A Few Important Questions

[Firefly 2-2-2]

1 - How do I win Gold in the Southeast USA Scenario? I suppose I could say, how to lay 5000 miles of track in just 15 years? That's a hell of a challenge! If you ever got the Gold there, tell me how you did.

2 - How do I start in the PopTop Mexico map? There's no industry, literally nothing zip zilch nada.

3 - Do I issue stock, or do I not? I say this because as my CBV improves, having too much stock will dilute the value too much. But there are downsides, perhaps? Sometimes the money helps. Anyway the 2010 handbook to RT provides clear guidelines, but I still would like to hear your input.

4 - As for station - train routing: I've read in the 2010 guidebook that you can use hub & spoke, but also daisy chain and others. I use hub and spoke, with perhaps 4-6 spokes per hub. Do you use daisy chain?

The question besides that is: what makes a city grow? I've seen well developed hubs shrinking over time, but I've also read that bringing in lots of goods will speed up growth. I'm not sure how exactly that works.

[RulerofRails]

1. You aren't earning enough money to build the track? There's serious bank to be made by hauling cargoes from areas of high supply. Cliff made a good post in the topic for this map.

2. Build some industry. A Tool and Die on top of a stack of Iron in the mountains somewhere. Check Gumboots' post for more detail.

3. I generally avoid issuing stock for extra challenge. That said, if there is no PNW requirement (also may need PNW to execute mergers), I don't think there is a bad consequence even if price collapses. If you need some PNW (but not max), you might still do a couple prudently. An idea of prudent use would be if you need a little cash for a Dairy Farm that just appeared on the map. Buy it now for $400k, later will be $1M+.

4. There is no right method. Following is my thinking: The layout of the cities on the map, geography (especially mountains and rivers) and economy (where are the resources versus the industries) will tend to come into play when deciding. I would say the most common is a simple linear method, this follows with demand which creates price differentials (as seen on the heat map) radiating uniformly outward. But there are often a couple places on the typical map where hub-and-spoke works well. Large city, towards the center of the map normally. Build a Hotel in such a city and it will be a hive for passenger/mail transport.

City growth. Nobody found a specific formula. My assumption is that it's based on train service frequency or traffic volume or a combination of both. Please note that industries are evaluated on their own, so if an industry disappeared it was more likely due to it being unprofitable for a good many years than to do with a shrinking city. Overall growth on a map is controlled in the editor via some global settings. It's possible to set negative values, but I don't even remember seeing a map that used them. The general consensus I believe is that more disappearing industries (profitable ones will disappear too) is more annoying than positive for gameplay.

[TheBonobo4]

South East USA was one of my first videos on RT3, I got gold on expert so may be watch that for tips, I don't remember it being that difficult but I haven't played it since then.

[Firefly 2-2-2]

I'll watch it, theBonobo4! Yes your videos are great. I can get the Silver there, but not the Gold. I prefer playing Europe, Asia and Latin America maps BTW .

[TheBonobo4]

I'll watch it, theBonobo4! Yes your videos are great. I can get the Silver there, but not the Gold. I prefer playing Europe, Asia and Latin America maps BTW .

Thanks for the kind words! I've got another scenario I need to finish recording and then upload, so expect that in a few days hopefully.

I don't really have a favourite type of map, I enjoy maps that make me think and are a challenge but not so hard I can't even get bronze or silver. Generally for recording I like to get silver on expert, since bronze is like bare minimum pass, silver feels like a good job and gold on expert to me is fantastic. I do like maps with lakes, forests and mountains though if possible, and steam is always a plus, but I do like electrics, I rarely use diesels for some reason, I should probably use them more often, especially post 1950. And of course I like it if the map follows history somewhat, or has plenty of events and a bit of choice.

[Firefly 2-2-2]

Generally speaking, if you're playing Europe World, electrics far outmatch diesels in cost effectiveness, reliability, speed, pulling power and so on, especially after 1950. In America though, there are some powerful diesel choices.

[TheBonobo4]

Generally speaking, if you're playing Europe World, electrics far outmatch diesels in cost effectiveness, reliability, speed, pulling power and so on, especially after 1950. In America though, there are some powerful diesel choices.

Accurate, diesels are highly prominent in north America and electrics in Europe. Though in general I'm not as big a fan of modern maps as before 1950 ones.

[Firefly 2-2-2]

1. You aren't earning enough money to build the track? There's serious bank to be made by hauling cargoes from areas of high supply. Cliff made a good post in the topic for this map.

