NSW - North, south & west

Discussion about reviews and strategies for user created scenarios made for RT3 version 1.05 and earlier.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Yep, I know about that page in the editor and was thinking of using it as one of the checks. !*th_up*! Good point about the terrain though.

Just ran some numbers through a spreadsheet, taking straight line distances in map pixels between Sydney and a range of cities, Newcastle and a range of cities, and the same for Bathurst and for Wollongong. Distances are averaging 22% greater than the old map, with numbers varying from 0.971 (Sydney => Lithgow) to 1.764 (Bathurst => Lithgow). Some relevant ones are:

Sydney => Bathurst: 1.136
Sydney => Campbelltown: 1.266
Sydney => Liverpool: 1.120
Sydney => Newcastle: 1.333
Sydney => Orange: 1.123
Sydney => Wellington: 1.181
Sydney => Wollongong: 1.245
Sydney => Yass: 1.121 (vs Sydney => Queanbeyan, with Yass substituting for Queanbeyan on the new map)

Wollongong => Goulburn: 1.166
Wollongong => Nowra: 1.302

Newcastle => Cessnock: 1.570
Newcastle => Maitland: 1.295
Newcastle => Muswellbrook: 1.267

So it's looking like a 20% increase to track allowances will be about right. If set like that a Newcastle start will still be penalised a bit compared to the original. This is good as it tends to favour a Sydney start (historical and all that) which will offset the common advantage of Newcastle for early haulage and provide a bit more challenge. The new map has Singleton as an intermediate city between Maitland and Muswellbrook, which makes early haulage in that area easier, but I always play with a halfway station because haulage down the river is good and I know there are stations there.

With track allowances increased 20% a Sydney start might be a little too easy, given the numbers above, but that can be tweaked by not providing any track at all extending from the placed Sydney station. TBH I find it a nuisance anyway, because it's always a bit off for alignment when you want to get past the end of the Parramatta River. Better if you just get the station and can run your own track. !*th_up*!

And definitely remove the 10% overall track cost increase. Will see how it goes with default track cost, pending testing. The 20% range increase I was thinking about earlier also seems like a definite now.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Got it set up and running, and gave it a few quick and basic tests. It'll need some tweaking, mainly for the effects of terrain. I'll see if I can smooth it a bit more without making it too blancmange. I like the terrain the way it is, so really don't want to turn it into an AI-proof blob. I think with a little bit more smoothing and some tweaking of regions and recipes it will all work. It does tend to seed too many industries, so overall building density needs to come down a tad, but apart from that it looks like it's in the ballpark.

Edit: Made some changes, and it seems to work pretty well now. Terrain height has been reduced 85% of what it was, and frankly it looks better now. The result is that farms, etc have much better chance of seeding anywhere but terrain is still fun and interesting.

Seeding is in the ballpark when compared to a range of seeds on the original map. Might make a couple more minor tweaks, but it's pretty much where it needs to be. Overall building density is down to 75%, with city densities boosted to keep the same number of houses and other buildings in cities. This gives a few more rural producers compared to the original, but more widely spaced. Factory count is up quite significantly, but operating off a similar resource base should mean they aren't problematic. If testing shows a need for a slight reduction in them, that's easily arranged.

Initial track allowance is up to 160 track units. This was necessary to allow similar starts to the original. With the original map's 100 track units you can just do Sydney => Parramatta => Penrith (or Windsor) or Sydney => Liverpool => Campbelltown, or you can do Newcastle => Maitland => Cessnock at the start. The revamp required an initial allowance of 160 units to allow the same starts as the original map. Yearly base allowance is increased to 130 units pending testing, with bonuses increased to 65 units. I was getting the feeling a 20% increase might not be enough (greater distance + more thinly seeded resources = less chance of bonuses) but if 30% is too much I'll wind it back a bit.

Locomotive oil sand and water usage has been reduced 30% as I think it will need that to make things workable with slow locomotives.
I may add an option for reduced load/unload time if you meet some specific goal, or in exchange for an increase in company overhead.

