Started by AP, July 25, 2009, 05:57:15 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteI think bridges / tunnels should be cheaper when spanning a height difference of 2, but not for 1, otherwise embankments/cuttings should be cheaper.
QuoteIn reality, many railways were built with substantial embankments, and this ought not be excessively expensive.
Quotepeople would only ever use the artificial slope in the very limited circumstances in which the alter land tool could not be used
Quotethere is no grounding in reality for any such disparity.
Quote$750 is in my opinion far too cheap a cost to alter land - though I see reasoning. Maybe bridge costs need to be put up more
QuoteMaybe bridge costs need to be put up more
Quote from: Maragil on July 30, 2009, 08:20:24 AMAs yet anyway, the 2 bridges we have aren't brilliant
Quote from: wlindley on August 13, 2009, 11:47:46 PMIn the 1920s there is a very limited number of houses and buildings available, so the cities look remarkably monotonic.