Suggestions for new cargo streams

[Wolverine@MSU]

One of the topics under discussion for an upcoming patch concerns the possibility of introducing new cargo streams into the game. There appears to be the ability to code up to 19 new cargo types and several new buildings to go along with new cargo streams. So far, two new streams have been discussed:

1. Gravel/Sand would be produced by the Gravel Pit and Harbor Dredge. These could be used by a Cement Factory to produce Cement that would be demanded by cities, and Pottery/China or Glass Factories to produce Pottery/China or Glass that would be demanded by Retail/Houses.

2. Precious Metal Ore (Gold/Silver/Platinum) would be produced by a Precious Metal Mine and be demanded by a Smelter to produce Ingots. The Ingots would be demanded by a Mint to produce Money, an Electronics Factory that would use the Ingots and Plastic and Sand (for silicon chips) to produce Electronics. Money would be demanded by Banks, Retail/Commercial or other Employer (for payrolls, that could be subjected to train robberies) while Electronics would be demanded by Retail/Houses/Commercial.

Before embarking on this arduous task, they are asking for input from the RT3 community for suggestions of other cargo types/cargo streams that would be desireable. They are looking for unique cargoes that are not currently part of the game, or easily redefined for a particular scenario. For instance, cattle can be easily substituted for horses, meat for fish etc.

Please post any suggestions you may have for new cargoes/cargo streams that would have widespread use in a number of scenarios, even if they are somewhat time-dependant (as in the Electronics example, which wouldn't make much sense in an 1800s scenario, except for a unique one).

[arop]

:D I would suggest: a) copper ore -for cables/wire factories -to powerplants/electronic industry. b) saltmines for chemical industries -to chemicals. c) Limestone quarrys + sandpits -to cementfactories -to cities.

[Eb Zane]

add to gravel a brick plant for roads and buildings. Lining boilers and furnaces in steel mills.

Asphalt plants, coal oil production

Salt from the mine and evaperators such as under Detroit and on the SF Bay

add ports inland on major rivers such as St Louis and Pittsburgh.

Steel> Shipyard>Ships

enable building/buying of ports and warehouses. Railroads often had their owen loading ports such as the Coal Port in Newport News, VA

Aircraft factory demand for many products.

So thats MY

EZ

[Lama]

My main questions as a mapmaker would be:

1.) How would any new cargo type improve gameplay?
In a PNW-centered game, it is a bit accidental what you actually haul.
In a connect-and-haul game, why would a scenario be more enjoyable with 19 additional cargoes to pick from?

2.) How would it increase realism?
Is there is any major type of load (my favorite example would be less-than-carload shipments) hauled by RRs now or in the past that is not represented in RT3?
Maybe electronics and chemicals (needed in many more industries than the ones currently demanding them)? I know chemicals do play a major part on U.S. RRs today, but electronics mostly end up on the rails as finished products, packaged in containers from Asia that go straight from the ports on the West Coast to distributors further east.

3.) How would it enhance the ability to tell a story in a scenario?
In many cases, a simple line in the briefing will do the trick: "meat represents fish", or "goods represent containers full of play stations." In RT2-TSC (Campaign), cement to plug the hole in the earth's crust in Spain was a plot device. But it was one of the lamest devices for one of the lamest plots, in my mind. I want to re-enact stories of railroading, and could not care less about scenarios of global doom. If anyone wants global doom, though, why can't they simulate it in an RT3 map with the means we have at our disposal, today?

Why this skepticism?
Apparently (taking my clues from the skilled modders), adding new cargoes opens all kinds of cans of worms, in terms of programming, compatibility of older maps, and multiplayer.
Therefore, my approach would be conservative: Don't fix what ain't broke. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean we should do it.

That said, I could see that one could make a case for a much wider use of chemicals, after ca. 1950. Chemicals could be required, or could boost production, in any number of industries.
Currently, chemicals are made from scratch. Requiring an input to make chemicals (there used to be "nitrates", from sheep farms, in RT1), or at least to boost the production of chemicals, makes sense to me.

[EPH]

Lama, I agree with all your points except the one about a global doom scenario - I wrote one, and I like it :D . 'Getaway Special' does use your method of re-labeling cargos in the scenario description, and it doesn't matter if 'meat' actually comes from cattle or seacow. For that matter I think all of my scenarios rename cargos that way. :)

That said, chemicals are currently present in RRT3. The ability to create new chemical or fertilizer plants is not available (save by event) but warehouse/port structures can do some of the work.

For my part I don't mind new cargoes (except the cargo 'box' on the map is going to be very crowded) but I do value compatibility and playability.

[Lama]

Didn't mean to step on your toes, EPH.

You know I hold your map-making art in the highest esteem, right?

If people want to make & play global doom scenarios, that's fine w/ me. My only point is that I don't enjoy them much. Like, some people just don't like "average speed" requirements, type of thing, you know?

Besides, out of narrative convention, have you ever heard about a single disaster movie where the salvation of the earth depended on a well-run transportation infrastructure, rather than on a solitary hero and his ablity to flick a switch, someplace?

[milo]

Besides, out of narrative convention, have you ever heard about a single disaster movie where the salvation of the earth depended on a well-run transportation infrastructure, rather than on a solitary hero and his ablity to flick a switch, someplace?

Armageddon? :)

[canis39]

I never thought I'd say this (seeing as how I'm the champion of "more options!"), but I find myself agreeing with Lama. I don't think we should add cargoes unless we can do it right.

