Tips for building cleanly and realistically

[Kaiser-NA]

So I've mastered the basics of gameplay and can now build and operate good sized networks on a 1024x2048 size map. My ultimate goal in my build-style is to keep it looking realistic without sacrificing too much utility in the process. I also want more practice is building rails into the sides of mountains, rather than just keeping my lines on a single tile level across the map.

For example, I strive to build maps like Espee and his Lansborough Central game: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=71256 My issue is, I just don't really know where to begin. Any suggestions?

[Alberth]

Generate a somewhat hilly (or worse ) landscape, and build a network without leveling land.
If you're worried you won't be able to prevent yourself from cheating, add a basecost newgrf with an insane cost for landscaping.

Play a small scale, 512x256 or smaller (smaller makes everything more tight, so you have to think about usage of your space). 512x256 is not small tbh, that's 128x256 or smaller.

Play steam, electric, or diesel only. You likely want a newgrf with more such engines.

Don't build more tracks than you need. 1 track is optimal (with pieces of double track to pass each other), 2 is for busy tracks.

Don't build more tracks than you need. A flat entry/exit junction in front of a station is sufficient until proven it is not.

Signal block size 5 tiles or longer (realistic is probably way longer than 5 tiles, others may know that).

(In case you hadn't realized yet, your manual with flat level junction can be thrown in the bin.)
Build a junction with the landscape, that is, use the hills in the landscape to function as a bridge. Rather extend a hill with a bridge, instead of building a complete new bridge. You may want to limit the max length of a bridge.

[Pyoro]

Also, I'd say there's two strategies to go about this - plan the whole thing, think about how it should be when it's finished, then build it in one go. Others might prefer building it over time, extending things, rebuilding junctions etc. It's obviously no either-or thing, but you should give yourself some time to figure out what works best for you; or is better suited for giving the results you want.

[leifbk]

You can't really play "realistically" in this game, as the economic model favors hauling coal from China to Europe on trains running at 400 km/h.

If you want a challenge, I recommend starting in 1700 with the "Sailing Ships", "Squid", and "egrvts" GRFs enabled, and with water level -> high, terrain type -> mountainous, and industry level -> low. Turn off inflation and city growth. I'll guarantee you an interesting game

Hint: start with a few mail routes, and then move on to shipping as soon as you can afford it. Invest like a madman. By 1720, you should be well on your way to making a fortune.

[Brumi]

You can't really play "realistically" in this game, as the economic model favors hauling coal from China to Europe on trains running at 400 km/h.

I don't agree with this one. The economic model surely favors that, but who cares about profits when you want to build realistically?

[Taschi]

My signal blocks have a minimum length of ~10 squares. I eyeball it, though, and don't use automatic block signal generation. A block should always be able to hold an entire train for my aesthetic pleasure, because it is that way in Germany and most other European countries. Also, I limit my passenger trains to five squares as opposed to seven squares for freight trains.

[V453000 :)]

Building realistically is simple, just build poorly.

I fulfill every single point of what Alberth wrote, but soon the "amount you need" simply gets way higher than needing 1 track in each direction, especially not with that huge signal distance.

You either: transport like 1% of produced cargo, OR you expand more, OR you play for just a couple hours so the productions never raise as much. Demolishing land is just aesthetic and I generally avoid that, but when you need more trains and more tracks, it just gets dense sooner or later.

[Dave]

Oh v453000 change the record... *snore*

"You need more than one record to have a record collection, Dougal... What you have, is a record."

In any case, Kaiser, you need to try a few maps with a few different settings. You probably won't get it right first time, but eventually you'll have a map with the sweet spot of settings which you enjoy.

However, don't expect to enjoy lengthy games. Sometimes I've found a lot of my games end within twenty to thirty years when a natural end or block hits me.

There are, of course, compromises that have to be made - this is a game after all - but the orders and time tabling have improved, and of course we now have CargoDist which does help realistic networks.

There's also a cracking set of newgrfs which contribute to that. If you like playing with a realistic edge then you'll probably be a lot more likely to use some of the more obscure features and vehicles in the GRFs. You can certainly get a great amount of enjoyment out of playing the game that way...

And enjoyment is sort of the point. Each to their own. I find playing the game like a more/better/faster concept incredibly boring. But of course building our way, Kaiser, is "building poorly"... Yawn.

[V453000 :)]

Oh v453000 change the record... *snore*

"You need more than one record to have a record collection, Dougal... What you have, is a record."

In any case, Kaiser, you need to try a few maps with a few different settings. You probably won't get it right first time, but eventually you'll have a map with the sweet spot of settings which you enjoy.

However, don't expect to enjoy lengthy games. Sometimes I've found a lot of my games end within twenty to thirty years when a natural end or block hits me.

