-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I would love to see that kind of simplicity be reintroduced into CIM, but with the current system, I think it's unlikely. Maybe CIM3 
Last edited:
I would like a station where two lines on each side of it as its more realistic, and it would give more variation.
I would like an island platform station, that would sit between the tracks of a double track metro line. I would be even better if it could also be placed between any pair of lines on a four track metro line as well. This would enable the construction of the compact interchanges found most metro networks. Please!
I'd love to bring back "pre fabricated" stations, like in CiM1. The difference now is that we have the ability to completely rotate them (compared to the old grid), and elevation flexibility is totally different. As much as the existing "attach platform to track" scenario is nice, it allows for some really obscure placements (like steep grades, which I avoid) and makes simple interchanges not so simple.
The basics ...
- Two basic station designs, side platform and centre platform. Each would have an identical concourse level, either above or below the tracks. No option for no concourse.
- By key press (I don't know which key to use), the concourse could be alternated between above the tracks or below, and a predetermined fixed height above/below the tracks).
- Whether above ground or below, a new path tool, "walkway", can be built, but would only attach to concourses. It would be the width of two typical sidewalks put together, and would be solely for pedestrians). This would allow nearby stations to be connected. This path would be limited in length, and can only be connected to concourses, rather than other walkway paths.
Further to the above, what about going one step further and introduce tram stops in a similar fashion for being placed on metro tracks? The catch, is that their capacity and length would be significantly less than a metro station, and graphically look a little different than a metro station. Operating beyond that capacity will make all users mad/unhappy immediately upon arrival. This would force busy lines to be upgraded to metro (without completely destroying the line) since both trams and metros would share the infrastructure.
The basics ...
- Two basic station designs, side platform and centre platform. Each would have an identical concourse level, either above or below the tracks. No option for no concourse.
- By key press (I don't know which key to use), the concourse could be alternated between above the tracks or below, and a predetermined fixed height above/below the tracks).
- Whether above ground or below, a new path tool, "walkway", can be built, but would only attach to concourses. It would be the width of two typical sidewalks put together, and would be solely for pedestrians). This would allow nearby stations to be connected. This path would be limited in length, and can only be connected to concourses, rather than other walkway paths.
Further to the above, what about going one step further and introduce tram stops in a similar fashion for being placed on metro tracks? The catch, is that their capacity and length would be significantly less than a metro station, and graphically look a little different than a metro station. Operating beyond that capacity will make all users mad/unhappy immediately upon arrival. This would force busy lines to be upgraded to metro (without completely destroying the line) since both trams and metros would share the infrastructure.
Last edited:
An idea I had when trying to figure out how to make teleporter entrancesgo in the right place for complex interchanges:
Change current "stations" for non-road modes of transport (i.e. metro, waterbus) to "platforms".
Create a new type of building, a station/interchange.
Make teleporter entrances hand-placeable.
Each new station building can serve a given number of entrances and platforms. Small ones can only have a couple, big interchanges can have multiple platforms of various transport types. Cims will enter from the street, the station building will act, essentially, as a junction of infinitely small size, leading to all platforms and other street exits.
Obviously you will have to put a distance limit in place so that stations can only serve nearby entrances and platforms.
Other things that could be put in place to make it easier/more elegant.
Naming platforms and exits based on the station they are attached to, eg. if I have a station called "Finchley Road," then metro stops attached to it will be called "Finchley Road, Platform 1," "Finchley Road, Platform 2," and street exits will be called "Finchley Road Station, Exit 1" etc.
Setting the coverage circle to centre on *exits* rather than what are currently stations but would be platforms. This makes more sense for both pathfinding and "realism".
This seems fairly simple. Although I am sure introducing an intermediary step in the platform/teleporter chain isn't trivial, it does not seem outside the bounds of the current architecture. Backwards compatibility might be a problem, but perhaps could be fixed by retrofitting old-style stations with a small 1-1 "station" in the code.
Anyway. I know you get loads of these, but there's another long suggestion for some work.
Change current "stations" for non-road modes of transport (i.e. metro, waterbus) to "platforms".
Create a new type of building, a station/interchange.
