Lower Michigan

[belbincolne]

I don't like to be negative about someone who has spent time creating scenarios but, in reality, all Arop's scenarios are identical - only the map is different. All are very large, have some 100 towns and last a very, very long time. The all require connection to every town, high CBV and PNW. Even on Expert all this is achieveable in perhaps a third of the time allocated, because the cost of lines is low (there are few hills) and railroading is very profitable.

All that remains is an Industry profit target. This too is not hard - it just takes an awful long time and when you've completed all the initial requirements it rapidly becomes tedious searching the map for new corn farms etc (because you've already bought everything there is up!) or places where you can build an industry.

Lower Michigan is no different and I was soon bored with it but thought I'd give it another try to make it more interesting so I moved the start to the latest date allowed thus shortening the time scale and added in the maximum number of AIs. Now with patch 6 that does make it interesting because, of course, the AIs are all (but one) very profitable and buy up farms etc like mad. In fact I don't think it will be possible to meet the Industry Profit target but I'm not worried in that I've set my own objective of being the biggest (sole?) railroad.

I don't know what sort of CBV, PNW and IP I'll have after say a reasonable period of 30 years but the scenario will be more fun than it is as created.

So, Arop, can I suggest that you have a try with varying numbers of AIs, find some hard targets over a shorter period for whatever number you think is best, and re-publish it?

[proudcanadian]

I'm sorry to be so condescending about another scenario writer's work , but sadly, I have to agree completely with what belbincolne just said. Every arop scenario is exactly the same, and I would like to see something quite different. The maps are truly spectacular, but they lack major events, and depth to the scenario. I usually get bored of it within the first 40 years of playing because I've already bought a ton of industry, connnected a whole load of towns, and there are no events to keep the player interested.
So arop, if you do read this thread, I once again don't want to insult you in any way, but I feel that you're capable of much more, and I would love to see anything else you've got. :)

[canis39]

I don't disagree with you guys, but I've always felt that Arop's scenarios were enjoyable because they differ from most - they take longer, and they are simpler. They allow players to be somewhat leisurely in their play, which is fairly rare. If you want a faster pace and more events, there are hundreds of scenarios out there that offer both.

[arop]

I do my maps the way I like to play RRT3, and you can feel free to change the win conditions the way you like and post the new version to this site, I will have no objections. Personally I like a long epic game from about 1850 to the the last days of steam, and I seldom use AI's (artificial idiots) that somtimes lay tracks the most silly way. Someone may find some of my maps are to flat, but I find that grades above 3% is relativevely unrealistic compared with the real world. I have seen some maps with mountains more than 25 km. high compared with the scale of the map. It is impossible to please anybody, but anyway: thanks for your comments, I'm NOT hurt! :D

[belbincolne]

Mountains have to be unrealistically high and steep because that's the only way that the game can slow trains down. when the games says the gradient is 3% in fact it's probably more like 15 and even the oldest trains shoot along when in reality they'd blow up. To slow a train down (or make tunnels a neccessity) you have to get to a grade of something like 7 or 8% which means that you have to build mountains with about 60% slopes (sorry I know it should be degrees but haven't got the symbol!).

When I made Crossing the Pennines, where I wanted tunnels to be a necessity as in real life, instead of creating one of the lowest hill ranges anywhere I found that I had to make them far bigger than Everest.

I made a hash of playing the scenario with 7 AIs so restarted in 1876 with 4 and made my own objective of being the sole surviving railroad and (for me) this has made the scenario much more interesting. Intriguingly the AI never makes a line between the various Chicago stations which is an obvious start point (although each time I've started in the south-east).

[arop]

:D In this case, the Lower Michigan IS a relatively flat area. Lake Erie is 174 m above sea level and the highest point (Briar Hill) is 521 m above sea level! My map has the value for Lake Erie = 164. There seems not to be any tunnels og heavy grades in Lower Michigan, but I'm Danish and have never stayed in the USA, but I think I have tried to do my research as good as posible. And again, I consider all my maps as anybodys property, you can all do whith them as you please. I won't be hurt if someone makes another version of one of my maps for publishing.

[RayofSunshine]

:) Well Arop,

I will have to agree with the number of comments about a flat map, and a long play time. HOWEVER, I enjoy playing them as a relaxation after having battled with some of the more suffisticated scenarios. If you like them, and gives you enjoyment,I am sure that there are players who have the same idea.

Keep up the good work

Ray of Sunshine