Canyon Lands - BETA Version

Discussion about reviews and strategies for user created scenarios made for RT3 version 1.06.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

Oh using the track to Camelback is a no-brainer. It's good early profit. One look at the cargo map tells you that. And yes the Black 5 is a no-brainer too. The Northern costs twice as much to buy and almost twice as much to run, and has hardly any revenue advantage.

Depending on what mood I'm just use to subsidy cheat to get $1 million company cash, then bulldoze the lot and lay my own track. This ends up costing me about a million anyway, so doesn't leave me any further ahead in cash terms, but gives me cooler track. This time around I didn't bother using a cash cheat or relaying the track. I just bulldozed the inline facilities and built spurs.

I ditched the other save and started a new game. Only scattered a few hotels, restaurants and post offices around so far, just for fun really, on the principle that before 1940 they're pretty useless for profit. Maxed out the bonds fairly early this time and hooked up the main towns and the big four tourist traps, then started adding in other scenic sites.

Got to August 1939 at the moment. Found something funny at Steamboat. I put a medium station, hotel, restaurant, post office and maintenance spur out there. It all fits, just, and it all levitates. ^**lylgh
Attachments
ROFLMAO.jpg
User avatar
Hawk
The Big Dawg
Posts: 6503
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:28 am
Location: North Georgia - USA

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

RulerofRails wrote:I think the strategy tips are aimed more at players with less experience who may have trouble completing the goals of the map. They aren't super specific the way you or I would define that particular strategy. Building Hotels at most sites is pretty necessary to eventually come up with the profits.
One of the reasons I like OC's maps is a lot of them are aimed at folks like me, less experienced, less methodical, less strategically minded. Even though I generally don't have any problems completely his maps, for me, they're still a bit of a challenge while still being fun to play.
Hawk
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

I've been thinking about this one. From my perspective it's a map that ideally suited to train rides. The scenery is very well done, and the geology of the area in question is interesting. So, as a virtual tour of the region for people who have never been there, this map has a lot of appeal. I'd be inclined to play to that strength, and I'd do that by changing the selection of locomotives available.

If you're playing steam, at the moment the Black 5 is the only logical choice for the 1930's. Although it makes the most sense in terms of return on investment, it's not much good for train rides. The mesh bears no resemblance to a Black 5, and the skinning is very crude. The available selection also heavily emphasises other UK and Euro locomotives. None of these would ever have been anywhere near this region of the world, and IMO they don't really suit the map. Some of them are pretty crude too.

The Northern is a good choice. For another default locomotive that would suit the map, the H10 Mikado is an obvious option. Apart from that, how about including some of the third party locos? These are freely available. Anyone who doesn't already have them will probably enjoy them anyway, so just point them at the downloads page. It's an eye candy map, so give it some extra eye candy. WP&P's N&W trio are good ol' Murrican grunters and look the part. The J class is ideally suited for the later years when passenger traffic gets going. There's also the Berkshire, which is good for mixed consists.

Some of the strategy tips that are given with the beta are quite honestly only going to hold less experienced players back. For a start, up until the middle of 1939 this is a freight hauling game. Passengers are mostly irrelevant. You'll pick up a few loads here and there, but they're not worth paying attention to. Dining cars will, in general, only cost you money by burning extra fuel and taking up space that could have been taken by freight.

While hotel and restaurant profits really get moving in mid to late 1939, before then their profits are negligible no matter how many of the things you build. That means you're better off not building them at all. Putting them at every station before mid 1939 will chew up a lot of cash that could have been put into expansion, and expansion is worth a lot more. By the middle of 1939 you should have a network that is big enough to start generating useful passenger traffic, and you should have taken enough upgrades to really get passenger production moving. This is when you want to be throwing hotels and restaurants around everywhere, starting with any major hub points on your network.

The same applies to post offices. In the early years I can't see them being a useful asset. You can start chucking them around later if you want to, although even then I have my doubts about how much good they will do. I suspect they'll be a break even proposition on this map. In the early years there is hardly any mail anyway, and in later years you want to be hauling as many passengers as possible.

The best way to tackle this map is to get all the major towns and major scenic sites hooked up as fast as you can. That means St. George, Witmore, Freedonia, Jacob Lake, Piute Basin, Glendale, Panguitch and Cedar City for towns, and Bryce Canyon, Grand Staircase, North Rim and Zion Canyon for major scenic sites. After you have those hooked up, along with any minor sites that are on the route anyway, start hooking up the rest of the scenic sites.

