Latvian Republic 1920

[Grandma Ruth]

I can't remember if we ever made any scenarios to concentrate on building particular industries, might be an interesting exercise. I just thought of something else IRL that is a bit similar but the opposite of this. I heard somewhere that the early railways invented amusement parks and, in fact, seaside resorts generally, to attract passenger traffic. So the amusement parks were owned by the rail company and operated at a loss so the trains could make a profit. I think it was Coney Island.
Hmmm....

[Gumboots]

I have heard that story before. But then if the passengers are only there because of the parks, are the parks actually making a loss? Seems to be that the trains might have been making a loss before being rescued by the parks, and the parks were the money spinner. Depends how you want to look at it. The main thing is that overall profits improved, which is the proverbial bottom line.

I remember having a somewhat similar discussion about mining railways. My argument was that the railway wasn't an asset as such for a mining company. It was just a cost of doing business. They couldn't teleport their product to market, so they had to run a railway, but obviously that will chew into their profits, so it's hard to call the railway "profitable" in that situation.

[Hawk]

God forbid we should get into politics or Hawk will be ...

You seem to forget, this isn't my place anymore. It's now up to Gumboots.

[Grandma Ruth]

It'll always be your place, Hawk. Respect to Gumboots who's doing a great job, but you will ever be the Big Dawg.

[Gumboots]

I'm ok with that. My instincts are to be considerably looser in style*, but I also think that people who already felt at home here should continue to, so generally I'll be keeping much the same policies.

*This has already led to the old "Oh dear**, I'm admin now. I'll have to behave myself."

**Not the word I actually thought...

[Grandma Ruth]

I think that's right. This forum has its own particular charm due to the way Hawk has run it in the past. It's safe, not like Twitter or other SoMe platforms where you're liable to get all kinds of abuse. I came off Twitter a long time ago and though I'm on Facebook I've made my profile as anonymous as I can get. I only need to be there to look after my community association page.

[Gumboots]

Yep. TBH I get more than enough politics and hard core discussion on other venues. This joint should stay more relaxed.

[Hawk]

It'll always be your place, Hawk. Respect to Gumboots who's doing a great job, but you will ever be the Big Dawg.

for the kind words Ruth.

[Grandma Ruth]

Having said that, the absolutely best discussion I ever had about the Iraq war was on here. Because it's not an overtly political place and because we all liked and trusted each other, we were able to talk about it like we were all together in the pub, no particular axe to grind, just sharing our thoughts. But we are getting seriously off-topic now, Mr Administrator, sir!

[Gumboots]

You've got me thinking now (always leads to trouble). Given that Latvia did end up with quite a decent electronics industry, as well as some other fancy pants stuff, any revamped Baltic states scenario should probably include that among the goals. This could be an interesting scripting challenge for me, as it would probably still have to be largely based on haulage but would also have to work around 1.06's less desirable aspects.* The bright side is that I would also have scope for using 1.06's extra scripting abilities.

I must admit that I generally tend to avoid 1.06 a bit, because 1.05 feels more like a finished game and 1.06 feels more like (as someone once put it) half a good idea.** Deliberately working with 1.06 for a change could be worthwhile.

*One obvious dodge that springs to mind: have some quotas based on revenue rather than loads (something I used to some extent in the existing map) and have other quotas based on production rather than haulage. You can't cheat those with haul-at-a-loss.

**Come to think of it, this would be partly down to the mind-boggling gruesomeness of the (ahem) 1.06 locos. I likes me choofers, I does. Playing 1.06 would also give me more of an incentive to finish fixing those.

---

Speaking of choofers, I managed to track down most of what was run in the Baltic states during this period. It's quite the mix.

Some of these are rather obscure, so tracking them down required sleuthing on non-English sites. I'm learning to recognise all sorts of odd words in various languages (the Estonian for choofer turns out to be "auruvedur") and even the Cyrillic alphabet is starting to make sense.

