Cape, Standard & Irish (scenario idea tyre kicking)

[Gumboots]

I've been thinking again of something I've wanted to do: a variation on my 1954 Royal Tour scenario.

Australia has three mainline gauges: 3' 6" (Cape gauge), 4' 8 1/2" (standard gauge) and 5' 3" (Irish gauge). The historical reasons for this are stupid, but that's what's we have. The 1954 RT map required running two separate railroads: one in Queensland and one in New South Wales. The obvious thing to do next is to make a scenario that covers all three gauges, by adding Victoria into the mix.

I'm also thinking it would be good to set it in the latter half of the 19th century, when the state rail systems were being built, and make the connection requirements match when key towns were actually connected. This is going to require running three companies, almost from the start of the scenario, and keeping up with connection requirements for all three. Which sounds completely mental.

Although the thing is Australia is big, and there really wasn't that much track laid back then, so running between different companies is one way of making a largely empty map more interesting. I'm also wanting this one to place useful limits on robber baron tricks, while still allowing multiple companies, so I'll be trying to think up various bits of nifty coding to get this result.

Ideas so far:

1/ Make it a restricted track scenario, with all companies set to 0 track by default, and with the option for the human player to purchase track by placing one track unit in a specified territory (as in AoS V). This will mean that AI boards will not be able to get hold of track while they are running companies for you, so they will not be able to do stupid AI things with track.

2/ The catch is that AI boards will still be able to do stupid AI things with stock, dividends, industry and trains, but their stupidity with those isn't as extreme and tends to be more manageable. They can be set to conservative for expansion, etc. If necessary, it would also be possible to have an event/dialogue set AI company credit rating to F, so they cannot take out bonds while you are not in charge. The plan is to force the AI boards to be reasonably competent managers. I think that is possible.

3/ One obvious catch here is that it might be impossible to prevent the AI boards for non-railway companies buying locomotives to run on other company's track. Even if all locos are set to unavailable for a company, the game engine will always make one locomotive available. RT3 is a train game, so having available locos is hard-coded in. This bit is going to be tricky.

Edit: Just had an idea that might work. Electric track is unavailable in the 19th century. If one electric loco was made available to a non-railway company, that might keep the game engine happy and still prevent said company actually running any trains. It wouldn't need to look like an electric in the train list. For instance, it could be a Planet asset with engine type set to electric.

3/ Since track will have to be requested whenever it is wanted, it would also make sense to have it ordered in advance, just for extra strategy. In the 19th century, Australia imported all steel. None was manufactured in the country. Shipping times from the UK to Australia were around 3 months, and obviously you would have to order well before the ship left port, so a 6 month lead time on track orders feels about right.

4/ Companies will have to be tracked by ID number. Ideally you would be able to choose which territory you wanted to start a company in. This could be done with a dialogue, and then the result held as a variable so that you could not start more than one railway in the same state.

5/ It will be necessary to start three companies in pretty quick succession, and to have a majority of initial stock in all three to enable the required company-jumping. This will require a fair wodge of personal cash to kick things off, and that could be misused. So, it might need coding to force the player to set up the three railway companies first.

6/ Alternatively, since Queensland was the straggler and didn't start laying until until 1865, it may be best to just allow enough resources to set up NSW and Victoria at the start of the game, and then require the player to earn enough personal cash to enable them to start the Queensland company when required. Not sure if that will be feasible within a decade, but it's worth considering.

7/ The company ID's for the three state railways would have to be tracked to prevent those companies being merged. That's easy to implement.

8/ Any additional companies past the three state railways would need to have track set permanently to 0, with no option to buy any track at all. This could be done by setting such companies so they have no access to the track purchase territory.

9/ Ideally, the three railway companies would be prevented from merging non-railway companies. In real life they did not get into major industry holdings, so it'd be good to mimic this in the scenario. I have some vague ideas of how this might be doable, but it needs more thought.

10/ The idea here is that you will be able to run additional companies for added fun and profit, just in case you're getting bored with only three. I can think of several ways of putting limits on shenanigans. One way would be to disallow mergers entirely, but that sounds a bit too easy.

11/ Anther option would be to disallow stock buybacks. Doing that puts tight limits on how much robberbaronism you can indulge in before you start going backwards. As long as personal cash at game start is high enough, it should be possible to have the whole thing playable without stock buybacks.

