What are your favorite goals?

[YM4472]

I ask this so I (and maybe others) know what goals you like the most. This way I hope I can make scenarios that you would enjoy more because of the goals.

[RulerofRails]

I voted for other. I will elaborate. My favorite maps are those that require doing varied tasks (short-term goals) throughout the game with a story line connecting them. Many of the options listed above (and more) may be used in a single map. Different options and events over that time period that make a player think strategically to make the right choices.

The main goals are the destination, the journey there is more important. I love unique design choices in a map both geographical (territory placement, access, and speed/cost of building effects), industrial (seeding choices), engine choice/cost, and station/rail cost changes. These set the tone of the map and make playing that map a unique experience.

[Hawk]

I was trying to think of the best way to answer this polls question, and then RoR posted and took the words right out of my mouth: Words I didn't even know were in my mouth.
In a nutshell; What he said.

[Gumboots]

Reminds me of an old Digital Underground line: "Well the answer is D: All of the above."

[frk]

I choose "Connect city/terr. a to city/terr. b" and "Haul x certain goods to city/terr.", and, just to use all 3 options, "Industry Profit".

For sure the goel i hate more is Personal Net Worth! I'm simply not good enough for reaching this goal when present, or i'm not interested in all the things i' have to do for increasing my PNW. I simply can't remember a single time in wich i succedded in reaching required PNW! I started to avoid maps wich have PNW in theri goals.

I know the goals i choose as my favourite ones are probably the most "basic" but i really like to lay tracks and to plan trains itinerary. I also like to discover convenient industries or to build them near raw materials sources, but i found some maps are really too much related to industry profit... i remember of some games i had to manage ONLY industries for the whole length of the game, just for build every required connection in the very last year available! That's frustrating, it makes RRT3 a different game from wich it is supposed to be.

I find very challenging and funny to haul certain goods when the goods are not available so i have to study very well which industries to build, and where to build them, and which connection are required to make them working.

Ultimately i can say i like "game freedom" (it is correct in english?), so i don't like goals wich force the player to do only determined things.

[Gumboots]

Hey here's a radical idea. In real life you often have to change tack if things don't work out. So the goals you end up aiming for may be different to the ones you started with. The same could be done in an RT3 scenario.

You could start with set goals, but have random events occurring which may or may not make the original goals impossible. It would have to be coded so that if an event did make the original goals impossible, a path was opened up to new (attainable) goals. So the two would have to be linked in the coding. Something like: If (random event A) then (suitable economy changes A along with new goal A) else if (random event B) then (suitable economy changes B along with new goal B).

Would probably be a marathon to code and test properly, but should be possible in principle.

For sure the goel i hate more is Personal Net Worth! I'm simply not good enough for reaching this goal when present, or i'm not interested in all the things i' have to do for increasing my PNW. I simply can't remember a single time in wich i succedded in reaching required PNW! I started to avoid maps wich have PNW in theri goals.

Have you read this? Gaining Personal Net Wealth (PNW)

[Blackhawk]

Hey here's a radical idea. In real life you often have to change tack if things don't work out. So the goals you end up aiming for may be different to the ones you started with. The same could be done in an RT3 scenario.

You could start with set goals, but have random events occurring which may or may not make the original goals impossible. It would have to be coded so that if an event did make the original goals impossible, a path was opened up to new (attainable) goals. So the two would have to be linked in the coding. Something like: If (random event A) then (suitable economy changes A along with new goal A) else if (random event B) then (suitable economy changes B along with new goal B).

Would probably be a marathon to code and test properly, but should be possible in principle.

I tried a fairly simple attempt at that in my North v South TM map that I never finished. That was a pain to test, course making it a 100 year map also was annoying. That map basically had 2 routes to victory, a shipping goal for a peaceful victory or a shipping goal for a conquest victory. Obviously both shipping goals, but at one point if you fail an early goal the peaceful goals switch to the conquest shipping goal.

While time consuming and having to make sure you cover all the "what if's" it does provide more variation in a scenario and increases the replayability of it.

[frk]

In real life you often have to change tack if things don't work out. So the goals you end up aiming for may be different to the ones you started with. The same could be done in an RT3 scenario.

Well, actually, the reason why i play PC games is to get rid of pains of real life, so i don't really need things in games to go like ones in real life...

All kidding aside, I humbly dislike maps in wich new goals suddenly pop up, but I suppose this is for my limited skills at playing RRT3, while you all are experienced players... consider I play every map at "medium" difficulty

This doesn't mean i want "straightforward" playing, it would be boring. As I said I like freedom in PC games, but it should be to the player to choose different strategies, not due to new instructions.

If you forgive me a little off-topic I would like to give one example regarding GTA3 (hope you know that game): in a mission the player was required to kill a criminal but, when he got close to the man he started to excape and the player had to chase him with unpredictable consequences; I simply went in a near street, climb a building and, from there, shot him with a sniper rifle!