Leaving the narrow gauge stuff out of it, in the interest of sanity, Latvia had these:
An Class: Appears to be a catch-all class for inherited 4-4-0's (Prussian P4.2 & S5.2, Swiss A 2/4, Bavarian B XI).
Mn Class: This is just the Latvian name for the Prussian G4.1 0-6-0 (which is already in 1.06).
Pn Class: The Prussian G5.4 (a freight Mogul).
Sn Class: Various models of Prussian G7.x 0-8-0 and 2-8-0 freight grunters.
Tn Class: Another Prussian, but a 0-6-2T this time (the T9.2).

All of the above are standard gauge units, and were mostly swapped with Lithuania. Lithuania ran standard gauge but had been given some Russian gauge units, and Latvia ran Russian gauge but had been given some standard gauge units, so they did the sensible thing and swapped the ones they didn't want for ones that were suited to their systems. Of the Russian gauge units, Latvia had:

Ak Class: 4-6-0 compound, which I think is a Russian Class Ж/Zh variant.
Bk Class: 2-6-0 compound, the Russian Class H/N.
Cks Class: 2-6-2 simple, the Russian Class C/S (which is already in 1.06).
Ckb Class: 2-6-0 simple, the Russian Class Б/B.
Dk Class: 2-8-0, which I think is the Finnish Tv1 "Jumbo".
Pk Class: 0-8-0 compound, Russian Class Oh.
Pkp Class: 0-8-0 simple, Russian Class On (a development of the Oh).

The next bunch are interesting.
Bt Class and Pt Class: Both were 2-4-2T, with identical specs, except that the Bt had 1.72m (68") drivers while the Pt 96 had 1.40m (55") drivers. I haven't been able to find any drawings or photos of these yet, or many details about them, but I strongly suspect they were the prototypes for...

Ct Class and Rt Class: Both of these were 2-6-2T, and both of these were again identical apart from the driving wheel sizes, which they shared with the Bt and Pt classes (ie: 1.72m and 1.40m). The idea behind these two classes was that by changing wheel sizes they would have units that were useful for either suburban passenger work or shunting in the yards, with the obvious benefit of only having to stock parts for one model.

Given the similarities with the Bt and Pt classes it seems clear that those were the first implementation of the concept, with the Ct and Rt classes being ordered later when more power was thought to be required (the Ct and Rt were built to order, not inherited). I have found pictures and a drawing of the Ct/Rt. Funnily enough, one picture of a Ct is on the Fablok site (Polish builders, still in business) but is mislabeled as a Bt (engine number is wrong for Bt, but matches Ct). Which has me wondering if Fablok also built the Bt/Pt units and might have something hiding in their archives. Anyway...

The next lot are really weird.
Tk Class: A tiny, and very odd-looking, 2-2-2T. Again, built to a special order. The idea behind them was to handle pax traffic on minor routes, where consists would be only 2 or 3 carriages.

This is the sort of job that a lot of other railways would have used railcars of some sort for, but for some reason the Latvians (who weren't stupid) found a small steam loco was better for them. After trying out the idea with a few they went and ordered more. Ended up with 20 of them, so they must have made operational sense.

---

Sticking with Russian gauge systems for now, the Estonians had these classes:

Ak Class: 4-6-0, probably Russian Class A variants (rebuilt Ad, Av), 10 units.
Kk Class: 2-4-2T suburban tank, custom built in 1934, 6 units.
Mt/k Class: 0-6-2T, presumably also for suburban service, built 1938-39, 11 units.
Nk & Nkk classes: 2-6-0, Russian Class H/N variants, 16 units.
Od, Ov & Ok classes: 0-8-0, Russian Class O variants, 60 units.
T Class: 0-6-0, Russian Class T, 17 units.

---

So, Lithuania. Most of these are standard Prussian classes, with a couple of odd ones thrown in.