2. Build some industry. A Tool and Die on top of a stack of Iron in the mountains somewhere. Check Gumboots' post for more detail.

3. I generally avoid issuing stock for extra challenge. That said, if there is no PNW requirement (also may need PNW to execute mergers), I don't think there is a bad consequence even if price collapses. If you need some PNW (but not max), you might still do a couple prudently. An idea of prudent use would be if you need a little cash for a Dairy Farm that just appeared on the map. Buy it now for $400k, later will be $1M+.

4. There is no right method. Following is my thinking: The layout of the cities on the map, geography (especially mountains and rivers) and economy (where are the resources versus the industries) will tend to come into play when deciding. I would say the most common is a simple linear method, this follows with demand which creates price differentials (as seen on the heat map) radiating uniformly outward. But there are often a couple places on the typical map where hub-and-spoke works well. Large city, towards the center of the map normally. Build a Hotel in such a city and it will be a hive for passenger/mail transport.

City growth. Nobody found a specific formula. My assumption is that it's based on train service frequency or traffic volume or a combination of both. Please note that industries are evaluated on their own, so if an industry disappeared it was more likely due to it being unprofitable for a good many years than to do with a shrinking city. Overall growth on a map is controlled in the editor via some global settings. It's possible to set negative values, but I don't even remember seeing a map that used them. The general consensus I believe is that more disappearing industries (profitable ones will disappear too) is more annoying than positive for gameplay.

Thanks for your input, RoR!

[Gumboots]

3 - Do I issue stock, or do I not? I say this because as my CBV improves, having too much stock will dilute the value too much. But there are downsides, perhaps? Sometimes the money helps. Anyway the 2010 handbook to RT provides clear guidelines, but I still would like to hear your input.

Issuing stock is fine, as long as it won't stop you getting a PNW or merger goal. In a basic connect-and-haul scenario you can issue as much stock as you like, and doing so will boost CBV due to the extra company cash that becomes available. It's rare to be in a situation where the price per share is a limiting factor (obvious cases would be where issuing more stock would make you vulnerable to a margin call, or if the scenario was scripted so that stock price had to be above a certain value).

The 2010 handbook is a good general guide, but don't assume it's infallible in every situation.

[low_grade]

I'll watch it, theBonobo4! Yes your videos are great. I can get the Silver there, but not the Gold. I prefer playing Europe, Asia and Latin America maps BTW .

Try my Chile map, not perfect, but my best effort. My Ecuador map is terribly painted, but kinda fun, too.

And for routing, I don't like routing between two neighboring cities exclusively, A-B. I like A-B-C-B or A-B-C-D-C-B. And between two chains, I'll frequently run a "jumper", So I have A-B-C-B, C-D-E-F-E-D and a duplicate basically F-E-D-C-D-E, and then I'll run a jumper from A-F. Sometimes I'll route A-B-C and A-C-B, but that's probably not the most efficient on most maps. You make the most money by hauling short, not trying to cross the map constantly.

[undertoad]

And for routing, I don't like routing between two neighboring cities exclusively, A-B. I like A-B-C-B or A-B-C-D-C-B. And between two chains, I'll frequently run a "jumper", So I have A-B-C-B, C-D-E-F-E-D and a duplicate basically F-E-D-C-D-E, and then I'll run a jumper from A-F. Sometimes I'll route A-B-C and A-C-B, but that's probably not the most efficient on most maps. You make the most money by hauling short, not trying to cross the map constantly.

I agree completely with the "jumper" idea. The price mechanism in RRT3 is very sophisticated, but it sometimes makes weird effects.

Take low_grade's cities ABCDEF in a chain. You can have a whole load of Meat sitting in A, which people in F (or even E, D, C or B) are crying out for with a +$30 price difference. But if the people in B don't want Meat, an A-B-[C, D, or anywhere] train simply won't pick it up, because the first stop won't make a profit. To get that meat moving, you have to schedule a train with a first stop where it'll make a profit. This is where a "jumper" comes into its own.

You'd think that the people at station B would figure out "if we shift meat to here, C where they're desperate for it is the next stop down the line", and increase the price at B. To some extent RRT3 does adjust the price according to rail connections in this way - but like many things in RRT3, it works... but not all the time...

