I've been toying with the idea of using the 'Great Northern' map for a scenario of the building of the Transcontinental railroad.
Some design ideas:
1) Player starts at both ends (Sacramento and Omaha) and builds until the lines meet. Once union is made, other territories open up (such as building east from Omaha).
2) Player has until 1875 (bronze) 1872 (silver) and 1869 (gold).
3) One corner of the map has 'boxes' which, if track is laid there, allow track purchase, snowsheds, sale of land sections, buy 'Burnettizer' machines.
4) Limited track which must be purchased; buying Burnettizer(s) raises track allotment
5) Player begins with station in Sacramento and station in Omaha. All track must connect. No construction or purchase of industries (including hotels, restaurants and Post Offices).
6) The way it works: you may sell bonds (high interest initially) and issue stock. As the RR reaches certain milestones 'land sections' are added to your 'bank' and a value is set for them. You can sell land for cash, but the longer you wait (and the more you build) the higher the price you can command.
7) Burnettizers were used to squeeze the water out of cottonwood ties and replace it with a zinc solution, which made the ties hard and dry enough to use. The UP suffered more from a lack of good ties; the CP from transport costs, tunneling and from snow.
8 ) Snowsheds add to the maintenance cost of rail in a territory (the Sierras outside Sacramento). No snowsheds = very slow speed in winter in that territory.
9) Add in a few 'events' for Indian attacks, labor disputes, 'hard winter', delivery of troops at milepoints, bridge washouts and such.
This will be a VERY fast scenario, from the Pacific Railroad Bill of 1862 to the driving of the Golden Spike (in 1869 for Gold) and the challenge will be largely financial.
Because it is so short and because it will involve some financial manuevering I'm not sure if anyone (including me) will want to play it. What say you?
If anyone wants to offer criticism of the design, or suggest things I've overlooked, your help will be most appreciated! This is only in the preliminary design stage.
Transcontinental!
Transcontinental!
The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true." - James Branch Cabell
Sounds like a great idea!
I don't see any flaws with the design. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether you can have events affect speed only in a specific territory?
As for the time frame, maybe a little bending of the historical timeline would be permissible for the sake of playability? Starting in 1848, after gold was discovered in California, would be a good year. That would give the player 21 years for Gold, and 27 for Bronze. That might be a lot less hectic.
If territory-boxes serve as "switches" for certain options, you can even allow multiplayer (UP and CP); whereas "choice" events are not possible in multi.
Bottom line is, I would definitely play this one.
Other ideas:
Have several territories along the line (hidden or open), and set all farm & mine production in them to anywhere between 0% and 33% at the start of the game (depending on how far they are from the railhead). As the RR approaches, give f&m production one initial boost to ca. 33%-50% of normal, then increase to 100% by variable annual increments (where a TV internally keeps track of the percentage-point increments, and prohibits triggering of the annual incremental increase, once 100% has been reached).
I don't see any flaws with the design. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether you can have events affect speed only in a specific territory?
As for the time frame, maybe a little bending of the historical timeline would be permissible for the sake of playability? Starting in 1848, after gold was discovered in California, would be a good year. That would give the player 21 years for Gold, and 27 for Bronze. That might be a lot less hectic.
If territory-boxes serve as "switches" for certain options, you can even allow multiplayer (UP and CP); whereas "choice" events are not possible in multi.
Bottom line is, I would definitely play this one.
Other ideas:
Have several territories along the line (hidden or open), and set all farm & mine production in them to anywhere between 0% and 33% at the start of the game (depending on how far they are from the railhead). As the RR approaches, give f&m production one initial boost to ca. 33%-50% of normal, then increase to 100% by variable annual increments (where a TV internally keeps track of the percentage-point increments, and prohibits triggering of the annual incremental increase, once 100% has been reached).
