Cargo & Industry fixes for 1.06

[nedfumpkin]

The thing about canneries is that for the most part they use steel. Aluminum is generally used for beverages, and didn't start coming into use until the 1970s. Canned food is generally in steel cans or glass jars.

Perhaps you might want to consider making a ubiquitus Assembly Line. In TM is produces goods, and you could have it use aluminum as one of the components. You could use some of the 1.06 cargo to make all kinds of things. Then, you should create a flat car with containers as the end car for goods. :)

[Gumboots]

Thanks for your input into how you found things to work and suggestions.

Realistically, I don't intend on making this anything near the extent of TM. Nor do I plan on adding as many industries as Stoker envisioned. I figured I'd just help tie up what some people thought were loose ends in 1.06 so if anyone has suggestions which they think are areas of 1.06 that need help that's mainly what I'm looking for.

Well this is basically the "what Stoker envisioned" thread, and his idea was to tie up the loose ends in 1.06 for this round. Whether things go further for a future patch is another matter.

I was thinking some more about this cereal company thing. Really it does seem to me like a waste of an industry slot. There's already the bakery, which chews modest amounts of grain and sugar but doesn't produce anything. Rather than making a separate cereal company, wouldn't it make more sense to just make the bakery a buyable industry and have it produce something?

- Reading WP&P's site, he thought maybe a synthetic rubber plant would be useful to help in the production of autos, and give chemicals another use. And a cannery to give aluminum another use.

Synthetic rubber is mainly made from oil. What Ned said about aluminium cans.

[nedfumpkin]

The bakery is a messed up industry. I can't remember exactly what the issues are with it, but I had nothing but grief with it, and ended up making a bakeshop from the bakery, and created a bakery as a separate industry from it. Only the names were swittched. Again, can't remember exactly , but my advice is to just steal the TM versions. Some industries are weird like that.

I'm not really sure why gummy is so opposed to a cereal factory, perhas a run in with Cap'n Crunch or 'couldn't get enough of those Sugars Crisps" but there is a point on his side. If you are just tying up loose ends, then perhaps a ubiquitus Food Processor is more in line.

I can tell you that it is very easy to make one new industry, and then another, and then it snowballs from there. The question becomes when to stop. So my suggestion would be to create tie-in industries to do that. For example, the Industrial Assembly Line and the Food Processor. Something that just bridges the gaps you have.

Another suggestion, chemicals are used every day by everyone one. Honestly, concrete is not. So perhaps you would be better to change the house bca to call for chemicals rather than concrete.

Again, just two cents since I am not vested in this.

[Gumboots]

Ah. Ok, I get it. The reason why Blackhawk and Ned are talking about carrying on with industry mods is because the bloke who was doing the work has been permanently banned from the forum. It would have been nice if people were informed of this when it happened, rather than pretending that nothing had changed, since it is a matter that affects the community as a whole (or at least those who have any interest in 1.06).

I've seen a screenshot record of the conversation that resulted in the ban, but will refrain from public comment. I think we can now consider this putative 1.06.01 patch to be a dead duck, since Stoker has indicated that he has now lost interest in finishing this.

I will continue working with the locomotives at my own pace. I may also tackle some of the industry issues at some point, if possible.

[Hawk]

It would have been nice if people were informed of this when it happened, rather than pretending that nothing had changed, since it is a matter that affects the community as a whole (or at least those who have any interest in 1.06).

Oops! I thought I PM'd you about that, but looking back through the sent PM's I see I forgot.
I wasn't trying to pretend nothing had changed. I just forget to let you know.

[Blackhawk]

I wouldn't say 1.06.01 is a dead duck. I've volunteered to help with this area, but as I said earlier, I'd rather just focus on what people consider loose ends, rather than adding lots of industries just because slots are still available. While some of Stoker's suggestions tie up loose ends, others seem to go beyond some loose ends and go into adding industries because that's what he would have liked to have seen, often requiring the use of a fuel source (based off his King Coal mod). While there is nothing wrong with that, I don't think I would want to put in the kind of time and testing required to add 10-16 new industries and making sure everything balances out, which is why I was looking for the most glaring loose ends.

[RulerofRails]

Blackhawk, I didn't realize that Stoker isn't working on this project. Maybe there should be a way of letting others know at the start of this thread that the plans he envisioned there are not happening now?

Realistically, I don't intend on making this anything near the extent of TM. Nor do I plan on adding as many industries as Stoker envisioned. I figured I'd just help tie up what some people thought were loose ends in 1.06 so if anyone has suggestions which they think are areas of 1.06 that need help that's mainly what I'm looking for. So I don't want to add so many industries it feels like it's another competing mod of the game, and I don't want to just copy lots industries from TM either, cause then people might as well just play TM if the supply chains become too similar.

