Latvian Republic 1920

[Gumboots]

I assume you must have the P2 installed on your 1.05. I can't see how else you'd get the editor option to enable it.

Anyway, on second thought your idea of offering a 10% reduction in overhead for connecting all Latvian cities is worth considering. It would be a bit of a mongrel of a thing to code, due to having to tally up all the Latvian cities and no others. There's no handy "number of cities in territory X" option, so it would have to be done by a large stack of connection checks. Not really difficult to do, but tedious to set up and with quite a bit of processing overhead.

However, for less proficient players who won't be going for Expert Gold anyway it could give some added interest while still being achievable. It would also bring the map back to being more Latvia-centric, and be a tempting consideration for expert players. They would have to trade off the benefit of the overhead reduction against the possible penalty from connecting Latvian cities that you don't actually need connected to win with that seed.

So from both those perspectives it's looking more interesting than the current event, which is only accessible to expert players and is really not worth doing most of the time.

[Gumboots]

Ok, made the recommended tweaks.

1/ The Saaremaa newspaper now alerts you to hotel, restaurant and tavern owners being very happy about the connection.
That should be enough to get people thinking (hotel and restaurant revenue is boosted 20%, with taverns boosted 40%).
The same event also gives a 20% increase in mail production, just to make pure express trains a better proposition,
but due to lack of space that's not mentioned in the newspaper. It's just an additional silent bonus.

2/ Changed the all cities connection offer so that it's now for all Latvian cities instead of all cities on the map.
Including Riga there are 40 Latvian cities, and they all have to be connected to Riga and have a train run to them.
The offer comes in the same year as before (start of 1931). The bonus for completion is $1 million company cash
and -10% company overhead. There is no time limit, except for the scenario finish at the end of 1939.

There are no other changes.

[RulerofRails]

In further reflection. The basis of my suggestions, re. helping out the rail start was partly aimed along the lines of stabilizing the variation from seed types. If you get one with poor options, there is some perhaps lower paying, but stable options available. I think the seeding is related in general to the setup of the map especially all the rivers and their proximity to cities, and the grouping of cities. It's IMO different from
normal", so has that special feel - makes mastering it more rewarding.

$120M CBV in 20 years from rail only needs a pretty relentless growth rate. It's easy to get a couple good years from rail, but chasing those rates long term can give a nice challenge.

I like the lower overhead addition. This is the perfect sort of strategy. Both pros and cons. Also, in the mid-game it's the right scale: a wide-scale effect on the whole company.

This is what I do for the haulage:

Haulage setup.jpg

This way I make some Meat is being hauled, but in the balance these trains will keep moving. They tend to stay fairly profitable too. I have a theory that I'm fairly confident about: if you route a train a simple A-B it's much more likely to get a price lock via the mechanism I call "price islands" (a stronger equalization of price if you will), than if doing an unrelated stop on the return journey. So unless there is a reason for A-B, I tend to run A-B-C, with C being a town somewhere on the return route.


I have played this map a lot. I have 150 saved games in the install I'm using for the new weight scale (still using some stand-ins of course). Yeah, I know it's probably too frequent saving. I didn't finish it successfully more than half a dozen times, with more failed attempts. Most of which I gave up on before mid-way through. I will try the latest version when I get time. I'm sorry you were waiting (I spent my RT3 time lately playing Sugus' new map and the Zany one etc.). I thought this map was pretty much in final form.

While playing this I was also trying to figure out a bit more an understanding of how to get the most out of the transmission of price between stations (all the rivers are not so good for stacking). For example, when hauling Cattle from A to D (meat packer) whether to route Cattle A-B-C-D or just A-D. Price rises more per mile traveled the closer you get to the station, so I currently believe that A-C-D is probably the best. Such little things, but goes to show why I maybe got a little obsessed. And my plays take longer than even just a simple rail only one should.

[Gumboots]

Yup, it is pretty much in final form, but I was just wondering if the tweaks to early rail were sufficient to make rail-only feasible for you, at least some of the time. IIRC you hadn't played it through since those changes were made.

There's no huge rush on this. I'd like to get it fully and finally sorted by November 18th, for the centenary of the declaration of independence. I know there are a few eye candy tweaks I need to make (remove trees in rivers in obscure places, etc) but if you're happy with the current coding then I won't need to change that any more, and the remaining minor eye candy is going to be easy.

[low_grade]

Certainly, after running through the game once, it presents deep challenges for those so inclined, to win in 1938, to win in 1937, to win in 1936??? 1935?!?!? I can see many ways to tighten my play up significantly, and also now familiar with the events, which is fair play on 2nd plays, I say, lol! I try not to peek on a first play, though. To win rail only, on Expert? Win with no stock issuing? Win with 100% control of the company and no company or personal debt?

Also, I went for better locos at the start, figuring that would ameliorate the P8's poor acceleration significantly, as well as save a few bucks here and there skimping on service stations, and probably reduce breakdowns even further by keeping the P8's topped off with oil most of the time. So many arguments why it's the obvious choice. Or is it? 60% off bridge building, when you know you're going to be building lots of bridges, might play into a faster start that just compounds to produce greater profits in the long run, possibly to the extent of being better than beefing up the P8 with fewer service stops... Especially considering that I probably built service at the same intervals I always do... So I guess I have some doubt that the 40% reduction in sand/oil/water is the obvious choice after all. Any thoughts?

[Gumboots]

RoR, naturally, wants to win it with no industry purchase or building and with no stock issues. Good luck to him, but I'm not going to try it.