I have a semi-related question, also. Is it possible to re-name existing buildings/cargoes? For example, rename Coffee to "Tea": the building itself would be called "Tea Plantation" instead of Coffee Farm...the cargo would be "Tea" instead of Coffee, etc. Is that doable?

[Steve]

One of the topics under discussion for an upcoming patch concerns the possibility of introducing new cargo streams into the game. There appears to be the ability to code up to 19 new cargo types and several new buildings to go along with new cargo streams. So far, two new streams have been discussed:

3. Machinery - Made by Tool & Die. This is demanded by farms and mines by a small extent and all manufacturing industries (except the T&D) and oil wells to a higher extent. It increases production by 25% if the demand is met. This cargo thus is something that can be hauled back to some raw material producers.

4. Fish - made by port or Harbor industry. This is like cattle as it produces meat if taken to meat packing plant.

I also would like a generic 'ore' to be demanded by a smelter. I'm not sure what to do with it after that as it could be gold/silver or copper/lead.

[EPH]

Lama, I promise you did not 'step on my toes' in any way. Please reread what I said and imagine a big smile on my face. :D 'Getaway Special' isn't intended to be serious but just goofy fun and I was having a laugh at myself, not at you. If I had any serious disagreement I would have PMed you, not put it in a forum post. Sorry my humor didn't translate better.


As far as adding new cargos, I'd be interested in hearing if anyone had any hard data on the cargos that were carried from 1830-1860, 1860 to 1900 and 1900 to present.

[Eb Zane]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... Coal+Ports

Here you can find lists of the flow of coal in any number of different countries and periods.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... tnG=Search

Iron

and etc

EZ

[davey917]

..... Is it possible to re-name existing buildings/cargoes? For example, rename Coffee to "Tea": the building itself would be called "Tea Plantation" instead of Coffee Farm...the cargo would be "Tea" instead of Coffee, etc. Is that doable?

canis, Yes. And No. There is a file called "RT3.lng" - the "language" file, used to translate various things into other languages. You could make changes here, HOWEVER, this file loads as part of the overall game and any changes would affect all scenarios. I don't beleive anyone has had the opertunity to see if we can add map-specific ".lng" files (yet).

[Steve]

As far as adding new cargos, I'd be interested in hearing if anyone had any hard data on the cargos that were carried from 1830-1860, 1860 to 1900 and 1900 to present.

You can find Census data online. Besides populations they have number of people employed in various professions and sometimes the goods or services produced.

[sbaros]

In many cases, a simple line in the briefing will do the trick: "meat represents fish"

In a variation of this largely acceptable concept, I renamed "meat" to "meat-fish" in the RT3.LNG language file and made it available at special "Fish-ports" for both Trainmaster and version 1.06. For my purposes, their similarities make it pointless to waste separate cargo slots for each one.
I see no reason to upload my BCA, probably each one of us will want to make their customized commodity combinations for different scenarios. No reason to include the language file either just for a single word modification I guess.
If one can spend some time to modify the cargo icon, still better...

the "language" file, used to translate various things into other languages. You could make changes here, HOWEVER, this file loads as part of the overall game and any changes would affect all scenarios.

Not a real problem at all. In this era of inexpensive storage space, any serious customization will require a separate RR Tycoon or Trainmaster installation for each scenario for a myriad of other reasons anyway

[Gumboots]

Even easier: you can just have a range of RT3.lng files stashed in a spare folder, and copy the one you want for the current scenario into place in Data/Language. That will work too.

Anyway, one thing I have given occasional thought to is how to revamp the default RT3 economy to deal with the realities of a 21st century economy. There is a major and irrevocable transition underway at the moment, particularly in energy generation but not limited to just that. The default RT3 economy is not set up to deal with this.

[Gumboots]

Thinking about this some more, what it really needs is two separate cargo/industry chains: one for the 19th and 20th centuries, and another for the 21st century. Which would obviously have to be run in two different installations, but that's not a big deal.

[sbaros]

If one wants to be precise, every single map will require a separate installation anyway, since industries and other stuff have been introduced at highly varying dates across the world. Switching between alternative data folders within the same installation would become uncontrollably confusing I think.
Different cargo sets may apply also to specific situations, such as Water, which could be a transportable commodity in a desert scenario, at the expense of some less relevant material.
Apart from time and place, commodities may vary according to the intended emphasis of a scenario. Such as a more detailed military cargo structure in a wartime scenario, at the expense of less detailed conventional traffic. Or a crazy, surrealistic cargo/industries set that someone may want to create just for fun.
Later this year, I may find spare time to tabulate some alternative sets, in order to discuss about potential usefulness.
Rail companies have long lists of commodities in their published tariff booklets for the information of shippers (I possess one from the Peloponnese RR with an estimated 1000 entries),which have to be grouped into the Tycoon's 52 maximum possible categories. Maybe this approach from the bottom up will help for a more comprehensive and rational categorisation of goods. We shall see ...
Are there any complete proposals published in the forum or elsewhere, apart from scattered ideas?

[Gumboots]

If one wants to be precise...

I don't. That way lies madness. What I am thinking of is being representative, not being precise. The RT3 late era economy is representative of the mid-to-late 20th century. It is already half a century out of date.

Are there any complete proposals published in the forum or elsewhere, apart from scattered ideas?

Not really. Every time the subject is raised, people can't agree on what should be done.