So this leads to the question for those that play 1.06, what do you see as loose ends?
1. The industries that all use the warehouse skin.
2. Crystals seem to lack a use. (renamed sand)
3. Concrete should be renamed cement.

- RulerofRails suggests corn have more usefulness.
- Reading WP&P's site, he thought maybe a synthetic rubber plant would be useful to help in the production of autos, and give chemicals another use. And a cannery to give aluminum another use.

What else?

Are you looking for suggestions other than what Stoker suggested originally? (for example are you considering his ideas about dye and medicine?)

I know for a fact that there is a definite problem with the Furnace industry in 1.06 and it was one of his main priorities to fix it. When supplied with Ore and Rock and one of its production chains is not economical it drops output and will not make a decent profit.

The glass factory sounds good. I am happy with the original coal+sand recipe, but maybe have a change to oil or diesel fuel when those things become available. I just read that in 2012 70% of the fuel used to make glass in the USA was natural gas. Don't know what represents natural gas in the game? Oil? Also don't know if that is just due to the latest natural gas boom.

[Gumboots]

I wouldn't say 1.06.01 is a dead duck. I've volunteered to help with this area, but as I said earlier, I'd rather just focus on what people consider loose ends, rather than adding lots of industries just because slots are still available. While some of Stoker's suggestions tie up loose ends, others seem to go beyond some loose ends and go into adding industries because that's what he would have liked to have seen, often requiring the use of a fuel source (based off his King Coal mod). While there is nothing wrong with that, I don't think I would want to put in the kind of time and testing required to add 10-16 new industries and making sure everything balances out, which is why I was looking for the most glaring loose ends.

Fair enough. And yeah the furnace seems like a prime candidate for a revamp.

[Blackhawk]

I'm looking for suggestions in general. Whether they are ideas he had or alternative ideas.

Concrete can be renamed cement, crystals renamed sand, dye can become hides with a little work and if I find a suitable building to use for a tannery or ranch for livestock.

I'd lean towards renaming probably diesel to fuel and cheese to food, particularly if another industry is created to produce it (cannery/bottling plant/food processor/cereal factory/etc)

Renaming Medicine and coffee, I'm indifferent on. I'd think the main reason to potentially rename medicine would be if it was going to become a more versatile cargo and become used in additional industries.

Generally, if a cargo gets renamed though and if it was one of the original cargoes, I'd prefer to try and keep it as close to alphabetically correct as possible.

-The creation of 2 separate industries to replace the furnace is also something that can be done. It could just be something as simple as the same recipe as the furnace but with rock going to 1 industry and ore going to another. Or the industry could be complicated requiring a second cargo such as a fuel source. Unfortunately for the sake of backwards compatibility the existing furnace will have to stay and it'll become a wasted slot.

-A glass factory switching to oil/diesel at some point would probably be an acceptable recipe. Potentially dyes (if kept dye) could be added or chemicals (colored glass). Although that would require some testing and I'd rather not include many recipes more than 2 cargoes in the recipe.

[Gumboots]

I'm looking for suggestions in general. Whether they are ideas he had or alternative ideas.

Concrete can be renamed cement, crystals renamed sand,

Crystals also need a use, not just a rename. At the moment they're useless.

dye can become hides with a little work and if I find a suitable building to use for a tannery or ranch for livestock.

Honestly, this is trivial in terms of actual gameplay. We could just as well leave it as dye. It works, so there's no pressing need to "fix" it. The only thing I might be inclined to do is make it a factory rather than a plantation, since most dyes these days are synthetic.

That leads to a thought: possibly another use for chemicals.

I'd lean towards renaming probably diesel to fuel and cheese to food, particularly if another industry is created to produce it (cannery/bottling plant/food processor/cereal factory/etc)

Diesel to fuel is trivial and I'm not fussed either way. Cheese to food I'm not so sure about. Produce is food. Meat is food. Grain is food. Cheese is food. And yet, they are all different and have their place in the game. I'd think carefully about this.

Generally, if a cargo gets renamed though and if it was one of the original cargoes, I'd prefer to try and keep it as close to alphabetically correct as possible.

Why would it matter? The name displayed in the game interface does not have to be the same as the name in the internal list.

-The creation of 2 separate industries to replace the furnace is also something that can be done. It could just be something as simple as the same recipe as the furnace but with rock going to 1 industry and ore going to another. Or the industry could be complicated requiring a second cargo such as a fuel source. Unfortunately for the sake of backwards compatibility the existing furnace will have to stay and it'll become a wasted slot.

