Will! Sid! Meier's! Railroads! be! Good!?!

[Strollen]

Originally Posted by Sarkus

That's pretty much my feeling, too. I just finished my first game, and granted, it was on easy, but I haven't played a RRT game in a few years. I won a 100 year scenario in 20 by buying up both my competitors because my net worth was 3 times theirs combined.

My complaints are these:

1) Track laying is too easy. No real challenge.
2) Graphics are nice but remind me of Civ 4 and the same sense that the cities are too close together for the scale of the map.
3) Maps are too small - no transcontinental, not even eastern versus western US. Instead we get maps like Southwest, which consists of the bottom third of CA, a bit of Nevada, and maybe the western half of AZ.

There are a few interesting new features, however, so it's not all bad.

The cities are way to close together and really defeats the sense of vast space which is characteristic of the building of railroads in the US. As an aside Stephen Ambrose did great book on the subject Nothing like it in the world , plus the maps are too small. I have no problem with some small maps especially for early scenarios, but what is wrong with building the Union Pacific or Orient Express.

For a company like Firaxis there really is no execuse for having modern industry available in early scenarios. Who knew that power plants, automobile factories, and pharmaceuticals were available in the the 1830s.

So many of the elements in the original RRT were dummy down that I am really surpised. E.g. station upgrade from depot, to station, to Terminal, but there are no extra structures to buy hotels, post office, cold storage etc.
The economic model seems very simple indeed, no priority cargo. The stock model is very simple, and no bonds.

In someways track laying is too easy but in many ways it is too hard.
I hate there is no undo key, nor is there even a bulldoze key. What if I don't want to maintain a line or more likely I really need to change my layout.

Actually I'd be more encouraged about the game if if the double tracking mechanism wasn't so hard to construct. I think this is just user error on my part some maybe somebody can help me.

Let say I have the following stations

A-----B-----C-----D

I decide to double track the segement between B and C
A----xB=====Cx-----D
Where X is the cross over track.
I then want to double track the entire line. I can't for the life of me figure out how to do it cause the crossover track is still around

Any help would be appreciated.

[Sarkus]

Originally Posted by Strollen

Actually I'd be more encouraged about the game if if the double tracking mechanism wasn't so hard to construct. I think this is just user error on my part some maybe somebody can help me.

Let say I have the following stations

A-----B-----C-----D

I decide to double track the segement between B and C
A----xB=====Cx-----D
Where X is the cross over track.
I then want to double track the entire line. I can't for the life of me figure out how to do it cause the crossover track is still around

Any help would be appreciated.

I don't know how to do that either. I'm also wondering whether you can change your starting city - it seems like it randomly assigns you a city and you are presented with a terminal with it's orientation already set.

One thing I'm experiencing is really bad slowdowns on higher graphics settings. Considering my system is well above recommended specs, I shouldn't have to drop my graphics to "medium" to maintain decent game speed.

The small maps also leads to crowding with the AI players. I'm playing the NE map on normal difficulty and all three of us are resorting to really ridiculous looking bridges and tressels (sp?) to get into cities someone else got into first. I've got NY to DC connected but it's the most convoluted route in history, including a bridge across the Chesapeake from Delaware into DC. That's realistic for 1870 or whenever I built it.

[Warren]

I've had quite a few crashes too. By contrast, I had zero crash problems with Civ 4 and Pirates!.

On the one hand, I enjoyed it enough to stay up playing all night, which at my age is hard to get me to do. On the other, it's left me somehow feeling like it's missing .... something.

[DeathMonkey]

Originally Posted by Taranis

Does anyone know if there will be a demo released of Railroads?

Yes, a demo is coming soon.

-Scott-

[DeathMonkey]

Originally Posted by Strollen

In someways track laying is too easy but in many ways it is too hard. I hate there is no undo key, nor is there even a bulldoze key. What if I don't want to maintain a line or more likely I really need to change my layout.

The quick way to "undo" is to select the track that you just built and press the delete button in the bottom middle. (Or press the delete key itself.) You should get a refund of the cost of the rails and bridge construction for that piece (but not cuts/fills to prevent exploits). If you delete older track, you will only get 50% of the money back instead of the entire amount.

Deleting track is a bit tricky because we prevent you from deleting track that a train is currently on or is planning on using.

A bulldozer and a more complete "undo" feature are certainly things we are considering for the patch.

Originally Posted by Strollen

Actually I'd be more encouraged about the game if if the double tracking mechanism wasn't so hard to construct. I think this is just user error on my part some maybe somebody can help me.

