Early trains

[Rjskeet]

Except rail signals ARE progression.

Maybe on paper, but does anyone really begin to use trains before research of signals? At least I think that there is no point even it is technically possible.

I do. I'm not a train enthusiast, and most of the time, I just have 1 or 2 tracks that link an outpost to my smelting area, without even crossing each other. my tracks are usually loops with 2 stations, one to load, one to unload.

You just kinda invalidated that rail signals are progression because you don't really need to use them at all. So earlier tains would just allow you to get your ore shipped in quicker. signals would allow you to link up your rails, and diesel engines can be used with either system to increase efficiency or acceleration.

[Koub]

Except rail signals ARE progression.

Maybe on paper, but does anyone really begin to use trains before research of signals? At least I think that there is no point even it is technically possible.

I do. I'm not a train enthusiast, and most of the time, I just have 1 or 2 tracks that link an outpost to my smelting area, without even crossing each other. my tracks are usually loops with 2 stations, one to load, one to unload.

You just kinda invalidated that rail signals are progression because you don't really need to use them at all. So earlier tains would just allow you to get your ore shipped in quicker. signals would allow you to link up your rails, and diesel engines can be used with either system to increase efficiency or acceleration.

Yup, that's why the "most of the time" is there. Because I have already tried signalling, and building an excuse of a train network. Took me more time watching tutorials than actual pleasure playing the game. And this network arrived quite late in my playthrough, so it was a real progression for me.

[CDarklock]

You just kinda invalidated that rail signals are progression because you don't really need to use them at all.

I won my first game without building a train. So by your logic, rails themselves aren't progression. Neither is the circuit network I didn't build, or the logistics network I didn't build, or the uranium processing I didn't build, or the red and blue belts I didn't build. None of those are progression, because you don't really need to use them at all.

[Rjskeet]

You just kinda invalidated that rail signals are progression because you don't really need to use them at all.

I won my first game without building a train. So by your logic, rails themselves aren't progression. Neither is the circuit network I didn't build, or the logistics network I didn't build, or the uranium processing I didn't build, or the red and blue belts I didn't build. None of those are progression, because you don't really need to use them at all.

thanks for the troll, but yes you dont need any of those things to Finish the game. Is finishing the game your only goal? you listed all separate aspects that all have progression. Uranium has a 2 step progression with uranium enrichment being the second half. The Circuit network is a progression of factory control over strictly resource control. Lastly Yellow, Red, and Blue belts are all progressions for resource throughput. No, you don't need any single one of them to win the game however to build bigger, faster, and smarter factories you do need them. Side not energy production has progression from high pollution to low pollution.

and second side note logistics is an overall progression for belts because bots have infinite throughput.

Yup, that's why the "most of the time" is there. Because I have already tried signalling, and building an excuse of a train network. Took me more time watching tutorials than actual pleasure playing the game. And this network arrived quite late in my playthrough, so it was a real progression for me.

Hm, I see your point, and I can say it does make a lot of sense to me. However a counter point can be made that if you had started without using complicated trains and without all the options for rails up front, you could have progressed your system by yourself by getting simple trains, getting signals, then getting more complicated trains.

Even if trains don't come earlier, why not split the trains up. Have the single less efficient engine that is easier to use first, then after oil you get the more efficient engine with better dynamics? that way it can help with progression while not changing the pace of the game.

[CDarklock]

thanks for the troll

Not a troll. "It's not progression because you don't need it" is absurdly incorrect logic. Yes, signals are progression. A railway with signals is more capable than a railway without them. It does not matter whether the capability is necessary.

[Rjskeet]

thanks for the troll

Not a troll. "It's not progression because you don't need it" is absurdly incorrect logic. Yes, signals are progression. A railway with signals is more capable than a railway without them. It does not matter whether the capability is necessary.

Alright I won't dispute that. What about the idea of having simple trains, then signals, then more complex trains?

[CDarklock]

What about the idea of having simple trains, then signals, then more complex trains?

I don't dislike the idea. The question is what, exactly, a more complex train adds to the experience. I sort of like the idea of an electric locomotive, for example, because I am paranoid about fueling my trains. Literally the first thing I stick at every station is a chest of fuel with a burner inserter. I just generally want everything that takes fuel to be replaced by something electric.

So I would like it a lot better if I could just run electricity down the tracks, or even better run an actual electric track from the beginning - perhaps by using a combination of rails and electric poles to build electric rails, which would perhaps provide power one or two blocks in each direction from the track. So at the station, your inserters and pumps to load/unload the train would be automatically powered, and you could also just drop lights next to it wherever you wanted.