Gr Class: 4-6-0, Prussian S 10 (first series, renowned for burning masses of fuel, so give them to your enemy).
J Class: 2-4-0, a mix of Prussian S 1 and P 3.1 (both obsolete, so nice present for people who annoyed you in the last war).
K3 Class: 4-4-0, the famous Prussian S 3 (pretty good units, over 100 of these went to Lithuania and Poland).
K41 and K42 classes: 4-4-0, mix of Prussian P 4.1 and P 4.2 (more bargain basement clearance sale stuff).
K5 Class: 4-4-0, Prussian S 6 (only one went to Lithuania, but 81 went to Poland).
K6 Class: 2-6-0, Prussian P 6.
K8 Class: 4-6-0, Prussian P 8.

K9 Class: 4-6-0, post-WW1 Polish derivative of the P8 (185 units, mostly built by Fablok).
It's interesting that some of these went to Lithuania, given the antagonism between the two countries at the time.
Edit: I found out what happened here. The Polish classes that were listed as being on the Lithuanian roster were evacuation trains, that left Poland in 1939 when the Nazis invaded. LV just assigned them to whatever classes it thought made sense. This only applied for a short period, before Lithuania was occupied too.

Moving right along...
PO Class: 0-8-0, Russian Class O (these were the ones that they swapped with Latvia).
P3 Class: 0-6-0, probably Prussian G3.
P41 Class: 0-6-0, Prussian G 4.1 (gruntier upgrade of G3, already in 1.06).
P51/P52/P53/P54 classes: 2-6-0, Prussian G 5.1/G 5.2/G 5.3/G 5.4 (freight Moguls).
P71/P72 classes: 0-8-0, Prussian G 7.1 and G 7.2.
P8 class: 0-8-0, not the Prussian P 8 (it's actually the G 8).
P81 class: 0-8-0, Prussian G 8.1 (although some were built by Skoda in 1932).
P91 Class: 2-8-0, USATC "Pershing" class, built by Baldwin (1919 custom order for Poland).
P92 Class: 2-8-0, PKP Tr21 (1922-25 custom series for Poland, various builders).

Tank locos:
T5 Class: 2-4-2T, Prussian T 5.1.
T92/T93 classes: 2-6-0T, Prussian T 9.2 and T 9.3.
T11 Class: 2-6-0T, Prussian T 11.
T13 Class: 0-8-0T, Prussian T 13.
T14 Class: 2-8-2T, Prussian T 14
Tk Class: 2-6-4T, built by Škoda in 1932 (sounds like custom unit for LG or PKP).

---

I don't think I'll ever get around to making all of these, but nice to know what they had anyway when planning things out for local colour.

Oh yes: closing thought. Given that the rail gauges were incompatible, there's scope for making another of those "you can't run those trains here" scenarios (like my old 1954 Royal Tour). Which could be especially interesting if you somehow had to haul Estonian oil to Germany...

[Grandma Ruth]

*One obvious dodge that springs to mind: have some quotas based on revenue rather than loads (something I used to some extent in the existing map) and have other quotas based on production rather than haulage. You can't cheat those with haul-at-a-loss.

I think production rather than revenue. I think it's quite difficult to get the right target level of revenue - for example I thought $200,000 p.a. in the early Riga event was going to be a lot, but actually was quite easy to get. Also I like production as a challenge. If you have to produce cars, for example, you have to make the steel and the tyres so you need coal, iron, rubber (which you would normally have to get from a port, unless you're in Africa/Asia/etc!), then a tyre factory and a steel mill and finally an auto plant so that's quite complicated.

Incidentally, I don't think we ever got round to creating some of the buildings/industries we were thinking of - we had plans for electronics, glass, steel, aluminium, plastic etc to make white goods, so more realistic and also harder to do. The hospital also is a disappointment. Much as I agree IRL that it should be a municipal building, that doesn't really work in the game. What we have is a warehouse with very simple needs. Actually with that wonderful hindsight I think it would have been better to base it on an industrial building. It should have the needs of a house with the addition of more medicine, machinery, electronics, etc. I tried to do that with HexEdit and succeeded in breaking the game altogether! I'll have to fix that, maybe end up re-installing 1.06.