Let say I have the following stations

A-----B-----C-----D

I decide to double track the segement between B and C
A----xB=====Cx-----D
Where X is the cross over track.
I then want to double track the entire line. I can't for the life of me figure out how to do it cause the crossover track is still around

Any help would be appreciated.

If there isn't a train on the double tracked portion between B and C, then delete the crossover track at B and C, and then add full double track between A and B and C and D and it should do what you want.

-Scott-

[DeathMonkey]

For those suffering from crashes, please send me a personal message and I'll sync up with you and see what can be done. The answer, unfortunately, may be "we'll have to address it in the patch," but if there's any immediate action that can be taken to avoid the problems we'll let you know.

Thanks!

-Scott-

[Piemax2]

"...cities are too close together for the scale of the map."

I feel that way too, and I don't like the look of the "freeway interchanges" that seem to grow up in big cities.

Re doubletracking: Is there a way to get more than 3 tracks serviced by a single station? If not, is there a way to get 2 stations into a big city?

I have ended up making lots of triple-track and crossovers,but sometimes it seems as if the AI running the switches doesn't make good use of it-can anyone offer tips on what sorts of layouts work in congested areas?

The manual at one point mentioned a subsequent section on "Advanced track laying," but I can't find it, would someone point me to it please?

On game play, I like patents, and that using a plant can make it grow; I miss the abilitities to issue debt and new shares. Identifying the RR's wealth with the tycoon's wealth feels odd to me, and it makes the little bios of the historical tycoons feel out of place.

I've been having CTD's too, my machine is just below the "recommended" level (ok on RAM, Nvidia 6600 instead of the recommended 6800).

[DeathMonkey]

Originally Posted by Piemax2

Re doubletracking: Is there a way to get more than 3 tracks serviced by a single station? If not, is there a way to get 2 stations into a big city?

An annex/depot/terminal/station will service a maximum of three tracks.

Currently the only way to get 2 stations in the same city is to buyout an opponent who has a station in the same city as well.

-Scott-

[Jab2565]

[3) Maps are too small - no transcontinental, not even eastern versus western US. Instead we get maps like Southwest, which consists of the bottom third of CA, a bit of Nevada, and maybe the western half of AZ.

.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking the exact same thing last night while reading the manual. I would have love to have seen a race to connect the east to the west first. Also with all the historical background involving the trains and patients, something similar to the civpedia would have been good as well. Also in that context I would have liked to have seen a complete map of the US, and go from the beginning of the industry to modern day.

It's too early for me to praise/hate the game, I only finshed the southwest map on the easiest setting with no AI.

[Piemax2]

Thanks for the information, Scott,and for the suggestion about buyouts. In some cases a buy-out would do the trick, but in others I find my "hub cities" uncontested but congested; it would be nice to be able to have two terminals in a city, maybe one for freight and one for passengers. Is the "currently" an indication that this might be possible in a patch or expansion?

[DeathMonkey]

Originally Posted by Piemax2

Thanks for the information, Scott,and for the suggestion about buyouts. In some cases a buy-out would do the trick, but in others I find my "hub cities" uncontested but congested; it would be nice to be able to have two terminals in a city, maybe one for freight and one for passengers. Is the "currently" an indication that this might be possible in a patch or expansion?

There are two main usability reasons why we allow the player to only buy one station per city or industry. One, sometimes players will end up accidentally purchasing an additional station at a location that already has one. Two, the routing screen isn't nearly as easy to use when there are depots on top of each other. If enough players feel strongly about this issue, then we may seek a cleaner solution to having two stations in the same city.

I sometimes use the phrase "currently" to be vague and ambiguous and not get myself in trouble. :) There are features that we have planned and functionality that we're changing that we're excited about, but I don't want to promise something and not deliver. I will say that every technical problem that we get a report for will be scrutinized and fixing those issues are the highest priority tasks for the patch.

-Scott-

[jpinard]

Features/items to hopefully be changed:

* Camera zoom. I want to zoom out further.

* Flatten cities only. I'd like the option to flatten the cities, leaving trees and other objects up.

* Map Editor. Is that coming later? I'm disappointed the maps are so small. Sure it may be good for multiplay and for ADD kids that need "stuff going on all the time in the screen"... but I like wide open prairies with a track running through it - a true sense of scale. When I have time (in the future), I'd like to be able to re-do all the scenarios to fit this more grandiose vision.

* What's up with automobile factories in the mid-1800's? For goodness sake make industries time sensitive!

* I'm glad I can edit the patents. I think they're current values are too unbalancing.

Great start and wonderful game... but hopefully you'll continue developing this game (and maybe it as a series for further expansions).