There are, of course, compromises that have to be made - this is a game after all - but the orders and time tabling have improved, and of course we now have CargoDist which does help realistic networks.

There's also a cracking set of newgrfs which contribute to that. If you like playing with a realistic edge then you'll probably be a lot more likely to use some of the more obscure features and vehicles in the GRFs. You can certainly get a great amount of enjoyment out of playing the game that way...

And enjoyment is sort of the point. Each to their own. I find playing the game like a more/better/faster concept incredibly boring. But of course building our way, Kaiser, is "building poorly"... Yawn.

Soooo, okay, enjoyment is the point, fine, but you did not define "realistic and clean playing" at all. "Change various settings" does not quite cut it So uhm, how do we build cleanly and realistically? OK, limiting game length to 20 years ... you can still have a monstrous network after 20 years so that is not much of a "style" ... WHAT defines playing realistically? Poor train density? Timetabling?

[Pyoro]

"Playing poorly" is not bad advice for playing realistically. Like avoiding doubling bridges, even if it means bad throughput, which is, of course, technically playing badly.

Doesn't mean you can't make profit nonetheless. In the game I usually post screenshots from, which isn't perfectly realistic but good enough for me, all vehicles are profitable. No problem there. ^^

[peter1138]

• Avoid landscaping where possible.
• Prefer following the landscape to avoid inclines, over tunnels or going straight over.
• Prefer bridges over taking a short dip.
• Don't build huge rail intersections in the middle of nowhere. Real-life networks generally have junctions at stations.
• Branch lines!
• Sparse signalling.
• Mixed consists, at least early in the game.
• Vary number of platforms and length per station.
• Don't forget road, sea and possibly air transport.
• Beeching in the 1960s.

So yeah, play poorly I guess.

[andythenorth]

Also try
- Industrial Stations Renewal (ISR) grf
- 90' curves off (although this messes up ship routing on rivers and canals), but it's more realisms
- high freight weight multiplier (6 or so)
- single-track railroading with passing loops (if playing with North American grfs)
- lots of transfers between vehicle types
- mixed-cargo freight trains (this is hard to make work)
- PIPE grf for pipelines

[oberhümer]

- high freight weight multiplier (6 or so)

Or a value closer to or even at 1 and an industry GRF with massive output (I think ECS is best for that). I haven't been playing much though, so I'm not sure how well that really works.

[Kogut]

• Avoid landscaping where possible.
• Prefer following the landscape to avoid inclines, over tunnels or going straight over.
• Prefer bridges over taking a short dip.

So yeah, play poorly I guess.

This is not requiring intentional playing poorly with maps that have large-scale landscape (now possible in trunk thanks to More Height Levels).

[Dave]

Play the game how you want to. Try some of the suggestions out (some are really tough, especially Andy's! haha)

Since they're not enforced you can relax them to maximise your own enjoyment. Sometimes you'll build a junction and think "that's too clean" but would you believe it - it's YOUR game! So it doesn't matter a jot!

[Kevo00]

The open ended freedom to play and create what you want is exactly what makes OTTD a great game. Its not a competition.

[leifbk]

The open ended freedom to play and create what you want is exactly what makes OTTD a great game. Its not a competition.

Now, where's the "Like" button?

The open-endedness as you say, and then there's the incredible depth of this game. You apparently never learn everything about it. That's why I used to play Civ a lot, but I got tired of the incessant war-mongering.

[2457]

impossible to go realistic.
the economy is not important in this case,
but the scale of things is.
the size of an industry compared to a train..
yeppers, that is where the thing suffers.
there is simply not enough space for that.
inbetween industries, inbetween towns, and so on.
and inbetween trains.....

[leifbk]

Realism is a relative thing

You just have to ignore the issues about scale in this game, or it will drive you nuts or make you abandon the game completely. Of course a 6-horse carriage isn't really as long as a city block, a 1 by 1 tile isn't really 10 meters wide and 10 kilometers long, and so on and so on.

What realism means in this context I think, is in terms of what is realistically feasible in a market economy, ie. not to exploit totally wacky ventures such as carrying coal from China to Europe on fast trains, just because you can. That simply does not work in RL.

IMO, TT isn't really about means of transport and money at all. It's more about building interesting networks, and getting stuff moved from source to destination in a timely fashion where and when it's needed, ie. logistics. The rest is just eye candy, although a lot of that is really gorgeous

[Chrill]

I usually wing it. I never really plan ahead which means I have to go back many times to get a well-functioning network. The benefit of this is that every piece of track I build is "custom" - it is built to what the area permits and the capacity requires. No one major junction ever looks the same because I might have spent 40-60 years in-game to build, rebuild and tweak that junction.