steve39

I too have a 64-bit PC and RT2 ran OK - until I uninstalled it, hoping that a re-install might fix the missing file. Still no solution to the InstallShield problem. It's the Platinum version on CD. What is meant by the "Steam" version? Steve

Thank you all kindly. Spurred by suggestions to hunt in unexpected quarters such as Users, I think I have found the folder in two places: C:\Users\Default\Saved Games C:\Users\(my name)\Saved Games The first is old and seems to have come via my external back-up hard drive; the other is recent. Both are empty, which may be because I uninstalled RT2 and tried to re-install it. Whereupon I am now hitting InstallShield failure and nothing I've done so far has fixed it. My life was so happy until I got Win7! Steve

Ah yes, I looked there (and here, there and everywhere) and that folder ain't showing. Steve

I've never stopped playing RT2 Platinum (but only the really hard scenarios) ;) Good to see that The Terminal is still active. Now I'm on Windows 7 everything is fine - except that I cannot find the folder of SAVED GAMES in order to delete old saves, that are now filling the display - grr! I've looked everywhere and it doesn't seem to be showing: where's it gone, please? Steve

Always up for a challenge, I've just tried this one and got the Gold on the hardest level with 5yrs to go. How? Using fairly conventional tactics, really: (a) Connect major cities with long straight tracks. (b) Double track with concrete bridges. © Add food/goods to passenger services where convenient. (d) Electrify QUICKLY and get the GG1. (e) Hire Pullman as soon as possible. Hence the dosh pours in

The first sentence I understand. The second I don't. Re the third, I haven't read every word of what's been discussed and it shouldn't be a prerequisite for techniques which are outside the box of running a railroad. For the record, despite the inherent problems with this scenario (poor distribution of most of the industries and poor pathing through built-up areas), I had already done a dozen restarts in order to cherry-pick a favourable starting position, and restricted the AIs by observing previous starts and planting lots of unconnected stations - which is, frankly, nothing to do with RR practice and cheating, but I could see no other way - and it's possible because the starting conditions offer a vast surplus of money. By the time of the instant change in Economy from Boom to Recession, I was on target re the required loads; had a majority shareholding in two-thirds of the AI RRs; was well placed re the rest; and could actually afford to buy out the first two. In other words, despite the doubly unnatural start as described, I was doing alright and would have won the Gold without having to adopt even more nefarious tactics outside the box. To sum up, players should not have to make multiple starts because most are unplayable; nor require multiple plays in order to cheat the AIs; nor need to deploy techniques outside the box which most players will not be familiar with - or wish to deploy. Nor have to contend with an unrealistically abrupt change in the Economy that is also outside the box. Only six downloads says something too. For nearly all players, it's unplayable. Including the designer who, despite knowing its innards and play outside the box, can't manage to get the Gold.

Well, Gwizz, I have to say that poor distribution of industries (and there are several other problems, like lots of canneries and hardly any produce) is down to the designer and the player shouldn't be having to do multiple starts in order to cherry-pick a good distribution, which can only be learned after playing the thing several times anyway. I'm not familiar with the kind of techniques you describe re manipulating the AI RRs, not least the need to bulldoze their stations or cut their lines. This is not RT2 as I know it, or frankly, want to know. In my latest attempt, I was doing pretty well and by 1925 (ie. 5 yrs play) I had majority shareholding in 6 of the 10 AIs and was bowling along in Boom. Then, out of the blue, came a Trigger which INSTANTLY plunged the game from Boom into Recession. Which is barking mad. And that was that - persistent Broker's calls could not be fenced off and within a few months all my shares had been sold off = end of game. You seem to have launched a scenario which is designed on personal techniques which, to my eye, are outside the box, and to then find that you cannot even achieve the Gold yourself leaves me, well, quite cross!

Well, I've had a couple of unfinished goes of the "extra hard" version. I'm finding the placement of industries idiosyncratic. In go no.1, for example, there was only one refinery in the south and it was VERY FAR away from any of the oil.... In the second attempt the oil/refinery situation was better, but both coal and iron was miles away from the steel works.... This isn't realistic and I always find such set-ups irksome. Most of all, however, I'm finding this scenario requires huge micro-management, at many levels, which personally I also dislike: it gets tedious and the game long-winded. OK, so I'm a purist - I like a historically based game to be realistic, and don't think that a scenario should be hard through non-realism or over-fussiness. I also refuse to cheat. At which point my son always laughs and says that a computer game should be treated on its merits and any technique be employed, realistic or not! Which makes me wonder just what stunts djf01 got up to?! How about, for example, given the enormous starting funds, seeding unconnected stations all over the place simply to thwart the oppostion?

