Transport Tycoon Forums

Carleto · Post by **Carleto** » 20 Aug 2005 00:06

I had a nice text file, but kword crashed on me when I tried saving (it does that sometimes, don't know why)

Basic idea: Either the war is written down as a disaster, a subsity, or a patch.

If the war is a disaster, once in a while, for a period f time on which the players (you guys) get to decide (don't know if it is possible to make the "patch screen" interact as in :"yes or no, if yes then how long should the disaster last?" maybe just make one of those number things:
<(0-10)> "Length of wars (0=Off)". (length is in years)
In either case, towns get "bombed" (that includes your railroads, buildings, and roads if you're not lucky) and planes get shot down (not just the AI's). *(I)*

If it is a subsity, then once in a while, for a billion bucks (not really, but a lot of money) you go to a (???Barrack "Industry"???) *(II)* and transport Military supplies, troops and hevy weponry*(III)* (tanks&artillery) to some other station/town/dock*(IV)* but in return for the BIG bucks you many suffer increased casualties: ships "sink" more often, planes "crash" more often, railroads "rust away" more often, rods "disappear" for some reason, and the buildings you built get destroyed(I)... (wow that would be a smart enemy, blast the troops, supplies, and weaponry before they even get to the front) until the subsidy ends*(V)*

And last but not least, if it's a "patch" (I know its a patch neways but I mean like the war goes on for the duration of the game) Well, you transport the passengers, coal, lumber, and the other stuff that already exists as usual, but then you have lots of other things to produce as well:
Rail:*(VI)*
Armoured passenger car (troops, the army doesn't trust your feeble passenger cars)
Armoured locomotives (several types, you know, un-armoured ones can... "blow up"
Supply car (?refitable for weapons, amunition, medicine, MRE's and other military stuff???)
Flatbed car (Artillery guns, tanks... the big stuff in general)
....and others.... (any I didn't mention that others may think appropriate)
Road:(VI); *(VII)*
Troop transport (unless you go with the Chehen rebel-wannabe method of using a hippy bus)
Ammunition trans. (duh)
...and... ...um... ...anything else?
Air:(VI)
Helicopter (that big airplane-fuselagelooking one with helicopter rotors on both sides)
Hercules (refitable, the helicoper should be refitable too)
anything else that anyone wants...

Oh, and all those railroads, trains, roads, cars, planes, and airports dissapearing? Better stop hoping that'll stop and just get used to it!

*(I)* Perhaps planes that fell down that were carying something, and blown up buildings should leave ruins that can be "salvaged" for money. Don't know how the salvage part can be implemented, but I thought I'd throw that in there, this is, after all, just a suggestion, not an order

*(II)* Perhaps an industry for a military Hospital too?, requires *(VIII)* This will also include implementing medical cars for rail, medical trucks, black hawks (medical), medical planes, medical ships, and the other medical stuff... and "wounded soldiers"

*(III)* Rain cannnons, but this requires(IV)

*(IV)* Is it possible to make some docks/stations/airports that are randomly generated that alow you to load/unload right inside of it?

*(V)* Is it possible to randomize the length of the subsidy before it is instated, and show the length? Because war is more of a contract, a risk, rather than a promotional sale/reward, and I prefer to know how long I may have to live with my company being destroyed in return for money which may not be enough to cover the damage.

*(V)* (second part) Also, this subsidy thing would have to be able to "Stop accepting" troops, supplies, and all that stuff after it ends, otherwise it kinda ruins the point of war and just makes it another industry.

*(V)* (third and last part) The subsidies at the moment, (I have'nt had a lng enough game to verify this) seem to only appear when there is no such route yet, but I haven't seen a single one that repeats an already existing route after, per-say, the route has been abandoned, for the war thing to function correctly, the subsidy would have to be offered for the same routes
that were used before (e.g. Hampton Barracks-Eastern Front Rail Station might call for more troops, even if you already have a railroad that leads there.