I generally make these "jumpers" into what I call "floaters". [The language here is getting a bit weird... ]. Most of my trains follow fixed routes, with maintenance stops included, because that means I can leave them alone to do their thing. "Floaters" are the exception. They're trains that hang about at a busy station or somewhere on the core network until there's something like a weird price-difference spike they can exploit (often caused by a "hole" of this kind in RRT3's economic logic). Then I can set them to a one-off route to fill a gap in the normal schedule. Means that I always have to check what's happening when they arrive somewhere, and reroute them to the next opportunity. But with 1-5 "floaters" to attend to, I can forget about the other trains (until something goes wrong), and it's not too much hard work. Giving them a strange name (e.g. starting with _) helps.

The other thing to consider with a hub'n'spoke network, on a large map, is that there's no way to expand a busy hub station beyond 2 tracks. About the first modification I'd make to RRT3 if I could recode it! Hubs are a great way to easily manage your economy, especially if they have a large population or even a Harbour or two. Goods will always be in demand there, so they'll end up there and you can then see how your trains are doing distributing them by just clicking on one station. But after a while (I admit I like playing a map to death beyond the medal conditions) the congestion at a hub station gets ridiculous - queues of 2-3 trains just waiting to get into the station.

[Gumboots]

One thing I like to do with "floaters" (yes, unfortunate choice of name and we should think of another one ) is to set them to something they can't possibly pick up at their destination. On most maps a good example is something like an 8 cars minimum for Weapons. It will be impossible to find at most stations.

This is not the initial load, of course. The initial load will be whatever is giving the best price. The impossible consist is so any train set to that will automatically sit around waiting for you to re-route it after it drops its initial load. This is handy because it means you don't have to be totally on the ball when handling such trains. They won't go wild on you while you're not looking. You can let them run and then sort them out when it suits you, after they have arrived at their destination.

[undertoad]

Nice idea! That way, the "floaters" (maybe we could call them "wanderers" or "rovers"?) will end up stuck at the destination station: the "waiting for more cargo" caption will make them stick out clearly in the train list.

The one disadvantage I can see is because of the strange way RRT reacts to consist/routing changes. Your train is sitting there ready and waiting at the "station central stopping point" (that point towards which lucrative trains crawl agonisingly slowly when you're short of cash). You change the consist or route: the train does a kind of Philadelphia Experiment, rematerialising just a little way away, and starting to crawl back to the station it was already sitting at. As an empty train, it has lowest priority (though you could fix this by making it Express), and gets interrupted by every other train that comes through. If you're unlucky, by the time it gets back to the loading point the nice $$$$$-ful things you asked it to pick up are gone...

(I may have misremembered this, in that it might only happen with routing rather than consist changes).

Can you tell that station congestion in RRT3 drives me nuts?

[Gumboots]

Sure, it's not perfect, but if the train picks up something useless while you're not looking and runs away again, that's not perfect either. Plus you have options like game pause, and temporarily stopping other locomotives if necessary. Or, in a pinch, if the available cargo is lucrative enough it's often worth just buying a new locomotive on the spot.

With congestion, I sometimes put two large stations right next to each other on the same track. They won't develop any significant price differences between them, but they effectively double the capacity since trains from one direction won't interfere with trains from the opposite direction.

Or, large stations spaced a short distance apart can be very useful too. Three in a large city can have a couple of low priority cheap locos, on short consists, running on opposite loops between them. All the long distance traffic comes to the main three stations, and traffic between them is only the couple of low priority locos. I'll also happily build bypasses for long distance trains. I hate congestion too.

[low_grade]

I'm ambivalent on congestion, as with high speed/accel locos. There's only so much cargo, and sometimes it's more efficient/better rate of return by going with lots of slow, cheap to run locos (Camelback, ahem...) H10's too, and 2-D-2's. Usually I'll double track around stations, but not always. I almost never use two stations for a city, though I also regularly build bypasses for through traffic. Still, I don't feel like I get much congestion. Usually no more than 8 or so locos will be routed to/through a hub station, and a few of them probably long routes. Well, in plays where I start copying locos to capture profit I'm leaving on the table, I may get up to 16 probably on occasion, but again, then like 6 on long routes stopping about once a year, and 8 or 10 maybe going local, stopping back twice a year for sure (in the 1900-1950 era, say, slower in earlier eras, more frequent in later eras.) Station stops are about a month? So I'd have 24ish stops a year, so two trains at station at a time, on average. That doesn't sound like congestion to me, though with bad timing I can see where you might get 3 or 4 locos coming in at once and getting jammed up. Am I running too few locos?