Take all the tour, advertising, whatever upgrades that are offered, regardless of whether you have the cash to pay for them or not. If you don't have the cash your company cash will go into the red temporarily, but you'll still have the upgrade. This is going to be worth it. There is plenty of freight traffic around, so your company cash will be back in the black soon anyway.

Use bonds heavily once the UP subsidy ends and the interest rate starts coming down. Do not pay them back as soon as you can. The whole point of bonds is to use the money for expansion, so just keep expanding. You can pay them back later when there is nowhere left to expand to. !*th_up*!
User avatar
RulerofRails
CEO
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

This map is based on passenger haulage. The freight start is the quickest one for sure. But, it depends on how you want to play. The subsidy makes this one fairly comfortable to play without hauling any freight. Alternatively, making full use of the freight profits can enable a win without any passenger revenue/production or Hotel/Restrauant bonuses.

Anyway, I found a post where Milo explains that "likelihood of someone wanting to travel is calculated as a function of the total number of track segments on the map... I think it started out as an increasing value, but after complaints of excessive express in 1.02 or so, they switched to something more like a bell curve." Link.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

Well, it's only based on passenger haulage once there are passengers to haul, which aint the case at the start. Oil Can recommends not using express-only consists, which means you can't avoid hauling freight and you'll hardly haul any passengers before 1939 (because there aren't any to speak of). So if you're going to haul freight anyway you might as well go for it, and not waste cash on hotels and restaurants and dining cars before they're any use. Once they're useful sure, build hotels and restaurants like crazy and start running dining cars.
User avatar
OilCan
Engineer
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:03 pm
Location: East Tennessee, USA

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

RulerofRails wrote:...I found a post where Milo explains that "likelihood of someone wanting to travel is calculated as a function of the total number of track segments on the map... I think it started out as an increasing value, but after complaints of excessive express in 1.02 or so, they switched to something more like a bell curve." Link.
I wish I had found this thread before I posted my notes on passengers. Milo's information is very enlightening and would have been helpful in setting up my test runs for passenger data.

I noticed that he did not use the word 'passenger' anywhere in his post. This is probably why I missed it on my searches.
And, Happy New Year everyone! !!party*!
User avatar
OilCan
Engineer
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:03 pm
Location: East Tennessee, USA

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

Also, I neglected to add in my previous post a big THANK-YOU !$th_u$! to all who beta tested Canyon Lands. I wrote down a full page of your comments and suggestions. Extremely helpful to me. I hope to finish the edits this week-end and then test the version for the next couple of weeks.

As I have mentioned before, it is a challenge to strike a balance in difficulty and I tend to favor the average Joe player. Your comments and ideas have shown me some 'soft' spots which need to be hardened. The final version will be very much like the beta except it will be more difficult to connect cities without connecting sites, build off-site hotels and make high profits from freight early in the game. The upgrades will be based on # sites connected to help keep the player focused on adding sites. I'll also add some optional sideline tasks towards the end of the game to keep the player busy.
User avatar
Hawk
The Big Dawg
Posts: 6503
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:28 am
Location: North Georgia - USA

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

Looking forward to it OC.
Hawk
User avatar
RulerofRails
CEO
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

Happy new year to you as well! I am more than happy to play your maps. Thank you once again for making them. :salute:

I think this map helped my track laying skills. Specifically, I was careful to get cheap trackage. This means low grades, but even more than that it means that I should stick to the low spots as any extra track bed material costs more that can easily be saved. It also means that climbing by going across steep slopes at an angle isn't very cost effective. In some of the original PopTop maps that's the way to play, but thanks to the forgiving terrain here normally there is a better alternative than to go crossways on a significant slope. BTW, I only discovered the zig-zag route up from Marble Canyon on my last play. ;-)

This might be old news for you, but a few weeks back it dawned on me that the overhead info statement "Overhead depends on a railroad's size and revenue . . ." likely means that size refers to track mileage count. I will likely test this in the near future. This would definitely favor industrial profits. Luckily, overhead can be adjusted and perhaps an event could be added to some scenarios that proportionately increases the rate by an additional amount depending on industrial profits especially if track mileage is low.

