A question of economics.

[PPT]

Does it really make sense that someone would be willing to pay a transport company to transport their goods all the way across the continent when there is an end user right next door?
And would the end user be willing to pay the transportation cost of shipping trans continental when there is a supplier right next door?

This is probably a game-play issue, but it really doesn't make much sense.

Here I am planning routes that take iron ore past multiple steel mills so that I can take it far away and change a large fee.
And, everyone is willing to pay.

[Zuu]

So you never buy products produced at the other side of the world? Every thing you buy is locally produced?

[Alberth]

@PPT:
In addition to what Zuu says, what makes you think OpenTTD is an economic simulation game?
The game may be inspired by real-world ideas, but it is certainly not a good simulation by any means you measure it.

[PPT]

So you never buy products produced at the other side of the world? Every thing you buy is locally produced?

Sure I buy products from various places in the world.

That's not the issue that I raised.
If I owned a steel mill i would buy local iron ore rather than pay to ship it from far away.
There is no indication that the farther away iron ore is cheaper.

[planetmaker]

So you never buy products produced at the other side of the world? Every thing you buy is locally produced?

Sure I buy products from various places in the world.

That's not the issue that I raised.
If I owned a steel mill i would buy local iron ore rather than pay to ship it from far away.
There is no indication that the farther away iron ore is cheaper.

Additionally: Please look at the real world markets. And you'll find that exactly that is often the case: shipping and cost can well be cheaper than local supply.

[Alberth]

Nobody says you have to make long delivery lines in the game. Everybody does it because it makes a lot of money, but that's the only reason.
You can make it a rule for yourself to never deliver cargo that can be bought more locally.

In fact, I think it would be an interesting game (and very challenging, depending on the industry density).

[FooBar]

Does it really make sense that a transport company decides what must be transported from and to where? No, but that's what the game is about. It's been about that for almost 20 years.

Have a look at YACD. It sets a limited number of destinations for every source. Other routes won't pay. It's more or less what you ask for: industries decide where to purchase materials from.

[kamnet]

It's fairly well known (I'd hope so, since the original game is now 18 years old) that the economics don't make sense, but as pointed out this isn't an economics simulation game, the point was to make this a transportation sim, an to be honest econ is boring and not fun and that would distract from a fun, playable game.

That said, the solution of this problem, in part, is the Cargo Distribution patch, where the closer a potential destination point is for the cargo, the more frequently it will demand cargo, and thus you're more inclined to make deliveries to destinations that are closer rather than further away. The Yet Another Cargo Destinations (YACD) patch goes even further and it will create demand for goods and cargo to specific destinations, the user no longer drops cargo anywhere they please, the game will tell you what destinations are requesting the cargo and it is up to you to build the most efficient and profitable routes to get it there.

[andythenorth]

Known issue. Makes for correct payment rates, but silly gameplay. Worse for large maps.

One correct solution is a system that assigns destinations to cargo, e.g. the Cargodist or YACD patches. Neither are in trunk ottd.

[mfb]

Nobody says you have to make long delivery lines in the game. Everybody does it because it makes a lot of money, but that's the only reason.

And it gives nice networks. At least without specific NewGRFs and in the long run, I would assume that most players care about money as much as they care about a realistic economy.

You can make it a rule for yourself to never deliver cargo that can be bought more locally.

In fact, I think it would be an interesting game (and very challenging, depending on the industry density).

A lot of point-to-point connections... I would not expect very interesting results.

[DeletedUser17]

Saying that OpenTTD economics are unrealistic is like saying that Mario looks too short and someone should do something about it.

[Jacko]

Saying that OpenTTD economics are unrealistic is like saying that Mario looks too short and someone should do something about it.

Give him a mushroom!
No seriously though, its a game, not real-life
But as planetmaker pointed out, sometimes it is realistic (example being local produce and imported produce)

[siu238X]

I actually prefer local more than long distance. Having longer lines means you have to invest more (in-game) financial and (realistically) brain power in rolling-stock and route design (often need decent planning), which can be problematic if you do everything on yourself.

For instance, I found it nice to have a rather basic short-medium distance wood line which happily handles a max production forest. For a long line I probably would have to work 100+ trains, or seriously think about all-round transport modes (like using ships).

[PPT]

I already said that it might be a gameplay issue in the initial post.

None the less making the rational that sometimes farther away markets are cheaper just doesn't work.

I can have an iron ore mine right next to a steel mill on the west side of the map and an iron ore mine right next to a steel mill on the east side of the map and the high cost of shipping iron from the east to the west and for shipping from the west to the east will always be accepted and paid.
The ore can't be cheaper in both the east and the west.
And it isn't an occasional thing. It is in all games at all times.