*(VI)* building the actual military stuff (tanks, fighters, bombers, destroyers....) would be great but (VIII) would be needed and/ or *(IX)*

*(VII)* Some trailer would be nice to allow for artilery guns, flatbed to allow for hummers... that stuff...

*(VIII)* The the military docks/stations/airports (IV) would have to pay more for them than what you paid to produce it...

*(IX)* If (VI)&(VIII) sound like great ideas, but for some reason (VIII) is hard to implenent (this may be even harder) then perhaps another idea would be to be able to load produced equipment onto other transports (ships would require powerful tugs in that case)

...
...
... Well, I think thats all of it, once again, this is just a suggestion, and a hard one at that, so I won't be upset if everyone joins in a chorus in denying it...
...
...

Born Acorn · Post by **Born Acorn** » 20 Aug 2005 00:11

The railway was one of the major reasons why we won the War. Without it Tanks could never have gotten to the Front lines in time.

Somehow, however the devs say no. Maybe some people are too sensitive for even a slight implementation.

Conditional Zenith · Post by **Conditional Zenith** » 20 Aug 2005 02:44

I sure hope not (Born Acorn that is).

I think this is a great idea (I have had it myself too). The game is too static as it is.

Possibly the outcome of the war may depend on how well stuff gets transported. If you transport very little military cargo and do it slowly, the war goes against you and the bombings get worse. If you have a very efficient, high capacity network, the military can fight better and you start winning the war, and the bombings decrease.

No that it matters for now, but once the game gets rebalanced, you may have to make a loss to win the war.

Alltaken · Post by **Alltaken** » 20 Aug 2005 02:45

War is negative, construction of netwroks is not.

what you focus on is what you get. if you focus on war, you will get more wars.

how about a nuclear bomb disaster? you just lose the game randomly and the screen goes white.

not that great an idea IMO

Alltaken

Conditional Zenith · Post by **Conditional Zenith** » 20 Aug 2005 02:56

This is just a game. I agree that war is negative, and in real life it is bad.

Why don't we change it then. You have to transport gold to the "designated dropoff point", but if you don't transport enough, the leprechauns come out and steal your trains/tracks/depots/etc.

magnato · Post by **magnato** » 20 Aug 2005 07:31

If you want war, let it be a economical war. This can only be done if competition is affecting global factors in the game (as Cargo Payment Rates) as well as local factors (company raiting in industris and cities).

Conditional Zenith · Post by **Conditional Zenith** » 20 Aug 2005 07:41

It's not that I want war (can't speak for the original poster though), it's the effect it has on the game (loss of tracks, possibly modified by the way your company deals with it). I don't care whether it is called war or "revenge of the leprechauns" (war would be much more realistic though).

magnato · Post by **magnato** » 20 Aug 2005 07:46

actually i am glad they made away with the original flaws in the original TT. Back then you could easily destroy your opponent, crash his trains, busses, cars or make them useless in many ways. But this was just bugs, and the game is much cleaner and better in this regards, with rules of what you can do or not can do.

Alltaken · Post by **Alltaken** » 20 Aug 2005 09:15

Conditional Zenith wrote:It's not that I want war (can't speak for the original poster though), it's the effect it has on the game (loss of tracks, possibly modified by the way your company deals with it). I don't care whether it is called war or "revenge of the leprechauns" (war would be much more realistic though).

well most of what you are describing could be achived (in spirit) through different means.

perhaps "export demands increase" for vehicles, so a car factory (new industry) needs more goods, and those need to be taken to a "port" (new industry also).....

what you want is more things to do, more fun tasks..... well i agree. but as many interesting oppertunities exist in wholesome situations as they do in War.

i think pretty much all the developers are on the same wavelength and follow chris' original goal not to include war at all in the game. i as a GFX artist also don't wish to see war in the game. there are plenty of wars in games.

i would however like to see more cool stuff for the future, stuff that doesn't exist yet at all.