I've played it umpteen times while testing and have never managed to win it in 1938 or earlier. Somehow, no matter how cunning I get, there is always something that sets me back to 1939. I'm sure it's possible to win in 1938 and probably in 1937, but I haven't managed it yet.

I always go for the better locos, just because that way I get better train rides (this is serious strategy stuff, y'know) and as you mention it does allow you to save on sheds and towers, which is handy in the early stages. I'm inclined to think that the saving on facilities combined with the reduction in number of stops makes it the better option, but on the other hand the cheaper bridges would be handy too.

[RulerofRails]

The deal with the bridges carries over from the original version. I never once chose cheaper bridges. In my typical use of bridges (wood most common) the embankments are worth a big chunk of the total cost. Can even be above 50% of the total. So my major concern is to keep these embankments down. Without embankments, the base cost for said bridge is not that much, so said saving is in the end not that great. If the discount was on graded track I would be re-thinking this right away. Bridges would at least in my usage be a similar cost, but there would be a decent advantage over all lumpy track parts. Such advantage could be balanced with deduction of pulling power: still keep the incentive for lower grade tracks.

I did decide to finally try cheaper bridges, and this is what I got. It's slightly (-$30k or so) cheaper to build a longer bridge here.

cheaper to bridge.jpg

As far as the starting possibilities. My basics are to find at least 2 steady earner cargoes. Normally that would be two full production industries, but one could be substituted for a combinations of resources etc., (Milk and Livestock are quite lucrative). Normally I need 3 cities for this (all along the same river is not desired), but in rare cases two will do, but I need to be able to connect another with a new bond at the end of the year. Of course some stretches where bridges are needed or the terrain is quite rugged are not feasible, for example Talsi isn't really that good even if a Meat Packer seeds there (some of this is down to the poor pickup of Livestock at Kuldiga etc.). Aucne is another location that I remember having success with if there's a Meat Packer there.

Lately I have been recognizing the possibility of Rezekne. At least my seeds have had decent supplies there sometimes Lumber, sometimes Meat. Admittedly I haven't played enough to find a nice seed on the west coast since you added the early incentives. For some reason (random) Ventspils doesn't have a port. I don't think a Ventspils-Liepaja start has a good chance without it. I did make minor use of the Riga bonus in a previous play that I spoke to you about via PM (based on a Valmiera Meat Packer).

I know I didn't give you a straight answer about the incentives. And maybe I just felt like I overplayed the map a bit, and was letting rest. I should have and will try (I did notice that Ammo is back on the latest version) just some more starts possibly without playing the whole thing through. At this point I'm thinking that maybe Daugvpils could have an incentive too? This could ensure that a player will lock into one within the early game if doing rails-only.

IIRC part of the idea with these was also to encourage players to do something with rails early in the game. They are a little help with rails-only on the poorer starts, but aren't overpowering to make things a smooth sail. The mid-term outlook for rails-only is very enjoyable with natural haulage of Steel etc. and all the haulage goals, the need to get a larger network established first and the CBV target consideration to keep profits up take early gameplay to the next level. I think the incentives are good for strategy overall. I realize it's a bit crazy to be doing this map rails-only.

[Gumboots]

Ok, the cheaper bridges are not significant for that bridge, but the game involves quite a few bridges that (in my experience) cannot be done without ramps. The cost reduction is more significant for those. It could be increased from 60% to 80%.

I don't really want to mess with pulling power via event, because it screws up balanced locos stats. I'd have to recalculate everything so that it made sense with and without the event, and I don't fancy that at all.

However, a cost reduction for graded track is easy to implement, and could still substantially reduce the cost of bridges that are hard to do without ramps. Personally I'd never use it (longer trains rides FTW) but I'm not averse to having it if you think it would add interest. How much reduction do you think would be reasonable?

IIRC part of the idea with these was also to encourage players to do something with rails early in the game. They are a little help with rails-only on the poorer starts, but aren't overpowering to make things a smooth sail.

They aren't meant to be overpowering enough to make things a smooth sail. They are intended to make rail-only possible, on the right seeds, for someone who is roughly as skilled as you and wants the challenge. All I want to know is if they make it possible for you to win rail-only, since you were finding it impossible (but only just) without them.

That being said, they are definitely useful for less skilled players who are not playing rail-only. The cash boosts, although small, are large enough to be meaningful at that stage of the game, and the credit rating boost is also handy for more rapid expansion.

[low_grade]

Actually going along with the science theme of better locos vs track engineering, I'd go with -25% track maintenance and -60% bridge building, I like the encouragement to go a bit out of the way to avoid grades and expensive bumpy track. Checking my 1932 save, that would have been a cumulative $1M saved at that point on maintenance. Also at the same point, 5% off all track would have saved almost the same, so maybe 25% off graded track if you wanted to go that way, since most track won't be graded much on this map. I might even go 90% off bridge building just to make it cheap to make them all stone, for fun... Heck even with all three I'd still probably pick -40% oil, water, and sand consumption. Maybe 20% off track maintenance, 80% off bridges, and 20% off graded all together?

[Gumboots]

It might be better to just have a blanket 5% or 10% cost reduction on all track, just for simplicity.
Maybe 10%, since with the shorter locomotive range you'll need more facilities and there will be more time spent stopped at them.

I like the encouragement to go a bit out of the way to avoid grades and expensive bumpy track.

In that case you'd want to increase the cost of graded track, not decrease it. Which would also increase the cost of bridge ramps and overpasses, so is probably a bad idea.