Emperor Jake wrote: ↑29 Sep 2021 13:59
Hey LaChupachabra, thanks for the comprehensive reply!
I think I wrote too little lately... I'll write more
Emperor Jake wrote: ↑29 Sep 2021 13:59
I've started planning to include sailing ships using the Sailing Ship GRF's graphics, however the stats and names will be completely changed.
Their overall balance is not bad. A bit more payloads could be used, but looking at other vehicles from this period, that might favor them too much. And so ships are planes of the 19th century. Increasing their advantage wouldn't be good.
I think it would be good to do something to prevent the production of enterprises and cities in the early years from being so large, but this is a topic for other newGRFs and maybe the game itself.
The main drawback of sailing ships is now a much worse cargo aging parameter compared to ships from FISH sets, and the fact that the speed multiplier didn't affect them. What may be worth changing is somehow differentiating Barque from Merchantman.
Emperor Jake wrote: ↑29 Sep 2021 13:59
I won't resize the preview sprites because it doesn't fit in with the way FISH is designed.
Hmm... somehow I used different scales and didn't notice it.
In addition, wrong order and duplicated graphics... Ok, one more approach.
This time, all ships on the same scale, properly assigned.
- Sailing ships preview.png (23.53 KiB) Viewed 13886 times
I think it's worth using graphics with sails. One that they show the nature of ships, and two that the graphics of some ships without sails are the same. Anyway, with or without sails, I think the Steamship art is better if show whole ship like other - it's only slightly longer than the rest, but it looks a lot better this way.
Emperor Jake wrote: ↑29 Sep 2021 13:59
LaChupacabra wrote: ↑27 Sep 2021 15:38
2. WSF Ferry Set (...) submarine.
... not sure what the submarine would be classed as, maybe a uitlity ship?
I have no idea, maybe something like the "
Atlantis Submarine"? Btw. There is a ship with that name and it is a passenger ship with a capacity of 64 passengers. Regarding the naming, these names of sailing ships refer to their types - in the past there were no divisions into ferries, bulk carriers, etc., there was a division in terms of construction, mainly the type of mast.
Emperor Jake wrote: ↑29 Sep 2021 13:59
LaChupacabra wrote: ↑27 Sep 2021 15:38
4. Variable ship capacities
I just copied the way it was done in Squid with the Grindavik reefer and expanded it to a few other ships. Perhaps the addition of smaller reefers would make this feature redundant?
Interesting question. I think this is a very nice feature and for me it could also be used in other ships. Playing recently, I have looked at each ship's available payloads every time, but this option is only available for three. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to extend it while reducing the number of ships on the list? For example, Maspalomas and Munkegrund would be one ship in different versions. The same for the pair of Santorini and Oran, as well as other similar ships.
New, smaller reefers? But I would ask one important question first: how do you perceive this change in capacity? Is it a choice of a different version of the vessel, or is it just a utility limitation by the user?
In the first case, it would be good if each other versions of the ships had different graphics. Then other, smaller ships would really be useful, because maintaining similar graphics with a four-fold change in payload will be quite strange. Then also these payload changes shouldn't be that big. Here, the prices of the different versions should not be the same. In order for the player to be able to buy a smaller version, the conversion should remain as it is, i.e. you buy a smaller one and change it for a larger one.
In the latter case, no other graphics are needed. However, here the basic version of the ship should be the most capacious one, because the player pays for it and the price of this ship should be proportional to the highest payload. For me, both solutions are interesting. In both cases, the change in payload should have an impact on the maintenance costs. Otherwise, changing the level of these costs (x2, x4, x8) will make the lower payload versions unprofitable. And if you adjust the costs to the smaller available capacity, the larger ones will be OP. As I write this, I know that I am repeating myself, but I like slightly more difficult games and then the right balance of costs is important and I just care about it.
(certainly not only me).
Summarizing this point, I would see two ways.
First
- Limiting the number of ships available directly in the list
- Ships similar in appearance and data would be the different rebuild versions available
- The ship's default version would be the smallest available
- Rebuilding to larger versions would have a specific cost
- Larger versions would have a correspondingly higher cost of maintenance
Here, the disadvantage of this solution is the problem with the automatic replacement of ships with a different model - currently it is not possible to choose the version, which is a big limitation.
Second
- Any ship with different appearance, capacity or other details would be available separately
- Some ships, and even most or all of them, could have the option of utility payload reduction (e.g. -10/-20/-30%) - sometimes the player may need less load capacity, but maybe this shouldn't be 50 or 75% lower (then he will choose another ship)
- A reduction in payload would also partially reduce maintenance costs - they would be lower, but this reduction would not be proportional to the reduction in payload
- Instead of change of the payload, there could be an option to change the speed - higher speed would mean higher maintenance costs
Here, if you will add other ships, the version option could be completely redundant and possibly useful only in a few ships.
