Will! Sid! Meier's! Railroads! be! Good!?! - Page 6

Nellie · 10-19-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Force Commander got game of the month in the UK. I never forgave them for that... *sniff*.

I wasn't reviewing professionally or anything, but I gave it two out of ten and only because I liked the music and the look of the thing, but yes, I got suckered by those reviews too.

BobJustBob · 10-19-2006, 11:56 AM

Black and White was good. Master of Orion 3 was good. State of Emergency was good. Save your hate for games that deserve it.

DeathMonkey · 10-19-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfreak

Is there a date for the first patch?

No firm date yet, but we're finishing off programming on the patch soon. It addresses many (hopefully all) of the crash bugs that people are experiencing. We have done some performance work to help improve the framerate later in the game; it won't be pegged at 60 fps, but it'll be a bit smoother on everyone's machine.

On a personal note, this whole thread is causing some cognitive dissonance for me. I love Railroads, continue to play it daily, and am tremendously proud that I had a chance to work on it. I hoped that most people who tried it would enjoy it as much as I do, but, for a number of people in this thread, that doesn't appear to be the case. I guess the obvious realization is that different people enjoy different things.

I do hope that people will give it a chance (or a second chance), particularly in multiplayer where auctions really come to life.

-Scott-

caesarbear · 10-19-2006, 12:20 PM

I'm sure for someone who hasn't played much RRT before, this will be a great game. It's just not for me.

Alan Dunkin · 10-19-2006, 12:23 PM

Well I haven't had a chance to play it yet, but it seems like there's a widening disconnect between what people here in this thread expected and the game that wound up in their hard drives.

* I think gaming veterans have been expecting a RRT heir apparent, no matter the name change or whatever else PR, marketing, and name-changing has been attempting to do.

* It seems like, from my perspective, that Firaxis and Sid's games have been continually attempting to produce generically fun games for the mass market as it stands today while reducing or eliminating negative or perceived non-fun factors out of their titles. This obviously seems to work (Civ IV and Pirates for instance).

* Veteran games however expect more out of these games than just what they think is dumbed-down gameplay and complexity. While they don't mind more simplistic less complex games, they still want something that's challenging on a bigger scale.

While I don't doubt that the game will sell well and appeal to the general gamer, I think dedicated gamers still expect something more out of Sid's games and they aren't getting it. Small, tiny busy maps may be good for the attention-deficit gamers that are continually being spawned today, but dedicated gamers also yearn for something bigger, more complex, and hence more satisfying.

--- Alan

Rob_Merritt · 10-19-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dunkin

* I think gaming veterans have been expecting a RRT heir apparent, no matter the name change or whatever else PR, marketing, and name-changing has been attempting to do.

Thats my problem, I'm sure. When I got the original, I played it for 3 days straight, no sleep. I want something to live up to that. Guess nothing will. (though fixing the CTDs would be cool)

flyinj · 10-19-2006, 01:16 PM

As disappointed as some of you are, it can't be anywhere near the disappointment of Transport Tycoon 3.

Alan Dunkin · 10-19-2006, 01:21 PM

There's a TT3?

--- Alan

Jason Lutes · 10-19-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dunkin

There's a TT3?

--- Alan

Perhaps he means Chris Sawyer's Locomotion, which would have been a great game if road/track/vehicles had maintenance costs. But they don't, so it isn't.

rhinohelix · 10-19-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob_Merritt

Thats my problem, I'm sure. When I got the original, I played it for 3 days straight, no sleep. I want something to live up to that. Guess nothing will. (though fixing the CTDs would be cool)

My problems have less to do with misplaced nostalgia and more to do with the "mashed up against the glass" effect the zoom-in level creates. I know it makes sense in some respect because of the small map size but it bothers me to no end that I have to scroll to see further than one eight-car train length of the map. I wish that was more than a slight exageration.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that many of these things I consider faults flow from the 3d engine. The need to keep a wide and low requirements base resulted in the need to limit the view, particularly as the game fills up in the later years.

The small maps and the "rollercoaster tycoon" feel flow from this, I think. As you can't see very far at all by the limit imposed on your view, the maps simply can't be that big without completely losing control. As a bonus, though, of the limited viewing area they are able to construct fantastic fantasy rail visuals in the small screen area they allow you to see.