This is an excellent idea for a scenario
All the ideas you have listed above are top notch. Here are a few other concepts you might think about. The labor issue was a problem for both Central and Union Pacific but for different reasons. The Central Pacific had a labor shortage and thus resorted to the famous Chinese track gangs. The track gangs on the Union Pacific were basically a bunch of drunken louts who had to be forced to work under the gun, literally.
You could put a port in SanFranscisco or a warehouse in Sacramento which imports passengers, (i.e. Chinese labor) and then these laborers have to be transported to the end of track in a certain amount to speed up construction. I know you are thinking about troops on the Union Pacific Side. The Union Pacific had problems with water quality for the locomotives due to much of it being alkaline. (This water caused excessive foaming in the boilers-a highly undesirable side effect of bad water.) You could add an event where the Union Pacific has to buy chemical water treatment to maintain normal speed. (Which is what they had to do.) Or else train speed, locomotive maintenance and relability suffer as a consequence.
As all are aware the Central Pacific track gangs set a record of laying 10 miles of track in one day-a record which still stands to this very day. Perhaps you could recreate that in an event. Of course there could also be random events that slow progress such as rock slides-tunnel building accidents-derailments, etc. And don't forget about the good old Credit Mobilea. (I'm sure I spelled that wrong.) These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. I hope you don't mind. :D
You could put a port in SanFranscisco or a warehouse in Sacramento which imports passengers, (i.e. Chinese labor) and then these laborers have to be transported to the end of track in a certain amount to speed up construction. I know you are thinking about troops on the Union Pacific Side. The Union Pacific had problems with water quality for the locomotives due to much of it being alkaline. (This water caused excessive foaming in the boilers-a highly undesirable side effect of bad water.) You could add an event where the Union Pacific has to buy chemical water treatment to maintain normal speed. (Which is what they had to do.) Or else train speed, locomotive maintenance and relability suffer as a consequence.
As all are aware the Central Pacific track gangs set a record of laying 10 miles of track in one day-a record which still stands to this very day. Perhaps you could recreate that in an event. Of course there could also be random events that slow progress such as rock slides-tunnel building accidents-derailments, etc. And don't forget about the good old Credit Mobilea. (I'm sure I spelled that wrong.) These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. I hope you don't mind. :D
Lots of good ideas here!
Lama, I think you can set an event to affect locomotive speed and use the usual company, player and territory filters. Whether this actually works I have not yet verified. :D
I like the idea of having 'switch boxes' for the two railroads. I don't remember who originally invented the idea (someone please remind me!), but it is absolutely brilliant. I stole it for 'Japanese Miracle' and should have used it in 'Great Republic'. For those who don't know what I'm babbling about, the idea is to have a tiny territory (or several of them). Laying a track section in the territory triggers an event. Terrific idea: simple, neat, elegant.
On the time scale, I agree that seven years is really hectic. On the other hand, neither company had laid a rail of track before the Pacific Railroad Bill of June 20, 1862 and the line was finished on May 10, 1869. Allowing a player to start in 1848 begs the question of, what would the player do? A Pacific railroad before 1860 would almost certainly have to follow the southern route. Please understand I am agreeing with you that the seven year time line is too short! But I'm not sure how to justify extending it. Thoughts?
I've never made a MP scenario and would need a lot of help making this one MP capable. My thought was that two railroad companies would require a single player to do a lot of resigning and switching jobs. I was going to go the easy (and unhistoric) route of considering the CP and UP as all one company. Multi-player might have to be a separate version.
I hadn't thought of modifying farm & mine production - that's a great suggestion. I had intended to reduce the initial starting density and ramp up the growth in the first ten years to 7%, giving an explosion of new growth. Farm/mine production could be increased when a station is built; this also gives land sections to the RR.
I think the labor and water problems should be factored into maintenance costs, but there should be events so the player knows why he's bleeding money (
).
The Credit Mobilier scandal wasn't until 1872, and a Gold Victory in 1869 would disable the event. If play continues to that point then the scandal would have a serious impact on your railroad.
