Just would like to explain what I had in mind and perhaps we can discuss this a bit more.
What is the issue?
The crux of my issue with railroad companies owning industries is that normally railroad companies do not own companies they service. Now I am sure there are perhaps exceptions like originally the CPR building/operating hotels in the Canadian Rockies to increase passenger travel. Those hotels are, for some time now, not owned by the railroad as such anymore but are like the railroad company itself, part of a larger company. However, generally speaking in real life it does not make financial sense to have a railroad company directly own other none related industries.
If in a game it becomes a requirement to build/buy an industry to even just be able to create a winning game then, I feel, there is a misuse of why a railroad company is started for in the first place. In other words you do not incorporate a railroad company to operate a steel mill as an example.
I do not necessarily mind acquiring wealth first before starting a railroad company but frankly I find it a waste of time. I would much rather see sufficient cash given to start a railroad company to start out with since, after all, RT3 is a railroad game.
How it might be implemented:
Since apparently it is too time consuming or complicated to generate a totally separate asset owning player the alternative is to use one of the normal available companies for that purpose. This company will not be allowed to run a railroad but is allowed to purchase/build industries. Those industries are being build/purchased at normal game costs. It might just be setup that at the start of the game you own that company and all your cash is in that company. This company however is 100% owned by you to start out with.
One of the issues needing to be resolved is how one can share the chairmanship between two companies without having to lose it from one company. Another issue is deciding if the company setup for industries only remains a company with shares available for trading or simply stays 100% player owned. I lean toward none of the shares available for trading.
Expected outcome:
The operation of a more real life railroad/industry environment would be the biggest beneficiary. Industrial profits end up in your personal pocket and not in the pockets of the other shareholders through dividends. Railroad funds are invested in direct railroading activities only. It will also add to the Tycoon flavor since there will be added activities in the financial aspects of the game i.e. how will I raise cash to purchase an industry – sell shares? Increase dividends? In which company?
Further future development:
Find a way of sharing cash between the two companies besides that gained by share trading or dividend activities. Check the possibility of personal bonds. (So, what is wrong with an interest free loan from my 100% owned Railroad Company anyhow?)
Be able to own several such industrial companies.
Proposed changes/additions – Industrial Companies.
Proposed changes/additions – Industrial Companies.
The man who has no imagination has no wings. (Muhammad Ali)
Just my personal two cents: I don't mind having one company that operates a railroad and also owns many industrial buildings. Sure it's not exactly like real life, but look at it the other way: if the game were designed as a railroad-only game, I can guarantee that there would be people on a forum somewhere saying "is there a way we could buy industry buildings? That would make a great patch!"
:)
:)
In terms of realism, you do get both models:
First, there is a model of "vertical integration," a company that owns the entire chain of production and distribution, like Standard Oil (oil fields, refineries, tanker cars, gas stations).
Second, you get a more Tycoon-like situation where the owner of the company also dabbles in related business activities.
Example: H. H. Meier, the director and largest shareholder of the Northern German Lloyd steamship company in the nineteenth century, owned coal mines (fuel) and a brewery (catering) that did very well b/c he got the steamer line to buy their products from them. By all accounts, the beer tasted rotten, but he was the director.
At some point in history, the tycoon-owner becomes an anachronism. He is replaced by a board of dircetors, who run the company for an anonymous mass of shareholders.
I would like to be able to simulate both models.
First, there is a model of "vertical integration," a company that owns the entire chain of production and distribution, like Standard Oil (oil fields, refineries, tanker cars, gas stations).
Second, you get a more Tycoon-like situation where the owner of the company also dabbles in related business activities.
Example: H. H. Meier, the director and largest shareholder of the Northern German Lloyd steamship company in the nineteenth century, owned coal mines (fuel) and a brewery (catering) that did very well b/c he got the steamer line to buy their products from them. By all accounts, the beer tasted rotten, but he was the director.
