Example of why RTD is a much richer experience than SMR

Talk about all things related to Railroads! here
Post Reply
MarkShot
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:54 pm

Example of why RTD is a much richer experience than SMR

Post by MarkShot » Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:32 am

Despite having got SMR (I also have RT3) a while back and played for a while, I have mainly been playing the original RTD (the VGA upgrade of RT1). I recently posted my strategy thoughts on the game and AI on a game developers discussion board. One thing that is obvious from this discussion is how much richer the game play challenges are in RT1/RTD than compared to SMR's world. A world which is debtless, has no borrowing, and game rules lack any territorial concepts. Of course, I know this is the SMR beats all forum, but I still thought I would post here. RT1/RTD is a great system. Sid largely had is right on the very first time around. SMR could have built on that base as opposed to simply "Sid Meier" branding and a dumbed down game that's "table top" and not a "strategy" game.

Oh, well ...
Despite owning two very good strategy guides for RTD, I have been studying the game on my own and have reached the following conclusions in terms of mechanics, dynamic behavior, and strategy.

The AI RRs don't really become a threat until they reach a certain size. Size is perhaps a more important measure than net worth, since net worth is highly variable. This is because net worth, responds to both positive and negative feedback loops due to stock investments (both treasury and player). Before reaching the threshold, investing in AI RRs is counter productive, since the investment drives them in excessive debt and bankruptcy. This ultimately saps your own RR of funds and time.

This is not to say that the AI RRs are not dangerous. They are, in fact, dangerous, since a freshly minted AI RR can still borrow sufficient cash to swallow the player. Remember the AI does not have to worry about the corporation's viability if it can simply push the player out.

It is a fallacy to think that the AI RR is most vulnerable at birth and low stock price. Unless you can seize and prop it up, then it is simply money thrown away. The AIs should be allowed some time to grow such that they are viable (even if it does make the stock more expensive).

Once the AI RR proves itself viable, then plans should be made to acquire, destroy it, or contain it. Acquisition will require a substantial financial base. Destruction will require an acquisition, followed by sucking dry the treasury, dumping the stock before a fiscal cycle price correction, and then releasing the RR to implode. Ideally, the player should be primed to move into this territory immediately lay claim to the best cities. Otherwise, the AI will restart there very quickly. Finally, containment involves using other RRs, natural boundaries, and potentially protective track laying.

Given that the map evolves over times (resources, industry, and population density) and that the player can improve station revenues (size, facilities, track laying, player built industries, depot feeder lines, double back cargo loops) fairly readily and is limited to 32 stations/trains. The player does not require a major portion of the map to produce the dominant revenue machine. In fact, the player is able to generate much more revenue than the AI of a smaller track network. So, the player can certainly secure his position on the map from encroachment and then mainly focus on improving revenues.

Correspondingly the AI needs lots of expansion space in order to improve its revenues. If an AI RR can be bounded by player controlled RRs, then it revenue growth can be choked off. It is important to realize that the AI exhibits critical mass and accelerated growth behavior. Critical mass in that the AI when it reaches a certain size
will generate enough revenue to keep making the leap to adding another station to the network. Accelerated growth in that each new station speeds capital accumulation to add the next station. Thus, once the AI crosses a growth threshold, the time between station additions will continuously diminish as the game proceeds. The threshold point is when the AI RR can have 50% of its stock held by the player and 50% held in the treasury and still accumulate cash despite any outstanding debt. It is at this point that the AI RR is primed to experience rapid growth. Prior this point, investment by the player might have, at worst, caused bankruptcy and at best slowed advancement to the threshold due the friction of interest payments on bonds. At the threshold point, player investment no longer impedes the AI RR. Only aggressive tactics by the
player such as a hostile take over or station rate wars will impede the AI RR from this point on. It is at this point that the AI RR becomes the greatest of long term threats, but also represents a good money making stock investment. (The threshold point appears to be in the area of 4-8 stations. This probably varies based on map, year, and location.)