I took this example just for saying that, for me, in a PC game the player should be able to take several directions, even some not expected by the author itself! This could sound similar to what Gumboots expressed, but I think that changing tack due to new goals/instructions is different from having a completely different approach to same goal. Having a pop-up with 2, 3 or more options to choose within, like it happens in many RRT3 maps, is not the same thing.

Have you read this? Gaining Personal Net Wealth (PNW)

Yes, thanks, but I found that I don't have fun in doing all necessary things to raise PNW, it looks to me like a too much constrained way to play. In the end you always have to issue stock, buy stock, change dividends etc. etc. in an almost compulsive way. Most of times I don't reach the goal because i simply forget to do such things every year, cause i'm too busy in "playing"

[obertran]

I would have vote for a couple of options

[RulerofRails]

I agree that TM scenarios in general have some interesting coding. As I understand it, Ned wanted to take the game further and better events and more interesting goals was part of this. Gumboots, you could try the TM campaign scenario "Warrington Wire." See if that is similar to what you are looking for.

I think that credit is due for efforts made. I don't mind if the requirements change throughout a scenario. This means the points system fits in some way with this idea in my mind. If no credit is given from my current efforts, what's the point of trying on the second ... fourth ... twentieth attempts? I will switch toward a linear strategy that is most likely to end up with a good chance of completing the goals further down the road. Most of the time, if you build up a strong, economic company quickly, throwing lots of money at something will complete almost every type of goal quite quickly.

---

Seeing that I mentioned design choices in my last post in this topic, I randomly thought of some recently. I'm happy if someone else wants to use these ideas in his/her map. Please feel free.

1. Use a territory (hidden) for all cities. Make the cost of building industries outside the cities higher. This would discourage the play of planting industries all over the countryside. One could additionally alter the rates of production so that industries produce more efficiently in cities than in the countryside.

2. In 1.06, use some math to necessitate an average delivery revenue per load. Divide revenue, sans industry profits by loads hauled. The player would need to make sure that his trains are consistently above a certain profit level. For example $20k per load.

3. In 1.06, use math to setup events so that industry profits must not exceed rail revenues or the player will get the amount of excess deducted from their company cash. This might help players to use industry more strategically other than for-profit only.

[Gumboots]

Those are good ideas. Carrying on from #3, you could do the penalty in another way. Instead of having an artificial cropping of company cash you could have a gradual reduction in cargo price or in industry production. This would be sneakier, and would also better simulate reduced prices due to overproduction if you want that for a rationale.

[Hawk]

1. Use a territory (hidden) for all cities. Make the cost of building industries outside the cities higher. This would discourage the play of planting industries all over the countryside. One could additionally alter the rates of production so that industries produce more efficiently in cities than in the countryside.

I like this idea, since industry is generally built in, or near cities. Well, actually it was the industry that generally created the city in the early days of the industrial revolution.

2. In 1.06, use some math to necessitate an average delivery revenue per load. Divide revenue, sans industry profits by loads hauled. The player would need to make sure that his trains are consistently above a certain profit level. For example $20k per load.

That would negate the change made in 1.06 to haul at a loss and would kill the idea of setting up trains to haul only a certain resource to help make the industry profitable.

3. In 1.06, use math to setup events so that industry profits must not exceed rail revenues or the player will get the amount of excess deducted from their company cash. This might help players to use industry more strategically other than for-profit only.

Wouldn't that further take away from the railroad tycoon concept and make it more of a mogul tycoon game?

[RulerofRails]

Gumboots, for #3 hitting industry production is a great idea. I don't think I would drop cargo prices because the legitimate rail profits also suffers this way and would make it harder to in turn fulfill the conditions at the end of the current year. I was worried that an industry production reduction wouldn't give enough effect on a small company, but a little effort would enable a higher rate of reduction when the company is smaller. Perhaps this idea would work in 1.05 as well.

Hawk,
The idea of #2 is that the loads must be on average above a certain level of profit. I think 1.06 is likely required because of the maths, not because I am trying to prevent strategically hauling a little cargo at a loss. Of course this idea discourages it. Depending on the level of revenue required, one could still haul a few loads strategically at a loss.

The idea of #3 is to encourage the player to not rely heavily on industry profits. However, industry production is still important. Thankfully, industry production is much easier to control via event than industry profit. The effect on industry production is, in RT3 terms, "reliable."

An example of this idea would be a Steel Mill in an orange price zone. Suppose the price there is $80k less than the max in a normal economy. This means that a train will receive $80k per load (less the loss due to cargo rot while in transit) when hauling Steel to a place of maximum demand. This is a win for rail revenue, and the Steel Mill (not upgraded) might perhaps make $100-$200k profit from producing 8 cars. But you will receive about $500k in freight revenue for hauling that Steel. Another example would be to not build a Furniture/Toy Factory on top of a Lumber Mill, but instead use an existing one in another city. You can receive more freight revenue doing it that way. If rail service is lighter (#2, keep average revenue up) cargo should be more likely to go somewhere useful (the Furniture Factory) than just get re-hauled around the map on endless joy-rides.


