Cargo & Industry fixes for 1.06

[Gumboots]

As for where the progress, I didn't see a clear idea of where a 1.07 would go. Many of us have ideas, but they aren't necessarily ideas that would work together.

That's another reason why I'm thinking keep it minimal. It should cut the amount of disagreements. If everyone tries to get their favourite industries in we could argue forever. If we limit it to fixing stuff that needs fixing, we shoud be able to get some consensus.

3 Cargo Input Industries:
The Chili map does have a profitable a machine shop or 2, one reason is likely the large amount of crystals make electronics and machinery easier to produce than in many maps where crystals are limited. The 3 inputs can be harder to accomplish, but not impossible. One potential idea would be to give each 3 input industry, a 2 input recipe, but this 2 input recipe would generate less profit. I'd have to put a lot more thought into it, and lots of testing to see how that works out.

The machine shop wasn't using crystals. It's just steel, oil and ingots. But yeah the 3 inputs > more profit idea for some industries is worth considering.

[RulerofRails]

The reason the Machinery Shops work well on the Chile map is that low_grade made them work. All the ports supplying oil and steel make it easy to get them running. In scenarios I have played without warehouses or ports to supply one or two of the inputs, I have never really relied on the Machinery Shop for profit. I have gotten Machinery Shops running, but often late in the game when I have a large network to be able to collect sufficient quantities of the inputs from where they are on the map, if they are close or in abundance I would call that an economically easy map. Machinery Shops do make lots of money when they are working. When upgraded and fully supplied they will run north of $1M profit per year.

The 2 input Machinery recipe may be good. 2 Steel + 1 Ingots = 2 Machinery (or, maybe one steel) might work. I am guessing that Oil is supposed to represent Grease and Lubricating Oils and is a little over-represented in the recipe as it is, but like all things it's a compromise and it's the best for the game currently. I like the idea of adding Machinery to some industries like the Textile Mill. I would try 3 wool + 1 machinery = 4 clothing to prevent over-supply. Might still make some money. I don't know if adding these extra demands is the best we could do though.

As far as the changes made, I will support whatever as long as it is not broken in game. Compromises have to be made. I have voiced my opinion already on problems I see, the Pharmaceutical Plants large output and its supply chain, for example. I don't want to be the loudest voice to drown everyone out and have my way. I would like to see the current cargoes balanced in game-play. If some need to be changed to achieve this, then do it. Right now, I am hoping to play through my current game long enough to get an Electronics Plant working.

[Gumboots]

Must admit I've never tried to get an Electronics Plant functioning, since it's never seemed relevant in the 1.06 maps I've played. The Pharmaceutical Plant seems to work quite well IME, but would probably make more sense if its upgraded output was its current base output, with a suitable purchase price adjustment, or maybe if it was 4 base/8 upgraded. 6/12 does seem over the top.

If we're going to add extra demands for chemicals it may also be a good idea to increase chemical plant output.

I have gotten Machinery Shops running, but often late in the game when I have a large network to be able to collect sufficient quantities of the inputs from where they are on the map, if they are close or in abundance I would call that an economically easy map. Machinery Shops do make lots of money when they are working. When upgraded and fully supplied they will run north of $1M profit per year.

What I'm thinking is that a few options like that could be good for adding interest to the later stages of a scenario, and/or to give more experienced players something else to do, without necessarily making them so critical that they'll stop anyone getting a win if they aren't used.

[Wolverine@MSU]

What are the pros and cons of having an industry demand something (like machinery) versus making it part of the product recipe (3 wool + 1 machinery = 4 textiles; BTW wool gets made into textiles, which then get made into clothing). In some cases, machinery could act like corn does for farms, increasing output, but not required for finished product.

[Hawk]

In some cases, machinery could act like corn does for farms, increasing output, but not required for finished product.

FWIW, I generally don't mess with the not required demands of industry. I try to ship it what it requires and let it go at that.

[RulerofRails]

What are the pros and cons of having an industry demand something (like machinery) versus making it part of the product recipe (3 wool + 1 machinery = 4 textiles; BTW wool gets made into textiles, which then get made into clothing). In some cases, machinery could act like corn does for farms, increasing output, but not required for finished product.

In Trainmaster Textiles replaced Clothing. I never saw a conversion chain where Textiles were converted to Clothing. 1.06 used Clothing. In the OP of this thread Stoker was planning to rename Clothing to Textiles. I am assuming this is still happening? I forgot and was talking about Clothing in my example.