Thanks, Gwizz. Got the ex-hard version. Steve

Hey Gwizz, I seem to be missing something - like what this scenario is actually called? I've been out of the loop for a while so your descriptiom of "my new map" in the opening to this strand has defeated me! ::)

Hi Gwizz, I've been away playing other games for a change and will cheerfully look at your map if you like. :)

I was intrigued by Loco_motive's tactic in this game where there is no shares-related requirement to sell his starting shares; set the dividend to zero; and then ignore that part of the game completely. (I'm less keen on his cheat of building stations and then demolishing them in order to prevent AI access. Because I believe that scenarios are designed to be winnable without cheats and their use makes a game artificial). Nevertheless, I tried them both, after first replaying to make sure that I could get the Gold requirement in 10 years (end 1889). Also, ref my previous message, I chose starting conditions which avoided the bum deal with few resources. I'd already noticed that housing in Montreal can vary by a whopping 50%, and several towns can appear as villages - which in such a sparsely populated scenario is much harder to play, and a 10yr finish quite impossible. Game 1 - I played a normal game with no cheats and dealing in shares in the usual way, hoping to keep the Economy in Boom (see separate thread about Managing the Economy). I duly got the Gold in 10yrs, but it was hard work! Game 2 - Then, using the same starting set-up, I tried the no-shares approach and the demolish stations cheat. The latter, in this game, proved no significant benefit (because the AIs are so timid with nowhere to go) but no-shares made a more relaxing game - and more profitable. As long as I kept building track regularly, especially in Jan-Feb and July-Aug (ref Managing the Economy again) the Economy stayed in Boom and I eventually romped home in the same time, but with a much bigger margin: Lumber loads hauled : 242 (225 required) CBV : 66.4m (50m required) I would therefore give Loco_motive's no-shares playing style where there is no shares-related objective a hearty thumbs-up. Nice one! I'll have to try it in other games where there is no shares-related target but the trouble is, there may not be that many - and more relevantly - I do like to buy out the AI opposition over and above a scenario's requirements. It makes for a more exciting game! ::) :)

Scud, you are not alone with this problem. If we set aside the problem of play slowing on a full-size scenario and around 100 trains (that many is never necessary!), I too have always encountered random crashes in modest games, and on two PCs using Win98 and WinXP. It's been commented on before. Let me begin by saying that while setting up the Israel scenario, one of the events was complex but technically correct and in one outcome, it always crashed the game. Several friends on this Forum had a look and we all went away puzzled. My only solution was to find a different way of dealing with the event I wanted. In short, software events in RT2 can trigger a crash. The other day I came back to RT2 and have been playing Wooden Limbs and Iron Muscles. I hadn't played it before and it has surprised me by crashing once or twice in each session. Crashing has been an intermittent problem with RT2 from way back (no other game does it on my PC either, and my spec is pretty high too). I learned to live with it by accepting that anything man-made is likely to break down and began saving at each year's end. With the disc in the drive it only takes a few seconds to get back, but alas rather longer to back-track! It's still annoying, but it is a practical solution (of sorts). One thing I've heard from professionals in computing is that even XP corrupts gradually over a period of time and, wishing to keep their PC in tip-top condition, presumably for "heavy" games, they reinstall XP every 6 months. I don't suppose that is music to your ears either! All the best, Steve

Well, well, this scenario I had never discovered before! My first attempt was not very successful, largely because the three A1s started on my patch and Boom conditions refused to come. My second attempt was utterly different because the AIs were out of the way, manager Ames Oakes (who gives a higher credit rating and thus easier borrowing was available - crucial in this game with its simple objective and for allowing massive lending early on), and then, just at the right time, Pullman turned up. By keeping a decent cash reserve initially and laying track regularly, the Economy prospered too and I was in Boom by year 2 and stayed there most of the game. The only downside was awkward placing of relatively few lumber mills. Why do so many scenario designers place industries too far away from the raw materials?? I had, by the way, half the number of loco-motive's logging camps by using large stations and circular rosters. Otherwise, I played a straight "simple" game with no tricks. Interestingly, the massive borrowing didn't seem to trouble the Economy. And so I managed to repeat loco-motive's feat of all the lumber deliveries inside 10 years, but the CBV took another eleven months. For my sins, I was rushing it a bit (well, a lot really - and I am a bit rusty and fumbled the odd area) and found that, when sorted, the revenue absolutely rocketed in the last two years. Loco-motive, I take my hat off to you! But I also feel that you had fortuitous conditions for your solo run. My first was a nightmare, and my second declared a Recession after three months - these ups and downs can be a nuisance and my advice to beginner players is to do a restart. There's also the starting richness of a scenario - it can kick off with raw materials and houses stacked high; or it can be quite impoverished. These differences add to the variation between games, but if you want a rocket-like game, it can help to select a start which is well endowed. I didn't, but it is a factor if you feel the need for speed.

Really, loco-motive, you must stop showing off! Mind you, 10/25yrs for the Gold is pretty hot stuff, and choosing 3 AIs is bold, even if some of the tricks you tried early on are beyond my ken! Mind if I join in and see if I can do better?! I fear I may not, but who can resist a challenge?