Alltaken

Conditional Zenith · Post by **Conditional Zenith** » 20 Aug 2005 09:45

It's not just more industries that I see here, it's the having to keep a network going when parts of it dissapear every so often.

lucaspiller · Post by **lucaspiller** » 20 Aug 2005 10:14

An idea that has been popped up every so often is the 'territories' idea. Maybe this could be put into action, and certain territories end up hating you and don't let you opperate in their limits.

Born Acorn · Post by **Born Acorn** » 20 Aug 2005 11:31

Railroad Tycoon 2 had it. I don't exactly remember pople going off and shooting other people after playing it.

BlazE · Post by **BlazE** » 20 Aug 2005 12:13

I am against this war idea too. Let there be new industries like Alltaken said. If you want your railtracks to break down, perhaps implement something that they wear down. Then you have to renew them too and it is realistic.

Alltaken · Post by **Alltaken** » 20 Aug 2005 14:22

Born Acorn wrote:Railroad Tycoon 2 had it. I don't exactly remember pople going off and shooting other people after playing it.

its a subtle social shift that occurs in "all" areas of society and adds up to what we have today..... everyone trying to kill each other for some pretty pathetic reasons, with some people thinking its great fun watching it on TV, not realising that people are "dying" and getting the crap blown out of them.

i wonder how many ex soliders who are now without legs enjoy war.

unrealistic wars i.e. UFO's invading is ok IMO. but reality..... i dunno i don't think it would add anything great to the game.

Alltaken

Carleto · Post by **Carleto** » 20 Aug 2005 17:02

As for me, I am not for a real war in the real world (How ironic given that I live in the US) and I'm not up for troops storming the border of the map and blasting away at everything until you transport troops to the location. I am a peaceful person, but I am not a peace fanatic that extends trying to limit violence and/or violence related aspects to all industries. Transport is transport, no matter what you're transporting. The only thing that would stop ALL violence in the whole world would be if every country had enough nukes to destroy earth, and a huge cold war would initialize, and all the transport industries would ignore all those embargos and unite the people of two nations even if they are at war.

***NO BLOOD N' GORE!!!!
OpenTT is a PEACEFUL game, we don't have enough of those in our world..

However, for those of you arguing against the war saying that it's too much violence... In case you haven't noticed, aliens already exist and already blast away at your railroads, and how about those large aliens that sit of railroads waiting for a plane to come by and blow it up?!?!? I'm just improvising on the idea, if you want a compromise, transporting ammunition, troops etc. to the "designated location" can allow for the army to blast those guys before they even appear on the map! So how about it, if you want peace, how about TRANSPORTING (thats what the game is about isn't it) material for violence in order to prevent open violence (buildings blowing up on your screen, planes crashing, trains blowing up...)

Your Honor, I have no further questions or comment on the subject....

Now, back to improvising on the idea...
(Lucaspiller):
Territories would be great, but then somehow, they should be able to change in relation to the amount of military material you transfer to your "local" designated locations. (I'll pretend that the little troops and tanks are too small to see)

(Conditional Zenith):
That's the general idea, and as a matter of fact, that's the most interesting part of it. Building battleships is great, and in real life, they look awesome, a rather majectic ship that looks rugged yet adapted for the job, and still capable of blasting everything within a certain range to smithereens (targets preferably, I like the blast from the round, but not the idea of people dying)

(Magnato):
OpenTT is all about economical war already, by adding military transport and the possiblity of your tracks being destroyed there is a new concept, not only do you have to keep up with the other competition, you also have to be capable of supporting the military in order to prevent your networks from being destroyed.

(Alltaken):
War is negative, yes, but transporting "Packages" isn't and as for me, I don't even CARE what's in the package, it's not my buisness (given the circumstances), my job is to get the "Package" from point 'A' to point 'B' and if the contents of the package increase the chance of survival of my networks, then all the better for me.
As for the nuclear disaster, that's an extreme, there is a fine line between adding SOMETHING new and adding a new EXTREME.