In many but not all plays I'll have, for some period of time, some trains that I watch and route manually. In some resource-poor maps, I might pause the game every time I hear ching-ching and decide what to do next for every loco I have for many years, though rarely if ever an entire game. In this sense, train-watching is tedious, ugh. But, if I tell the train to load from its destination with 8 loads of something impossible before setting out, then I don't have to watch the train arrivals at all, and can just check through the renamed locos every few months, brilliant! Don't know why I never thought of that... But in many games I'll still run all set routes, I'm just lazy that way.

[Gumboots]

Bear in mind that I've been playing with my custom cargo cars, so trains can be up to twice the length of default trains. This makes a big difference when playing something like Latvia, where you have a large haulage target to one city. It adds to to congestion, because there's often no way for trains to get clear of each other. In situations like this, double track and multiple stations is a great benefit to traffic flow.

It also looks cool.

[RulerofRails]

I agree completely with the "jumper" idea. The price mechanism in RRT3 is very sophisticated, but it sometimes makes weird effects.

Seeing you are trying to understand this and I have thought about it a lot, I can share an idea or two at least how it is in my rationale.

According to the wikipedia entry for the game: we have a "gradient of a scalar field representing price, where supply and demand sites function as sources and sinks."

This would be pretty simple if we had a straight line of evenly spaced cities A-B-C-D. A-B-C-D-B-C service will distribute fine (except for a little modification thanks to terrain, rivers etc.). There will be some waiting times for demand recovery (where the goods are sitting waiting for price to depress) and perhaps some easing of "price island" locks, but it's a working system and you wont see major spikes.

But here we start to add layers of complication to arrive at reality.


1a. Cities are not arranged according to a pattern. It's possible sometimes to plan "straight" even though the reality is a little zig-zag.
b. Nor are they the same size. Geographical accuracy is of course important for realism.


2. We don't just need to distribute. Especially in a no-indy game, there will be few consumer products to haul if we don't feed factories with resources. We are in charge of getting resources to feed as many existing factories as possible. This will mean some longer D-A hauls. It's a balance, but I prefer to do such a haul as A-B-C-D. This keeps nearer an ideal system.


3. The waiting mechanism is fine if cargo is sitting in that station. Afterwards the local price will definitely be low and we will get a nice value haul. (That was one thing that took my play to the next level: learning to wait.)

But in the reality of a typical network, quite often a different train takes the cargo away when the waiting is in progress. That's fine if it was headed to the next stop in our ideal pattern, but if it was to somewhere else the price will stay lower than it should. It wont be that low but we will lose even progression along an ideal line such as A-B-C-D. One of the legs might stick for awhile at near-equal price such as price at B = that at C.


You might say, I just want to have fun. Sure! However, I believe that the theory of straight line and stops while using Hotels is good for express too. In this case we want runs between big cities though.


In practice I do look for straight lines. Purely for distribution I would find say a Large Brewery then have a straight line away from it. Of course this is compromised if there are other Breweries around. The best is to strike into an area without any supply of that cargo. There are many cargoes, maybe there's Meat too and it's ideal distribution will of course be different. It's a balance of all types produced in that area.

Then you throw in balancing what express needs and what resources need (especially in no-indy games). Then a dab of frequency of service and there we have a game!


Summary:
Work with the system closely enough (that means limitations on how you play) and you can avoid a lot of these type of "jumper" runs. Most of the time the need for them in an established system can be at least greatly reduced with calculated design.

There is always a place for special setups:
However, I must mention hauling stacks off one sink where price is depressed to another. This could be resources like Livestock on a Meat Packer or non-consumer cargoes like Steel at a Tool and Die or Weapons off a Barracks. These are high value opportunities but they occur so infrequently that I don't bother trying to avoid special train setups.

Then of course there's expansion phase. Often during this time I do not rely on automatic, even distribution, but rather concentrate distribution on virgin newly-connected cities. Aka stacking.

PS. low_grade, station load/unload time varies with the year. The limit on congestion is not how many locos are using the station, but rather the time it takes for one to clear the station on departure. For me, unless it's a map with horribly high resource density, congestion is rarely a concern with the default cars.

[LYL]

Why my RT3 industrial facilities are profitable, but the company's cash has been decreasing, I am very confused!

[crtty]

Why my RT3 industrial facilities are profitable, but the company's cash has been decreasing, I am very confused!

How much debt do your company owe now? Issue bunds means you'll need to pay interests, while more debts means more interests need to be paid. Press hotkey "i" to see how much interest you paid.