What this all means is that timing is everything. Invest too early in AI RRs and the money is simply wasted. Invest too late in AI RRs and the moment to slow this eventual growth is already lost. However, invest at the right time and you can slow their growth while guaranteeing your investment appreciates and giving yourself time to determine which RRs should be taken over, by what means, and in what sequence.

Finally, an important implication of all this is that early game investments made in AI RRs is a waste. Such investments should be made in one owns stock instead. This will accomplishes two important aims. First, a positive feedback will be setup that magnifies the players capital growth by holding one's own stock. Second, the player will be protected by future AI RR runs on his own stock. This is particular important when the player later makes major stock moves against an AI RR. Such moves may drive down the player's stock and my him vulnerable a well funded AI RR take over by a bystander RR.

A good approach for starting the game and continued revenue growth follows these steps. Based on the Amazon.com philosphy: "Get big fast (immediately)".

(1) In the initial years borrow heavily and pre-build a good starter network. Do not be concerned with economic cycle. Time is of the essence here as you are beating the AI RR to initial expansion and blocking you in. Borrow heavy with anywhere from 6-8 bond issues.

(2) Lay track and build minimal stations (avoid the more expensive terminals). The goal is to quickly claim cities. This will guaranteed a good starter network while pushing the AI RRs back both in space and time. The only station improvements to be considered at this point are maintenance yards.

(3) As revenues ramp buy up stock for the treasury.

(4) Roll over bonds during a good economy. Fine tune the rail network/double track during bad economy.

(5) Add trains for resources and siding depots (increasing signals/double tracking).

(6) Improve revenues by replacing stations with terminals.

(7) Improve revenues by upgrading terminal facilities.

(8) More aggressively hunt to resource deposits.

(9) Build strategically located industries. Close to large depot deposits.

PRIMARY RULE: CLAIM A LARGE NETWORK EARLY BY KEEPING COSTS DOWN. ONCE THE NETWORK IS CLAIMED AND REVENUES ARE GROWING FAST THAN REINVEST AND ALLOW EXPENSES TO RISE.

User avatar
karsten
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Example of why RTD is a much richer experience than SMR

Post by karsten » Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:49 am

I know this is the SMR beats all forum
Not quite. Forum members are long past the stage of discussing how awful SMR is compared to the previous versions of Railroad Tycoon.
What people are doing here is trying to see how far they can push SMR to achieve a richer experience. And from some of the new maps I have seen and played, they are doing an amazingly good job.

User avatar
jayo
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:22 pm

Re: Example of why RTD is a much richer experience than SMR

Post by jayo » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:18 pm

SMR awful?! In your dreams! Anyway, markshot may have a point. Maybe it was for that reason that RTD was put up as a free download on the game's site. Personally, while I like RTD's improved graphics, I was rather disappointed that it didn't have the bridge-building and crashing cinema scenes the original had. I rather like SMR better as a "table top" game, I never really paid much attention to all the financial stuff. I think we misunderstood the direction of the game. We're all thinking too highly of the game as another installment of the RRT series, and not as a train game that's good in its own right.

MarkShot
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:54 pm

Re: Example of why RTD is a much richer experience than SMR

Post by MarkShot » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:03 am

Well, I must say that SMR is beautiful to look at and watch your trains run.

I've noticed one area where the game has actually advanced the financial model over the original game.

In the original game, the AIs only bought your stock and you theirs (how many you could buy into at one time was determined by the game's level). Of course, all could issue bonds.

In SMR, the AIs do buy stock in one another. Just getting started ... I didn't really know that. So, I just finished a game (NE 3 AIs won at Mogul). One of the AIs actually leap frogged ahead of me when it merged with another. It was a nice thing to see that the AI can actually leverage acquiring one of its own.

On the other hand, acquisitions in SMR are way too easy compared to RT1/RTD. In RT1/RTD, you might acquire an AI, but actually be sucked under by its debt and your own. In SMR, if you can buy, then you are guaranteed to prosper from the purchase. In RT1/RTD, it is a much tougher decision to make ... just because you can do it does not necessarily mean you should do it.

Post Reply