[flyinj]

So, this is basically a faster, more focused version of Railroad Tycoon? That sounds like it could be really fun, done by the right person. And I believe Firaxis is full of those kinds of right people. I'm going to have to check this out.

[Ben Sones]

Originally Posted by jpinard

* What's up with automobile factories in the mid-1800's? For goodness sake make industries time sensitive!

Of the various complaints aired here, I find this one the most troubling. Does the game really work that way? That would be a real bummer. I always loved how the development of new industries in the RRT games gave you a sense of the passage of time. Hauling automobiles around with early steam engines would be a bit off-putting.

[rhinohelix]

I don't mean to be rude, as it appears that a Firaxis person is here but I am terribly disappointed with the game. I was fairly hyped to read about Railroads! shipping yesterday, as it had been somewhat beneath my radar. The original was the first game I purchased for my new "PC" (a Zeos 386SX/16! 4mb of ram!) back in '90, and what a love affair that was. I was like a kid in a candy store when I was actually able to pick it up and rush home.

The manual was good, but not as good as I was expecting, as I had read reports of it and was expecting a 136 page tome, not the big-text normal manual that was in the box. Very servicable and nice enough in itself; much like the game, however, it didn't meet my heightened expectations. Tutorial went well (other than my confused time trying to buy the lumber as opposed to the paper mill).

Graphically, the game is gorgeous. It simply looks fantastic. It better, though, as you are forced to press your nose against the glass the entire time you play. The zoom level is just entirely far too close. I don't know if this is a function of the 3d engine (Is the Pirates! or CivIV engine?) or a conscious design choice but either way the consequences that flow from it cascade in such a way as to dash the hopes I had for the game. I think the small maps are a result of this: when the camera forces you take the map in such small pieces, how could a map covering the whole U.S. work? All the maps will have to be the same size, so that while you conceivably could make an all U.S. map, it will essentially be a sectional map with the cities redone as to fit the scenario. At one point in my NE game, Reading, Allentown, and Eaton occupied the whole screen. If one tiny corner of PA is all that one can see, how could conceivably look at a whole U.S. map without going insane?

Other than the small maps and horridly close zoom level, I enjoyed the game for what its worth, at least in the beginning. The simplified mechanics worked for me, as I connected a few cities in the NE U.S. scenario. The reduced cost and easier laying of track soon came back to bite me hard, as competition with my "investor" opponents made some *insane* tracking to both keep me out of cities and reach my markets. It degenerated into a parody of the former game as the tracks began to resemble "Rollercoaster Tycoon" much more than any railroad game. At a later stage in the game, I built an almost entirely elevated route between New York and Washington, D.C., double-tracked, for not a lot of money. It also appeared that the game mixed the stone and steel elements, stone as I layed the first track and then steel when I double-tracked it, such that they were mixed together on the rail-line onscreen. I don't know if was intentional or not but looked odd nonetheless. Time also seemed to flow entirely too fast, although I found the controls towards the end of my game. It seemed that the faster default pace was intentional, as part of the simplification.

I also had a couple of points where despite building enormous cyclopean elevated bridges, I could not make trains run between two stations. I assumed that there had to be some track reason but for the life of me I couldn't figure it out. Even tearing it all down and doing it again in a more reasonable fashion wouldn't allow me to set the route up. Its not so much that I couldn't, as I am sure it was my own inexperience that prevented me from doing so, some flaw in my track layout, but that I couldn't get the game to tell me what I was doing wrong, when there was nothing obviously in error.

The interface was nice, although I couldn't help but feeling there was some functionality with the trains on the screen in the original that wasn't replicated here. The new supply/demand system worked well, although it seemed in my game "Food" was hard to get away from, as it popped up incessantly. It also seemed that emphasis in this game was completely away from passengers and mail as the most profitable cargo, although I just draw that conclusion based upon the price per load in the "Goods" window. I loved the representaion of what a station offered and demanded.

I think the industries system here is a big improvement over the original, although I missed having the resources out on the map raw, having to find them, and then place the station for maximum coverage. Watching cities grow and develop new needs, and being able to set up new input/output relationships was nice. Not having the cities change with the times was another letdown, as well as having the industries all be present from the beginning. Perhaps it was me, but run it past me again how big was the auto demand in the 1840's?

I loved being able to customize the trains. Making the "Philadelphia Express" look special was awesome. The individuality of the trains and routes was buried pretty far into the interface, though. Again, here let me say that the graphics are very, very nice, as watching the grain and coal cars fill up is almost a pleasure unto itself. This was mitigated by the fact that on some small runs, with eight cars the train was as long as the run itself. The train would fill up and then run just a touch (it seems there was a tiny minimum distance the engine had to go for any run) and then the money would rack up onscreen.

