increase the value of goods for certain situations. ie. a factory will pay a lot of money for a resource, due to its distance in the case that there is no nearby resource of the same type available.

Thus the consequences are that needlessly long routes will not bring in any money, while where long routes are required, they will be useable.

The 2 problems inherent with my line of thought are 1) it would require someone to make a patch to do what I described..[quite a big problem, possibly] 2) passenger and mail networks (maybe temperate valuable networks too) aren't as simple as that. A city will want as many links as it can get, no matter the distance.[ie. the patch would have to be more complicated, and thus it is less likely anyone will work on it]

But, problems aside, the configurability of the patch means you can basically turn it off until these more complicated patches are available.
NB: the below challenges are still open for submission, so feel free to perform necromancy on them!
Try the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge
Or even better, the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge 2
Or better still, the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge 3
Or, the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge 4

Or try my scenario instead!

-(A lazy) OpenTTD Japanese Translator-
-(A lazy) PNGcodec user-
"You get what you pay for, so pay attention!"

Patches:
Company Station Stats
el koeno
Route Supervisor
Route Supervisor
Posts: 454
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 15:47

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by el koeno »

PouncingAnt wrote:I like your idea. I think you're approach of limiting the effect of distance to the equation is probably along the right lines.

I'm inclined to say that long distance routes should be unprofitable. This follows much closer to real life, for one thing.

Before I'm branded an idiot for saying that, my reasoning is that after testing this patch and ironing it out (if it needs it), subsequent patches can be created to increase the value of goods for certain situations. ie. a factory will pay a lot of money for a resource, due to its distance in the case that there is no nearby resource of the same type available.

Thus the consequences are that needlessly long routes will not bring in any money, while where long routes are required, they will be useable.

The 2 problems inherent with my line of thought are 1) it would require someone to make a patch to do what I described..[quite a big problem, possibly] 2) passenger and mail networks (maybe temperate valuable networks too) aren't as simple as that. A city will want as many links as it can get, no matter the distance.[ie. the patch would have to be more complicated, and thus it is less likely anyone will work on it]

But, problems aside, the configurability of the patch means you can basically turn it off until these more complicated patches are available.
For passengers a destination patch exists. If something would be done for cargo, industries would simply send their cargo to appropriate demanding industries. Of course you get the problem that people only hook up one power station to their network preventing coal mines from sending their coal to power stations that are closer by. So if you have only one power plant connected to your network, coal mines would have to send less to your stations for this idea to work. It would increase the incentive to include more power stations in your network, also ones that are closer by. Needless to say, the coal mines would prefer the closer ones.
User avatar
jez
Traffic Manager
Traffic Manager
Posts: 158
Joined: 23 Aug 2003 21:24

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by jez »

PouncingAnt wrote:I'm inclined to say that long distance routes should be unprofitable. This follows much closer to real life, for one thing.
The way this is meant to work is that the time taken to deliver the cargo affects the money paid for its delivery; the slower, the less money. The reason long-distance routes tend to be very profitable anyway is that this decrease doesn't happen quickly enough for all but the slowest of vehicles. There should probably be a logarithmic decrease in money paid, quickly decreasing at first and decreasing slower as time goes on. As the game goes on, this decrease could become steeper, to reflect that upgrades happen and faster vehicles and routes will result.
Thus the consequences are that needlessly long routes will not bring in any money, while where long routes are required, they will be useable.
This is a more difficult one. Perhaps there needs to be a payment multiplier added, where industries will pay more or less money based on their distance from the nearest industry that accepts their goods? The nearer, the lower the multiplier.
=== Jez ===
User avatar
AntBUK
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 319
Joined: 02 May 2007 12:29
Location: Sheffield, England
Contact:

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by AntBUK »

Personally, I build long distance routes (overlarge station in the middle of nowhere, as many feeders as I can link up, a train covering anything from 15 to 40 (even 50 in one case) tiles) and I believe capping the distance is the wrong way to go about it.

