Hey,
I would like to raise a couple of issues with bodies while playing the campaign. On a high level the problem I see is that the game as it is, is heavily constricting what I can do. Instead of creating the car company that I would like to create, it feels like I’m working around the bodies that are available. And I think the problem is not with the amount of available bodies, but with inconsistencies and a couple of gaps. Also I think the issues that I have in mind might not be visible/noticeable to non campaign players.
- Context
Please keep in mind the way the campaign is played. I’m starting a company on a given date, I release a car model, let’s assume it’s successful, it’s getting old, and then I want to replace it with something new.
- Missing bodies
First of all, there are quite large gaps in available body types. The most glaring example IMO is trying to create 911 like, a small 2+2 coupe (that basically requires rear engine layout). Here are the available bodies for this task:
- 1946 2.1m, really nice one
- 1955 2.3m, much smaller engine bay, missing convertible
- 1973 2.2m, great, but no convertible
And… that’s it. Others have unusable small engine bay, or missing rear seats option, or are huge. There is similar problem with mid engine cars. For example there is no valid body between 1970 and 1983 (and it gets even worse if you want a medium or larger mid engine body).
- Inconsistent engine bay size
Even if there is technically a body that fits my requirements, I’m constantly hitting a problem that my neatly designed engine from the previous generation, doesn’t fit the next one. Recently I’ve tried creating a generation of small FMR coupes. I’ve designed a nice basic 1st generation starting with simple and small I6 engine, then 2nd generation. Initially (cost reasons) re-using older engine. For the facelift I’ve added a new bigger I6, DOHC 24V engine that I wanted to keep using for quite a while but… for the 3rd generation I couldn’t find a body that would fit any reasonable I6, not just my recently developed I6. I had to hastily switch to a B6 layout, wasting tons of money in the process.
- Inconsistent body trims
For example, If my main trim is 2 door coupe, even if there is a body that has the engine layout that I’m looking for, other available body trims are all over the place. Sometimes there is no convertible option, but there is a pickup/van available. Other times there is no sedan option, but there is convertible. Other times there is a coupe body, that is even named coupe, but is not tagged as coupe for a mysterious reason.
All of the above make it too often very very hard to create a replacement car model. It feels like almost always there is some issue. I think this is one of few things that Gear City handles much better as it provides ultimate flexibility of designing whatever you want and doesn’t brake the immersion during the playthrough.
Maybe it would be worth considering either:
- Decoupling the body look/style from the technical aspects? Allowing players to create whatever car model that they want to create, regardless if there is in the game a body that fits visually?
- Sticking with the current mechanic of body look/style tightly connected to it’s technical aspects, can the devs pay more attention to the consistencies and availability of at least a single body for each decade for each layout? For example if we have a nice 2.1m coupe and convertible body for a RR/RMR layout in 1946, can we make sure that there is a replacement for that body in 50s, 60s, 70s, …, 2010s that have monotonic engine bay size (either progressively larger, or at the very least the same size as the previous generation)? Ditto for other combinations. For the campaign gameplay it would be better to have a complete selection through out the whole timeline of fewer layouts/car types, rather then having available all layouts but only for a couple of decades with large time gaps between them.
Speaking of engine bay and engine sizes. Could we create a larger incentive for designing/using a smaller engine, even if body could fit a larger one? Like:
- Add an engine bay size slider. Giving a trade off of growing/shrinking of engine bay size at an expense of growing/shrinking cargo/passenger space.
- Maybe the shorter the engine size compared to the engine bay size, the cheaper weight distribution slider could be with larger effect?
I personally wouldn’t mind such DLCs for an early access game that has already provided me with so many hours of entertainment, but I would guess such moves would be frowned upon.