Emperor Jake wrote: ↑29 Sep 2021 13:59
This is a big can of worms which has been discussed about at length before. It's known to be a broken feature. I should just pull an Andy and remove all code relating to cargo aging
I also don't think that cargo aging is a broken function. This is not a perfect solution, but removing these multipliers will not fix anything, it will just spoil the set. Ships are slow and the drop in freight rates is very rapid here. Without these multipliers, transport over longer and even average distances will become devoid of economic sense. Large ships that take a long time to load will also become pointless. Cargo aging is a simplification of the economy that was supposed to make buying newer, faster vehicles make sense. It also makes sense that it limits the purposefulness of transporting to the farthest place on the map. Removing this feature and replacing it with another would require not only simple changes to one add-on, but major changes to the game itself that would significantly change its nature and possibly all add-ons to keep them balanced.
My suggestion was and is that these multipliers for cargo aging should be slightly reduced, because curently ships earn too easily compared to other modes of transport. Below I have posted a save where you can see what it looks like. Additionally, I would suggest increase the difference of the multipliers between universal ships and specialized ones (reefers, tankers). I haven't seen the code, but comparing income with other vehicles, I suppose this multiplier is now around x4, or around 700-800, and is probably general for all ships, except for reefers and tankers, which have an additional, albeit not much higher, multiplier.
These general multipliers are a bit too high in my opinion. When you play ships against a maglev, they are ok because the income from transporting the same cargo is similar. But in the case of a conventional, slower railway, the advantage of ships is too pronounced. I think lowering this multiplier by 20-30% would give a better proportion.
Regarding adding a setting for this parameter, I think that the right place for such a function would be add-ons specifying the rates for transport, because this multiplier should change equally for all types of vehicles and possibly sets.
Emperor Jake wrote: ↑29 Sep 2021 13:59
I won't include very large ships because they don't fit in with the scale of FISH/SHARK. As for capacities, I might eventually include a capacity parameter that you can increase to match redFISH capacities. I don't personally see a need for anything bigger than that
The general capacity parameter in the form of a multiplier would not be good, because small ships are also needed. But sometimes bigger ones could really be used...
- [+] Spoiler
- We need something bigger, Captain Jake.png (228.1 KiB) Viewed 10420 times
It may not be something common, but I have seen even better achievements on the servers more than once and I am certainly not the only player for whom larger ships would be very useful. Here, on a fairly short route of about 250 tiles, I needed as many as 110 of the largest ships, and it was only one line. In online games, a large number of ships is important due to the game performance and server limits. In offline games, limits don't count, but still fewer ships on the trail just look better than their unbroken string. I think other graphics could be used for these larger ships. They don't have to be longer. Their load capacity can be seen in the form of a dipping difference, which can be huge.
Emperor Jake wrote: ↑29 Sep 2021 13:59
The Mako is a completed version of the Mount Blaze, it would be silly to include the unfinished version as well
That smaller catamaran would be a nice addition though, where did you find that? It looks like it's based on my old Enoshima catamaran. As for the Titanic, IIRC that sprite was ripped from some other game and therefore isn't licensed.
This unfinished version of Mount Blaze, completed in a different way, could be a larger version of the Mako.
This little catamaran is Barracuda and it is located in Wasteland set.
A few more comments and ideas
10. Olimpic Log Tug (very interesting) - in the "vertical" view the logs look definitely too wide. Here, the load level in my opinion should have an influence on the top speed. Currently, no matter how much wood he pulls, the speed is always 13 mph and 21 mph when empty. Maybe something like: 21 > 17 > 15 >13 ?
11. Tigershark - sorry, but this hydrofoil is of Soviet construction and was used mainly in the countries of the Eastern Bloc, so this new name does not fit here at all. The previous name was much much more accurate. Feodosiya refers to a city in Ukraine where very similar hydrofoils were produced called Kometa, and later also Voskhod. Btw. The most interesting of the Soviet hydrofoils, in my opinion, was the Burevestnik - it was powered by two external gas turbines that looked like a jet propulsion. It took 150 passengers on board and could theoretically accelerate to 150 km/h (94 mph)
12. Pusher - could be an interesting variation of the barge
13. Connor Freight Ferry - you can transport livestock with it... Do passengers also travel in cages? Or is it a version for immigrants? I do not know. I like such a lack of literality, but nonetheless, this passenger ship looks at least a little strange, if not suspicious.
14. Ship release periods - they have not been specified, so all ships are always available regardless of the setting in the game.
