Tan-Zam Railroad BETA

[RulerofRails]

My strategy evolves over time as I learn more about the game. I enjoy the journey as much as the destination. Using personal restrictions gives me different pathways to the same destination. I like for details to matter, it's a matter of finding the more important ones and for those it's a small advantage here or there (for example not building in-line service immediately in early game). The main thing is the growth curve.

"Price islands" only matter when playing 1.06. They are a standard feature in 1.05 (I played the map in 1.05). Milo disabled them in 1.06, to try to get truer haul-at-a-loss. They were coded into 1.05 for a reason, though. For me, better cargo flow outweighs haul-at-a-loss being a bit compromised, so currently I'm playing 1.06 with them re-enabled. (Please note: I played this map in 1.05. It was created in 1.05 and especially for testing purposes more useful to use the corresponding version.)

"Price islands" slow the outbreak of event-raised cargo prices. As you can imagine in default 1.06 outbreaks happen sooner and are more severe than in 1.05. So this returns them to the 1.05 levels, which are in my opinion still not acceptable, but not as insane.

Only one byte in the 1.06 exe needs to be changed. Easy hex job.

[OilCan]

And I feel like I remember Tazara, and that it was rather tough..

This particular game was a 'remodeling' effort of Brunom's original map - and I'm afraid it shows. When a game scenario is a race against time, I tend to lean more towards the novice player. I probably gave more 'behind the scene helps' in this game then there should have been.

At this point, the game is what it is. I probably will not go back and revamp it - again. You are more than welcome to go into the editor and reduce density by 20-30% in the regions: this will make resources more scarce. And you may want to remove the engine cost reductions.

Brunom's game triggered another TAZARA game in my mind which I started to build but laid it aside. (One of several which I have started and then laid aside.) This was not a remodeling of Brunom's map but a brand new map. It was to be a battle between the player and TAZARA to become the sole railroad company in Tanzania, based on their 'Enterprise Values'. It became too complicated in calculating the 'Enterprise Value' for each company without it becoming too predictable to the player. That's when I laid it aside.

[low_grade]

No, don't worry about revamping this one, I'm glad to hear that you've got more scenarios in the works! I just love this game, I love to obsess on trying to grasp the complex strategy, so many factors to consider, that each scenario demands for the fastest win. I kind of wish that the Gold medal would only be awarded for meeting goals that not even the scenario creator could achieve, but that he thinks are maybe possible, and that Silver should be the normal goal to strive for.

So I guess I'm saying, make the Gold medal requirement for your next scenario something you think RulerofRails would need most of the years allotted to achieve. Because I want to play your whole scenario, not cut off the last 15 years of events that you wrote because I finished early. So, Gold has to be much harder, and then I can hear the whole story! Just my ...

[OilCan]

I kind of wish that the Gold medal would only be awarded for meeting goals that not even the scenario creator could achieve, but that he thinks are maybe possible, and that Silver should be the normal goal to strive for.

So I guess I'm saying, make the Gold medal requirement for your next scenario something you think RulerofRails would need most of the years allotted to achieve. Because I want to play your whole scenario, not cut off the last 15 years of events that you wrote because I finished early. So, Gold has to be much harder, and then I can hear the whole story! Just my ...

This is an interesting topic.

I've seen posters complain that if Gold cannot be achieved by the map maker, who should know the game the best, then it is unreasonable for the players to be asked to attain the Gold. That makes sense to me. I also recall my early days of playing RT3 when I struggled to get bronze and how discouraging that was. For these two reasons, I have always set Gold at slightly lower than I am able to achieve as the map maker.

RulerofRails has pointed out to me in the past that a 'Platinum' metal could be offered which is well beyond the Gold, beyond what the map maker ever reached. I did this in the Alaska game, but it was admittedly within my reach to achieve. I guess I have a hard time setting a goal which I know I cannot reach, yet ask others to reach it.

Using RulerofRails as the measure for the Platinum metal is probably not a good measure. He can blow through a game, ending up with astonishing numbers, and not even break a sweat. How do you set a goal for that? I've read his posts on how he does it, but I can't even come close to his results. I secretly think that he has a team of game techs who sit in the same room as him and jointly work on the game while he is playing it on a mammoth sized screen. Sort of like a NASA control room where his techs scour their screens and point out price gradients and cargo fluxes and train consists via headphones. Station lists scroll on side screens while real-time return on investment is displayed on another screen. Its a hub of focused activity. I pretty sure this is how he rules the rails.

[Gumboots]

I think the best way to deal with it is to just set goals at whatever you think is reasonable. If you can usually hit a certain standard yourself, I think it's ok to set goals at that level even if the occasional really bad economy will stop you getting there.

If exceptional players, like old Superman and his "Hey I did it in five minutes and got 500 gazillion PNW!", think it's too easy then they will probably have sufficient knowledge to tweak the goals to suit themselves. That means you don't have to worry about them.

[low_grade]

Not trying to compare myself with RoR's brilliance, but yes, I know how to edit events... I'd still kinda like to hear what the scenario creator's idea of a best possible result would be, and have a go at it. It's not a game if I get to make up the rules...

[Gumboots]

What I often do is play a scenario according to how it was set up, just to see how it plays, then set my own challenges and try those.

[RulerofRails]

I don't have a team from NASA.

I can see low_grade's point that he wants to get to enjoy the events throughout the scenario, and is a bit disappointed not to see them. It's not the same to post-game go and look what events/story-line you missed in the editor.

Recently I think I found the flag for difficulty in saved games (.gms). I wanted to see if setting this above Expert (3) via hex editor would make the game harder, but alas it does not. Settings of 4-7 are like Easy through Hard, just in the opposite order. For some reason there are two levels analogous to "medium" (5,6). Any setting of 8 and above seemed to turn that saved game into a Sandbox, track is free, etc..

Anyway, I get both sides of the picture here. Some people will not be happy either way.

The best option for us, low_grade, may well be to identify as many factors (some like fuel cost cannot be done) that we can that are dependent on difficulty level. And then use an event at game start to apply effects that mimic a level of difficulty above Expert. This would allow playing a map for longer, work fairly well without a boatload of testing/replays, and retain as much of the original feel as possible. This is some way down my to-do list, but if you are keen on it, it's likely to be done sooner.