I just noticed that in 1.06 Dairy, Cattle and Sheep Farms have a 1:1 corn to animal conversion instead of the 1.05 text that said corn would give a 50% production increase. I just realized this now. I never noticed before so total output can't be that different.

As Blackhawk pointed out, currently most of the factories demand machinery. I like the idea of boosting factory outputs when supplied with machinery and the idea of farm output boosts with autos and medicine. It would give more incentive to make those cargoes on a map, while still retaining the original conversions and game-play. The drawbacks I can see are obviously the time it would take to do it, and there may be some issues with all the conversions fitting into the display window.

[Blackhawk]

Although not necessary, I'd rather keep the list alphabetical so perhaps "cloth" rather than textiles for renaming "clothing"? As I said earlier in this ever growing thread, being alphabetical is a preference I would prefer to keep. I'd rather know where to look instead of searching all over a list of 50ish cargoes trying to find something. I suppose if multiple cargoes get renamed though then it won't be of a big concern and will be dealt with accordingly.

I'll start this off by saying the .bca files for the dairy and cattle farms are the same in both 1.05 and 1.06. Anyway, I'm not sure I see a 1:1 ratio with the farms (it would make sense if that was the case though). I did see the ~1:1 with the dairy, but not with the cattle. In one year I had 1.4 corn used, and only a .8 increase in output. I suppose it's possible the farm put out less of it's normal output that year. And the 20% fertilizer seemed rather questionable as to whether it was really only 20% boost. It could have been I created too much demand for the cargoes so the farm increased its output, but a cotton farm was putting out in the low 4 range when a 20% boost should only be putting it around 2.4 loads a year. In the test I did it looked like there was a 1:5 ratio. Coffee farm would take in .2 fertilizer and put out about .8-1 load more of coffee. The cotton farm would take in .4 loads of fertilizer and it was putting out 4.3 cotton loads. With an output like that it seems like fertilizer could well be worth it. Very little gets used, and production is bumped well above the 20% claimed. I wonder if Poptop messed this one up and got their numbers mixed up and meant to have a 5:1 ratio instead of the 1:5. Then more fertilizer would be used, and the production bump wouldn't be as high. Of course I base this all on some quick tests and never really paid much attention to it in scenarios.

I like the idea of boosting factory outputs when supplied with machinery and the idea of farm output boosts with autos and medicine

I'm not sure it's possible to boost factory outputs. It could be tried but looking at the files for the farms, they boost the good that is being supplied, where as factories would have a production recipe. Only one way to see I suppose. Try it and see what happens. I'd have thought the 1.06 guys would have tried that rather than just adding a demand to everything for machinery.
Considering fertilizer made my cotton farm output double its production, I'd be hesitant to adding multiple boosts to farms.

Medicine is also a cargo which I question if it's really the best use of a cargo slot. Chemicals = Medicine, demanded by hospitals and that's the end of the cargo chain. As it is now it's a relatively limited cargo. Perhaps giving in a new name like merchandise/wares/retailgoods and creating another industry that produces it may give it some additional use? There is also the possibility of scrapping medicine as a cargo all together and using a different cargo instead, although that's more work and a substitute cargo would need to be decided.

[Blackhawk]

What are the pros and cons of having an industry demand something (like machinery) versus making it part of the product recipe (3 wool + 1 machinery = 4 textiles; BTW wool gets made into textiles, which then get made into clothing). In some cases, machinery could act like corn does for farms, increasing output, but not required for finished product.

Pros:
Demand Only:
-That set amount of cargo will be used up and essentially "removed" from the map per year.

Recipe:
-More than just 1 or 2 loads could be used up each year.
-Gives the player and incentive to actually produce machinery as it now feels like it has a use, rather than just a hidden demand.

Cons:
Demand Only:
-Same as the pro. Only the set demand amount will be used up yearly.

Recipe:
-If the other ingredient isn't there, the cargo will just sit until it rots.
-Could be hard to get a good production recipe that makes it worth using expensive machinery while remaining profitable + uses enough of the raw material to not have the raw materials pile up.

[RulerofRails]

I'll start this off by saying the .bca files for the dairy and cattle farms are the same in both 1.05 and 1.06.

Dairy 1.05.jpg (13.35 KiB) Viewed 3354 times

Dairy 1.06.jpg (12.69 KiB) Viewed 3354 times

This is the difference I saw. The resulting output seems to be the same in both though.

Personally I am really easy with cargo names. Game-play means a lot more to me. The way I see it, names are pretty easy to change, (I currently have Crystals called Nitrates) so anyone can make them whatever they want in their own games.

