First and foremost, what is conceived as "realistic railroad operating" is way out of the scope of "Railroad Tycoon". There is no sufficient substitute to a full-size railroad for operating simulations apart from a perfectly designed and built club-size model layout. Only there can an adequate physical and paperwork activity of most railroad field personnel be simulated by appropriately prepared model railroaders.
If a computer has to be involved at all, there is a wealth of operating simulations out there, that can handle all the details involving track configurations, signalling and telecommunication procedures, train scheduling and dispatching etc. I wouldn't want to mention specific applications for the purpose of this intervention, however I'll make an exception for Chris Sawyer's "Locomotion" (way superior to its "Transport Tycoon" predecessor) which does require an intricately detailed attention and precision to the exact track layouts and signalling and it is a lot of fun too. It also offers a wider choice of technological options such as track gauge, cogwheel traction, L.R.T. and varying rolling stock performances. However it can suffer from immense traffic havoc due to users' imperfect signalling capabilities, that will distract from the overall business planning effort.
Likewise, teaching about the railroad industry would -and should- not take place through "Railroad Tycoon", but rather through the long-established ways of the decent, knowledgable train enthusiasts. Technical literature study combined with volunteer teamwork in railroad preservation and railroad modelling. As a result, "Railroad Tycoon" can be properly enjoyed only by advanced railfans, who will immediately grasp the exact level of abstract simplification and the tradeoff between realism and playability -nevertheless from time to time being amused by this tradeoff itself.
"Railroad Tycoon" is -and must remain- basically a managerial-level business simulation, not a detailed simulation of every department and sub-sector found in a railway corporation.
Any "Tycoon"-like application has to employ a high degree of what railroad modellers call "selective compression". The main reason for it is that time itself has to be compressed. We don't want a real century to pass in order to see how our "rail empire" will evolve throughout a hypothetical century, do we?
Time compression, in it turn, dictates space compression. How else could we cope with the innummerable traffic generators of an entire continent? Thus, a single house may represent a whole neighbourhood of the real world, while a single warehouse can substitute a sizeable logistics- and industrial zone of the real world. That's the level of detail with which the top management hierarchy would deal anyway in the real world and assume that their subordinates do things right by default.
Vice-versa, the more detailed operating simulations take for granted that top management has done its part of the job, so the clients and traffic demand are already there!
Railroad simulating is by no means the only sector requiring amounts of "selective compression". Military operations' simulations too will have to choose whether they will address the overall strategic level or a small-scale, platoon-level territory. It is impractical to combine both efficiently for single-player applications.
Otherwise it becomes totally unmanageable to handle both the strategic supervision of so extensive geographical areas and the numerous details of every rail operating aspect. I'd be interested to hear arguments, how a single player could take the role of every single signalman and stationmaster of his/her railroad (or even multiple railroad companies, as it may occur in "Railroad Tycoon"), up to the roles of strategic planning and stock-market handling.
Considering the editing utilities
I find the scenario editor almost completely satisfactory. It even helps to tackle all "pains-in-the-ass" of the default settings, like train loading delays, the annoying water stops, the profit decreases with every growth of the rolling stock capacities etc.
So, from my part I see no need for a "Railroad-Tycoon-4" the way it is meant here. I do see a great need for a "Railroad-Tycoon-3.+" or something like that, which will leave the main philosophy of the game untouched. The main improvement that it requires is a user-friendly, if not completely fool-proof, custom-object genarator. The 3D-object definition language in the BVE train driving simulation for example is quite straightforward and comprehensible, despite being ASCII-based, without graphic user interface.
Should be able to load any previously-generated scenario from the current version.
Some slots must be left (if not already there, undocumented and unadvertised) for user-defined cargo types along with their corresponding dispatching and receiving sources and ingredients. I am not aware of the quantitative limitations posed by the code employed, but I am sure the programmers have left some capacity for future/optional uses. For the vast majority of purposes, I think even 5 slots would be sufficient, to keep the resulting variety under control. For my own uses I'd definitely create building materials shipped by quarries. Other users might want to create commodities characteristic of specific locations and/or historical periods.
At least a couple of alternative slots for custom pathway classes must be provided as well, apart from the conventional railtrack, for users to paint as they wish. They might be formed as roads for example, to display auto traffic for decorative (or competitive?) purposes. Or embedded tramway tracks to allow decorative(?) streetcar traffic in urban areas. Or even invisible pathways, along which boats could operate. You know what? I suspect that the decorative birds in Railroad Tycoon III already do that, the birds seem to me like disguised locomotives on invisible tracks, with their coordinates defined well above ground level!
Similarly, an available slot for the user-definition of a further pathway upgrading option (such as the electrification concept in the existing version) is highly desirable (understandably at a price which the user would determine). From my part, I'd utilise this enhancement slot to define ultra-high-speed track (e.g. slab track) which would increase maximum speeds by a user-specified amount. Others might want to utilise it in the form of track-quadrupling along extremely busy sections, etc.
Time-factors: There seems to be a constant rate between real time -as far as the simulation is not paused- and the simulated years. Is there a way to modify this? It may prove necessary especially in short-deadline scenarios, where lots of things have to be built and operated in a pressing amount of years. Perhaps there is already a way to do it, which I am unaware of.
Last but not least, support non-Latin characters/inscriptions !
Comments
Post a Comment