To get some comments on this scenario. Oismachihi,
Germany is really a terrain of a lot of mountains. Not my preference, but do try and attempt to play them.
As a start, looking over the map cities, I thought that a challenger would be that to make a connection, or 2. As I played it, you were a step ahead of me with the connection of Zug to Chiasso, although I initiated my first station at Zurich. My reasoning was to that of a Brewery with access to grain fields.
But it was after a time of play, and the indicator in your end of year ledger, that a notation was made for that of "fruit". The best supply of "fruit" was in the Southern most map. So I, being able to "not" having to need to connect track, I set up a station near Chiasso, installing a Distillery, and thereby had a commodity of which could be part of the challenges/goal. Not yet running any tally.
As to a time duration of the scenario, it is a long way between Zug and Chaisso, with a lot of mountains. And tunnels appear to be a "high" revenue killer, and would try to traverse the distance without them, which will take time, no matter if tunnels were used, or not used.
I did have to use 6 bonds, for the purchase of industry and farms, to have some incoming revenue, to compensate the revenue needed to connect "Z" with "C".
I like you not needing to connect track, as it gives a player more independence. It also lets a play "place" a depot to his liking in the farm supplies.
Although there is a goodly amount of revenue to help in the creating of track routing, I also like the low amount of the 6% interest on bonds, rather than that of the normal 10 to 13%, which most scenarios dictate.
In 1867-9, there probably was not very large 'scattered" populations. Playing does take some "0" operating trains when many of the cities are only 1 to 3 homes. And it take a while, even with some supplies being delevered to help increase those population for houses.
Anxious to see what other players will have as comments.
![worship {,0,}](./images/smilies/worshippy.gif)