Two small things, which Eric can maybe try to sneak in for the next small update.
1. The overall rating for cars is still too low IMO, I can barely make it past 30...if pretty much everything about the car is great, the rating should reflect that, shouldn't it? Not sure if this is currently a bug or intended feature. Let me know.
2. I realize that balancing is not a top priority right now, but costs are still all over the place (understandable as the past-1930 years are still new to all of us and not much playtesting has been done). My problem rests primarily with costs associated with engine volumes. Depending on the era (and especially in the later periods) there can be some fairly odd results due to poor costs scaling, such as a 250HP, 3L V6 being just 10% or 20% more expensive then a much smaller 1.5L I4 or something similar, while the V6 still offers comparable economy. Sure, it's a little heavier, but there are not enough drawbacks associated with bigger engines in total. To this end, the costs scaling should be increased (moving the slider further to the right to increase volume should cause the costs to increase exponentially, not linearly). Putting something like an 8L or 9L engine into series production should not be impossible - but it should carry realistic drawbacks. As it is right now, it is almost always better to just produce a fairly large volume engine as the added costs are too little to justify going for a downsized model, which would be more realistic, especially in today's market.
1. The overall rating for cars is still too low IMO, I can barely make it past 30...if pretty much everything about the car is great, the rating should reflect that, shouldn't it? Not sure if this is currently a bug or intended feature. Let me know.
2. I realize that balancing is not a top priority right now, but costs are still all over the place (understandable as the past-1930 years are still new to all of us and not much playtesting has been done). My problem rests primarily with costs associated with engine volumes. Depending on the era (and especially in the later periods) there can be some fairly odd results due to poor costs scaling, such as a 250HP, 3L V6 being just 10% or 20% more expensive then a much smaller 1.5L I4 or something similar, while the V6 still offers comparable economy. Sure, it's a little heavier, but there are not enough drawbacks associated with bigger engines in total. To this end, the costs scaling should be increased (moving the slider further to the right to increase volume should cause the costs to increase exponentially, not linearly). Putting something like an 8L or 9L engine into series production should not be impossible - but it should carry realistic drawbacks. As it is right now, it is almost always better to just produce a fairly large volume engine as the added costs are too little to justify going for a downsized model, which would be more realistic, especially in today's market.