No. Just change the existing furnace to have one production stream, and make a new industry to handle the other. There's no need to have a wasted slot at all.

[RulerofRails]

From my experience of playing 1.06 I found that there wasn't enough chemicals to ever get an Upgraded Pharmaceutical Plant going. I like the more realistic 2 per year output of the Apothecary in TM rather than the 12 upgraded output of the Pharm Plant in 1.06. I think that a map that had enough Chemicals to make it feasible at that level would have crowded cities. After all I tend to use up all the Chemicals on maps that don't have the Pharm Plant.

One question this brings up is, are the output values for the 1.06 industries too high? Is this a loose end to others too? If smaller outputs were decided on, multiple industries could always be built and I don't know of any scenarios this affects.

Now I read that Gumboots suggested another use for Chemicals as well as the Synthetic Rubber Plant from WP&P. If you decide to keep Medicine and make more uses for chemicals, maybe we should consider an industry to make chemicals out of oil and maybe waste?

I'd lean towards renaming probably diesel to fuel and cheese to food, particularly if another industry is created to produce it (cannery/bottling plant/food processor/cereal factory/etc)

Diesel to fuel is trivial and I'm not fussed either way. Cheese to food I'm not so sure about. Produce is food. Meat is food. Grain is food. Cheese is food. And yet, they are all different and have their place in the game. I'd think carefully about this.

I agree with Gumboots. I like Cheese as a cargo. Forget about my idea of using Corn better. Better to fix what we have and try to keep it simple.

[Gumboots]

Medicine has to be kept for backwards compat, even if it's renamed on the game interface. If there is going to be a synthetic rubber plant, and I'm not convinced there's a need for it, it should be primarily oil-based.

"Chenicals" is a pretty meaningless term since everything is really made out of "chemicals" anyway. Which branch of chemistry are you talking about? Organic? Inorganic? From which source, via which process? For which end use? Calcium carbonate, for instance, could be described as a chemical. If potassium cyanide is a"chemical" then calcium phosphate is too, so your bones are made out of chemicals. Go figure. Saying something uses "chemicals" is not much different to saying it's "made out of stuff".

I don't know if 1.06 industry outputs are too high in general. I think the furnace output is about right, if split into two industries with one production stream each. If output of any industry is reduced the price should be reduced too. That could lead to minor strategic changes, since you may be able to afford something at the start of the game when you previously couldn't. Offhand I can't see it being a huge issue most of the time, but it's probably worth thinking about.

-----------------------------------

ETA: The fertiliser factory currently takes in "chemicals". In reality, the base materials for fertiliser are either quarried (phosphate rock) or come from oil wells, or just natural gas deposits (methane). So more realistic chains would be either quarry/mine (producing phosphate) to fertiliser factory, or oil well to fertiliser factory.

[Blackhawk]

I'm looking for suggestions in general. Whether they are ideas he had or alternative ideas.

Concrete can be renamed cement, crystals renamed sand,

Crystals also need a use, not just a rename. At the moment they're useless.

An additional use will likely be the glass factory.

Generally, if a cargo gets renamed though and if it was one of the original cargoes, I'd prefer to try and keep it as close to alphabetically correct as possible.

Why would it matter? The name displayed in the game interface does not have to be the same as the name in the internal list.

It doesn't matter, but for the sake of looks and simplicity for people in finding a cargo it makes it easier to find it if it's in alphabetical order. (other than the 1.06 cargoes which were added at the end so they wouldn't interfere with 1.05 scenarios).

-The creation of 2 separate industries to replace the furnace is also something that can be done. It could just be something as simple as the same recipe as the furnace but with rock going to 1 industry and ore going to another. Or the industry could be complicated requiring a second cargo such as a fuel source. Unfortunately for the sake of backwards compatibility the existing furnace will have to stay and it'll become a wasted slot.

No. Just change the existing furnace to have one production stream, and make a new industry to handle the other. There's no need to have a wasted slot at all.

Unless someone goes back and edits all the 1.06 maps that use the furnace to also use the new industry, the furnace can't be modified or else on those maps there will be a way to convert ore to ingots, but a way to convert rock to ceramics would be missing. (or vice versa)

ETA: The fertiliser factory currently takes in "chemicals". In reality, the base materials for fertiliser are either quarried (phosphate rock) or come from oil wells, or just natural gas deposits (methane). So more realistic chains would be either quarry/mine (producing phosphate) to fertiliser factory, or oil well to fertiliser factory.

