Factorio Forums

So, with .015 I started with a normal map and then in my second game selected the "Rail World" scenario. What I found is that while Rail world encourages researching trains early, it actually encourages less overall train usage. The main issue is that resources are _so_ plentiful with Rail world that once I get an initial rail setup going there is no need for me to make it anymore complex (especially when I start driving productivity up). In my game the large Iron and Copper resources were sufficiently close that I actually had room to build my large smelting yard, at which time I only needed my rail network to bring me in my liquids (water and petrol gas, along with sulphur) and some coal to get plastics and grenades going. After that I was able to launch with plenty of resources to spare. My first .15 game with a normal map actually had a more complex train network going before I could launch.

My suggestion to help make "Rail world" more of an actual rail world is to make the non-starting resource fields rich, but not nearly as big, like maybe half the size they are now. This allows me to do what I started with (build initial factory next to starting resources, then build new main factory in a rail-centric manner), but then once I get the secondary factory actually running, I can keep those resources flowing but need to continue expanding to keep my mining rate improving as necessary to get to launch my satellite.

As a reinforcing factor, in a Rail World scenario I literally killed 1 biter base, that cleared the way to my initial rail buildout. After that I just built walls and towers. With the elimination of alien science, there was literally no reason to really engage enemies at all (I was near to launch time before I even had shields).

"Railworld" really feels more like "Less Resources Further Away" mode but i get the idea is for long distance trains.

In practice it doesn't lend as well to LOTS of trains but IDK if this is really a problem.

Shokubai wrote:"Railworld" really feels more like "Less Resources Further Away" mode but i get the idea is for long distance trains.

In practice it doesn't lend as well to LOTS of trains but IDK if this is really a problem.

See, intuitively I think of "rail world" as a map that encourages your use of trains throughout the entire game, not just as a single one-shot setup that you just let sit forever. It may not be a 50 train setup or anything to 1st launch, but it should require that I regularly seek out new and better train routes as the game progresses.

As far as I understand the resource settings, the overall resources per area are higher in a railworld preset than in default. Frequency does not influence the resources per area, it just scales patch size and distances between patches with the same rate. Thus having a bigger size means having more resources per area than default - which in my opinion discourages building rails.

So I started a game in my own railworld style by setting size to normal and frequency as low as possible. Which Is not even low enough in my opinion.

What I would like for a railworld preset:
- even lower frequency
- less resources per area to increase overall area needed -> longer travel distances
- maybe about the same patch-size as in the current railworld-preset. And still adjustable by the size-setting.

This could propably be achieved by way lower frequency combined with small patch size.

Regards
Mimos

My recommendation. In addition to Railworld preset, modify water settings to Normal frequency and Very Big size.

This will result in ~50% of your world being water, and many resource deposits will be "swallowed" by the ocean, greatly increasing average distance between the land-based ones.

Plus these water settings result in much more interesting maps than standard Normal/Average.

Lav wrote:My recommendation. In addition to Railworld preset, modify water settings to Normal frequency and Very Big size.

This will result in ~50% of your world being water, and many resource deposits will be "swallowed" by the ocean, greatly increasing average distance between the land-based ones.

Plus these water settings result in much more interesting maps than standard Normal/Average.

I'll have to check this out. Now I really want bridges and boats ;_;