Would removing the time penalty cap be a better option? that way long distance freight can still generate some profit... just not as much.
Rasing Awareness: Aspergers Syndrome 1 (NAS UK)2 (BBC)3 (YaleDDC)


Something is driving you insane... It is me.
wleader
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 123
Joined: 18 May 2007 09:04

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by wleader »

AntBUK wrote:Personally, I build long distance routes (overlarge station in the middle of nowhere, as many feeders as I can link up, a train covering anything from 15 to 40 (even 50 in one case) tiles) and I believe capping the distance is the wrong way to go about it.

Would removing the time penalty cap be a better option? that way long distance freight can still generate some profit... just not as much.
If you notice in my first post I mention that modifying the time penalty is probably a better way to go. Limiting the distance was from a code perspective an easier thing to do. A lot of times I make a patch just to get discussion going about the area of game play I am trying to tweak.

So yes, I am working the time penalty now. The problem I am seeing is that the time cap code isn't completely clear to me yet. One thing I have seen is that if a cargo takes a long time but doesn't travel very far that a negative profit could happen. Stop a train for a couple of years before starting it again to see what I mean. So If I remove the time penalty cap, I probably ought to add code to prevent the prevent the profit from being negative. At worst the most you ought to be able to loose is the vehicle running cost.

Edit:
Thinking about things, changing the time penalty cap would probably work even when the destinations patch requires you move a passenger way far away. Changing the cap would probably have the fewest side effects for other patches.
User avatar
PouncingAnt
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 357
Joined: 09 Nov 2004 22:33

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by PouncingAnt »

uncapping time limits is fair enough. I retract my earlier comments. They were workable, but in hindsight, a bit odd.

Have you got any ideas how you'll work with the negative values?
I mean, I guess you could cap the lowest amount of profit using the cargo payment rates as a guide.
Or you could leave negative values in as compensation to the industry for being late (hehe. I think this sounds a lot better than it would actually be though)
Or maybe you are going to give cargoes are half life, where after a certain amount of time the value of the cargo is halved (this way you wouldn't get negative values. (Someone already mentioned using a logarithmic scale, and I've heard that suggested dozens of times, so I'm thinking thats a good route to go down)
NB: the below challenges are still open for submission, so feel free to perform necromancy on them!
Try the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge
Or even better, the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge 2
Or better still, the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge 3
Or, the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge 4

Or try my scenario instead!

-(A lazy) OpenTTD Japanese Translator-
-(A lazy) PNGcodec user-
"You get what you pay for, so pay attention!"

Patches:
Company Station Stats
User avatar
Bilbo
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1710
Joined: 06 Jun 2007 21:07
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by Bilbo »

PouncingAnt wrote:uncapping time limits is fair enough. I retract my earlier comments. They were workable, but in hindsight, a bit odd.
I think the limit is currently 180 days - if the train spend more time en-route than that, is is counted as 180 days anyway. I guess reworking the payout function would do even without introducing any artificial limits.

The distance travelled by time rises linearly (minus stopping and accelerating), so modify the payout so that it rises sub-linearly with distance. Therefore, the longer distanbce, the fewer profit per year you get, but due to accelerating and stopping, the optimum profit won't be in almost-zero distance but in some finite and perhaps not-so-large distance.
If you need something, do it yourself or it will be never done.

My patches: Extra large maps (1048576 high, 1048576 wide) (FS#1059), Vehicle + Town + Industry console commands (FS#1060), few minor patches (FS#2820, FS#1521, FS#2837, FS#2843), AI debugging facility

Other: Very large ships NewGRF, Bilbo's multiplayer patch pack v5 (for OpenTTD 0.7.3)
PhilSophus
Chairman
Chairman
Posts: 776
Joined: 20 Jan 2007 12:08
Location: Germany

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by PhilSophus »

I think it is quite reasonable to assume that you get payed more for longer trips (not necessarily meaning more profit). So I think capping the income is not the right way to do it. Improving the time penalty calculation might be a better one.