While I don't doubt the original recipe of chemicals = fertilizer is questionable, (cause who really knows what chemicals are) it can't really be changed as it was the recipe of 1.05 and 1.06. If there is demand for an additional industry using those to create fertilizer that could be done. Theoretically a dairy farm or cattle ranch could potentially give off fertilizer as well based on manure. But any changes to existing industries should be limited, if not non-existent.

From my experience of playing 1.06 I found that there wasn't enough chemicals to ever get an Upgraded Pharmaceutical Plant going. I like the more realistic 2 per year output of the Apothecary in TM rather than the 12 upgraded output of the Pharm Plant in 1.06. I think that a map that had enough Chemicals to make it feasible at that level would have crowded cities. After all I tend to use up all the Chemicals on maps that don't have the Pharm Plant.

Upgraded, the an output of 12 does seem like a lot, and it requires chemicals, which requires a chemical plant and that only gives +2 a year. So it could be pretty difficult to get 12 a year, unless the scenario creator put a lot of chemicals plants in the scenario for some reason.

[Gumboots]

No. Just change the existing furnace to have one production stream, and make a new industry to handle the other. There's no need to have a wasted slot at all.

Unless someone goes back and edits all the 1.06 maps that use the furnace to also use the new industry, the furnace can't be modified or else on those maps there will be a way to convert ore to ingots, but a way to convert rock to ceramics would be missing. (or vice versa)

I think this is a case where it would be preferable to not clutter things up with dud industries. Generally, the rock>ceramics>concrete/whatever seems to be the most used or most wanted stream. The ore>ingots seems to be used less often. I'd happily see that borked in the odd scenario for the sake of having a cleaner interface that made more sense. If a few scenarios need one extra industry ticked off, that's not really major drama IMO. I don't think we need absolutely perfect backwards compat under any possible circumstances. Minor incompatability that wont affect many scenarios, and is easy to edit, is something I could be happy with. People will expect this to change 1.06 to some extent. That's the whole idea.

I think that if we get to the stage of being hamstrung due to worrying about maybe breaking any tiny thing under any possible circumstances, it would be better to just call this 1.07 instead and go for it.

[Blackhawk]

I also see the concrete plant has an upgrade output of 16. I'm surprised that concrete plant (16), pharmaceutical factory (12), and furnace (16) all have such a high outputs. I wonder if maybe instead of them wanting 8 as the max output, somehow 8 was put in as the default output.

In any event, I've been trying to replace the these "warehouse" industries with decent looking buildings. The biggest hurtle is finding something that would look like a concrete plant. I might end up changing some of the colors of the fertilizer plant and calling it a day. It won't be a great concrete plant, but it'll be better than just another warehouse.

As for the furnace change, I'm still up in the air as to whether to just go ahead and make the change or to make 2 separate industries. Obviously the easier way is to just change the existing furnace.

[nedfumpkin]

I have actually ridden trains by a cement quarry. A new skin on an iron mine should do it. Come to think of it, I've also ridden a train past a cereal company. That place smells like roasted cocoa when they are making the Coco Puffs.

[Gumboots]

I also see the concrete plant has an upgrade output of 16. I'm surprised that concrete plant (16), pharmaceutical factory (12), and furnace (16) all have such a high outputs. I wonder if maybe instead of them wanting 8 as the max output, somehow 8 was put in as the default output.

They may have been thinking those industries would be quite large, like the steel mill. That's supposedly 10 default and 20 upgraded, although I've frequently seen them churn out 11 and 22. Compared to that, 8 and 16 doesn't seem over the top. Does it cause any problems in gameplay that you've noticed?

As for the furnace change, I'm still up in the air as to whether to just go ahead and make the change or to make 2 separate industries. Obviously the easier way is to just change the existing furnace.

The 1.06 cargo list is already very crowded. Adding two more industries and having one dud one doesn't seem like a good option to me, unless it's critical to do that.

[Blackhawk]

I forgot the steel mill also has that high of an output. They all have a 1:1 ratio of input to outputs, although the steel mill does have the "advantage" of using 2 cargoes in its production chain so there would be less buildup of cargo and more possbility of getting 10 coal and 10 iron, then say getting 16 chemicals to he pharmaceutical plant.

The furnace I can understand having a high output since it takes in 2 different inputs, although with that being corrected in this fix, I'd likely lower the output (and the corresponding price of the industry depending on its profits).

As for the others, I probably wouldn't make changes to the outputs unless the consensus is people think it would be better lower. I can't remember a time I ever upgraded a pharmaceutical plant or concrete plant.