Returning to the earlier point, perhaps we could give the player two choices: build it with your own money (and start in say 1855) or get federal money from 1862 on? Allowing the player to purchase/construct industry from the start, but seriously penalizing a player with industrial profits if he accepts federal help in 1862? In other words if you accept the federal land grants you'd have to sell off your industries. If you turn down Uncle Sam's help you could keep your industries.
Or perhaps we should go with a start date of 1862, award points for when the connection is made, and extend play on into the 1890's with medals awarded later? That requires you to run it after you build it, which stressed the UP to bankruptcy.
Thank you all for the excellent ideas - please keep them coming!
Lama, I think you can set an event to affect locomotive speed and use the usual company, player and territory filters. Whether this actually works I have not yet verified. :D
I like the idea of having 'switch boxes' for the two railroads. I don't remember who originally invented the idea (someone please remind me!), but it is absolutely brilliant. I stole it for 'Japanese Miracle' and should have used it in 'Great Republic'. For those who don't know what I'm babbling about, the idea is to have a tiny territory (or several of them). Laying a track section in the territory triggers an event. Terrific idea: simple, neat, elegant.
On the time scale, I agree that seven years is really hectic. On the other hand, neither company had laid a rail of track before the Pacific Railroad Bill of June 20, 1862 and the line was finished on May 10, 1869. Allowing a player to start in 1848 begs the question of, what would the player do? A Pacific railroad before 1860 would almost certainly have to follow the southern route. Please understand I am agreeing with you that the seven year time line is too short! But I'm not sure how to justify extending it. Thoughts?
I've never made a MP scenario and would need a lot of help making this one MP capable. My thought was that two railroad companies would require a single player to do a lot of resigning and switching jobs. I was going to go the easy (and unhistoric) route of considering the CP and UP as all one company. Multi-player might have to be a separate version.
I hadn't thought of modifying farm & mine production - that's a great suggestion. I had intended to reduce the initial starting density and ramp up the growth in the first ten years to 7%, giving an explosion of new growth. Farm/mine production could be increased when a station is built; this also gives land sections to the RR.
I think the labor and water problems should be factored into maintenance costs, but there should be events so the player knows why he's bleeding money (
).The Credit Mobilier scandal wasn't until 1872, and a Gold Victory in 1869 would disable the event. If play continues to that point then the scandal would have a serious impact on your railroad.
Returning to the earlier point, perhaps we could give the player two choices: build it with your own money (and start in say 1855) or get federal money from 1862 on? Allowing the player to purchase/construct industry from the start, but seriously penalizing a player with industrial profits if he accepts federal help in 1862? In other words if you accept the federal land grants you'd have to sell off your industries. If you turn down Uncle Sam's help you could keep your industries. Or perhaps we should go with a start date of 1862, award points for when the connection is made, and extend play on into the 1890's with medals awarded later? That requires you to run it after you build it, which stressed the UP to bankruptcy.Thank you all for the excellent ideas - please keep them coming!
The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true." - James Branch Cabell
Is there any way that you could institute a maximum track allotment? EG have 1 unit of track a day, with a maximum of 100 units at any time? This would emulate the constant track laying the two companies did. Maybe even use two different companies that you could switch back an forth between. You could have yearly options to merge, but doing so would reduce the track allotment?
My current thinking is to have a maximum track allotment per year and allow the player to purchase from that stockpile as needed. The annual allotment represents the number of ties that can be run through the Burnettizer (UP) and shipped west (CP). So at any moment you might have, say, 300 units 'in store'. You would then purchase them (say $250k per hundred, for $750k). THEN you would be allowed to pay for laying the rail. 
These numbers are purely made up, and probably the allotment would come in monthly rather than annually. Making the events fire faster than that would make the game run very slowly and probably not be necessary.
So, you might get (say) 30 units per month. Buying a Burnettizer for $500k would increase that by 10 units per month. Then you'd have to 'buy' the rail, and lay it.
Switching back and forth between the two companies doesn't appeal to me, but I'd be willing to consider it if the consensus among you players is that you want it done that way.