A third option (which can actually be combined with other options) that I'm thinking of for some time is the following: Let the infrastructure have a regular maintenance cost, i.e. for each peace of track you pay a certain amount per year. Thus longer routes cause a higher maintenance burden.

I have thought of a way how this could be implemented efficiently and came up with the following idea: Each company has a counter number of track pieces. This counter is increased for each track piece built and decreased for each track piece removed and saved in the savegame. Once a year (or a quarter) a certain maintenance cost per track piece has to be payed. I think taking a certain fraction of building cost instead of an absolute value is reasonable (e.g. depending on difficulty setting 1/10th or 1/20th of the build cost per year). Thus, building cost and maintenance cost can additionally be increased with a grf like pb_build.grf to further penalize building long routes both when building it and as long as it exists. Moreover, it would be possible to account for the owned tracks in the company value (which it isn't so far).

What do you think of such an idea?
"The bigger the island of our knowledge, the longer the shore of our ignorance" - John A. Wheeler, Physicist, 1911-2008
el koeno
Route Supervisor
Route Supervisor
Posts: 454
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 15:47

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by el koeno »

I also think that the payment calculation is the wrong way to solve the problem. The problem isn't that long lines are more profitable than short ones IMO. The problem is that you can choose to build long ones instead of short ones. Why would a coal mine send its coal halfway across the map if there's a powerplant around the corner? The coal mine should decide were its coal goes, not the player.

Other than that, I like the maintenance idea. For other reasons too. Like how it forces you to economize more on tracks.
Archonix
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
Posts: 733
Joined: 01 May 2003 17:29
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by Archonix »

el koeno wrote:I also think that the payment calculation is the wrong way to solve the problem. The problem isn't that long lines are more profitable than short ones IMO. The problem is that you can choose to build long ones instead of short ones. Why would a coal mine send its coal halfway across the map if there's a powerplant around the corner? The coal mine should decide were its coal goes, not the player.

Other than that, I like the maintenance idea. For other reasons too. Like how it forces you to economize more on tracks.
The UK buys almost all its coal from Australia despite sitting on some of the largest known coal fields in the world. The point being, the coal goes where the buyers are paying the best price for it rather than to the closest buyer, so a coal mine selling half way across the map is no less likely than selling to a plant right next door. :)
Brignell’s law of consensus: At times of high scientific controversy, the consensus is always wrong.
richk67
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 2363
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:21
Location: Up North
Contact:

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by richk67 »

Archonix wrote:The UK buys almost all its coal from Australia despite sitting on some of the largest known coal fields in the world. The point being, the coal goes where the buyers are paying the best price for it rather than to the closest buyer, so a coal mine selling half way across the map is no less likely than selling to a plant right next door. :)
Its also to do with the sort of coal. UK coal tends to be high in sulphur and other pollutants, although we do have some very very good coal seams of lovely coal - they are hard to mine economically. Our large volume of coal is the poor stuff.
OTTD NewGRF_ports. Add an airport design via newgrf.Superceded by Yexo's NewGrf Airports 2
Want to organise your trains? Try Routemarkers.
--- ==== --- === --- === ---
Firework Photography
el koeno
Route Supervisor
Route Supervisor
Posts: 454
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 15:47

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by el koeno »

Archonix wrote:
el koeno wrote:I also think that the payment calculation is the wrong way to solve the problem. The problem isn't that long lines are more profitable than short ones IMO. The problem is that you can choose to build long ones instead of short ones. Why would a coal mine send its coal halfway across the map if there's a powerplant around the corner? The coal mine should decide were its coal goes, not the player.