Oh yes: closing thought. Given that the rail gauges were incompatible, there's scope for making another of those "you can't run those trains here" scenarios (like my old 1954 Royal Tour). Which could be especially interesting if you somehow had to haul Estonian oil to Germany...

In my European Union map, I gave a nod to Rail Baltica by requiring electric engines from 2015 (see real-life website https://www.railbaltica.org/) and destroyed any non-electric track. Obviously this is set in a later time than the Latvia scenario, but it's interesting they are still integrating the tracks in 2020: https://www.railbaltica.org/kaunas-inte ... l-network/

[Gumboots]

I think production rather than revenue. I think it's quite difficult to get the right target level of revenue - for example I thought $200,000 p.a. in the early Riga event was going to be a lot, but actually was quite easy to get.

The haulage to Riga early in the game is not supposed to be unattainable. It's supposed to encourage early rail, rather than letting people rely on pure industry starts. I've come to find pure industry starts boring, and RulerofRails wanted the scenario to be just winnable, for him, on a good day, without using industry at all. So I threw in the early revenue bonuses and tweaked them for the result we wanted.

Also, Hard level is just a warm up run. I balanced the goals for Expert level, and then just made it a lot easier on lower levels without caring too much. For best effect, use my cargo pack and loco pack too. The longer trains make traffic management more interesting, particularly around Riga (as well as looking cool) and the loco stats are more realistic in terms of speed than most default locos.

Also I like production as a challenge. If you have to produce cars, for example, you have to make the steel and the tyres so you need coal, iron, rubber (which you would normally have to get from a port, unless you're in Africa/Asia/etc!), then a tyre factory and a steel mill and finally an auto plant so that's quite complicated.

In this case I deliberately had no steel production, because that fits with Latvia in that period. I wanted the economy to be a fairly close match to what was actually there, so rather than focusing on extended industry chains I looked for other ways to make it interesting. I like using revenue to and from territories because it's impervious to cheating, even with bait and switch tactics, but I think a balance of revenue and production requirements could work well. If I was going down that route I'd be making the revenue requirements more challenging than just a couple of hundred k for a few early years.

Incidentally, I don't think we ever got round to creating some of the buildings/industries we were thinking of - we had plans for electronics, glass, steel, aluminium, plastic etc to make white goods, so more realistic and also harder to do. The hospital also is a disappointment. Much as I agree IRL that it should be a municipal building, that doesn't really work in the game.

I think the 1.06 industries in general are not very well integrated into the game. There is some scope for more industries, but I think it would be better to properly balance what is already there before getting even more carried away. For example, the 1.06 furnace is a mistake. Two-output industries are not a good idea, because one production chain will never work properly anyway. It really needs to be split into two separate industries.

Anyway, since the scenario seems to be bug-free now I'll sort another upload with the bug fixes in it.

[Grandma Ruth]

Brilliant! - or should I say "Labi padarīts"

[RulerofRails]

It can never be enough.... There will always be some new idea to implement. Really I think this map is quite good already, and definitely "A" list in quality.

IMO, tracking production is a bit hard with the scripting the game allows. One possibility is to make a port company which owns certain ports. Mergers/chairman-swaps would need to be turned off. Then have a medal requirement to have more than x industry profit in this company.

Setup I am imagining:
Port doesn't supply any cargo.
Port has high demand for a product. For example 10 Lumber per year.
Port will convert a small amount of cargo. For example 2 loads per year 1 Lumber -> 1 Goods.

[Gumboots]

Yes the tracking side of it can get tricky, but if you can figure out a way to get a useful goal out of game-wide production of something it becomes a lot easier to script. For example, if something just will not be produced in relevant quantities without substantial rail, that more or less sorts itself out for scripting.