A less complicated way to manage this would be to charge the player a high rate for track and let him lay as much as he has cash to pay for.
These numbers are purely made up, and probably the allotment would come in monthly rather than annually. Making the events fire faster than that would make the game run very slowly and probably not be necessary.
So, you might get (say) 30 units per month. Buying a Burnettizer for $500k would increase that by 10 units per month. Then you'd have to 'buy' the rail, and lay it.
Switching back and forth between the two companies doesn't appeal to me, but I'd be willing to consider it if the consensus among you players is that you want it done that way.
A less complicated way to manage this would be to charge the player a high rate for track and let him lay as much as he has cash to pay for.
The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true." - James Branch Cabell
Here's another thought that isn't a brilliant event idea, but would make the building aspect more enjoyable. I know it would be a tedious task but it would be nice if the route was smoothed somewhat to make track laying more realistic. I'm not saying make it totally level; but to level out the bottoms of the canyons to make an easier grade, except for where a tunnel would be necessary. I think you can set the cost of mountain track building and if the player deviates from the route and builds an exceptionally steep grade, he pays.
I know it works for company, therefore it should work for player, if you define that it affects his company, since a player can't run trains w/o a company. Therefore, it would also work to have it affect only HP or only AI companies, or, if you also want chairmen-less Co.'s to be affected (which are neither, nor!), you'd have to use a negative condition: Co.'s that are Not-HP (includes all AI) or Not-AI (includes all HP), or all Co.'s.EPH wrote:Lama, I think you can set an event to affect locomotive speed and use the usual company, player and territory filters. Whether this actually works I have not yet verified. :D
JayEff first used this in his "Greening the Red Planet", where you could call up the extended tutorial, whenever you placed track in the College Territory.EPH wrote:I like the idea of having 'switch boxes' for the two railroads. I don't remember who originally invented the idea (someone please remind me!).
I borrowed this idea for my "Northeast Corridor," where I used small territories in a corner of the map to serve as an on-off-switch for optional improvement to your railroad.
That, too, was JayEff's idea, likewise in "Greening the Red Planet." That was one hell of a majorly innovative map, in terms of expanding the capabilities of the editor! He also makes use of the residual river cell bug, creating a giant swamp.EPH wrote:I hadn't thought of modifying farm & mine production - that's a great suggestion. I had intended to reduce the initial starting density and ramp up the growth in the first ten years to 7%, giving an explosion of new growth. Farm/mine production could be increased when a station is built; this also gives land sections to the RR.
But the key here is the possibility of having production affected only within specific territories.
The U.S. government was giving money for infrastructural improvement, whenever the Whigs were in charge. Even within Democratic administrations, you get these postmasters general who have been socialized into the Fed. bureaucracy, who happily dish out subsidies to mail carriers, even though the strict Jacksonians, like Thomas Hart Benton, think that the merchants can darn well pay for their own postage, and the "simple farmers and mechanicks, who hardly write one letter a year," should not be made to foot the bill.EPH wrote:On the time scale, I agree that seven years is really hectic. ... A Pacific railroad before 1860 would almost certainly have to follow the southern route. ... But I'm not sure how to justify extending it. Thoughts?
Land grants are out of the question under Democratic presidents, but hefty mail subsidies (multiply mail revenue) are a definite possibility! It's what kept transatlantic steamer companies in business.
You could even have land grants during Whig administrations, and none during Democratic ones. Or lobbying in Congress, to determine the level of mail subsidies. Buy a Senator from a newly admitted state, and you'll make a lot of money. Infinite possibilities, there.
I'd be glad to help! It would be essential to keep your player and company list "clean" - no gratuitous deletions or additions. Then, start-of-scenario events can modify the setup to make the map either MP or SP.EPH wrote:I've never made a MP scenario and would need a lot of help making this one MP capable. ... Multi-player might have to be a separate version.