I know that everyone had the best of intentions with this game. Sid's name is almost a must-buy for a game, even if its not a genre I am particularly interested in. I was pleased with the Pirates remake (I even came to enjoy the Dance Dance portions, or not hate them) and Civ IV was a winner as well.

It is entirely possible that most of these faults are all mine, and there are options to rectify many if not all of these things. I spent an evening with it; perhaps more time would allow me to work out some of these details on my own.

Unless you can patch in larger maps, more realistic tracking, and a much, much wider zoom-out and feel, this effort will remain on my shelf as opposed to on my hard drive. I will have to wait for the reviews before dive into another of Sid-branded games sight-unseen.

[Jason Lutes]

Thanks for the considered breakdown, rhino -- I think I'll be passing on this one. I can certainly see why Firaxis would want to broaden the game's appeal, given the popularity of the subject matter, but the changes they've made -- making crazy track layouts the norm, reducing realism, reducing scale -- all push the game out of my field of interest. I hope it sells like crazy for them, though, so they can finally remake Covert Action. Which they're going to do next. Right, DeathMonkey? Right?

[Lorini]

I'd like to hear of folks' experience with the higher difficulty levels. Saying the game is too easy when you are playing on investor difficulty strikes me as a bit hypocritical (no offense meant here; it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me).

Lorini

[Eduardo X]

I don't think I can take anything but great in a Railroad Tycoon game. I think RRT3 is great, even with all the criticisms made of the game, so I'll just keep playing that for my railroad fix.

[Lorini]

But Eduardo, you note that you like RRT3 despite the criticisms of the game, why would you necessarily not like Railroads! despite the criticisms of it?? There's supposed to be a demo soon, I'd recommend at least trying that.

Lorini

[jpinard]

Originally Posted by Lorini

I'd like to hear of folks' experience with the higher difficulty levels. Saying the game is too easy when you are playing on investor difficulty strikes me as a bit hypocritical (no offense meant here; it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me).

Lorini

The problem with the difficulty level settings "BY ITSELF", is that it only adjusts starting incomes, pay-scale, and cost. It appears to do nothing for the AI... but I could be wrong.
There are a few "realism" options... but they're more like turning off cheats.

DeathMonkey - I sure hope you can comment on my notes further up. Lots of potential in the game... but you guys had to know how us longtime RRT players would feel about this incarnation. That's why I'm desparately hoping you're planning on adding to the game to help satiate those of us that like more realism... and the first release is to placate the younger players and those that wanted multiplayer.

[BobJustBob]

Realism. Ugh.

Keep the impressions coming, though. I'm much more interested in this game than I was yesterday.

[Sarkus]

Originally Posted by Ben Sones

Of the various complaints aired here, I find this one the most troubling. Does the game really work that way? That would be a real bummer. I always loved how the development of new industries in the RRT games gave you a sense of the passage of time. Hauling automobiles around with early steam engines would be a bit off-putting.

It's exactly how it works. Part of the consequence of a faster playing game is that the scenarios are longer, ofter 100 years or more. However, rather than having the economy develop they decided to have everything available up front. So, yes, you can build cars in 1830 and haul them to a city that has a demand for them.

The small maps are really beginning to annoy me. I'm playing the NE US map on normal difficulty and after 70 years the map is absolutely crowded with rail lines. Anything worth connecting to is connected by at least one of the three rail companies and many cities are connected to at least two rail companies. Like earlier RRT games, the second connection looks rather convoluted. As Rhinohelix suggested, it does start to resemble a "rollercoaster effect" after a while as lines bridge over each other, over the tops of mountains, across large bodies of water, etc.

Finally, I found easy difficulty super easy - bought out all my competitors after 20 years. Now I'm on normal and it's harder, but only in the sense that the AI protected itself by buying it's own stock and is a bit more aggressive on patent and industry auctions. I'm still well ahead in overall value of my company and it's really just a question of having the patience to save up enough cash to buy out my rivals to end it all.

[Eduardo X]

Originally Posted by Lorini

But Eduardo, you note that you like RRT3 despite the criticisms of the game, why would you necessarily not like Railroads! despite the criticisms of it?? There's supposed to be a demo soon, I'd recommend at least trying that.

Lorini

I'll definately be doing that. I haven't ruled this out yet, I'm just nervous

To be honest, I don't know what it is about RRT3 I like so much. I suck at it. I guess I really like seeing my rail empire work itself out, but once the AI gets competative I find myself losing quick.
However, the sandbox modes bore me.