I can accept it as a gameplay mechanic, but it doesn't make sense.

[Lukenwolf]

PPT, you're still mistaking OpenTTD for an economic simulation - it isn't. It's just a game with some simplifications that wouldn't make sense in real life. If you want to have elements of economic rules in it, have a look at the CargoDist patch.

[belugas]

The ore can't be cheaper in both the east and the west.

We don't care about that
We only care about transporting the goods. Not how much it cost.
The reason why mining ore x is prefered to mining ore y is totally unrelated.
We are transporting goods. That's it.
Don't try to rationalize the system, it's just a game. Yo have fun carrying the stuff? cool.
You don't like carrying stuff in an irrational fashion? Don't. Make your system as you see fit.
Do not try to impose your views on the system, it would not work.

No agressivity intended.

[PPT]

I actually prefer local more than long distance. Having longer lines means you have to invest more (in-game) financial and (realistically) brain power in rolling-stock and route design (often need decent planning), which can be problematic if you do everything on yourself.

For instance, I found it nice to have a rather basic short-medium distance wood line which happily handles a max production forest. For a long line I probably would have to work 100+ trains, or seriously think about all-round transport modes (like using ships).

I once had 2 mines close to each other, but too far apart to hit with one station.
I see a lot of people put in truck stops and run a dozen or more truck.
I decided to try a short train.
It was easy to build and only needed one order.
I was certain it was going to lose money.
It actually turned a profit and paid for itself quit quickly.

[Hyronymus]

I actually prefer local more than long distance. Having longer lines means you have to invest more (in-game) financial and (realistically) brain power in rolling-stock and route design (often need decent planning), which can be problematic if you do everything on yourself.

For instance, I found it nice to have a rather basic short-medium distance wood line which happily handles a max production forest. For a long line I probably would have to work 100+ trains, or seriously think about all-round transport modes (like using ships).

I once had 2 mines close to each other, but too far apart to hit with one station.
I see a lot of people put in truck stops and run a dozen or more truck.
I decided to try a short train.
It was easy to build and only needed one order.
I was certain it was going to lose money.
It actually turned a profit and paid for itself quit quickly.

So bascially you hereby prove that your claim in your first post is a wrong one: it's not impossible to make a profit on short routes. You just never tried it well enough.

[PPT]

I actually prefer local more than long distance. Having longer lines means you have to invest more (in-game) financial and (realistically) brain power in rolling-stock and route design (often need decent planning), which can be problematic if you do everything on yourself.

For instance, I found it nice to have a rather basic short-medium distance wood line which happily handles a max production forest. For a long line I probably would have to work 100+ trains, or seriously think about all-round transport modes (like using ships).

I once had 2 mines close to each other, but too far apart to hit with one station.
I see a lot of people put in truck stops and run a dozen or more truck.
I decided to try a short train.
It was easy to build and only needed one order.
I was certain it was going to lose money.
It actually turned a profit and paid for itself quit quickly.

So bascially you hereby prove that your claim in your first post is a wrong one: it's not impossible to make a profit on short routes. You just never tried it well enough.

Where did I say that it was impossible to make a profit on short runs?

I said that it didn't make much sense that people would pay high fees to ship long distances when there was a supply right next door.
And that they would always be willing to pay the high fee for long distance shipping.

A(resource) Y(end user)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>B(resource) Z(end user)

A and Z would always pay the high shipping costs and Y and B would always pay the high shipping costs.
So, even the argument of buying from a long distance because of possible lower cost for the material (even after shipping costs) doesn't work.
If Y is cheaper than Z why is A buying from Z?
If Z is cheaper than Y then why is B buying from A?

I accept the better game game play argument.
Any real life arguments just don't hold up.

[YNM]

I said that it didn't make much sense that people would pay high fees to ship long distances when there was a supply right next door.
And that they would always be willing to pay the high fee for long distance shipping.

A(resource) Y(end user)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>B(resource) Z(end user)

A and Z would always pay the high shipping costs and Y and B would always pay the high shipping costs.
So, even the argument of buying from a long distance because of possible lower cost for the material (even after shipping costs) doesn't work.
If Y is cheaper than Z why is A buying from Z?
If Z is cheaper than Y then why is B buying from A?

I accept the better game game play argument.
Any real life arguments just don't hold up.

Yes, It's a game, not even a true simulation. Industries accepts everything it needs from everywhere, no matter how much it would pay for. Silly economics, yes. (As it is not intended to bear an economic simulation AND its a game.)