Re satellite shots: I think I can fudge it. What actually looks pretty good from a rough trial is taking a sat shot and blending it a bit with the chloropath terrain shading, along with a few tweaks to brightness/contrast/saturation. I can fudge the 19th century look by patching in green bits over current suburban bits (shouldn't be hard). I'll run a test on that later. !*th_up*!
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Haven't got much further with this. I got sidetracked into thinking what locomotives it needs. I could easily set it to standard 1.05 locos, with or without custom stats, but having got into it that doesn't feel right. So, I think I'll have to make suitable smoky critters to go with the map. Ain't nothing else for it. :lol:

Having given it some thought, I reckon what it needs is this lot:

1/ Obviously has to start with the 1 Class 0-4-2 in 1855. I need a reason to finish it anyway.

2/ The 8 Class 2-2-2WT in 1858, for early express. This is about when express in the Sydney area starts building up in the original scenario.

3/ 6N Class 4-4-0T, maybe in 1863, when it arrived in real life. For more even spacing of locos I might cheat it to 1861.
Since it's a tank I can double head it without having to jump through RT3 hoops. Set a second one as the tender. Done.
The NSWGR did double head whenever it was necessary, so it's sort of historically accurate. It will allow having something with speed and hauling power to match a Connie, but in the early 1860's. The catch is that it will cost a lot more to buy and run, so won't be suitable for use all over the place, but as a special use/bit of added interest/oh-heck-I'm-desperate-to-meet-this-year's-haulage-quota it should be worth having.

4/ 1865 brings the 14 Class 2-2-2 for express, 17 Class 0-6-0 for freight, and the 23 Class 2-4-0 for pax up hills and a bit of mixed.
Although the 23 Class came in two lumps (1865 and 1869) so I may leave it until 1869, again for more even spacing of locos.

5/ 48 Class 0-6-0, which was introduced in 1874 (perfect for the freight weight change in 1875) and was a real heavy hauler (almost as strong as a Connie, in terms of basic tractive effort rating) but slow due to being a 0-6-0 (no stability at high speeds).

6/ 79 Class 4-4-0 in 1877 for express. This is much the same unit as the 23 Class, but upgraded, so I can model and skin them together.

7/ Connie in 1879, which is when the NSWGR first got some. Bit of a last year boost, for anyone who needs it. !*th_up*!

This would give a pretty balanced bunch, distinct and useful in their own niches. Adding more would make for some duplicates. It gives a nice balance in terms of builders and history too. Two Wilsons (8 and 6N classes), three Stephenson's (1, 17 and 48 classes), three Beyer Peacock's (14, 23 and 79 classes) and a Baldwin (Connie, of course). I'll get them roughed out and running as soon as I can.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Have been beta testing this thing and playing around with the event scripting. It's at the stage where it'll be worth putting out as a public beta soon, probably next weekend. Seems to play very nicely.

Still don't have the full range of NSWGR locomotives to go with it, but some existing ones are pretty good stand-ins for the moment.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Got something figured out about how a .gmp can get station names locked into its hex coding. !*th_up*!
Earlier conversations about it were around these posts:
viewtopic.php?f=86&t=4216&p=45720&hilit=hex#p45720
viewtopic.php?f=86&t=4216&hilit=hex&start=90#p45707
viewtopic.php?f=86&t=4216&hilit=hex&start=80#p45695

For this latest map, for some reason the .gmp hasn't got build dates for test stations locked into the hex, unlike the Latvia map, but it does still have station names locked into the hex: Blayney New Junction and Bathurst Modern Crossing.

These two cities ended up with stacks of stations attributed to them, because early in the map building process I was placing trial stations all over it while Bathurst and Blayney were the only two actual cities on the map. These trial stations were all bulldozed before saving the WIP map as a .gmp, which seems to have wiped out the build dates (again, unlike the Latvia map) as the hex for those is clear.

Anyway, we already knew that the byte 244 places before the city name recorded if a station had previously been built in that city. I've now also figured out how it works for the byte 240 places before the city name, and the byte 228 places before the city name.

The list of station names works like this:

Code: Select all

    ;@gumbootz: Secondary station names.
    578 "Junction"
    579 "Crossing"
    580 "Depot"
    581 "Corners"
    582 "Exchange"
    583 "Point"
    584 "Center"
    585 "Township"
    
    ;@gumbootz: Secondary station prefixes (for repeats of above).
    586 "New"
    587 "Modern"
    ;@gumbootz: End secondary stations.
    ;@gumbootz: Reverts to city name for 28th station, repeats from there.