Other than that, I like the maintenance idea. For other reasons too. Like how it forces you to economize more on tracks.
The UK buys almost all its coal from Australia despite sitting on some of the largest known coal fields in the world. The point being, the coal goes where the buyers are paying the best price for it rather than to the closest buyer, so a coal mine selling half way across the map is no less likely than selling to a plant right next door. :)
Fair enough. But the point is, that economic forces "made" that decision, not the shipping company. Though they probably make a nice profit.
User avatar
PouncingAnt
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 357
Joined: 09 Nov 2004 22:33

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by PouncingAnt »

el koeno wrote: Fair enough. But the point is, that economic forces "made" that decision, not the shipping company. Though they probably make a nice profit.
I think you summed up a great point here. :)

But anyway, I've been a bit one-minded up till now, wanting to see improvements in OTTD's economic model, but I'm wondering whether that's in the interest of this patch. Silly of me, I forgot to ask.

So, wleader, are you making this patch in the hope of improving the economic model, or do you just want to be rid of the excessively long routes in multiplayer?

Either is fine by me, but I suddenly realise that I'm not helping by throwing ideas around if I dont know what the patch is working towards!

..If I might go off-topic a bit, people have been quoting me on some rather random things, while some seem fair enough, I'm not quite sure I see the relevance of some others...
NB: the below challenges are still open for submission, so feel free to perform necromancy on them!
Try the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge
Or even better, the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge 2
Or better still, the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge 3
Or, the PouncingAnt National Monopoly Challenge 4

Or try my scenario instead!

-(A lazy) OpenTTD Japanese Translator-
-(A lazy) PNGcodec user-
"You get what you pay for, so pay attention!"

Patches:
Company Station Stats
Frostregen
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 340
Joined: 06 Feb 2006 23:58

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by Frostregen »

PhilSophus wrote:I think it is quite reasonable to assume that you get payed more for longer trips (not necessarily meaning more profit). So I think capping the income is not the right way to do it. Improving the time penalty calculation might be a better one.

A third option (which can actually be combined with other options) that I'm thinking of for some time is the following: Let the infrastructure have a regular maintenance cost, i.e. for each peace of track you pay a certain amount per year. Thus longer routes cause a higher maintenance burden.

I have thought of a way how this could be implemented efficiently and came up with the following idea: Each company has a counter number of track pieces. This counter is increased for each track piece built and decreased for each track piece removed and saved in the savegame. Once a year (or a quarter) a certain maintenance cost per track piece has to be payed. I think taking a certain fraction of building cost instead of an absolute value is reasonable (e.g. depending on difficulty setting 1/10th or 1/20th of the build cost per year). Thus, building cost and maintenance cost can additionally be increased with a grf like pb_build.grf to further penalize building long routes both when building it and as long as it exists. Moreover, it would be possible to account for the owned tracks in the company value (which it isn't so far).

What do you think of such an idea?
Actually i did implement this about a year ago, just to see its effects. (The exact same way you explained ;) )
This does not penalize LONG routes in any way,
it just penalizes LOW USED routes. (since track-costs-per-month are fixed per route: more profit over route means lower percentage of losses due to track-costs-per-month)

Income formula for one month would be (ignoring trip-time):
(<ProductionPerMonth> * <DeliveryPaymentPerCargo> * <TrackTilesSingleTrip>) - (<TrackTilesSingletrip> * 2 * <TrackTileCostPerMonth>)

This comes down to:
( (<ProductionPerMonth> * <DeliveryPaymentPerCargo>) - (2 * <TrackTileCostPerMonth>) ) * <TrackTilesSingleTrip>

Inreasing RouteLength still linearly increases income.
It merely adds to the minimum profit you need to make a route profitable. (NOT depending on route-length, but TrackTileCostPerMonth)

But apart from this not changing the economy/buildstyle in any way,
i liked it somehow and it was nice to see the overall amount of track-pieces you built in your stats-view ;)
User avatar
prissi
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
Posts: 647
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 19:46
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by prissi »

Otherwise, with predetermined destinations and track maintenance this would exactly mimic the simutrans modell of doing transport. Since this is one of the major differences (apart from vehicle maitainace is per tile moving), I would suggest to try playing it there to get an idea of the effect.
I like to look at great maps and see how things flow. A little like a finished model railway, but it is evolving and actually never finished. http://www.simutrans.com
Frostregen
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 340
Joined: 06 Feb 2006 23:58