The mechanics are fun, don't get me wrong. I enjoy empire-building, looking for profitable routes, building and buying industries, even non-historic ones (this is the least troubling issue for me. I would have very little trouble with this if the visual issues were resolved, personally) in this version. There are some issues that are sure to be resolved by patching, the odd routing problems, etc. I am sure that there are a great many people who will enjoy it. I sincerely hope it makes tons of money for Firaxis, who even seperate from their Microprose heritage have contributed much to PC gaming. The choices that were made in this game, however, weren't for me.

Strollen · 10-19-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

No firm date yet, but we're finishing off programming on the patch soon. It addresses many (hopefully all) of the crash bugs that people are experiencing. We have done some performance work to help improve the framerate later in the game; it won't be pegged at 60 fps, but it'll be a bit smoother on everyone's machine.

On a personal note, this whole thread is causing some cognitive dissonance for me. I love Railroads, continue to play it daily, and am tremendously proud that I had a chance to work on it. I hoped that most people who tried it would enjoy it as much as I do, but, for a number of people in this thread, that doesn't appear to be the case. I guess the obvious realization is that different people enjoy different things.

I do hope that people will give it a chance (or a second chance), particularly in multiplayer where auctions really come to life.

-Scott-

Hi Scott

First, I do appreciate your willingness to participate on the forum. You are not the only one who is suffering congnitive dissonance, I am can't believe I actually telling people don't buy any game for Firaxis, (several years ago Jeff Briggs was very helpful to me at my first GDC), much less a game Sid was actively involved in.

I honestly didn't have strong notions of what RR! would be. The grogrnard part of me loves having more features. On the other, I was delighted with SimGolf, which is far from the ultimate golf game, because quite simply it was a ton of fun to play. (This from somebody who hates golf.)

I think there is a market for a simple railroad game, and I'd be happy to play and recommend it, but it just needs to be fun. Railroads! took a number of good steps in that direction, but unfortunately it took several steps in the wrong direction. I have tremendous confidence that the Firaxis will fix the perforrmance problems and CTDs. If you'll indulge me let me give you my suggestion on how fix RR! to make it a more fun game.

Yesterday after giving up (I hope temporarily) on RR!. I fired up RRT3 for the first time in a few years. Not remembering many details, and without the benefit of a manual I put outside my anal side, and just played the game for fun. I really just concentrated on build a railroad form boston to buffalo (the first campaign scenario) and didn't obsess and about making the optimum line. You know what building a railroad is fun!

Personally, I very much prefer the realistic look of RRT3 and the scale/perspective of the game to RR!, but at this point nothing can be done about that. I realize that RR! is specifically not RRT4, however, RR! can steal some ideas from RRT3 on the human interface.

The good news is that building a rail network is simpler and no less fun in RR! than RR3. In most ways RR! approach is superior a " $XY,000, $X,000 fill, a gentle downslope, max speed 200 MPH" is more user friendly approach to laying track, and more useful than a string of grade percentage u get with RRT3.

I also have no problem with the many simplifications. My life will be complete, if I no longer have to worry, about water, sand, and oil levels on my train engines. I miss not being able to add special structure to customize my stations, but three levels of station upgrades works ok. (Upgrading stations seems like a no brainer, which I though violated a Sid design rule but...)
I am also fine with cities and resources having an export radius, rather than different size station having a collection radius.