    ;@gumbootz: Next string appears to be deprecated.
    588 "Renaissance"
Bathurst has 02 at the -244 position, and 02 at the -240 position. This tallies with the list of suffixes, since the secondary name "Crossing" is #2 on its list, and the prefix "Modern" is #2 on that list. Bathurst has the building style set to Victorian, which is coded as 05 according to Milo's notes. This tallies with its byte value of 05 for the -228 position.

Blayney has 01 at the -244 position, and 01 at the -240 position. This tallies with the list of suffixes, since the secondary name "Junction" is #1 on its list, and the prefix "New" is #1 on that list. Blayney has the building style set to Clapboard, which is coded as 00 according to Milo's notes. This tallies with its byte value of 00 for the -228 position.

All the other cities on the map are set to either Clapboard or Victorian building styles, and sure enough they all have either 00 or 05 at the -228 position. None of the other cities had test stations built in them, so their hex for station names is all clear (00 byte values).

With both Bathurst and Blayney each having the same values for bytes -244 and -240 (ie: 02 and 02 for Bathurst, and 01 and 01 for Blayney) it's difficult to be sure which byte relates to the secondary names and which to the prefix, but logically I'd expect them to be in the same order as in the RT3.lng file. So 01 at -244 and 00 at -240 would mean the next station built would be **** Junction, which which tallies with what I found during testing on the Latvia map (I was getting Riga Junction, etc, but no "New" in the middle, and had only placed one or two test stations per actual city).

So I think we have this sorted now, and know how to edit the hex for station names. (0!!0)
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

RoR and I have been working on this and testing it behind the scenes (ie: lotsa PM ranting). I'd rather get it to the point where it's looking as good as it can get for scripting before I let it loose on an unsuspecting public. It's going well, and should be good enough for a public beta soon. I think I can get it sorted to that stage this week (yes, I know I have said that before *!*!*! ).

Will also have the beginnings of a corresponding locomotive pack to go with it: 1 Class for mixed traffic, 8 Class for express, and 6N class for freight. These only dealt with the 1855-1865 period in real life, but are actually good enough to play the whole scenario right through if you don't mind a bit of a challenge. Am on a roll with NSWGR locomotives though, so the rest of the pack shouldn't be that far away.

Alternatively it's perfectly playable with default PopTop locomotives, although not as realistic and IMO not as much fun. I'll enable the most suitable ones by default, with the NSWGR pack being optional. !*th_up*!
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Started playing around with throwing on satellite shots.

Throwing on satellite shots is easy. The tricky bit is getting the mongrels to look good around coastlines. The rest of the map is no problem at all, but coastlines always looks dodgey if they're not nearly perfect. I'm gonna try a few more tricks.
Rough_satshot_test.jpg
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Ok, so I tried getting tricky. It doesn't work. *!*!*!

The bottom line is: get the satellite shot as good as you can in Photoshop (or GIMP or whatever), then fix the coasts with manual painting in the RT3 editor. It's the only way that really makes sense.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Dragged this out for more testing the other night. It's good, but I think it needs a bit more tweaking. I'm contemplating making credit/bonds harder to get, with a more finely-tuned sliding scale of credit rating vs number of bonds taken out. Off the top of my head I thought something like this might work:

Code: Select all

Bonds amount    Max. rating     Reduction       Cumulative      Variable
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-$2 million        AAA              0                0             N/A
$2-$3 million        AA             -1               -1             CV1
$3-$4 million       BBB             -2               -3             CV2
$4 million +        CCC             -3               -6             CV3     Cannot take out bonds at lower rating.
Additionally, could have CV4 tracking economy state, and adding or subtracting credit rating accordingly.
So normal economy = no change to the above scale. Prosperity = +1. Boom = +2 (allows BB rating @ $4 million +).
And recession = -1. Depression = -2 (would drop maximum credit rating to C for debt over $4 million).