Still thinking it through, so more ideas will be forthcoming. Any suggestions are welcome too.

[RulerofRails]

What were you thinking for the objective/s? Were you thinking to have more focus on a specific company at certain times or just have a more open kind of combined game such as total CBV?


Watch out for when trying to deal with the AI. I was thinking recently that the AI are proof that simple micro-management schemes (without the timing factor) in this game don't actual work reliably no matter how well they are carried out.

I know historical/geographical restraints and all that, but the physical layout of networks can help to keep their possibilities saner. That would mean a more simple linear ideal network (to coincide with the way the heat map for price works) or perhaps set of linears arranged into a spoke. I feel complications like spurs and short hops between close towns are going to bring out their worse behavior in terms of re-arranging "your" route lists.

One thing that will come up here is that on expert level, the AI will earn more than you for the same haul. I'm sure in such a game there will be various ways the player can take advantage of that. Maybe it can be seen as an offset to their routing "re-arrangments"?

Idea for #10
You could track Company CBV. If it decreases more than say 50% in a short period of time, that could be an indication of foul-play.

[Gumboots]

Main objectives would be basic connect and haul, probably with some tracking of revenue to and from certain territories. For example, the line out to Bourke (NSW) was built specifically to interrupt the paddle steamer trade on the Darling river. All the wool and other outback trade (a big deal in those days) was going to Victoria and South Australia via steamboat, so NSW built a line to Bourke and grabbed a stack of trade for Sydney. The decision to build that line, taken in 1877, also coincides with the first big locomotive orders for NSW.

Would probably have a CBV goal as well, with player cash penalties for being late on connections to towns.

Watch out for when trying to deal with the AI.

Yes, I know about the AI. This idea is partly because I'm curious about what can be done to make the AI behave. They're stupid, so with a bit of luck I should be able to outsmart them, but they are exceptionally accomplished idiots and you know what they say about building better idiots. A variation on "they'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience".

But if it's possible to make the AI behave then the knowledge should be useful for a range of scenarios. The AI's use of trains is generally fairly good in terms of routing, and you can always do your shenanigans with the game paused. I'd just let them go for it.

The other thing I want to trial is allowing multiple companies but disallowing unrestricted robber baron lunacy, to get a balance in what is possible. I like being able to do multiple companies and the stock market, but in unrestricted form it becomes too easy and too unrealistic. Making it usefully playable requires outsmarting humans, which is always a nuisance. They're irritatingly inventive critters.

---

The main focus would probably be the NSW railway company. That ran its first trains in 1855. Queensland didn't start running trains until 1864, which is too late to be the main focus. By that time NSW and Victoria had far more advanced networks. Victoria was an unusual case. There was a private line from Melbourne to Geelong that opened in 1857, but it wasn't profitable and was sold to the state company in 1860. That's really when Victorian Railways kicked off. That gives scope for an early merger. Set up an AI company, rely on the AI to bork it, do a VR takeover in 1860, and go from there.

This is a peculiarity of Australian rail history. It's big, and population was sparse. The case in the US was different in that there was a solid population and industry base already existing in some regions when railways first took off. That provided private companies with a way to be profitable. In terms for scope for profit, the situation in Australia was more like trying to connect the east coast of the US in 1670. Private rail systems always failed to be viable, so the state governments had to take over, and once they took over they just kept going.

I'm thinking the three gauges should have conditions attached to them. QR was notorious for laying light track, so low speeds and weights in general. NSW and Victorian track was generally built to higher standards, and of course Victorian broad gauge was more expensive to lay than standard gauge. OTOH, Victoria had less distance to cover since it's a more compact state. So currently thinking NSW could be standard track price, speed, etc and Qld could be (more or less) -20% on track price and pulling power, with Vic being +20% on both. Might also have slight adjustments of loco prices by company.

---

It has occurred to me that this concept might end up being too much of a mission in practice, for a range of reasons, but it's an interesting thought experiment and if nothing else should provide some useful test cases of various factors. Also, I find I tend to get inspired to make locomotives when I have a specific use for them, so this idea might get me moving on Australian/World locos.

[RulerofRails]

I think it's a good idea for a map at least. TBH, I think economic setup is a big factor in the feel and character of a map. But it's a creative thing too, so it's possible that what you design for the economy doesn't gel well with a certain set of objectives, especially haulage ones.