Denver, South Park & Pacific

[thomasjordan]

I'm doing some serious modifications to that great Durango/Colorado map (the one that covers most of the state, plus northern New Mexico).  I'm currently working a Denver, South Park & Pacific variation.

Anyone have a good recommendation for the DSP&P's premier engine during the 1870's, the Mason Boggie?  I'm looking at the Shay.  Neither was fast, or particularly reliable, but both had good climbing power.

Last night I got most of the terraforming done so the DSP&P can build up the south fork of the South Platt into Como (not Hartsell, off limits to the DSP&P), then over to Fairplay, and down Trout Creek to Buena Vista (but not Leadville, again off limits from that direction, except using trackage rights over the D&RG).  I also terraformed Boreas Pass, added Breckenridge, and am working on the Blue River area to connect to Leadville via Climax from Breckenridge (but not Red Cliff, again off limits to the DSP&P).

I am having trouble with the Alpine Tunnel route from Buena Vista to Gunnison.  The entrance to the pass is on the original map, but I'm having a lot of trouble modifying the terrain without really messing up those tall mountains.  I want to arrange it so the player can build the track, but I may end up prelaying the track and making that section purchaseable.  That would be somewhat accurate, as the tunnel was built and operated by a legally distinct company.  Same as the Hagerman Tunnel the Colorado Midland built to get between Leadville and Glenwood Springs.

[thomasjordan]

I almost have the DSP&P unique version of the Durango map working.  It needs a few more tweeks to the grades on Kenosha Pass and Boreas Pass, and some industrial modifications around Gunnison (the western extent of the DSP&P).

I settled on the 4-2-2 to replicate the Mason Bogie.  A bit fast on level terrain, but expensive to operate and prone to break downs.  The last two are quite accurate.  The game's 2-6-0 represents the DSP&P's heavy 2-6-0's (their eventual mainstay), while the 2-8-0 represents the lighter (and slower) 2-6-0.

Game victory conditions are unchanged, but instead of hauling ore to the smelter, you have to haul heavy equipment (ammunition) and miners (troops) from Denver.  Thus, I had to adjust the starting date to 1900, as neither is available before that.  That skews a few things, but not too badly.

The player is restricted to building track to areas served by the DSP&P (and I allowed Golden, Georgetown and Castle Rock).  The first two were reached by the Colorado Central (which was jointed operated by the Union Pacific with the DSP&P), and the later represents all of the little towns like Webster and Bailey along the South Platt that aren't on the map (and there isn't room on that map to insert them).

[djf01]

Cool.  I'm really looking forward to this one.

[thomasjordan]

Version 095 attached.

I'm still tweaking engines and some of the grades.

I haven't edited the start up screens.  Instead of hauling ore and coal to the smelters, haul miners (troops) and alcohol (miners drink a lot).  Both are available in the Denver & Golden area.

I've had a lot of fun creating this scenario.  Constructive criticism is welcome.

[thomasjordan]

Note, this map requires Second Century.

[thomasjordan]

Ok, the troops and ammunition are not working as desired.  Well, they are working as desired, but starting the game in 1900 to have them available isn't.

I've changed the delivery to alcohol and paper (both heavy cargo), and available only in Golden, Denver or Castle Rock.  I'm satisfied with the grades on the major passes.  The game now starts in 1870 (the beginning year for the Colorado Central).

I found a list of the DSP&P engines today, so have modified the engine availability.

I'm play testing 099 now.  It's looking pretty good so far.

[thomasjordan]

The map is complete.  Because this represents an 1870's era Colorado narrow gauge railroad, the engines are weak until you get the 2-8-0, which is just barely in time to meet the game objectives.  I have not changed the game gold medal of achieving a rather high personal wealth.  Feel free to open up the editor and change the instant gold event to a net worth of $20M.  That is actually a more reasonable value for this map.

The map is fun to play on (and was a lot of fun to modify from its original form), and getting started is challenging with those lame engines - and they are all you have for quite a few years.

Have fun.

[abr]

Hi, I played through it now.

I have two questions:

1) What is the reason for the "track limit"-area in which you cannot build track?

2) In 1895 I had a CPV of ~ 21,000 and a PNW of ~9,000. According to your scenario briefing I should have got bronze, but instead I lost.  ???

I attached my saved game at 1896. Copy into /Railroad Tycoon 2/games if you want to have a look at it.

.

D735921.zip

[thomasjordan]

Hi ABR:

The purpose of the track limit area is to restrict the player to the regions built to by the historic DSP&P.  Without those limits, this would basically be the original Durango map, just requiring you to haul alcohol and paper instead of coal and iron.

I didn't touch the victory conditions from the original map.  I'll take a look at them, though.

Thank you for the feedback.

Rob

[djf01]

Hi TJ,

I *almost* completed my first full play through Thursday night.  I *think* I was going to win the gold, though I was a bit pushed for time.  I stuffed up the management of the arrival of the Consolidation, but it *seemed* like it was going to deliver enough new cash to meet the goals in time.  I wasn't sure if I was going to get the bonus 5 years or not.

Anyway, I'm afraid I didn't get to finish - or even save that game.  My wife went into labour and we had our second child.  So I hope you understand.