What gives me pause is the question of whether this minor change is worth the time and effort to implement. Features don't just happen; someone has to write them. And in this case, that's mostly a case of graphics - we need new ones for the electric locomotive and the electric rail - but there's also the question of what happens when an electric train routes onto a basic track. Is that even possible? Can you run a steam locomotive on electric track? What if you have both kinds of locomotive on one train? What if they're facing opposite directions? What does this do to the pathing and signaling, on an internal technical level?

It feels like this might be several months of work, and I don't know whether that's worth it. Should someone spend a substantial part of the next year implementing this? Do they have something better to do?

I mean, "I don't like fueling my trains" and "I want my rails to carry electricity" feel kind of... whingy and petulant. I'm not comfortable taking a stand on those being worth someone's time, unless a lot of people want this sort of thing.

[Rjskeet]

What about the idea of having simple trains, then signals, then more complex trains?

I don't dislike the idea. The question is what, exactly, a more complex train adds to the experience. I sort of like the idea of an electric locomotive, for example, because I am paranoid about fueling my trains. Literally the first thing I stick at every station is a chest of fuel with a burner inserter. I just generally want everything that takes fuel to be replaced by something electric.

So I would like it a lot better if I could just run electricity down the tracks, or even better run an actual electric track from the beginning - perhaps by using a combination of rails and electric poles to build electric rails, which would perhaps provide power one or two blocks in each direction from the track. So at the station, your inserters and pumps to load/unload the train would be automatically powered, and you could also just drop lights next to it wherever you wanted.

What gives me pause is the question of whether this minor change is worth the time and effort to implement. Features don't just happen; someone has to write them. And in this case, that's mostly a case of graphics - we need new ones for the electric locomotive and the electric rail - but there's also the question of what happens when an electric train routes onto a basic track. Is that even possible? Can you run a steam locomotive on electric track? What if you have both kinds of locomotive on one train? What if they're facing opposite directions? What does this do to the pathing and signaling, on an internal technical level?

It feels like this might be several months of work, and I don't know whether that's worth it. Should someone spend a substantial part of the next year implementing this? Do they have something better to do?

I mean, "I don't like fueling my trains" and "I want my rails to carry electricity" feel kind of... whingy and petulant. I'm not comfortable taking a stand on those being worth someone's time, unless a lot of people want this sort of thing.

Sadly I think they have said there will not be any fully electric trains implemented for awhile.

[Koub]

Sadly I think they have said there will not be any fully electric trains implemented for awhile.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=59481&p=355589#p355589

[Hannu]

I do. I'm not a train enthusiast, and most of the time, I just have 1 or 2 tracks that link an outpost to my smelting area, without even crossing each other. my tracks are usually loops with 2 stations, one to load, one to unload.

OK, I saw once a video of megabase which had separate rail networks (if i remember correctly). Actually it may be easy and practical way to build. However, I want to see complexity and use train network also for personal traveling. I build always work stop in all my stations for my work train. At late game I can use hours to travel between factories, watch whole complex system run and fix small issues.

[Hannu]

What gives me pause is the question of whether this minor change is worth the time and effort to implement. Features don't just happen; someone has to write them. And in this case, that's mostly a case of graphics - we need new ones for the electric locomotive and the electric rail - but there's also the question of what happens when an electric train routes onto a basic track. Is that even possible? Can you run a steam locomotive on electric track? What if you have both kinds of locomotive on one train? What if they're facing opposite directions? What does this do to the pathing and signaling, on an internal technical level?

In my opinion only reasonable solutions in this case would be realistic. It would be easy to program and understand and would not lead impractical situations. You should be able to connect electric rail to normal rail, like in real rail networks. Electric locomotive should act as a wagon on unelectrified rails and steam/diesel locomotive should work normally. Traffic control would act like now, except automatic router should not allow unelectrified rail sections if the train has only electric locomotives.

[Hannu]

I can concede on the railworld and marathon points they are niche. But again what about introducing new players with trains? The earlier they start the less of a hill to climb later on.

I think the hill is about the same. Basic operation is trivial, you need connected railway, two stops and fuel for locomotive. Basically it could be given at any point and it would not disturb player. Real problem is understanding of block control system. In my opinion current options are quite good for large variations of play styles and settings. Trains are green science level technology, so you can rush to trains before oil production if you want or some special settings make it necessary. But I think the most common sequence is first oil production and blue science (and maybe higher levels too). That increases resource need by large factor and player must get ore from distant patches.

However I will still argue that train progression is extremely lacking, even if you consider signals a progression. Once you get the engine the only increase in efficiency or acceleration is fuel, there is no upgrade path like assemblers or inserters there is no thinking about distance traveled or acceleration limits. In summery there is no depth, usually by the time you have multiple trains on a network you've blueprinted your intersections and all the challenge is gone.