I don't know if you read any of the lengthy testing threads Gumboots and I have made recently, but thought I would let you know that we proved definitely that the events that adjust fuel cost and acceleration do not work in reality. The ratings in the engine purchase window change, but actual performance stays the same.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

RulerofRails wrote:This might be old news for you, but a few weeks back it dawned on me that the overhead info statement "Overhead depends on a railroad's size and revenue . . ." likely means that size refers to track mileage count. I will likely test this in the near future. This would definitely favor industrial profits. Luckily, overhead can be adjusted and perhaps an event could be added to some scenarios that proportionately increases the rate by an additional amount depending on industrial profits especially if track mileage is low.
That's a cunning idea. I like it. !*th_up*! (assuming the track mileage is actually the key factor, pending testing and all that)

I don't know if you read any of the lengthy testing threads Gumboots and I have made recently, but thought I would let you know that we proved definitely that the events that adjust fuel cost and acceleration do not work in reality. The ratings in the engine purchase window change, but actual performance stays the same.
I can't take any of the credit for the event testing. That was all your work.
User avatar
RulerofRails
CEO
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

I did some pretty basic testing with an established game and doubled the track mileage. I didn't see a change in overhead costs. I then tried some tests with a fresh scenario. I confiscated all industries for my company, and did some tests such as building some track versus building none. Differing amounts. Also no change. My conclusion is that the term "size" is referring to either book value or assets.

When I added an extra $100M cash to the company (CBV was now much bigger), I did see that overhead was increased, but not a big amount. Comparing a revenue of 18M with a start at $1M CBV versus a start at $101M a rough figure was 20-25% increase in that particular circumstance.

This was all tested on one map, and testing wasn't exhaustive enough to draw anything definite. There's still a use for a higher overhead tax for industrial-focused companies because it's likely that they pay less overhead because their revenue is put on the books after operating costs (no station, track, and engine maintenance, or fuel costs).
User avatar
OilCan
Engineer
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:03 pm
Location: East Tennessee, USA

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

I have attached a revised version of Canyon Lands (BETA8). I did a fairly large number of edits to the game so I am releasing it as a BETA version again, rather than a final version. I have done several small test runs and two complete run throughs, but it is possible I missed seeing something that needs correcting.

Of particular note:
(1) As the player difficulty level increases prices of track and commodities change
(2) Too many city to city connections too fast in the game are penalized
(3) Two new setback events randomly occur
(4) Access to AZ has been increased
(5) Price of track increases if scenic sites are added too quickly during first decade of the game
(6) Mormon communities randomly appear
(7) Cattle haul requirement when AZ is connected

There are several other small tweaks, edits and corrections. I think I have added elements to slow the game down enough to be more challenging and keep the player engaged -- those were the goals.

Comments, ideas, corrections are welcome.
User avatar
Hawk
The Big Dawg
Posts: 6503
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:28 am
Location: North Georgia - USA

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

I know what this is saying, but I'm wondering if it should be saying something different.

I connected St. George to Fredonia. I had 4 sites connected to St. George before connecting to Fredonia.
This message in the ststus page says:
Cities.jpg
Cities.jpg (7.8 KiB) Viewed 4578 times
Shouldn't that say 8 sites? 4 for St. George and 4 for Fredonia?
Is this only displaying what is needed to connect to another city, based on the latest city connection as opposed to what is needed total, based on how many cities are connected?

Edit 1: I see what it's doing now. It's telling you that in order to connect to the next city, you have to have 4 sites connected to the previous 2 cities each or face the penalty.
Cities2.jpg
Hawk
User avatar
Hawk
The Big Dawg
Posts: 6503
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:28 am
Location: North Georgia - USA

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

Well, I almost made Gold. :roll:
Silver.jpg
From city to site I ran one express and one freight. From city to city I ran two express and one freight.
Hotel and restaurant placed at every station.

I started out using the Zephyr for all express and the Black 5 for all freight. I ended up using the F3 for all express and the GP7 for all freight.

I connected all but one Mormon settlement (I missed where one was in the message :oops: ) and ran one and one (freight/express) to them.

I took the blanket and cattle deal but did not take the logging deal and did not build any PO's.

Oh yea! This was on medium difficulty.