Code: Select all

Economy state   Max. rating @ zero debt     Difference      Cumulative      Variable
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Booming                         AAA             +1               +2             CV4
Prosperity                      AAA             +1               +1             CV4
Normal                          AAA             +0               +0             CV4
Recession                        AA             -1               -1             CV4
Depression                        A             -1               -2             CV4
This would make things harder early in the game, when you're often on the limit of your credit rating anyway. Taking 1 or 2 off the rating in the early years will mean you'd have to build up your company before you could access more than a couple of million in bonds.

This would mean you would still be able to jack up bonds if you did them quickly, between event test intervals. There is no provision for checking when a bond is taken out, and weekly is the strictest possible testing, so you could still take out a stack of bonds at a low interest rate with the game on pause. This is going to be an obvious exploit in practice. Build up credit rating > pay off bonds as much as possible > wait for credit rating to reset to best available > pause game > grab as many bonds as you can at the lowest possible rate > hold bonds when rating resets and don't worry about it. I can't see a way to prevent this exploit without preventing bonds entirely. But this scheme should still place some restrictions on rampant use of bonds.
User avatar
RulerofRails
CEO
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Nice scale. The exploit for taking out a lot of bonds at once is a bit of let down. You could possibly penalize a player if he ran up more than two bonds at once. Make it something that the player can't workaround. For example, maybe he crashes the economy (maybe even this is exploitable in rare cases). Or (safer) drop cargo pricing/production or severe ramp in his maintenance expenses until he pays it back. Downside .... this feels a bit artifical and gimmicky.


It's a shame we can't check the current credit rating for the player. However, this could be approximated. (I haven't really tried to check for a forumla behind credit rating so it's an approximation.)

Have a couple variables that will contribute to credit rating decreasing and/or prime rate increasing over time. For the most part this can be culminative (I would only step it back if the player made a loss that year). The obvious check would be CBV vs. year. I didn't review company growth rate on this map for awhile, but as an example. It could increment each time CBV grows by more than $1M in a year. In addition have some specific checks for fine-tuning such as IF CBV crosses $2M in less than 3 years from game start, increment the rate. If CBV crosses $3M in less than 5 years. If CBV crosses $5M in less than 7 years. Those are just examples.

If you want to go down this route I can help with tuning it for best results. This should work alongside your scale for the economy.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

If something like that turns out to be necessary I think it would be better to check company debt vs time, since company debt is what is going to be affected by taking out bonds. So you could check for large changes in company debt within a period of one month, or even a period of three months, as an example of someone refinancing with the game paused. A possible penalty would be to add floods to the game, with a temporary reduction in locomotive speed and economy state to simulate the effects.

But I don't know if this will be necessary. I don't want to prevent use of bonds. I just want to add some additional factors to consider. At the moment it has -1 credit rating and +1 interest rate at $4m debt and $7m debt. In practice the increase in prime rate isn't significant. The advantages of another bond (if used sensibly) mean you ignore the ignore rate change anyway, but the change in credit rating does affect how I use bonds. I'm going to test it with this new scale:

Code: Select all

Bonds amount    Max. rating     Reduction       Cumulative      Variable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-$3 million        AAA              0                0
$3-$5 million        AA             -1               -1             CV1
$5-$6 million       BBB             -2               -3             CV2
$6 million +        CCC             -3               -6             CV3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game starts with normal economy (value = 2). Startup event sets CV4 to 2.
Two consecutive events then run at the end of each month, coded as:

            If economy state < CV4, -1 credit rating and -1 CV4.
            If economy state > CV4, +1 credit rating and +1 CV4.
That brings in the first credit rating reduction two bonds earlier than the current setup, while still allowing you to get the company off the ground initially, and adds the additional randomness of economy state affecting credit rating. It's also a lot trickier once you get over $5 million in debt (the current credit rating change at $7m debt level isn't much of a restriction in practice).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment one thing I am finding is that I need more NSWGR choofers, since it gets a tad boring only having the 1, 8, and 6N classes available to choose from. I have the 14 and 17 classes good enough for beta testing, so will get them running too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Side note: Just for fun I'm also adding a variation of my outrageous tavern profits from the Royal Tour map. So shipping 10 loads of Alcohol in a year will give +100% tavern profits for the following year. I'll try it with an additional +100% for another 10 loads (IOW, 20 loads total). 1954RT had a permanent +900% tavern profits, and they're not large anyway, so I think +200 for haulage should be a fun side mission. (0!!0)
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: [BETA] Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Ok, one playable map. Have added another tweak to this.

