Help wanted - scenario for beta testing

[belbincolne]

On my first try I refused Big Jim(?)s offer and got run out of town but kept playing on. Since then everything has run more or less as you'd expect in any RT6 scenario and I'm making big money so would expect to be able to make the target eventually. Presumably though I won't be able to get a medal?

[Stoker]

As the scenario exists, the medals are impossible- hence my previous post.

[Hawk]

I downloaded the map and was going to try it, but unfortunately I'm not very good at PNW goals.

[belbincolne]

Well at my 2nd attempt I accepted Big Jims offer and rapidly connected Cicero and Collingwood (large station in Chicago covered all Cicero specifically the warehouse) and the large station in Collingwood covered everything in that area but I was told I hadn't connected and BJ had me shot. Presume that if I'd put a small station right next to Cicero warehouse I might have avoided that but it shouldn't be necessary.

[belbincolne]

On my 3rd (actually 4th as the seeding on 3 was hopeless) I added a small station next to the warehouse and connected to all 3 (not 5) breweries in Collingwood. I got recognition this time and had trains taking custom consist of grain to Coll and alcohol to Cic. As Stoker says its impossible. I let a train go when 5 cars full and that arrived a 2nd with all 8 full set off but didn't arrive so once again I was shot.

I don't understand your ref to cheating Ruth as, in this scenario, its just not possible.

Off to bed now! Freezing outside but not snowing.

[Stoker]

Even if all 13 of loads had made it, you would still have been 87 loads short of the 100 load goal, and after that, you have a 150 load per YEAR goal which is completely unobtainable-by about 140 loads. The cheats Ruth is referring to are the "haulback" cheat and of course "Shift + E" which puts you in Editor mode where you can alter anything, and then go back to playing(the haulback cheat wouldnt help you in this situation- only opening up the scenario and adding a HUGE amount of alcohol on the map would make it possible to win this one as it is now-even then I have my doubts as to whether you could get enough trains(19 of them FULL of alcohol) into the station and unloaded in a years time). I just made a comment about those cheats in my thread, and my feeling is that a scenario should be hard but winnable without cheating-if people want to "cheat" on a video game thats their deal and there is no way to stop them. Making it so that you MUST cheat makes no sense to me.

[belbincolne]

Yes, thats what I'm saying. Maybe the target should be 10 loads and 10 (20?) per year thereafter? Its so long since I made a scenario that I'd have problems changing in Editor myself to test

[Wolverine@MSU]

Well at my 2nd attempt I accepted Big Jims offer and rapidly connected Cicero and Collingwood (large station in Chicago covered all Cicero specifically the warehouse) and the large station in Collingwood covered everything in that area but I was told I hadn't connected and BJ had me shot. Presume that if I'd put a small station right next to Cicero warehouse I might have avoided that but it shouldn't be necessary.

I had the same thing happen and when I looked at the Cicero Warehouse Territory limits in the Editor, I saw that my large station wasn't within the territory. A small station right next to the warehouse did the trick, as you found out.

[Grandma Ruth]

my feeling is that a scenario should be hard but winnable without cheating-if people want to "cheat" on a video game thats their deal and there is no way to stop them. Making it so that you MUST cheat makes no sense to me.

I like that attitude, Stoker. I've been working on the assumption that I'm dealing with devious minds and you either punish them for cheating or take account of the fact that they're going to cheat. You're quite right, I should do neither but just re-write on the basis of people being honest !!!

Which is what I'll do when I get the chance. Too much champagne last night to do anything!

(I'll put in an anti-cheating event, I think, even so. Orange46 showed me how to do one and it's so impressive I can't resist!)

I've made it up to the stock market crash myself by virtue of simply concentrating on making alcohol and shuttling it back and forth between Cicero and Chicago, but I've never been able to get further than that because the company's just not financially sound enough to stand it.

[nedfumpkin]

In all the time that I have been playing RRT3 I have never once used a cheat in the game. I just don't see the point of it. I agree that players who choose to cheat are their own deal, but I never take that into consideration when writing a scenario. I always make sure that the goals I set are in fact achievable before posting it.

I do have to say that I didn't realize that others cheated when they play RRT3.

[JFMarvelous]

The game does claim to simulate real life business,maybe a little too real

[belbincolne]

Neither have I but I do know that its possible if commodity x is required at town A as soon a train load arrives there it is sent on somewhere else and then the train is halted and returned endlessly thus meeting the requirements. I assume this does work but as I've never tried it cant really say. There's many other similiar things to achieve PNW - whether they should be regarded as cheating I've no idea - short selling stock in particular might be regarded as a perfectly normal and legitimate activity (the Bank of England has just told the world they can start doing it again so far as British banks are concerned!). Cheat codes - don't know if there are any for RT3 - are widely available in other games - so far as I'm concerned they're only any use in creating a scenario which, of course, you can do in the Editor in RT3.

[Stoker]

The haulback cheat wont help you meet monetary goals. It will result in a zero profit per hauled back train.

[Hawk]

Cheat codes - don't know if there are any for RT3 -

Cheat codes you ask?

http://hawkdawg.com/rrt/rrt3/hp/h-c.htm

[Grandma Ruth]

Kind of cheating I mean is to do with hauling cargo - when you haul the same trainload back and forth either between stations or you set it off from Station A to Station B, then turn it round back to Station A again. It can only be done with the 1.06 patch as it involves shipping at a loss.

I'm going to re-adjust the goals allowing for only legitimate cargoes that stay where they're put!

Thanks again, guys!

[Stoker]

Hey Ruth, I have been experimenting with warehouses that have extremely high demand only functions, that consume-that is delete from the map- the product as soon as it is unloaded. I have found that a Demand of around 240 does the trick, and it doesn't increase the price a whole lot , as there seems to be a maximum price increase effect around the 10 per year demand range.

[Grandma Ruth]

Wow, I hadn't thought of that. Warehouses are interesting, aren't they? To make one function as a warehouse, i.e. store things, you have to make it "1 demand generates 1 supply" so there's always the same amount there as you haul to it. I hadn't thought of upping the demand to the point where the cargo disappears off the map like that.
My anti-cheat thing is to count net loads hauled, so instead of counting "loads hauled to territory" you count "(loads hauled to territory) - (loads hauled from territory)" -well, it's not my idea but one I've got from Orange46.

[Stoker]

I like the idea of the loads in minus loads out idea. I might just try that in my production zones concept for some of the cargoes. Having Passengers and Troops being consumed at a rapid rate does real strange things to the creation chain for them.

[WPandP]

I didn't think that express loads actually followed the same rules, dwelling on the map until they get "consumed" by the demanding building(s). I thought they were just automatically consumed upon delivery in all cases. Am I wrong about this? I know they don't move overland the way a 0.1 load of coal will crawl towards its demand. The economy map goes gray when you click on express cargo; it doesn't have the same supply-demand overlay that freight does.

So, have you set up a House to demand 240 passengers per year, and are seeing weird effects? What are you seeing?

[Stoker]

I was programming a warehouse as a "Machinery Foundry" in this test, and having 1iron=1Machinery and high demand for Coal,Lumber(for patterns and casting flasks),Passengers, and Crystals(casting mold sand). I then programmed events to count the loads coming in, and increasing the production of Machinery based on the # of loads of required materials, starting from a base of -75% . The weird effect with the passengers is that no passengers are being created for the return trip, and thus that limits the production of passengers to be delivered, by ending the production circle of 1=1 passengers in the houses in each city . I think I have settled on using the idea of setting up events to subtract" loads hauled from " from "loads hauled to"to arrive at the net "hauled to" # .