At some point in history, the tycoon-owner becomes an anachronism. He is replaced by a board of dircetors, who run the company for an anonymous mass of shareholders.
I would like to be able to simulate both models.
I'm with JSS on this one. One of the 1.07 items involves splitting access rights into build industry/buy industry/run rails; I think with this it becomes possible to construct industry-only companies for both AIs and players, and to script which players have access to which types of company. Combine that with another project, that of letting the player make decisions for any company he owns 51% of, and I think JSS gets everything he wants.
Incidentally, one of the things I want to fix on the AI is to try taking out the restriction of buying industry only in November. I suspect that was an artificial limit put in to keep the AI from buying nothing but industry, so it'll have to wait for the rest of the AI fixes.
Incidentally, one of the things I want to fix on the AI is to try taking out the restriction of buying industry only in November. I suspect that was an artificial limit put in to keep the AI from buying nothing but industry, so it'll have to wait for the rest of the AI fixes.
-
Grandma Ruth
- CEO
- Posts: 1237
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:17 am
- Location: West Yorkshire, England
- Contact:
I hope I'm not going astray with this - maybe this should be a separate thread. You can at the moment switch about between the companies you own 51% of, but it's what the AI does with the company that now has no chairman that's the problem. If you had an "industry-only" company in the present game, presumably the AI would start busily building rails as soon as you switched over to another company. So are you saying we want more control over what the AI does, not just as players, but on those occasions when the AI is running a company without a chairman??
Am I making sense?
Am I making sense?
canis39, I would have no issue with the ability of railroads being able to purchase industries as well. It should not be one or the other but rather a choice of being able to have private ownership in addition to.
Lama, in the vertical integration model with Standard Oil as an example. I believe the situation is a bit different. There the base product was oil and the company owned/controlled all aspects of the product. To apply this to a railroad company it would be like saying that CPR ships grain or potash therefore they ought to/should own all grain farms or potash mines.
However, there still is/might be some vertical integration in a railroad company. CP also owns a trucking company that also handles the containers delivered by rail but again, it is a separate company on not part of CP Rail the way I understand it.
Grandma Ruth, Industries are often bought early on while they are still inexpensive. At those times one might not yet be the majority shareholder of a company (or is it owner of the majority of shares?). Hence, in order not to lose the chairmanship in the railroad company when switching “companies†one will need to be able to find a way to do so without incurring the normal consequences.
I am not sure how that is done best. It could be that one never has to give up the chairmanship to transfer. The “private†company can also have everything disabled so that the A.I. will not be able to do anything. Whichever is easier to implement is fine with me.
Lama, in the vertical integration model with Standard Oil as an example. I believe the situation is a bit different. There the base product was oil and the company owned/controlled all aspects of the product. To apply this to a railroad company it would be like saying that CPR ships grain or potash therefore they ought to/should own all grain farms or potash mines.
However, there still is/might be some vertical integration in a railroad company. CP also owns a trucking company that also handles the containers delivered by rail but again, it is a separate company on not part of CP Rail the way I understand it.
Grandma Ruth, Industries are often bought early on while they are still inexpensive. At those times one might not yet be the majority shareholder of a company (or is it owner of the majority of shares?). Hence, in order not to lose the chairmanship in the railroad company when switching “companies†one will need to be able to find a way to do so without incurring the normal consequences.
I am not sure how that is done best. It could be that one never has to give up the chairmanship to transfer. The “private†company can also have everything disabled so that the A.I. will not be able to do anything. Whichever is easier to implement is fine with me.
The man who has no imagination has no wings. (Muhammad Ali)
One way, presently available, of restricting a company to buying industry would be to have a "restricted track" scenario, and giving that company no track allowance.
You could even give it an incentive for buying industry by making it cheaper for them to do so (you can apply those things to one particular company, only)
You could even give it an incentive for buying industry by making it cheaper for them to do so (you can apply those things to one particular company, only)