I should have been clearer when I said boosting factory demand. I meant incorporating machinery into recipes such as 3 wool + 1 Machinery = 4 Clothing, not trying to make them like farms. A modifier like the farms may work but I have a suspicion it would be erratic. Needs testing first obviously, but I am thinking that if it messes up profitability too much needing many adjustments, it's probably not worth spending a lot of time on. If that's the case it can stay as one of my wishes.

I am happy to see Medicine go. Oilcan's suggestion seemed to be a sensible new use for it, but I would prefer to have a more useful cargo in its place. To be fair he didn't suggest it as being a boost, my bad there. Stoker suggested Consumer Goods instead of Medicine but I don't remember his industry ideas for that cargo. I think we need to stay focused with this. The thing I mentioned about farms was distracting, sorry. I am of a mind to try to learn some of this hex stuff, hopefully enough to change some recipes and mess with those myself before proposing ideas that are unlikely to work and waste time.

[Blackhawk]

-Has your 1.06 display always looked like that? Mine looks just like the 1.05 display.

-Learning about hex stuff isn't that difficult. WP&P's spreadsheet for building .bca files helps a lot. For the cargo pricing though I haven't figured out how exactly that works yet. I could just be converting the numbers incorrectly.

-If medicine were to stay as simply medicine than I do like Oilcan's suggestion of at least a demand (possibly a boost) at the animal farms. Consumer goods is too long of a name to use as 11 characters seems to be about the longest that will fit into the display window. I think whatever it gets renamed to may have an effect on what alternative industry it could come from. If a printing press, jeweler, and cannery get added, potentially it could come from a cannery as the packaged food would still be demanded at hospitals. Which gets us back to the very early question, whether or not cheese should stay cheese or become a more emcompassing "packed foods."

At this point roughly I'm thinking:
Printing press = creates goods
Jeweler = valuables (renamed from toys)
Cannery = ? medicine renamed, or cheese renamed.

The cannery/food packaging plant could have a variety of recipes which we would have to narrow down and decide what works best.
Meat + aluminum is what Stoker suggested. -- This one probably won't work well without an odd recipe like 1 + 1 = 3 because of the high price of meat.
Coffee + aluminum
Corn + aluminum
Produce + aluminum

If it's a more encompassing food packing plant and not just a cannery, then you could throw in glass recipes, plastic recipes, paper + grain/rice recipes etc. If those additional things got added though, it would likely be best to separate it into 2 separate industries.

The nice thing about the cannery would be it could give coffee, corn, and aluminum another potential use which are all cargoes people have said they feel like they need more of a purpose.

[RulerofRails]

The only thing I can remember doing is changing the farms for the Denver and North Western scenario. But I have done a fresh install since then, so I don't think it comes from that. For interests sake, the DNW has farms that produce very little (less than 1) without a corn supply. That scenario pushes some of the limits of what is possible in 1.06.

I have been trying to follow WP&Ps BCA roadmap. I don't want to take your time up with my fooling, but is the .bca file the only one I need to change? I have made two attempts, but I haven't been successful adding a Machinery conversion chain yet.

As time permits those new industries would be nice. I agree, the packed food cargo would open up plenty of room for many new uses of materials. Sticking with those early ideas sounds good.

[Blackhawk]

For a recipe at an industry, yes the only file that would need to be changed is the .bca

Each production chain needs to be 188 blocks/hexes? Whatever you want to call them. You might find it easier to just try substituting things before trying to add an entirely new chain. Try the textile factory, and replace ~4475dye with ~4493Machinery. Be sure to use overwrite mode and over write the periods though or else you'll have extra blocks of data and RT3 won't like it. Also take note that if you type a period in the character area it is different than periods that already appear there. You'd have to go into the hex area and hit 00 in that block.

If you are using HexEdit you may want to try using the bookmark system so you know where each production chain begins. I also turn on decimal address, line numbers, and addresses start at 1, to make it easier for me to see what number block I'm working on.

[RulerofRails]

Thanks for your tips. Trying to keep everything simple was the best one! I got a Textile Mill working now with Machinery conversions. Will test it for a while now. One bit that I may not have had right was the number of instances of the 188 blocks. The value for 6 wasn't clear and as the old one said 05 I tried 06. That was one of the few things that isn't clear from WP&Ps excellent spreadsheet. It's like a periodic table! Anyway, what I have now is sufficient for testing, so will leave it for now.