Originally it only produced Steel, from Coal or Wool depending on which port was involved. However, Iron was an important commodity during the Victorian era and was used for a lot of things. Castings are an obvious example, but even axles for locomotives were often made out of iron in preference to steel, simply because in the 1850's and 1860's there was much more experience with working iron and mass-produced steel was a new-fangled thing. On that basis it seems a bit daft to not have Iron on the map, and to only have Steel. Adding Iron would make things more historically accurate.

What I've done is to get rid of Sugar. It was only available in negligible amounts and contributed virtually nothing to the economy. I've never paid attention to it in all the times I've played this scenario. I've replaced Sugar with Iron, and the ports now have dual production chains, converting either Coal to Iron or to Steel (Newcastle and Wollongong) or Wool to Iron or to Steel (Sydney).

This can cause problems with the more profitable chain being used preferentially, but I don't think it will be a problem in this case. Steel has a higher base price than Iron, so will be more profitable for the Ports to produce once demand for it develops, so they should naturally shift to producing Steel over time. At the scenario start Steel has not come in (starts one year later) so usually the ports are doing nothing in the way of production and Tool and Dies are sitting idle. Having Iron available from the start should get things moving a bit.

Tool and Dies will naturally want to consume Iron before 1876, since the lower base price makes it more profitable for them, but as soon as Steel comes into the game they start developing a demand for it so that stimulates Steel price. If the ports then shift to producing Steel because of its higher profitability for them, the usual Steel haulage quota should still be achievable once the game develops a bit (it's never achievable for the first 5 or 10 years anyway). If I need to push it along a bit, I can always add a reduction in Iron production in later years, and/or a reduction in Iron price to make the conversion uneconomic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Thought of something last night. Iron and Coal and Wool all have the same base price ($30k/load) so a lot of the time a 1:1 conversion is not going to be profitable for the port, which means not much will happen. Steel has a base price of $85k/load, which allow Steel Mills to make a profit by combining Iron and Coal (30 + 30 = 60, which means $25k left over for labour, overheads and profit).

So to make the conversions to Iron work well they may have to be 1:2 conversions (1 Coal or 1 Wool to 2 Iron). This should still be less profitable for the ports than a straight 1:1 Wool=>Steel or Coal=>Steel conversion, so the ports should still tend to shift to producing Steel once demand for it develops. !*th_up*!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, scenario zip is attached removed due to bugs. See next post for corrected zip.

It still needs a bit of touching up here and there for terrain painting, but is generally pretty good and is enjoyable to play. !*th_up*!

Note that for general distribution I've just selected a reasonable range of default PopTop locos, but personally I don't play with these. It's not a reliable selection anyway, due to RT3's weird habit of shuffling loco selections around depending on what you have installed. *!*!*!

I always play this with my custom NSWGR locos (I just Shift+E into the editor, and reset loco choice before playing). I'm making more NSWGR locos to give a better selection, but obviously anyone can use whatever they like. If you want Shinkansens, that's up to you.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: [BETA] Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Ok, I made boo-boos in that last zip. Have removed the borken one from the previous post, and attached a fixed zip to this post. !*th_up*!

Edit: Redundant zip removed.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: [BETA] Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Been testing this critter. The sliding scale for credit rating vs debt is a good one, but I'm in two minds about the extra events for changing credit rating vs economy state. The catch is that if you get an above average economy state early in the game, you get a boosted credit rating too.

That's not what I was after. I was thinking of varying credit rating at high debt levels to provide extra strategic considerations, not randomly boosting credit rating at low or zero debt levels. I should have thought of this in advance, but didn't. *!*!*! In my latest test play I managed to rack up the full $10m worth of bonds in the early 1860's, which is a bit too easy IMO.

So, what to do about it? Could just remove the extra events, and stick with the basic credit rating reduction as debt increases. It's still exploitable under the right circumstances, but is generally harder to exploit.