But anyway, I'm not thinking of adding more extras to this map. I was considering doing another Baltic states map, but without the Russia/Strugi thing. Think of turning this map 90 degrees, to cut out Russia and bring all of Estonia into play, as well as down to the southern border of Lithuania. An entirely new scenario that builds on what I learned from doing this one, but not intended to be a Latvia-centric map as such. I think there is scope there for something good.

---

Back to this map: I was just doing a bit more testing, to make sure I nailed everything I thought was a bug.

It turns out that territories that are entirely underwater cannot block bridge-building access. Or at least, I couldn't get them to. For the blocking to work, the territory in question has to have at least one cell of land somewhere (can be somewhere inconspicuous if necessary) and of course it also needs the border set to visible. So, what I'm going with is getting rid of the "No Daft Bridges" territory and making Ruhnu Island part of the "Baltic Sea" territory. The border is nominally visible, but since Ruhnu is in the middle you can't see the border around Ruhnu, and the actual border is underwater, so it all looks the same but it blocks daft bridges.

The old "No Daft Bridges" territory is being renamed to "Kihnu Island" and repurposed. Obviously it will cover Kihnu Island (the small one, just southwest of Parnu). The new territory will have no visible border, and will map to Estonia. IOW, it's much like the Livonian border territory in the way it operates.

The idea is to make the Linakula fish market still possible, but no longer a cheap and easy exploit. You'll now have to give serious thought as to whether it is worth it or not. Track cost for the new Kihnu territory is being boosted, so a basic wooden bridge and station will set you back about $5 million.

And obviously I'm fixing the Livonian Border territory, as previously discussed. None of these changes will affect normal game play. They'll just block some exploits.

[Gumboots]

Hey here's a funny thing.

I got into looking around for railway maps for the Baltic states between WW1 and WW2. Managed to find a lot of good ones, so I have the whole area and the whole period covered in intervals of about 3 years (varies a bit). Now I know how everything was (or wasn't) hooked up and when it happened. Lithuania was pretty normal, in that it was hooked up more or less how you'd do it on this map anyway. Latvia and Estonia were not at all like you'd usually play this map.

For a start, Parnu was a bit of a backwater. There was no connection along the coast between Riga and Parnu. If you wanted to go to Parnu from Riga, you had to take the broad gauge train via Sigulda and Valmiera to Valga on the Estonian border, then you had to change to a 30" narrow gauge train that would choof you over to Parnu. The broad gauge main line went to Tartu instead, and there was no line between Tartu and Parnu. If you wanted to get from Tartu to Parnu, the quickest way was to go down the main line to Valga, then hop on the little choof to Parnu.

Out to the west, there was no coastal connection between Ventspils and Liepaja either. The line from Tukums ran more or less in a straight line to Ventspils, staying on the north side of the river. The line from Jelgava ran more or less straight to Liepaja. Everything in between those two lines was just left sitting on its lonesome out in the boondocks. They were going to build a line from Kuldiga to Tukums, but they only got as far as building one bridge just outside Tukums before WW2 trashed their plans. The bridge is still there, just sitting in a paddock all by itself: Bridge to Nowhere, Irlavas pagasts, Latvia

However, there was a broad gauge main line from Jekabpils (on the main river, about halfway between Riga and Daugavpils) over to Jelgava. IOW, that was the primary connection between Daugavpils and Liepaja, even though it's a line you wouldn't normally build in RT3.

The other thing is the amount of narrow gauge track. Estonia was 50/50 broad and narrow gauge. Latvia was about 60/30 broad and narrow, with the remaining 10% being standard gauge (southern lines heading to Lithuania). Lithuania was 70% standard gauge, and 30% narrow.

[Gumboots]

Ok, updated map with minor bugfixes (and a brand new readme file) is online now.

[Grandma Ruth]

Excellent. Thank you. Looking forward to the next one!

[Gumboots]

Ah. You should try the New South Wales map (with genuine NSWGR choofers). That's fun too.

[Grandma Ruth]

Will do. I have family in NSW, went with the Second Fleet !!!!!
ETA:
I can't see it in the archives?