Anyway, some comments on the game:

I never enjoyed the original version of that map all that much.  I don't know much about the Colorado narrow gauge rail systems, and am completely ignorant of the routes that were used.  I found the original map less than educational in this regard.  So I really liked having the route forced upon me the way it was.

I just built the outlined route, and tried to win with financial management from there.

I would have - though I know others wouldn't - would liked a bit more of that.

Personally, I don't like purely financial goals, but that is just personal taste too.  My preferance is for a load hauling (this also proved connectivity - connectivity which can be used - so no burn track) combined with financial (ie, you have to meet the goals profitably), but that's not easy to code in RT events.

The other thing was the railroad I built didn't feel all that narrow gauge to me.  With small engines it's necessary to have lots of short trains, and that means double track.

An alternative might be to ban/limit double track, and compensate by boosting the revenue and/or engine performance, or even the number of trains available.  But again, this is just personal taste.

Overall I enjoyed my game, and want to say thanks for publishing it, and I hope to get to completing it soon.

Thanks again

[Gwizz]

djf,

Congratulations on the new family member.  I'm guessing a girl?

TJ, 

I have yet to play your map.  Just too busy making use of this sunny weather.  I don't want to start a game that I can only play in small segments.  When the rain comes back, I will give it a try.  I enjoy remake maps.

Suggestion for the start of the game when using slow locomotives. 

Increase the locomotive speed in the editor.  Then, when faster locomotives become avaible, slow the speed down.  Another method is to increase the turn around time for the slow locomotives, again until the fast locomotives come along.  It is too bad that these events affect all locomotives and not individual locos. 

[djf01]

djf,

Congratulations on the new family member.  I'm guessing a girl?

Thank you, Gerry. 

But young Alexander is most definitely a boy!

[thomasjordan]

Hi TJ,

Anyway, I'm afraid I didn't get to finish - or even save that game.  My wife went into labour and we had our second child.  So I hope you understand.  Congratulation to you and Mrs. DJF01 on the birth of Alexander.

Anyway, some comments on the game:

I never enjoyed the original version of that map all that much.  I don't know much about the Colorado narrow gauge rail systems, and am completely ignorant of the routes that were used.  I found the original map less than educational in this regard.  So I really liked having the route forced upon me the way it was.  Thank you.

Personally, I don't like purely financial goals, but that is just personal taste too.  My preferance is for a load hauling (this also proved connectivity - connectivity which can be used - so no burn track) combined with financial (ie, you have to meet the goals profitably), but that's not easy to code in RT events.  I agree.  I'm reworing the map, playing with new victory conditiions that have nothing to do with finances.

The other thing was the railroad I built didn't feel all that narrow gauge to me.  With small engines it's necessary to have lots of short trains, and that means double track.  I normally double track all of my railroads on any map I play.

An alternative might be to ban/limit double track, and compensate by boosting the revenue and/or engine performance, or even the number of trains available.  But again, this is just personal taste.  The default manager provides an engine speed boost.

Thanks again  You're welcome, and thank you for the kind words.

[djf01]

Congratulation to you and Mrs. DJF01 on the birth of Alexander.

Thank you very much!

The other thing was the railroad I built didn't feel all that narrow gauge to me.  With small engines it's necessary to have lots of short trains, and that means double track.

  I normally double track all of my railroads on any map I play.

So do I.  And it's cheaper to retrofit double track to single rather than lay it initially as double - the opposite is true in real life.  I think double track is nearly essential to win RRT, especially early year games.    Crossing times on single track are just so long that double track provides a huge productivity boost.  Unless you've only got one train of course, so Locomotive might disagree.

But it just irks me a bit that a narrow gauge system - which was built in NG to reduce construction costs at the expense of operating performance and capacity - ends up being a double track conglomerate with 60+ concurrently operating trains.  In real life, if a short NG system didn't have enough capacity, they'd have upgraded to SG long before they tried double track.

I've had this problem with maps I've tried to make set in Australia.  Capturing the flavour of mixed gauge and in particular dinky narrow gauge operations, it's damn hard.  Well, too hard for me anyway.

[Gwizz]

For narrow gauge, you can, to a point, limit the number of locomotives a player can buy.

Use the trigger that removes a locomotive by loco number. In the event start with, loco #6 and #7 and #8 and #9 etc, for as many as you want to list in the event.  Be sure to tell the player there is a limited number of locomotives available past #5 and that replacement locos have a new number at the end of the list.  Therefore a player may refrain from buying #4 and #5 until later, knowing he can later buy only two better locos and not try to replace an older loco.

Another method is to make locomotives progressive more expensive as time goes by.

For example: For year 4 make the cost 50% higher.  For year 8 make it 100% higher and year 12 200% higher, etc.

I would make another faster loco available with each increase.  The cost by itself would limit the number of locos.

I believe you can event a loco that is not on the editors available loco list.  But I'm not sure of that.

[djf01]

I've usually tried cheaper locos, cheaper track construction but lower speed.

It seems to upset the balance of the game a bit.  I probably need to reduce all revenue a bit too (to reflect the fact the car loads are smaller).

But I've never felt I've got the balance right.