[caesarbear]

The RRT series was one of the deepest economic games around yet remained very approachable. Dumbing down and simplifying the game just strikes me as an assine viewpoint. What is the purpose of this? Are sales numbers like that of Railroad Tycoon II just not enough? A game that was highly regarded for it's educational value, depth of gameplay, and popularity, needed to be simplified? Is the next step to dumb down Civ?

[DeathMonkey]

Originally Posted by rhinohelix

I don't mean to be rude, as it appears that a Firaxis person is here but I am terribly disappointed with the game.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't think you're being rude at all.

Originally Posted by rhinohelix

The interface was nice, although I couldn't help but feeling there was some functionality with the trains on the screen in the original that wasn't replicated here. The new supply/demand system worked well, although it seemed in my game "Food" was hard to get away from, as it popped up incessantly. It also seemed that emphasis in this game was completely away from passengers and mail as the most profitable cargo, although I just draw that conclusion based upon the price per load in the "Goods" window. I loved the representaion of what a station offered and demanded.

Passengers are the most lucrative commodity early in the game. The baseline amount (displayed in the goods list) shows their value, but there are modifiers for delivering them a great distance and quickly. Particularly early in the game, you can make a serious run on passengers alone. The value of passengers slowly decrease as the time goes by, but with faster trains (and good straight rails) you can continue to see a significant profit from them.

Originally Posted by rhinohelix

It is entirely possible that most of these faults are all mine, and there are options to rectify many if not all of these things. I spent an evening with it; perhaps more time would allow me to work out some of these details on my own.

Unless you can patch in larger maps, more realistic tracking, and a much, much wider zoom-out and feel, this effort will remain on my shelf as opposed to on my hard drive. I will have to wait for the reviews before dive into another of Sid-branded games sight-unseen.

Unfortunately, a patch of that scope is unlikely. We knew that there would be a number of individuals that would be unhappy with zoomed-in nature of the game and our often-times liberal interpretation of history, but we hoped that people would merely wrinkle their noses, and the enjoyment of the play experience would overcome some of the differences from the previous versions. The changes were a significant gamble with the project that we feel was a success, but I'm sorry that it didn't pay off for you.

-Scott-

[fuzzyslug]

Originally Posted by Eduardo X

I don't think I can take anything but great in a Railroad Tycoon game. I think RRT3 is great, even with all the criticisms made of the game, so I'll just keep playing that for my railroad fix.

Slightly off topic...I damn near bought RRT3 today for $10 at Target. I still haven't decided if I made the right decision.

[IkeVandergraaf]

Originally Posted by Sarkus

It's exactly how it works. Part of the consequence of a faster playing game is that the scenarios are longer, ofter 100 years or more. However, rather than having the economy develop they decided to have everything available up front. So, yes, you can build cars in 1830 and haul them to a city that has a demand for them.

That doesn't make any sense. Why not have the scenario last 50 "years" instead of 100 and make time pass half as quickly? Same amount of real time to accomplish the scenario and you don't have the anachronism.

[Jab2565]

Ok I think there is something wrong with the autosave option. When I go to load a game, there is no autosave even though the game tells me every 5 minutes that it autosaves. Which is annoying as I just lost a hour of gaming because the game crashed and I didn't do a hard save.

Also I think I reached an impass, I had 2 ai guys on and I was at least 6 million ahead of each. Yet to buy them out I have to pay 21 million a stock since they're all bought out. How can I raise enough money when I'm at around 6 million of cash?

[flyinj]

This game has really small maps, surprisingly so. It's tough to wrap my head around what strategies I'd use when I'm used to such huge, sprawling maps from previous incarnations.

However, I'm willing to give Firaxis the benefit of the doubt and not approach this game as RRT4, but as a new game altogether.

[Ben Sones]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

Unfortunately, a patch of that scope is unlikely. We knew that there would be a number of individuals that would be unhappy with zoomed-in nature of the game and our often-times liberal interpretation of history, but we hoped that people would merely wrinkle their noses, and the enjoyment of the play experience would overcome some of the differences from the previous versions.

Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning for not having industries appear on the map roughly in accordance to their historical counterparts? One of the things I've always enjoyed with the RRT titles, at least with the economic side of the game, was the way the map evolved over time, and how you had to constantly adapt your raiload to the new industries that would appear. It seems to me that taking that out would rob the economic game of a lot of its appeal. The idea of hauling cars around the American frontier with a 4-4-0 also seems pretty off-putting in a thematic sense.

I think I've gone from "day one purchase" to "wait and see" with this game.