Where RR! falls woefully short is in the actual operations of a running a railroad.
1. Supply and Demand understanding. The essence of a running a railroad is transporting goods where they are cheap and selling them where they are dear. RRT3, had an extremely sophisticated supply and demand system. But it was coupled with a very simple system to profit it from it. In my RRT3 game last night, 90% of the time I simply ran a train from A-->B-->C-->A and told the computer to figure out which was the most profitable cargo. Now RRT3 provide you with a myriad of controls to customize it, and overwhelming amount of data to help you understand where goods were cheap and expensive. But at is essence it was a far simpler than RR!. RR! needs a better information screens to help players meet supply and demand.
2. Train routing and operations. Frankly guys this interface is an embarrassment. No way to insert a station, easily change a train destination, upgrade all of a trains engines, duplicate a train, get an overview of all of the trains running. The system is not only a huge step back from RRT2 and RRT3, but is worse than the original. Maybe Sid has some code from RRT circa 1989 than you guys can use.
3. Traffic Management. The principal ways railroads manage traffic congestion is through the use of signals sidings, and parallel tracks. RRT had signals, the Poptop games simplified the game by eliminating them. You guys brought them back in RR!. Aesthetically, I think they look ugly given the size of the trains. What is beyond maddening is the way double and triple tracking is handled. In reality double tracking is cheaper, than laying a new track, in RR! it is the same price. What I don't understand is why you either didn't abstract crossover and siding, and make a double track the equivalent of two-way highway. Failing that you need to add some crossover structure. Right now attempting to have multiple lines with multiple crossover points, leads to gridlock. I think everybody agrees that being stuck in gridlock in real life or simulated life sucks!

Those are my big 3 improvement which I think are all doable within the scope of a major patch. I think RR! has a number of other shortfalls, (stock market, map size), but it has enough positive things, I'd be happy to try it again, if these issue are addressed, and I believe that many feel the same way.

thanks

Qenan · 10-19-2006, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobJustBob

Black and White was good. Master of Orion 3 was good. State of Emergency was good. Save your hate for games that deserve it.

Just let me know what name you're reviewing under so that I can properly weight your opinions.

flyinj · 10-19-2006, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobJustBob

Black and White was good. Master of Orion 3 was good. State of Emergency was good. Save your hate for games that deserve it.

With standards like that, what exactly does constitue a bad game?

Lorini · 10-19-2006, 04:21 PM

Well Firaxis, I like it for what it is. The maps seem just fine in size, and the simplification means I can actually play multiplayer with more people. For example, my cousins love Rollercoaster Tycoon, and they could definetely get into this. No way could they enjoy RRT3. I personally don't blame you for going for a larger market. Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe is still available; I think people who are looking for something more complex ought to try that, instead of trying to make this game something that it clearly wasn't meant to be.

Lorini

BobJustBob · 10-19-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyinj

With standards like that, what exactly does constitue a bad game?

Half-Life 2.

Oh wait you said game.

Jab2565 · 10-19-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strollen

On the other, I was delighted with SimGolf, which is far from the ultimate golf game, because quite simply it was a ton of fun to play. (This from somebody who hates golf.)

Sim golf was the first game I ever played from firaxis and still stands as my favorite game from them. Being able to design a course and have it rated and played on was great. I think the problem with RR is that it seems to narrow focused, especially when compared to the Civ series. That scenario you were talking about in RRT3 sounds pretty cool. Personality my dream version of RR! would be keeping the easy to use system of it, but add in the scale and features of the RRT games. Hopefully firaxis will see to either release another RR game, or an expansion that adds in alot of these features.

jpinard · 10-19-2006, 08:20 PM

Scott, I wrote out a big long post, but I'm cutting it back to try and get to the point.

...direct quote from the back of the box with my highlights...

Quote:

"It's a dream come true to be reunited with a game I created early in my career, that has been played and enjoyed by generations of strategy, simulation, and train fans around the world. This re-imagining of the original is sure to ignite the passion for railroads and deliver exciting and challenging gameplay experiences for years to come."

This is a game targeted towards previous Railroad Tycoon fans. If it wasn't, and this was "Thomas the Train for Teens", that would not be on the back.

Go look at any message board on the Internet discussing this game and you will see the exact same complaints on every single board. Scale is off, maps are way too small, cities are way too big, routing isn't right, and immersion is blown by all the non-historical oddities and super generic AI competitors, currently only has longevity if you plan to play on-line. I don't buy Sid games to play on-line, and I bet that's the same with most of the people who buy this (Firaxis) games. You might be surprised at the negativity... but people who have been buying Sid's game's for 20 years are surprised he'd go for "gamey" when targetign Tycoon fans.

What I can't stress enough however, is if you support the community we'll push sales and help you out too. But don't take our non-bug feedback and throw it out the window just because it doesn't sound like the original master plan. We're not stupid, and if most people think larger, more geographically/historically correct maps would be more fun... it probably will be. Might not be easy for you to do post-release, but on the other hand it would be sad for an industry veteran to totally ignore his long-time fans.