If I wanted to keep the variation at high debt levels it gets a bit tricky. The catch is that it relies on starting with a known value of economic state, setting a variable to match, then adjusting the variable based on changing economic state. Starting economy is always Normal, so editor value = 2, so set CV4 to 2 and off you go. You can track the economy from then on.

If I alter it to only come in at higher debt levels the economy will have changed since the scenario start, so it will all go pear-shaped. You can't reset to a baseline credit rating value either, because there's no option for that. All you can do is go up or down relative to the current value.

So to get it working at high debt levels only it would need some extra logic. What is basically needs is a way of getting the current economy state (easy) and then setting the variable to match that. The event would have to be of the form "Set GV3 = Economy state", but that means doing arithmetic with variables, and 1.05 won't do that, so it'd need a more verbose workaround method to get the same result.

What should work is something of this general form:
Would need an extra 5 events to set CV4 and credit rating when debt goes above each lower limit.
Note: these would need an extra trigger variable to prevent them firing inappropriately.

If {current economy state = 0} and {trigger variable = 0} then {set CV4 to 0, credit rating -2} and {set trigger variable = 1}
If {current economy state = 1} and {trigger variable = 0} then {set CV4 to 1, credit rating -1} and {set trigger variable = 1}
If {current economy state = 2} and {trigger variable = 0} then {set CV4 to 2, credit rating +0} and {set trigger variable = 1}
If {current economy state = 3} and {trigger variable = 0} then {set CV4 to 3, credit rating +1} and {set trigger variable = 1}
If {current economy state = 4} and {trigger variable = 0} then {set CV4 to 4, credit rating +2} and {set trigger variable = 1}

Would need a matching 5 events to reset credit rating when debt goes below each lower limit.

If {current economy state = 0} and {trigger variable = 1} then {credit rating +2} and {set trigger variable = 0}
If {current economy state = 1} and {trigger variable = 1} then {credit rating +1} and {set trigger variable = 0}
If {current economy state = 2} and {trigger variable = 1} then {credit rating +0} and {set trigger variable = 0}
If {current economy state = 3} and {trigger variable = 1} then {credit rating -1} and {set trigger variable = 0}
If {current economy state = 4} and {trigger variable = 1} then {credit rating -2} and {set trigger variable = 0}
Which is all getting a bit convoluted in terms of numbers of events, but is straightforward logic within each event. Once that lot have fired and set variable and credit rating, the same basic event as before can track against the changing economy:
If economy state < CV4, -1 credit rating and -1 CV4.
If economy state > CV4, +1 credit rating and +1 CV4.
But that would need an extra condition so it only fired when the previous lot were operational, so it would have to call the same trigger variable:
If {current economy state < CV4} and {trigger variable = 1} then {credit rating -1} and {CV4 -1}
If {current economy state > CV4} and {trigger variable = 1} then {credit rating +1} and {CV4 +1}
So all of that, when put together, should enable varying credit rating with economy state at any chosen debt level. It means an extra ten events for each debt limit, all firing monthly, but it will work.

The only question now is: how many ways is it still exploitable? Am I missing something? Probably am. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: [BETA] Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Couple of things I've been finding while testing this map. First is that with the bonus tavern revenue for Alcohol haulage it would be handy to have separate reefers for Alcohol, so loads in transit are easy to spot while playing. I might whip some up, more or less in billboard reefer style. They would only need two eras to start with (for this map) and could be extended to a full set of 8 eras later.

The other thing is that while building across this map I often find myself wanting a particular sort of loco at about the same time the NSWGR thought the same thing. Which is a kinda cool tie-in for having a more or less historical roster (more or less, because in practice they had stacks of odd classes of not many units each, so modelling the whole lot would be a mission and a half). At the moment I'm out to Goulburn in the south and Orange in the west, and the 23 Class would be really handy for pax and mixed on grades.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: [BETA] Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Starting to think about this map again. Had me a cunning idea. The economy state will change unpredictably after the first few years, but this doesn't actually matter. All it needs is to have an initial condition to check either company debt, or years elapsed since game start, depending on whether I want to tie the additional variables to a debt limit or to a particular year.