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by Frostregen »

Actually this was the most confusing part when i first played simutrans.
(route all set up, trains make some money. 2 month later *bang* -> bankrupt. and i did not know why ;) )
Effect: forcing networks
Trains are only lucrative when doing a network (trains sharing pieces of track), or there is a very high producing industry.
While this may be realistic, it restricts train usage. (We would need different tracktypes/speeds/maintenance-costs like simutrans too)
(This is what i called "penalize LOW USAGE" in my last post)

If this is really done it should be like train running costs:
A small sum payed on a daily basis. (In contrast to a very large sum every month/year)

Btw, if vehicle maintenance is per tile, and you want to relate track-maintenance to track-usage(a bad, but logical idea):
The track-maintenance could instead be added to vehicle maintenance(running costs) directly. This automatically excludes unused track-pieces from the formula.
Which just results in higher vehicle running costs ;)
PhilSophus
Chairman
Chairman
Posts: 776
Joined: 20 Jan 2007 12:08
Location: Germany

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by PhilSophus »

Frostregen wrote:Actually i did implement this about a year ago, just to see its effects. (The exact same way you explained ;) )
This does not penalize LONG routes in any way,
it just penalizes LOW USED routes. (since track-costs-per-month are fixed per route: more profit over route means lower percentage of losses due to track-costs-per-month)
When playing with higher build costs and more expensive engines from e.g. DBsetXL, this effectively prevents you from building long routes in the earlier game, as you badly need the money for buying new engines and can not afford a high track maintenance. Some years ago, I played Railroad Tycoon 2 quite actively (esp. as it was one of a few high-quality games available for Linux). I think the high fixed costs (interest, track maintenance) was actually what made it an economic challenge in the early game.
Frostregen wrote:Income formula for one month would be (ignoring trip-time):
(<ProductionPerMonth> * <DeliveryPaymentPerCargo> * <TrackTilesSingleTrip>) - (<TrackTilesSingletrip> * 2 * <TrackTileCostPerMonth>)

This comes down to:
( (<ProductionPerMonth> * <DeliveryPaymentPerCargo>) - (2 * <TrackTileCostPerMonth>) ) * <TrackTilesSingleTrip>

Inreasing RouteLength still linearly increases income.
It merely adds to the minimum profit you need to make a route profitable. (NOT depending on route-length, but TrackTileCostPerMonth)

But apart from this not changing the economy/buildstyle in any way,
i liked it somehow and it was nice to see the overall amount of track-pieces you built in your stats-view ;)
Is there a reason why you didn't publish it (or did I just overlook it)? I'm asking because I considered making such a patch myself. Especially, as with my improved loans patch having a realistic company value is a good thing. But there is no point in wasting time for it if it's already done; so many other nice things that can be done :wink:
"The bigger the island of our knowledge, the longer the shore of our ignorance" - John A. Wheeler, Physicist, 1911-2008
Frostregen
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 340
Joined: 06 Feb 2006 23:58

Re: Maximum Income Distance Patch

Post by Frostregen »

Ok, sure. Higher building costs restrict you to short routes at the beginning.
But sooner or later you have enough income to ignore this.
I thought we were talking about a system which somehow makes long (too long) routes not generating any profit. (Or at least not way more profit than a short one).
This cannot be done this way, because both track-maintenance and income both raise proportional with route-length.


The modification was only a quick test(maybe 30 minutes including compile-time). I did not make a .patch from it, because i was dissapointed from the results. (Which effectively is just a higher vehicle-running-cost)
So i deleted it ;)

Btw if you are going to code it right, it will need some careful looking for ALL points which create/destroy tracks. I restricted myself to some obvious codepoints to have faster, but slightly incorrect results.
Post Reply

Return to “OpenTTD Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 12 guests