----
The furnace fix shouldn't be too big of an issue and can be decided towards the end whether to use 2 new industries or 1 new industry and change the existing furnance to become workable.

Currently, I was looking over Stoker's proposed list of industries and figured I'd work on a puddling furnance/ironworks to produce steel earlier in the game. As I wouldn't want to it to become as profitable as a steel mill, the output will likely be limited to 3-4 and it wouldn't be upgradeable.

Another suggestion of his, the furniture craftsman, I wonder of its necessity. While having more industry early in the game would be nice, I'm not sure it's necessary. And similiar to the puddling furnance/ironworks, I wouldn't want to end up with duplicate industries once the main industry becomes available.
One possibility that would prevent 2 similiar and dualing industries would be that the small furniture craftsman produces furniture early in the game, but later when the furniture factory becomes available, the furniture craftsman in order to compete, turns his attention to specialty furniture and produces luxuries instead of furniture.

However, this idea then gets us back to the discussion, should we rename toys to luxuries ?

[Gumboots]

I forgot the steel mill also has that high of an output. They all have a 1:1 ratio of input to outputs, although the steel mill does have the "advantage" of using 2 cargoes in its production chain so there would be less buildup of cargo and more possbility of getting 10 coal and 10 iron, then say getting 16 chemicals to he pharmaceutical plant.

The classic beginner's mistake with steel mills is putting them where supply of one or the other inputs is difficult to maintain. Requiring two inputs can be a disadvantage rather than an advantage. With an industry that only needs one input, it will at least produce something as long as some of that input is available. If a steel mill runs out of coal or iron, you're in the red really fast.

The furnace I can understand having a high output since it takes in 2 different inputs, although with that being corrected in this fix, I'd likely lower the output (and the corresponding price of the industry depending on its profits).

I'd be inclined to leave it where it is. They way I look at it, if you halve the output you should close to halve the price. That really means no change overall, so why bother?

As for the others, I probably wouldn't make changes to the outputs unless the consensus is people think it would be better lower. I can't remember a time I ever upgraded a pharmaceutical plant or concrete plant.

I can. In fact I regard upgraded furnaces and concrete plants as almost a staple in 1.06, as long as there is sufficient rock around. They're one of the classic openings.

Currently, I was looking over Stoker's proposed list of industries and figured I'd work on a puddling furnance/ironworks to produce steel earlier in the game. As I wouldn't want to it to become as profitable as a steel mill, the output will likely be limited to 3-4 and it wouldn't be upgradeable.

Is there any way of giving industries an end date?

[Blackhawk]

As for the steel mill and 2 cargo input as an "advantage" I didn't necessarily mean it was an advantage as to being easier, more so I meant for the purposes of general cargo output it may be easier to get 10 of cargo A and 10 of cargo B. But that really does vary on the map so it's not really necessarily any sort of advantage.

The furnace/smelter production vs profits vs cost might need to be tested some. Obviously the fewer changes made, the easier it is. But I don't want to end up with a highly profitable industry at a price that's too cheap or a low profit industry that's too expensive either.

Turning off Industries:
From what I can gather in the .bca files and the notes on editting them, there's no way to turn off an industry. It's production input/ouput can change and be turned on and off, but the industry as a whole will always remain on. Theoretically it might be possible to turn off any input production and turn it into only building with demands, but that's not an ideal situation either as a player that once bought the industry will now be forced to sell it. (Although I suppose this could be semi-realistic in that it would be hard for a small puddling furnance/ironworks or furniture craftsman to exist against a large steel mill or furniture factory.)
It will also have the effects of a municipal building, but be an industrial building so when buildings spawn the chances of getting a useful industry are reduced. I suppose this also means that the building like other industries could disappear over time. In addition, the player could end up building the industry (which now only has demand), as a way to drive up the price of a cargo. Overall these aren't that big of determents but they are something to consider. And depending on the time frame of a scenario the scenario creator could always turn off the industry in the editor.

Edit:
The other possibility is, going ahead and "breaking" 1.06 things. (I.E. fixing the furnace vs a new industry) A steel mill could show up at the start of the game and maybe use a 1 coal + 1 iron = 1 steel recipe, until the 1850s when it would go to it's 1 coal + 1 iron = 2 steel.
Advantage - saves an industry slot in case someone wants to use it down the road.
Disadvantage - could have unexpected consequences in existing scenarios. Could make more incentive to buy the steel mill cheap before its output doubles and profits increase.

Also if the route of breaking things is taken, then the machine shop could have its recipe fixed rather than also creating another industry to fix its lack of a working early production recipe. (although this might be worth doing anyway)