This is true. I have played much with Bob's mods and it is nice to have higher tiers of trains (even Bob's higher locomotives are crazy overpowered (450 km/h)). Trains are very essential part in logistics. You can do a minimal base and send a rocket without trains but it is very difficult to imagine any larger base without trains. But I am not sure if trains should begin much earlier. Now they need steel and engines, which are quite basic requirements. I think that if trains would be cheaper marathon players would increase research cost multiplier to the new limit or little bit more to get extreme experience.

[GrumpyJoe]

I can concede on the railworld and marathon points they are niche. But again what about introducing new players with trains? The earlier they start the less of a hill to climb later on.

Imho there are already 3 phases of train progression

single track, like koub described
base "bigger base" tracks, with (often bad) intersections etc..
megabase train network

if you look at the average player, they usually build way too small. I wish i had a sceenshot on this PC. I recently started a server with a relatively newbie. Small roundabout 4 way crossings for LCCCC trains. I would facepalm, but thats how i started myself

Rebuilding it IS progression, and earlier introduction doesn´t make it better understandable.
Trial and error, reading this forum and /r, Youtube will help in understanding, not making it aviable earlier

Just because signals are so close in tech to the actual trains and stations, doesn´t mean its not progression.
You can use trains at any stage. First not automated, then without signals

And its only red/green science, there is no blue involved, anywhere.
Where would you place it? red only?

[Rjskeet]

I can concede on the railworld and marathon points they are niche. But again what about introducing new players with trains? The earlier they start the less of a hill to climb later on.

Imho there are already 3 phases of train progression

single track, like koub described
base "bigger base" tracks, with (often bad) intersections etc..
megabase train network

if you look at the average player, they usually build way too small. I wish i had a sceenshot on this PC. I recently started a server with a relatively newbie. Small roundabout 4 way crossings for LCCCC trains. I would facepalm, but thats how i started myself

Rebuilding it IS progression, and earlier introduction doesn´t make it better understandable.
Trial and error, reading this forum and /r, Youtube will help in understanding, not making it aviable earlier

Just because signals are so close in tech to the actual trains and stations, doesn´t mean its not progression.
You can use trains at any stage. First not automated, then without signals

And its only red/green science, there is no blue involved, anywhere.
Where would you place it? red only?

yes in my mind right after steel, and the current locomotive would go after blue science because in reality its a diesel electric engine, so it should use electric engines but still consume fuel.

[GrumpyJoe]

yes in my mind right after steel, and the current locomotive would go after blue science because in reality its a diesel electric engine, so it should use electric engines but still consume fuel.

thats sounds alot like mods that prolong the burner phase and something most would just rush. would give an option in "must have" first blue science, to the advanced oil processing
still doesnt answer how thats teaching new players anything about trains
And would still need steel for the rails, so its doesn´t feel like anything that would have helped you on your marathon, altho i get it that its not all about that one case.

[Rjskeet]

Steel is 50 red science then after that you need 200 red and green science for red belt research to then unlock train research with icu I do believe 75 red and green , by then I had used up all my local ore and the only patches where miles away basically.

Also I tend to think people get hung up with over signaling there first railways, due to the fact that they want to use 1 line and it's super easy to just use 2 engines with one line. However when they network there rails directional signalling gets very tricky. So limiting the amount of engines to one can solve that easy path to destruction.

Starting earlier would just help people choose different play styles and also plan out there stations and pathways before the bulk of there factory is formed.

[GrumpyJoe]

Steel is 50 red science then after that you need 200 red and green science for red belt research to then unlock train research with icu I do believe 75 red and green , by then I had used up all my local ore and the only patches where miles away basically.

but you would have to actually build rail tracks. If you dont even have resources to reseach them, how would you CRAFT them to get "miles away"?
You would have saved resources in research, but the way you tell the story makes it sound like you need a few thousand rails. Im actually interested in the save now.

Also I tend to think people get hung up with over signaling there first railways, due to the fact that they want to use 1 line and it's super easy to just use 2 engines with one line. However when they network there rails directional signalling gets very tricky. So limiting the amount of engines to one can solve that easy path to destruction.

That sounds like you wanna restrict early locos to oneway(LCCC)? Thats a whole new beast in game code than just make a copy of an entity

Starting earlier would just help people choose different play styles and also plan out there stations and pathways before the bulk of there factory is formed.

Limiting possibilities is the opposite of choice.
Taking away signals just delays possible mistakes. You learn from your mistakes. The earlier you make them, the earlier you learn to not make them again. If you do not learn at all and just place signals like trowing confetti, you cant be helped anyway.