Afternote: I think Zenith and I are both seeing the same idea. As a result of transporting a certain package from point A to point B, your network gets destroyed less, and if you can't do it, then your network gets destroyed more. Remember people, there doesn't have to be an artillery shell flying, and a big explosion where it hits, there don't have to be rolling tanks, or planes dropping bombs. The act of destruction can be show as at time 1:29:59 there exists a certain piece of railroad in a certain square, and at time 1:30:00 it's gone, no explosion, or anything to indicate a war. And once again, the existing loads can be converted to generic names:
passengers=package 1=troops
coal=package 2=ammunition
and visa versa, its the industries that describe the effects of package1, or package2. a military industry can decrease the amount of damage done by the "War" (just another effect999999)

Bjarni · Post by **Bjarni** » 20 Aug 2005 17:49

Born Acorn wrote:Railroad Tycoon 2 had it. I don't exactly remember pople going off and shooting other people after playing it.

no, it's Doom, which gives that result

The idea is an old one and it was discarded. I don't remember why, but I think it was something like it's a construction game and not a war game. It would break the gameplay and most other games deals with war, so why should we do that

chairface · Post by **chairface** » 20 Aug 2005 18:05

I'm kinda ambivalent on the subject. It'd be something else to have in the game, but I'm not convinced it'd be a really super awesome feature either. And it seems some people are pretty heavily against it (although I don't really agree with their reasoning there, this debate is about putting wars into openttd, not the overall ethics of warfare) so I'm kinda inclined to believe it would take away more for more people than it would add.

As an aside, I always thought part of the beauty of OpenTTD was that it was so open and non-linear and there aren't really many rules or requirements. A lot of people seem to play it mostly as a train game; I'm not even that fond of trains and instead use a lot of planes and ships. I like planes and ships. Some folks make a go of it with a lot of road vehicles, I rarely use *any* because I don't really like them and think they're a hassle. It's an open design tool style game, so all those approaches are equally valid. Providing military logistics for the defense of your network from hostile powers gets pretty linear; It's like subsidies that aren't really optional. I realize it'd be another patch/option that I could turn off if I feel that way, but I'm more questioning if the rest of you have really thought it through? And if your goal is to throw in some more linear challenges to "toughen" up the game a bit, couldn't you deflect the criticism of the anti-war folks by just having a certain kind of subsidies that incur a fine if you don't provide the subsidized service? But only for the #1 player. So it'd be like the civilian government demanding that you provide certain services, regardless of their profitability. Or maybe instead of a fine, there's just a huge rating hit to the two towns involved? It could also thus be a means of handicapping for multiplayer, as the #1 rated company has all these demands on it from the government.

Carleto · Post by **Carleto** » 20 Aug 2005 19:55

chairface wrote:...So it'd be like the civilian government demanding that you provide certain services, regardless of their profitability. Or maybe instead of a fine, there's just a huge rating hit to the two towns involved?...

WOW

an idea I like... just kidding, I like all ideas because ideas are the beginnings of an invention that may change history, and we desperately need something new in this world... but a truly great idea if I ever heard one, and smash up on the top player... that might just put an end to other players getting too rich in multiplayer...

Born Acorn · Post by **Born Acorn** » 20 Aug 2005 20:12

Bjarni wrote:
Born Acorn wrote:Railroad Tycoon 2 had it. I don't exactly remember pople going off and shooting other people after playing it.
no, it's Doom, which gives that result

The idea is an old one and it was discarded. I don't remember why, but I think it was something like it's a construction game and not a war game. It would break the gameplay and most other games deals with war, so why should we do that

What I want to see is a period of "War", where Oil refinery and Factory bombs go up, and prices are affected. The government makes passenger travel free too. (evacuees). It can effect your company in a non-violent way.

Carleto · Post by **Carleto** » 20 Aug 2005 20:25

Born Acorn wrote:What I want to see is a period of "War", where Oil refinery and Factory bombs go up, and prices are affected. The government makes passenger travel free too. (evacuees). It can effect your company in a non-violent way.

yay, ideas! I hope this means that everyone understands that there is a non-violent side of war that can be portrayed in OpenTT

Transport Tycoon Forums

WAR

WAR

Who is online