I have seen it written here that you always buy the largest networth opponent and not the smallest.
By the way, I am playing against the AI.
Well, I don't understand this except for the fact that the largest networth AI might have the greatest vesting in other RRs stock.
It seems to me that the sooner you absorb someone, then the sooner you have their rail network contributing money to your bottom line. Especially, if your competition acquires them first, then you take a double hit of lost revenue and the revenue now feeding your opponent's growth.
What am I missing then?
Thanks.
Who to buy - smallest or largest networth?
Re: Who to buy - smallest or largest networth?
From my experience there is no definite answer that is correct. Sometimes it is not good to buyout the weakest first as they may be of no financial benefit to you yet they may be keeping your biggest competitor busy while you get on with it. It all depends on the senario you are playing and to buy or not depends on circumstances that day.
Re: Who to buy - smallest or largest networth?
I agree. Just recently, Snoopy published the SAM version of Narra's Map NE UK Hard ("Hard" meaning tough enough to interest Universum 
). I have always liked NE UK, because it is a sort of sequel to my Liverpool & Manchester (LM2), and I was keen to try it as SAM version. The SAM version runs like clockwork (the event file is "compatible").
In the last era, I needed to connect Newton Aycliffe (
British Town names ...) with Liverpool and deliver tons of arms. Isambard Brunel had already done most of the work for me, so although at that point he was the most successful of the three AI opponents, I managed to buy him out. I used his coal mine to increase the supply of steel in Aycliffe and then only needed to join the dots to cruise to victory. 
). I have always liked NE UK, because it is a sort of sequel to my Liverpool & Manchester (LM2), and I was keen to try it as SAM version. The SAM version runs like clockwork (the event file is "compatible").In the last era, I needed to connect Newton Aycliffe (
British Town names ...) with Liverpool and deliver tons of arms. Isambard Brunel had already done most of the work for me, so although at that point he was the most successful of the three AI opponents, I managed to buy him out. I used his coal mine to increase the supply of steel in Aycliffe and then only needed to join the dots to cruise to victory. - Attachments
-
-
-
darthdroid
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:42 am
Re: Who to buy - smallest or largest networth?
Actually, this is pretty hard and fast. YES you always buy out the biggest threat, there is only two exceptions.
It is not logical to buy out the weaker opponents, the cost benefit analysis says the purchase is not justified considering the loss of cash. This really is always true, even if you own NINE shares of them. Frankly, the computer is SOOOO bad at the game, personally I always liquidate, the computer just makes a mess with lousy tracks and poor decisions.
So if you are in #1 position, you should basically ALWAYS buy #2. If you are in #2 position you should always go after #1. The only exceptions are as follows:
1/ #2 has been purchased substantially by player X (#3 or #4), you should now buy player X as when you do, you'll automatically own most of #2 anyway. This is also true as if you DO buy #2, player X will get paid DOUBLE for all the stocks of his in player #2, when you purchase them....this would give player X a huge advantage and probably sink player #1.
2nd exception: If you're player #3, you should buy out player #2 (by that I mean, buy as many of his/her stocks as possible). The reason? The player X example of course. YOU are now player X.. Most players aren't bright enough to realize you (#3) are really the biggest threat now, they'll STILL buy #2, and when they do, you get paid handsomely....player #1 is now broke (yes, his company's much bigger ... but) and player #3 (X) now is loaded depending on how many stocks they had and they now have a nice headstart on CASH for buying player #1. Granted, if you do this, you kind of want to own most of your own company or player #1's advantage in stock may outweigh yours in cash and by the time you get enuf $ he may have caught and bought you.
See, it is actually quite simple. As far as solo play.... whatever, but online you NEVER EVER EVER buy the stupid computers, they are just simply TOO STUPID.
I see people do this all the time though, they buy out the weakest player... I really don't see what they did....if it was a good company in the first place, would it be in LAST place? or 3rd Place??? Not worth it. do the numbers.... you essentially spend like 4M to get a company worth 2M....hmmm and it clearly does NOT bring in 2M every year, it would be more like 400k at best.... so if that's the case (rough but reliable #s here), then it will take TEN YEARS to find your "break even point" and only THEN will you finally begin to make a profit. This also is ignoring the theory of "time value of money" which says a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow (opportunity cost)....thus meaning, the break even point is really beyond 10 years, more likely about 12.
-Bob the Lunatic
Follow?
It is not logical to buy out the weaker opponents, the cost benefit analysis says the purchase is not justified considering the loss of cash. This really is always true, even if you own NINE shares of them. Frankly, the computer is SOOOO bad at the game, personally I always liquidate, the computer just makes a mess with lousy tracks and poor decisions.
So if you are in #1 position, you should basically ALWAYS buy #2. If you are in #2 position you should always go after #1. The only exceptions are as follows:
1/ #2 has been purchased substantially by player X (#3 or #4), you should now buy player X as when you do, you'll automatically own most of #2 anyway. This is also true as if you DO buy #2, player X will get paid DOUBLE for all the stocks of his in player #2, when you purchase them....this would give player X a huge advantage and probably sink player #1.
2nd exception: If you're player #3, you should buy out player #2 (by that I mean, buy as many of his/her stocks as possible). The reason? The player X example of course. YOU are now player X.. Most players aren't bright enough to realize you (#3) are really the biggest threat now, they'll STILL buy #2, and when they do, you get paid handsomely....player #1 is now broke (yes, his company's much bigger ... but) and player #3 (X) now is loaded depending on how many stocks they had and they now have a nice headstart on CASH for buying player #1. Granted, if you do this, you kind of want to own most of your own company or player #1's advantage in stock may outweigh yours in cash and by the time you get enuf $ he may have caught and bought you.
See, it is actually quite simple. As far as solo play.... whatever, but online you NEVER EVER EVER buy the stupid computers, they are just simply TOO STUPID.
I see people do this all the time though, they buy out the weakest player... I really don't see what they did....if it was a good company in the first place, would it be in LAST place? or 3rd Place??? Not worth it. do the numbers.... you essentially spend like 4M to get a company worth 2M....hmmm and it clearly does NOT bring in 2M every year, it would be more like 400k at best.... so if that's the case (rough but reliable #s here), then it will take TEN YEARS to find your "break even point" and only THEN will you finally begin to make a profit. This also is ignoring the theory of "time value of money" which says a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow (opportunity cost)....thus meaning, the break even point is really beyond 10 years, more likely about 12.
-Bob the Lunatic
Follow?
-Bob the Lunatic