For playability in SP, definitely one company. But you can still found two companies, one player each. If the map is run in single player, you eliminate player two at startup, and have Company One (HP-owned) confiscate all trains, stations, and track in the territories where Company Two owns any (or confiscate all trains, stations, and track, globally). Finally, eliminate Company Two.EPH wrote:My thought was that two railroad companies would require a single player to do a lot of resigning and switching jobs. ... I was going to go the easy (and unhistoric) route of considering the CP and UP as all one company.
If you define Player Two as human only, anyone playing the scenario in single player mode will never even see that second player, nor his company.
Then it seems to me the only remaining question is the time scale. So far I've heard three suggestions:
1) historical limit of 7 years (gold) to 13 years (bronze)
2) begin in 1857 and allow 25 years to complete the link (player can give up industry for government subsidies)
3) begin in 1862 and allow 20 years including playing on after the link; early defeat if link isn't made but conventional company net worth victory conditions for later years (?)
Any other suggestions? Should we start a new thread and have a poll?
I think this scenario will be relaively easy to do once the time line is set, but I can't go forward until that is done so please voice your opinions!
1) historical limit of 7 years (gold) to 13 years (bronze)
2) begin in 1857 and allow 25 years to complete the link (player can give up industry for government subsidies)
3) begin in 1862 and allow 20 years including playing on after the link; early defeat if link isn't made but conventional company net worth victory conditions for later years (?)
Any other suggestions? Should we start a new thread and have a poll?
I think this scenario will be relaively easy to do once the time line is set, but I can't go forward until that is done so please voice your opinions!
The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true." - James Branch Cabell
I've set up 3 companies and 4 players. One company and player (Central Pacific) go away if the game is Single Player. One company and player is human controlled (Union Pacific) and one player and company represents the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific. The fourth (or third) AI player can start his own company.
Everything works fine except for this: the Union Pacific begins with a stock price of $1 and it is trivial for the human player to buy all 20k shares out of his pocket.
The Rock Island stock is about $50 per share; about average for the start of a game.
Anyone know what I've done wrong and how I can give the UP a decent stock price?
Everything works fine except for this: the Union Pacific begins with a stock price of $1 and it is trivial for the human player to buy all 20k shares out of his pocket.
The Rock Island stock is about $50 per share; about average for the start of a game.
Anyone know what I've done wrong and how I can give the UP a decent stock price?
The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true." - James Branch Cabell
I've noticed that the share price of pre-started companies can get weird (on Isola Nova).
The price shown in the editor is rarely the price you see when the map is actually started! Always start the map as a game, and see how the prices look, then.
Without having figured out an exact cause (though if you build track and take away money from the Co., that seems to do weird things), I solved this by having an AI player that never will show up in the game (mandatory, but disabled at game start) buy or sell as much stock as necessary with each company to arrive at a decent price when you start the map. Disabling the player also eliminates his stock holdings, without affecting the price.
Another trick might be to give the Co. money in the editor, and reset its cash with an event at the start of the game.
The price shown in the editor is rarely the price you see when the map is actually started! Always start the map as a game, and see how the prices look, then.
Without having figured out an exact cause (though if you build track and take away money from the Co., that seems to do weird things), I solved this by having an AI player that never will show up in the game (mandatory, but disabled at game start) buy or sell as much stock as necessary with each company to arrive at a decent price when you start the map. Disabling the player also eliminates his stock holdings, without affecting the price.
Another trick might be to give the Co. money in the editor, and reset its cash with an event at the start of the game.
Unless I misunderstand what you‘re saying, this is not a good idea! If you make a scenario from a map that has been played, you'll be stuck with tons of clutter from the initial seeding, in terms of buildings and goods!wsherrick wrote:Another idea would be to start the game on pause while in the editor give the Union Pacific some money; issue some stock and then buy it all back. Always remember to save, of course :D
If you need an event to trigger in a map while you are editing it, select the "whenever track is placed"-trigger, and place track. That way, you don't allow time to pass on your map (which can lead to industries popping up).