Or, to give greater replay options by making things slightly less predictable, it could be set to check if economy state = 2 after a certain number of years. So a monthly check for "if years elapsed > 7 and economy state = 2" would pick the first time the economy went back to normal after 1862, which would vary depending on where the economy happened to be in 1862.

This event would then set CV4 = 2 and a trigger variable (any spare TV or whatever) and then the existing additions and subtractions to CV4 could just go ahead.

Any of these ruses would allow not bringing the extra credit rating and prime rate variations too early in the game, while debt levels are low, while still bringing them in later with minimal code complexity. !*th_up*!
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: [BETA] Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

I've been testing an RC3 version of this the last couple of days. Still needs a bit more work, but is shaping up nicely.

The basic idea is to change the Wool haulage so that it only counts towards annual track bonuses when hauled to the Sydney port territory. This aligns it with the Gold goal of 240 loads of Wool to Sydney, and means ordinary station-to-station Wool haulage is now irrelevant. The Wool haulage track bonus is almost impossible to get early in the game, unless you happen to get a freak seeding that has a lot of Wool in the plain around Sydney. In most seedings you won't be able to nail the Wool haulage annual bonus until you hook up Newcastle to Sydney, or until you get way out west.

Steel haulage has also been changed so the annual quota is now 10 loads instead of 5, which obviously makes it twice as hard (but still possible).

However, all annual track bonuses will now give the same bonus for every multiple of the basic quota. IOW, hauling 20 Lumber will give 60 track pieces, while hauling 40 Lumber will give 120 track pieces.

The plan here is to make the early game harder, because one bonus is effectively unavailable until you have a substantially developed network, but still allow enough track units to finish the game, and to allow judicious double tracking for improved flow later in the game, along with a mad rush to get the required Wool haulage done before the scenario time limit.

I've also changed the Tavern revenue bonuses to work the same way as the others, with +100% Tavern revenue for every 10 loads of Alcohol hauled. This doesn't earn major amounts of cash, but it still a fun extra target.

Only problem now is that I revised the credit rating events to save variables, but that has borked how they apply in practice. *!*!*!
When credit rating should be -6 it's only -3, meaning bonds are still too easy too early. So, I'll have to go back to a more verbose version and use some of the spare variables that are available.

One thing I did find on the latest test is that droughts can be a strategic advantage.

I got a drought beginning in January 1856, which I thought was a bit rough. Naturally it nobbled all farm production: -40% in 1856, -80% in 1857, -40% in 1858, then back to normal in 1859. This doesn't affect Lumber production, so doesn't affect track bonuses in the early years. However, the greatly reduced production for several years will steeply drop the price of any farms. This allowed me to pick up four Cattle Ranches in the area around Windsor for an average of about $450k each, just after the drought ended. Naturally these were back to full production after that, so went back to producing very good ROI (consistently over 25% per annum).

Edit: I just went back through my RC3 saves, and found the last one before the borked credit ratings events became relevant. Edited the events, and will test it tonight until it works the way it should. Once those events are sorted I'll play it through to the end. !*th_up*!
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: [BETA] Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Gave it a bit more testing. Got the credit ratings events sorted, but there's still a catch with the scale of changes.

Code: Select all

Bonds amount    Max. rating     Reduction       Cumulative      Variable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-$3 million        AAA              0                0
$3-$5 million        AA             -1               -1             CV1
$5-$6 million       BBB             -2               -3             CV2
$6 million +        CCC             -3               -6             CV3
The problem is that if you know what you are doing, and if the economy is fairly favourable early in the game (Normal - Prosperity range) you can still use this scale to "bounce" your bonds up to $10 million at a reasonable interest rate (8-9%) in the early 1860's. This applies even without the extra CV4 tracking of economy state altering credit rating (ie: +2 in Booming, -2 in Depression).

The reason you can "bounce" your bonds up is the large change in credit rating between $5.5 million and $6 million or more. If you have taken out bonds to (example) $7.5 million and your company makes a couple of million during the year, you can pay back down to $5.5 million at the end of one year and then get a sudden +3 on your credit rating at the end of the following January. This will put you up on an A rating or similar, at which point you just refinance everything as low as possible and then borrow on up to the $10 million limit.