When I play, I look for most profitable strategy I can find, but I am mindful of restrictions I put on myself. The ideas here are for the most part restrictions on overall profit available. The idea is to encourage the player to strategize differently. Whether he finds that it's a freshened playstyle or not may depend on if the restrictions undermine the area of the game that is his strength. In any case, who knows whether anything will come of these ideas.

[Gumboots]

2. In 1.06, use some math to necessitate an average delivery revenue per load. Divide revenue, sans industry profits by loads hauled. The player would need to make sure that his trains are consistently above a certain profit level. For example $20k per load.

That would negate the change made in 1.06 to haul at a loss and would kill the idea of setting up trains to haul only a certain resource to help make the industry profitable.

Not really. It just means balancing your industry and rail revenues so rail is greater. Doesn't mean you can't haul at a loss sometimes. Just means you can't do a lot of it with impunity. TBH I rarely use hauling at a loss anyway. I don't think it's as much as a feature as some people think.

3. In 1.06, use math to setup events so that industry profits must not exceed rail revenues or the player will get the amount of excess deducted from their company cash. This might help players to use industry more strategically other than for-profit only.

Wouldn't that further take away from the railroad tycoon concept and make it more of a mogul tycoon game?

Not sure what you're getting at here. I was thinking that by putting the focus more on rail and less on industry it would be entirely in keeping with the railroad tycoon concept.

[Hawk]

Not really. It just means balancing your industry and rail revenues so rail is greater. Doesn't mean you can't haul at a loss sometimes. Just means you can't do a lot of it with impunity. TBH I rarely use hauling at a loss anyway. I don't think it's as much as a feature as some people think.

I don't often use it either, but occasionally it is helpful, at least in my game play style.
But, as RoR said:

Depending on the level of revenue required, one could still haul a few loads strategically at a loss.

so maybe it work still work OK.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I was thinking that by putting the focus more on rail and less on industry it would be entirely in keeping with the railroad tycoon concept.

Maybe I misunderstood what RoR was saying. You two are far more advanced in this game than I am so it probably makes more sense to you two.

[Wolverine@MSU]

I like all three of these ideas. They will tend to take away the unrealistic plopping of industries out in the hinterlands next to a bonanza of raw materials. Now I admit I use this exploit as much as I can; in fact the first thing I do when I start a scenario is to survey the map and look for pockets of commodities that would support (with high ROI) an industry that I can afford right off the bat. Usually these are confined to Lumber Mills, Paper Mills, Textile Mills, Tool & Die Shops, or Distilleries, all of which can be built for $1,600 or less (the amount you can usually amass at the start of the game with a bond and a couple issues of stock). Sometimes there is an industry that's just beginning to be supplied by raw materials that moved during the three years of initialization, so I look for those too because they can usually be bought for way under the build-it-yourself price. So the proposed "restrictions" would certainly make for a more realistic development of self-built industries.

[Gumboots]

Had an idea here, about extending the limits on power generation in the game: viewtopic.php?f=87&t=3900&p=41407#p41407

Probably belongs in this thread rather than the other.

I just had an idea about different forms of power generation in the game. The game has the standard electric plant and nuclear plants locked in. The power output is handled inside the .exe and can't be added to any other buildings AFAIK. So although you could reskin the two default power plants as something else that's about all you can do with them.

<Snipped first idea (not as good)>

Another workaround, which may have simpler coding and wouldn't require any custom industry or building files, and would also save space on the map, would be to not bother about actually showing other forms of power generation in the game. You could just use a similar system to the way purchase of extra track is handled in AoS V (Phoenix Rising). Place one track unit in a given territory, and get an option to "build" one or more "power plants" of a certain type, with the appropriate amount of cash deducted from your company cash and the appropriate amount of "power" added to whatever variable you're using. This should be simple to implement, and effective, with the only downside being a lack of extra eye candy.

I've been thinking this stuff is going to end up being important for contemporary scenarios. The world is going through a revolution in power generation at the moment, and it's not going to stop anytime soon. The RT3 limitation of only two types of power plant is a reflection of the mindset back when the game was coded, and is way out of date these days.

IOW, by using events and variables it should be possible to effectively extend the choice of power plants to include geothermal, wind, solar and hydro as long as you weren't hung up on having the actual eye candy for them. You'd have to assume they were being built outside the boundaries of the map, if you were worried about it.

[Gumboots]

Oh, and another thing worth noting is that lithium is likely to become a major industry this century. This could be an ideal use for 1.06's crystals cargo.

[Cash on Wheels]

Let me connect a city on one side of the map to a city on the other side. While also completeing some side task along the way. The maps where you just try to gain PNW for no reason are no fun. What are are you going to use the money for? Start another lumber business? Multiply railroads that you will lose track of anyways? PNW is only fun if you need to eliminate the competition.

[CeeBee]

I hate PNW... If I wanted to play stock market crap I'd buy a stock market game or play the real one. Most everything else is ok. Some specific cargo hauls suck if the supply/demand isn't right though.