Outside of the comments in this long thread, Firaxis did a great job on all other aspects of the game. Great sound, visuals, and animation. Great interface (except for the problem with stations). In the grand scheme of things complaining endlessly about a decent game is silly. But I think some of us were worried Firaxis would shrug off long-time fans and we'd be forced to leave a beloved franchise before we get all those years of gameplay.

Lorini · 10-19-2006, 09:02 PM

jp, the PC market in 1995 and the current PC market can't even be compared as far as numbers go. If they thought that most of the sales would be focused on people who played the original, I doubt they would have even made the game. With WoW at 7 million subscribers, most of which are XP users, the potential market is huge. I think from a business standpoint, they made the exact right move. We traditional players just wish for the old days.

Lorini

jpinard · 10-19-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorini

jp, the PC market in 1995 and the current PC market can't even be compared as far as numbers go. If they thought that most of the sales would be focused on people who played the original, I doubt they would have even made the game. With WoW at 7 million subscribers, most of which are XP users, the potential market is huge. I think from a business standpoint, they made the exact right move. We traditional players just wish for the old days.

Lorini

...but... they could have made those choices available to us - instead of making the choices for us. If we're smart enough to mod the max zoom scroll or xml, we're smart enough to know it won't work with generic on-line mp. They could have done a much better job of creating more toggle-able advanced gameplay options (choices).

Warren · 10-19-2006, 09:19 PM

I'm experiencing a lot of frustration with crossover tracks, even when I start with double tracks.

Looking at how the computer players do it is no help. Even if I emulate thier nutty layouts, my trains seemingly play by different rules.

Anyone have any insight on how to get double tracking with crossovers work vaguely realistically?

Strollen · 10-19-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren

I'm experiencing a lot of frustration with crossover tracks, even when I start with double tracks.

Looking at how the computer players do it is no help. Even if I emulate thier nutty layouts, my trains seemingly play by different rules.

Anyone have any insight on how to get double tracking with crossovers work vaguely realistically?

Nope Warren if you figure out let us know. One person suggested that if you make sure you are always clicking from the signal to the to the other line and both ends are green it creates a better system. I haven't verified that. (But have verified emulated the AI doesn't work!)

The best advice I saw, from one of the people who liked the game, was to only have one train per track segment. -:)

steve · 10-20-2006, 06:04 AM

It should probably be pointed out that Sid Meier only did one Railroad Tycoon game, so it's unfair to say he's expected to uphold the legacy of Railroad Tycoon II and III. Those were Phil Steinmeyer's games.

I've talked to Sid before about the other Railroad Tycoon games, asking him what he felt about them. I got the impression that he respected the designs but didn't care for the increased financial complexity. Or at least that's not the direction he would have personally taken the game. I know I never warmed to the sequels as much as the original because I'm not that into accounting.

Lorini · 10-20-2006, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpinard

...but... they could have made those choices available to us - instead of making the choices for us. If we're smart enough to mod the max zoom scroll or xml, we're smart enough to know it won't work with generic on-line mp. They could have done a much better job of creating more toggle-able advanced gameplay options (choices).

And that would have cost money that they most likely wouldn't have gotten back from the audience they were making the game for. As I said, get a copy of Transport Tycoon Deluxe, and download the Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe mod, and you should be in second heaven.

Lorini

Warren · 10-20-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strollen

Nope Warren if you figure out let us know. One person suggested that if you make sure you are always clicking from the signal to the to the other line and both ends are green it creates a better system. I haven't verified that. (But have verified emulated the AI doesn't work!)

The best advice I saw, from one of the people who liked the game, was to only have one train per track segment. -:)

The green ends makes things worst as far as I can see.

However the one train with dedicated lines works great. How ... ahistorical.

Still, I keep playing. I can't say it isn't fun. Just ... not what I envisioned.

Kunikos · 10-20-2006, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobJustBob

Black and White was good. Master of Orion 3 was good. State of Emergency was good. Save your hate for games that deserve it.

Your "good" maps onto my "I'd rather be playing something else."

Kunikos · 10-20-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve

I know I never warmed to the sequels as much as the original because I'm not that into accounting.

