Niches for different locomotive types

[Enerla]

The issue: Most players would only use a fraction of the locomotives from NewGRF sets. While in Real World a lot of locomotives have their own niches in OpenTTD their niches aren't modeled.

What happens in the real world - 1: There are heavier and lighter rail types, with different limits for engine / wagon weights.

How can you implement a fix - 1: Add weight limits to track types and check engine weights against them. AND any heavier train would have an increased breakdown percentage, and some chance to crash.

What would it add to the gameplay? -1: As upgrading all lines to work with the heaviest engines would be too expensive, it would create a niche for lighter engines / multiple units.
Also at this point modeling the problems faced by early railroads (horse drawn vehicles are okay, but a locomotive is too heavy for reliable performance) is possible with adding vehicles and track types.

Potential compatibility problems - 1: If property upgrade costs become more significant, it could affect game balance.



What happens in the real world - 2: Vehicles have limited supply of fuel and limited range. See some fireless steam locomotives

How can you implement a fix - 2: Add effective range for vehicles. If a vehicle runs out of its effective range, it can be modeled as a "Breakdown" (It needs to be saved the same way)

What would it add to the gameplay? -2: Some niche for "cheap to run, but limited range" vehicles, and some niche for longer range ones. Would add a lot to versatility.

Potential compatibility problems - 2: As current NewGRF set locomotives would have "infinite" range, the cheaper but limited range locomotives could feel "too cheap to operate".



What happens in the real world - 3: There are EMUs / DMUs / Coaches with different level of comfort, etc.

How can you implement a fix - 3: Approval rating for stations / towns should depend on providing *different kinds* of passenger service with different comfort rating. Quality could also influence income.

What would it add to the gameplay? -3: Niche for various vehicles, and more varied gameplay.

Potential compatibility problems - 3: -

[FLHerne]

1) The Dutch Trainset (v2) already has this feature with compatible tracksets (anything that implements the proposed Standardized Railtype Scheme).

2) Range limitations already exist for aircraft (only) and are implemented by av8 at least.
I doubt it could be playable for other vehicle types- OTTD doesn't provide a means to see or control the exact route to be taken by a train, which can vary quite substantially (as other trains move about) even with an unchanging network. In a game where people often have thousands of trains and road vehicles, that level of micromanagement would be be impossible.

3) NewGRF vehicles can have customised cargo decay rates - 'luxury' vehicles will reduce the drop in payment as journey time increases. Having these affect station rating is an interesting idea, and makes much more sense than some of the other things that are considered.

[Enerla]

FLHerene:

1st: I see. So there is a similar proposal already, which is a good thing, I hope to find more stuff supporting it. But so far I have ran into problems where even NewGRF people complained about the lack of niche for some vehicles.

2nd: For trains you could add waypoints with refuel capabilities to any and all lines. So even with varied routes it could work as well.

[YNM]

No mean to harm anybody, but just a kind statement that mind you, after all, we're just playing a game... You can, in any way, to just set these up for yourself (ie. make the limitations yourself, .net is mostly handy for it). Many more people are, at last, residing to demand for a more streamlined sets; all vehicles should be a representation of a certain era, no real use of niches in the end. OpenTTD tries to be as universal as possible; you have a wide path for your imagination and what your dreams are.

No offense, just that it comes to my mind that some other people are asking for the other way.

[FLHerne]

2nd: For trains you could add waypoints with refuel capabilities to any and all lines. So even with varied routes it could work as well.

For the reasons in my previous post, you can't meaningfully plan where to put those on most real networks. So you just end up plastering them everywhere (so that nothing will run out of fuel whatever it does). No-one's going to carefully reposition all their 'refuelling points' every time they get trains with a slightly different range - they'll just leave them where they are if the range increases, and stick a few more in if the range decreases for some reason. So there's no differentiation between things with different ranges - just more clutter to build.

[Eddi]

All these things have come up in the past, especially in discussions between NewGRF developers they were heavily debated, and FLHerne has pretty much summed up the results of that.

1&3 you will find one way or another modelled in some of the more recent sets (these possibilities are rather new in relation to typical NewGRF development cycles)

2 has been proposed in several variants, but none of the proposals have reached a level where people have said "yes, that could provide good gameplay". and no NewGRF developer will code for a feature that he doesn't find useful.

[Transportman]

As Eddi pointed out, 1&3 are already possible using NewGRFs, but I'm not sure if there are sets using it in the way you propose. In the Dutch Trainset there is a power boost for some engines on tracks with certain labels, no weight consideration is implemented. It is a game, and implementing all kinds of limitations based on RL will make stuff more complicated than needed (while there are also some technical limitations w.r.t. the number of possible railtypes).

Point 2 will result in simplified networks (as route is never 100% sure unless there is only one route to a destination) and would penalize the use of unelectrified rail and engines (as electrified engines have no range limitation as their power supply is unlimited).

[PikkaBird]

This is just more pro-and-con balancing. How is making heavier engines require more expensive rails any different from just making heavier engines cost more to buy and run? Adding maximum range to vehicles is just another blah statistic to balance (btw, we already have a range property for one vehicle type (aircraft), which has been deployed in one popular NewGRF; it adds nothing to gameplay and people hate it). Different "comfort" levels? So I can buy a coach that carries more passengers for less $-per-passenger or fewer passengers for more $-per-passenger? Wow. Such options.

Balancing large trainsets for rail weight, range or cargo decay would have no greater impact than balancing large trainsets for speed, power, capacity, cost, etc. The economics of OpenTTD are painted in such broad strokes that making a choice between dozens of similar vehicles interesting is impossible - and that's a good thing, in my opinion. OpenTTD is about building networks and watching your trains beetle about, not about punishing players for making the wrong vehicle choice.

[Wahazar]

Range can be reproduced by using different reliability_decay parameter.
This parameter is usually totally untouched, and its value is far to high especially in case of large maps.
For train sets with tank and tender locomotives, smaller reliability_decay for tender locomotives would help
to balance against shorter tank locomotives.

[Supercheese]

Range can be reproduced by using different reliability_decay parameter.
This parameter is usually totally untouched, and its value is far to high especially in case of large maps.
For train sets with tank and tender locomotives, smaller reliability_decay for tender locomotives would help
to balance against shorter tank locomotives.

Except if you play with breakdowns disabled, reliability decay does nothing whatsoever.

[andythenorth]

Boring real world.