This could simply be a distraction, but in WP&Ps spreadsheet on Sheet 1, there are some industry ideas from early 1.06 days. I haven't looked carefully through them and weighed the pros and cons etc. Just letting you guys know in case you want to have a look for ideas or whatever.

[Blackhawk]

The main thing is to make sure you follow whether it's an int, float, hex etc. For more information on the conversion of floating point numbers, search the forums and there are a couple posts were Ned and someone else posted a couple links to a useful site to convert the numbers.

[Gumboots]

HexEdit should have a built-in base converter. Any decent hex editor has that.

[Blackhawk]

I think some other things to think about are how complicated should the recipes be for a glassworks, cement plant, etc.

I was thinking of renaming cement into more general "materials." Preferrably building materials but that again is too long of a name.

Then we'll have sand/quartz sand (formerly crystals), and rock/clay.

Glassworks: Sand = glass (formerly ceramics) or a more complicated
Sand + Coal/diesel

Cement Plant: Rock/Clay = cement (materials) or again adding a heat source could complicate it

If cement becomes a more inclusive cargo a brick kiln could be added:
Sand + clay = materials.
or a sand + clay + coal = materials (I just thought of this one but it could be help in preventing someone from just planting this right next to a quarry and making fast money)

Any thoughts on if cement should remain exclusively cement, or or if a more general term would be preferrable?

[Gumboots]

My 2c is that I'm not in favour of getting too general with names, especially as a policy that will be applied to several cargoes. Having more specific names adds more interest, IMO, and will allow greater flexibility in mapmaking. How do you organise an economy if the cargoes are too general? How does the cargo flow work if several industries are all producing "Stuff"? Apart from which, artificially shortened names that are so general as to be meaningless are just plain weird and boring.

[RulerofRails]

Yeah, I don't think anyone would be bothered to use up sand and coal to make "Materials" if they could just make them from just Rock in the Cement Plant. I agree with Gumboots about things not being too general. Keep Cement.

I think that Glass manufacturing should require fuel because it is energy intensive. I don't want to see new industries that can just be placed next to a mine or farm and make lots of money. A map creator could place them with the editor, but how many times would they get used then? Stoker said this in the second post: "Industries with one Input>Output can be programmed into one of the ten Warehouses by the scenario maker." Arop has done this in some of his scenarios, for example Novia Scotia has Maple Sugar factories that are build-able warehouses.

I am not knowledgeable about cement production so I looked on Wikipedia and apparently one tonne of cement requires energy equivalent to all of the energy in 3 to 6 barrels of oil. So including a fuel source makes sense here too. Maybe 2 Coal per load of Rock should be required in early years. In recipes with fuel I would make it so that the fuel is used up and doesn't become part of the finished product for example 1 Rock + 1 Oil = 1 Cement.

I know you already made the Cement Plant like the Fertilizer Factory, but what do you think about using the old Rock Quarry as the Cement Plant? Minus the rocks and farm footprint, of course. My testing with the Machinery use in the Textile Mill is so far inconclusive. I haven't seen a good benefit yet, but will keep on with it for a while longer trying some different conditions. I have an Electronics Plant running in the 1960s and it is working fine. It isn't too high output (4 per year not upgraded), and profits are realistic also.

[Blackhawk]

How do more specific names provide greater flexibility in map making?

Wouldn't a little more general of a name allow for greater flexibility as various industries could produce the same cargo and a designer could decide which industries they would like used?

Ex. If a jeweler and a toy factory both produce valuables, I could decide if I wanted the valuables to represent watches or if I wanted them to represent the latest and greatest toy.

-The Brick Kiln could use Sand + Rock, or Sand + Rock + coal. And if it uses sand + rock, then for obvious reasons the cement plant wouldn't have the simple recipe of just rock = cement.

Alternatively rather than a brick kiln there could be an asphalt plant and use rock + oil.

-Changing the concrete plant is possible, but as an asthetic change it would be towards the bottom of the list of things to do. I chose the fertilizer factory because of its large tanks in the back could sort of represent the hoppers and bins at a cement plant. It also has a small footprint. The aluminum mill/quarry has a fairly large footprint which also needs to be taken into consideration. If there is a demand to change the concrete plant to the old quarry, that can be done though.

[Blackhawk]

Warehouses:

Yes, the scenario creator can use them for 1 input - 1 output streams if they desired. If they is how they are going to be used though, their prices should probably be increased as 550k-700k seems rather low. Although I suppose it depends what the production recipe is. It could be highly profitable or a conversion which loses money.

One thing to remember though is that only the first warehouse can be randomly spawned. The rest need to be manually placed or placed by event.