I didn't see any issue that needed addressing. In my opinion; Good Job OC. (0!!0)
I believe with just a little more effort and a better strategy I could make Gold on medium difficulty, but I seriously doubt I'd ever get Gold on a harder difficulty, but that's just me. I know they are others that would make Gold on Expert.
Hawk
User avatar
RulerofRails
CEO
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

I was busy for awhile. Finally got a chance to play this. I got some years in and like the new changes, but I think the penalty for too many city connections could be improved. Right now I am walking all over it. I pay the same 500k fine whether I have 1 or 10 too many cities connected. It's not hard for me to make enough in revenue from a couple of cities to offset that cost. I feel the intention is to hamper the city connections. I don't feel hampered. Are you going to strengthen the fine? If so I will test without incurring the fine.

Two options that I think would strengthen the fine:
1. Make it so that multiple extra cities will incur a higher fine
2. Increase the cost of the fine after each penalty (this would still allow a player in the early game to take a few fines connecting maybe 3-4 cities over the limit before having to back out of it)

I like the way that Hotels etc. build costs differ in different locales. Works nicely. I had a thought: the events will allow actual revenue to be different depending on location as well (by territory). Just a thought. It's nice the way it is too.

I enjoy the rest of the changes. Didn't find any mistakes so far. I like the way that you have spiced things up for the different difficulty levels. Great job. !*th_up*!
User avatar
OilCan
Engineer
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:03 pm
Location: East Tennessee, USA

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

RulerofRails wrote:I think the penalty for too many city connections could be improved. Right now I am walking all over it.

Two options that I think would strengthen the fine:
1. Make it so that multiple extra cities will incur a higher fine
2. Increase the cost of the fine after each penalty (this would still allow a player in the early game to take a few fines connecting maybe 3-4 cities over the limit before having to back out of it)
Great ideas! I like option 2 since this is easy to code into an event. I'll do this. Option 1 would entail a fairly long array of events, I think.
I like the way that Hotels etc. build costs differ in different locales. Works nicely. I had a thought: the events will allow actual revenue to be different depending on location as well (by territory). Just a thought. It's nice the way it is too.
Awesome idea. I'll do this. And, I'll try to carry this idea into other games. I'm working on a new India game right now that could well use this idea.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

What's the basic premise of the India map? Any hints yet?
User avatar
Hawk
The Big Dawg
Posts: 6503
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:28 am
Location: North Georgia - USA

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

This was getting a bit off topic so I created a new topic for further discussion of the India map ideas.

Here's the link to the new topic. - viewtopic.php?f=66&t=3999
Hawk
User avatar
Hawk
The Big Dawg
Posts: 6503
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:28 am
Location: North Georgia - USA

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

This map has been added to the archives.

http://hawkdawg.com/rrt/rrt3/map_arch/r ... anyonLands
Hawk
low_grade
Dispatcher
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Canyon Lands - BETA Version Unread post

Got Gold on Hard in 1959 my first time trying this. I did some "role playing" rather than look hard at strategy the whole time, instead following all of the in-game advice and playing this as a passenger-oriented scenario, running Zephyrs from Cities to Sites and Daylights between Cities, with H+R everywhere, and 4+ Sites connected before I advanced to another City. Took all offers and bonded out at 5% in a Boom time. Then the car weights doubled, and I had to slash the Zephyrs from 4 or 5 cars down to 3 plus dining car and caboose. Used a few 5 Blacks for freight, then tried some Challengers but yup too expensive to run, switched to F3s, and gradually replaced most of my aging and accident-prone Zephyrs (and over-thirsty Daylights) with Northerns, though not sure that was a good idea as fuel costs skyrocketed.

Kept busy throughout with gradual expansion, only filling out the map in 1953 or so, and leaving the last 3 connections until I'd met my other goals in 1959. Enjoyed track laying, as has been said. Sometimes I found a more direct, hillside scaling approach with 4-5 grades seemed best, while other times I had to nod to OC's work to establish smooth routes with bridges and tunnels. Pretty, dramatic map to cruise around on, for sure!

I did feel that the engine options let me down at the end, wanting to stay in the spirit of the scenario but having no effective Ultra-Cool option. I might adjust the instructions to suggest that "your engines should at least Look Sharp, don't you think?" The F3 is probably the best all-purpose late game option, but I was stuck on needing either Zephyrs or Northerns...

Overall, very nice story-telling scenario, thanks for the hard work!
Post Reply