The original idea of this scale was that as your debt increased you'd get an increasing penalty, which works, but I hadn't fully considered how it could be exploited. So, to get a less-trickable scale it will need to have more even graduations between each increment. This will mean that to get your credit rating back to A (or whatever) you'll have to pay back more bonds, which will be impossible if the scale is set right.

Could try this scale:

Code: Select all

Bonds amount    Max. rating     Reduction       Cumulative      Variable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-$2 million        AAA              0                0
$2-$4 million         A             -2               -2             CV1
$4-$6 million        BB             -2               -4             CV2
$6 million +        CCC             -2               -6             CV3 
That should be much harder to exploit. Even if you pay down to $4.5 million you'd still be at -4 credit rating, which is one level worse than the current scale even with $1 million less debt. To get it better than that you'd have to pay down to $3.5 million, which would require much more spare cash than you are likely to have available. The -2 rating kicking in at $2 million debt is also more severe than the previous scale, so will put a damper on shenanigans when you are starting out.

I think if I go with this scale it will still be possible to use bonds heavily, possibly up to the $10 million limit later in the game, but it won't be nearly as easy to do it in the first half of the scenario.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: [BETA] Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

Ok, the new scale is less exploitable. It's still usable, but not a total rort like the previous one. I might make it go >= $2m, >= $4m and >= $6m instead of the current > $2m, >$4m and > $6m. IOW, knock another one bond ($500k) off each limit to make it a little bit harder.

The multiple track bonuses are working well. A bit too well, actually. Track bonuses probably need to be nobbled a bit. Several ways I can do that, such as:

1/ Set a limit of two or three bonuses per cargo (some are up to four at the moment).
2/ Change the quotas to multiples of 12 instead of 10 (20% harder to get each one).
3/ Or maybe just set Lumber to 25 loads, since that is the key cargo early in the game.
3/ Reduce the amount of track per bonus (maybe 40 instead of 60 pieces).

1/ will only come into effect later in the game, when a complete network means you can haul ludicrous amounts of stuff. I want to make the early to mid game a bit harder, so 1/ isn't really relevant to that, but a lower limit on the possible number of bonuses per cargo still probably makes sense.

2/ will definitely hit harder in the early game, making it more likely you will just miss a target. 3/ will also hit harder in the early to mid game.

Or, if 1.05 will handle the maths, I might look at increasing the individual cargo quotas over time, in much the same way that the total loads quota increases over time.

Am also thinking that the map needs some way of chewing up more cash once you hit mid game, so perhaps applying the same inflation rate that affects track price to company overhead and locomotive price would be the way to go. That would give 50% higher overhead and loco price in the last possible year, with the average over the full 25 years being 25%.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: [BETA] Blue Mountains revamp Unread post

I did a bit of thinking about the "fuel cost reduction" event in the original ATBM scenario. It doesn't work, of course, since fuel cost events are one of the things that are bugged in RT3. So, I started wondering what workarounds could be used to approximate a reduction in fuel cost.

An obvious one seemed to be trying an adjustment to company overhead. I already had ledger figures for a full test play, and 1866 to 1875 inclusive seemed to be a good period to work with. 10 years, so easy division, and starting about when the original event starting picking random numbers for activation (years elapsed > 10).

Turns out that, at least for this scenario, played the way I was playing it, fuel cost averaged close to 25% of company overhead. The lowest value was 20.4% and the highest was 31%, but most years were in the 23 to 28 range. So 25% would be a reasonable basis for taking things further.

The next thing is fuel ratings. The original dropped the fuel rating for each loco by 1 if you met the target (40 loads YTD of coal). Average fuel rating of the locos I was using was near enough to 6 (Below Average) so reducing it by one level would be by 1/6.

Pu that together with the previous percentage and the upshot is that a 1 level reduction in fuel cost would be closely approximated by a 4% reduction in company overhead. Which might be handy, and could be adjusted for any other scenario once you had testing figures for it. :)

What does this mean in terms of yearly profit? It depends, on economy state, loco replacements, lengths of new connections, and several other things. However, for this scenario it seems to come down to a difference in yearly profit of between 1% and 5%, with the former being barely noticeable but the latter being significant. An average around 3% would still be worth saving if you weren't rolling in cash.
Post Reply