If I wanted to be an accountant gamer I'd be playing EVE Online.

Jason Cross · 10-24-2006, 11:58 AM

Well, I tried playing RR! all weekend, but I just can't.

I like the game in spite of itself. I really do. It has plenty of foibles, but most of them would be forgivable if managing track was better handled.

I'll have trains that are waiting over 40% of the time, and it's a REAL pain to lay track such that their route is more optimal. Removing a merge so you can double-track for a greater distance is hard. Crossing over to other tracks is REAL hard, the interface is finicky and it's difficult to see what track you have going where. Not to mention, it seems like the trains don't manage which tracks they move to in a way that optimizes effectively.

Even so, I was struggling with it and dealing with it and figuring out how to work around the wonky track connections...

but it just keeps crashing to desktop. From what I read online, I'm not the only one having this problem. It happens most often right when I lay a new piece of track, or stretch out a silhouette of track. I mean, it's BAD. I was getting a CTD every 15 minutes for awhile there.

This game seriously needs a patch or two. A quick one that makes it stable, and then another one in a month that improves some of the track layout and train routing issues.

Case · 10-24-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Cross

but it just keeps crashing to desktop. From what I read online, I'm not the only one having this problem. It happens most often right when I lay a new piece of track, or stretch out a silhouette of track. I mean, it's BAD. I was getting a CTD every 15 minutes for awhile there.

This game seriously needs a patch or two. A quick one that makes it stable, and then another one in a month that improves some of the track layout and train routing issues.

Are you running on Vista or XP?

Thrag · 10-24-2006, 12:23 PM

I can manage to lay track to cut down on waiting a lot of the time, but when trains do wait I'm often left wondering why. Sometimes it seems like they go out of their way to conflict with each other. Like both trains have decided to use the crossover to get on to the same track when one of them should have stayed on their original track.

I've found that having redundant tracks with crossovers isn't the way to go. In fact I try to keep tracks isolated from each other to some extent. Usually this works out real well for the first few cities and then when I extend long sections of track (usually for scenario goals) it all goes to hell. However that initial section with the dedicated lines that never overlap keeps cranking out the cash to make up for the traffic jams caused by my less well planned track.

I've only played a few partial scenarios so far (as Dark Crusade arrived at the same time), but I'm still finding it intriguing.

Hans Lauring · 10-24-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Case

Are you running on Vista or XP?

I thought you guys worked together - couldn't you just knock on his office door and ask that?

10-19-2006, 11:56 AM	#152
BobJustBob New Romantic Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Madison, AL PSN&Live:BobJustBob Posts: 8,609	Black and White was good. Master of Orion 3 was good. State of Emergency was good. Save your hate for games that deserve it.

10-19-2006, 12:20 PM	#154
caesarbear Social Worker Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Boston Posts: 4,042	I'm sure for someone who hasn't played much RRT before, this will be a great game. It's just not for me.

10-19-2006, 12:23 PM	#155
Alan Dunkin New Romantic Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 9,789	Well I haven't had a chance to play it yet, but it seems like there's a widening disconnect between what people here in this thread expected and the game that wound up in their hard drives. * I think gaming veterans have been expecting a RRT heir apparent, no matter the name change or whatever else PR, marketing, and name-changing has been attempting to do. * It seems like, from my perspective, that Firaxis and Sid's games have been continually attempting to produce generically fun games for the mass market as it stands today while reducing or eliminating negative or perceived non-fun factors out of their titles. This obviously seems to work (Civ IV and Pirates for instance). * Veteran games however expect more out of these games than just what they think is dumbed-down gameplay and complexity. While they don't mind more simplistic less complex games, they still want something that's challenging on a bigger scale. While I don't doubt that the game will sell well and appeal to the general gamer, I think dedicated gamers still expect something more out of Sid's games and they aren't getting it. Small, tiny busy maps may be good for the attention-deficit gamers that are continually being spawned today, but dedicated gamers also yearn for something bigger, more complex, and hence more satisfying. --- Alan

10-19-2006, 01:16 PM	#157
flyinj Social Worker Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 4,373	As disappointed as some of you are, it can't be anywhere near the disappointment of Transport Tycoon 3.