Make teleporter entrances hand-placeable.
Each new station building can serve a given number of entrances and platforms. Small ones can only have a couple, big interchanges can have multiple platforms of various transport types. Cims will enter from the street, the station building will act, essentially, as a junction of infinitely small size, leading to all platforms and other street exits.
Obviously you will have to put a distance limit in place so that stations can only serve nearby entrances and platforms.
Other things that could be put in place to make it easier/more elegant.
Naming platforms and exits based on the station they are attached to, eg. if I have a station called "Finchley Road," then metro stops attached to it will be called "Finchley Road, Platform 1," "Finchley Road, Platform 2," and street exits will be called "Finchley Road Station, Exit 1" etc.
Setting the coverage circle to centre on *exits* rather than what are currently stations but would be platforms. This makes more sense for both pathfinding and "realism".
This seems fairly simple. Although I am sure introducing an intermediary step in the platform/teleporter chain isn't trivial, it does not seem outside the bounds of the current architecture. Backwards compatibility might be a problem, but perhaps could be fixed by retrofitting old-style stations with a small 1-1 "station" in the code.
Anyway. I know you get loads of these, but there's another long suggestion for some work.
Pretty much a big and enthusiastic "YES!" from me to all of the above concepts in general. The street level teleporter booths should be de-coupled from platforms, with optional manual or automatic placement, and serving all platforms within range of each booth. A ticket hall / concourse feature would be a very nice touch as well, ideally with some manual control over its placement; but that intermediate location is much less important to me than getting proper manual control over the booths. If a station building is to be added, there should be options for it to be predominantly subterranean, e.g. Piccadilly Circus or Oxford Circus, to avoid taking up precious surface real estate in the city centre.
Quoting myself from the big all-suggestions thread, before we got this sub-forum:
I think the best solution would be to (optionally, perhaps) do away with automatic entrance placement completely. Add a new option to the metro build menu for entrances, enabling manual placement of as many or few entrances as are appropriate for a group of nearby platforms. Entrances could serve all platforms within an appropriate distance. Build and maintenance costs would be split appropriately between platforms and entrances. There would be no direct relationship between platforms and entrances, just a maximum distance between them, and a minimum of 1 entrance within range of each platform. Catchment areas would be based on entrances, not platforms.
So, a quiet suburban station might have 1 entrance serving 2 platforms. A busy, central exchange station might have 8 entrances serving 4 platforms. I.e. pretty much just like real life.
A mostly subterranean station would be fine and dandy. However, I think there needs to be *something* creating a node between entrance and platform, Because I could see a many-many relationship screwing up the pathing much more easily than a many-one-many relationship.
Prefabricated metro stations with proper concourses and island platforms are desirable, however, I really like the ability to put very long stations on curves (for example by placing a series of metro stations along a track so their platforms merge). Whilst the current system is a little tricky to use and can be sometimes annoying, it does allow for great flexibility and functionality (albeit at the expense of aesthetics). I would suggest that a prefabricated metro station should be an addition rather than a replacement to the current system.
Really, what would be neat would be a metro station building kit - so you open a new menu and you have a series of pieces. Platforms, escalators, ticket halls, elevators, entrances - all able to snap together to build a 'kit'. It's not really a serious suggestion as it's a bit of a convaluded and excessive thing to put into this game.
Really, what would be neat would be a metro station building kit - so you open a new menu and you have a series of pieces. Platforms, escalators, ticket halls, elevators, entrances - all able to snap together to build a 'kit'. It's not really a serious suggestion as it's a bit of a convaluded and excessive thing to put into this game.
Last edited:
This might unfortunately be a little bit out of our scope.. Cities in Motion: Metro Edition in the future?
But seriously speaking thanks for the feedback! It's unlikely we'll be able to replicate the station design from CIM1, but we'll see what are our possibilities with the stations.
Please, PLEASE make a CiM Metro edition. I would gladly pay.This might unfortunately be a little bit out of our scope.. Cities in Motion: Metro Edition in the future?
But seriously speaking thanks for the feedback! It's unlikely we'll be able to replicate the station design from CIM1, but we'll see what are our possibilities with the stations.