10-19-2006, 01:21 PM	#158
Alan Dunkin New Romantic Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 9,789	There's a TT3? --- Alan

10-19-2006, 04:21 PM	#164
Lorini New Romantic Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Pasadena, Ca Posts: 7,454	Well Firaxis, I like it for what it is. The maps seem just fine in size, and the simplification means I can actually play multiplayer with more people. For example, my cousins love Rollercoaster Tycoon, and they could definetely get into this. No way could they enjoy RRT3. I personally don't blame you for going for a larger market. Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe is still available; I think people who are looking for something more complex ought to try that, instead of trying to make this game something that it clearly wasn't meant to be. Lorini

10-19-2006, 09:02 PM	#168
Lorini New Romantic Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Pasadena, Ca Posts: 7,454	jp, the PC market in 1995 and the current PC market can't even be compared as far as numbers go. If they thought that most of the sales would be focused on people who played the original, I doubt they would have even made the game. With WoW at 7 million subscribers, most of which are XP users, the potential market is huge. I think from a business standpoint, they made the exact right move. We traditional players just wish for the old days. Lorini

10-19-2006, 09:19 PM	#170
Warren Spinning Toe Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: A Chicagoan transplanted to AZ: It really IS a dry heat!! Posts: 552	I'm experiencing a lot of frustration with crossover tracks, even when I start with double tracks. Looking at how the computer players do it is no help. Even if I emulate thier nutty layouts, my trains seemingly play by different rules. Anyone have any insight on how to get double tracking with crossovers work vaguely realistically?

10-20-2006, 06:04 AM	#172
steve New Romantic Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,990	It should probably be pointed out that Sid Meier only did one Railroad Tycoon game, so it's unfair to say he's expected to uphold the legacy of Railroad Tycoon II and III. Those were Phil Steinmeyer's games. I've talked to Sid before about the other Railroad Tycoon games, asking him what he felt about them. I got the impression that he respected the designs but didn't care for the increased financial complexity. Or at least that's not the direction he would have personally taken the game. I know I never warmed to the sequels as much as the original because I'm not that into accounting.

10-24-2006, 11:58 AM	#177
Jason Cross New Romantic Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gamertag: JasonC Cassiae/Elmindrea on WoW (Moonrunner/Alliance)......... Posts: 5,191	Well, I tried playing RR! all weekend, but I just can't. I like the game in spite of itself. I really do. It has plenty of foibles, but most of them would be forgivable if managing track was better handled. I'll have trains that are waiting over 40% of the time, and it's a REAL pain to lay track such that their route is more optimal. Removing a merge so you can double-track for a greater distance is hard. Crossing over to other tracks is REAL hard, the interface is finicky and it's difficult to see what track you have going where. Not to mention, it seems like the trains don't manage which tracks they move to in a way that optimizes effectively. Even so, I was struggling with it and dealing with it and figuring out how to work around the wonky track connections... but it just keeps crashing to desktop. From what I read online, I'm not the only one having this problem. It happens most often right when I lay a new piece of track, or stretch out a silhouette of track. I mean, it's BAD. I was getting a CTD every 15 minutes for awhile there. This game seriously needs a patch or two. A quick one that makes it stable, and then another one in a month that improves some of the track layout and train routing issues.

10-24-2006, 12:23 PM	#179
Thrag Neo Acoustic Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: San Francisco, Gamertag: Thrag Posts: 1,806	I can manage to lay track to cut down on waiting a lot of the time, but when trains do wait I'm often left wondering why. Sometimes it seems like they go out of their way to conflict with each other. Like both trains have decided to use the crossover to get on to the same track when one of them should have stayed on their original track. I've found that having redundant tracks with crossovers isn't the way to go. In fact I try to keep tracks isolated from each other to some extent. Usually this works out real well for the first few cities and then when I extend long sections of track (usually for scenario goals) it all goes to hell. However that initial section with the dedicated lines that never overlap keeps cranking out the cash to make up for the traffic jams caused by my less well planned track. I've only played a few partial scenarios so far (as Dark Crusade arrived at the same time), but I'm still finding it intriguing.

		Quarter To Three Forums > Quarter to Three Boards > Games
Will! Sid! Meier's! Railroads! be! Good!?!