Lets assume you ve got no CTD and other bugs (which you will clearly have) and the game works nice. Would it stil be better? I just write down the pro for every game and the didfferences, occationally look up you replies and add some more i havent thought. You can tell me your oppinion about it
Sid Meiers Railroads (SMR):
- Auctions
- Better Graphics
- more that double tracks (new tracking system)
- You can play next map even if you havent finished previous one
Railroad Tycoon II (RTII)
- Complex stock market system (you could get money from Loans and/or the stock market) and more economical information.
- Buyable laying tracks right and other little things like station buildings
Railroad Tycoon I (RTI)
- You could choose in the beginning between basic and complex economy, cut throat competition or friedly competitors etc. Thus you could start from the easy and when you have learned the game go to the advanced settings, which are more fun.
Differences
- Slightly new interface
- Cities look bigger on map
- Revenue is per load and not anymore load and distance.
- The size of the station is not covering an area but a city or recource
- The size of a station isnt anymore changing
- Recources are outside and factories inside a city
interface
I personally like the RTII interface better. I am accustomed to the new interface, but I like the RTII interface because it gets you where you want in fewer clacks and there is simply more information on everything.
Big looking cities
I dont like the big sized cities. It doesnt really matter in gameplay, I just dont like them (same thing in Civ)
Revenue per load vs. Revenue per load/distance
Prices in SMR are fixed for load and change only from the demand/offer regardless the distance you had to haul. If you thing SMR as an real life simulation, that doesnt make any sense at all. Of course there is a basic flaw in the idea, because the railroad company doesnt actually choose the destination. So, in the end it doesnt matter really seeing it from the real life perspective.
It changes the gameplay dramatically. You d been stupid to haul passengers a long distance (I liked those connect-big-cities-with-express-routes-passenger-trains-and-get-people-happy trains. I thought pasengers thanked me for not having to change the train that often). Now there is a bigger need to get everything near the production.
I d prefer something like stadart price + distance revenue. If you thing of it, its even more real-life-like. Its like this on railroads or cubs. And the gameplay would be more complicated. You had to make more difficult decitions if it is really intelligent to buy a new factory, if the other one is a little further away.
- The size of the station is not covering an area but a city or recource
- The size of a station isnt anymore changing
In RTII you could get a station which would cover a certain area. You could get a factory or a recource in this area and leace out some houses etc. Getting the perfect location was a big part of the game. Of course something like this would not be possible here , because of the new revenue system. By splitting one city in half and getting the things from one station to the other you would actually get much money for hauling a little distance.
- Recources are outside and factories inside a city
I actually like this. Not only does it make real-like-sense (you cant have factories in the 1900 somewhere outside where the is no possibility to get there, but you have to take the recources from where they come from) but I generally like that there is steady flow from the outside to the cities for manufacturing.
Conclusion
In general I would say that SMR is not as complex as RTII, amybe for the sake of getting to play the game easier. Sid Meier had a good idea in RTI. You could actually define the parameters of complexity (not only the difficutly but the complexity). I think that 's the best way to do it. You can learn playing the game in the basic modus and then swich later to the complex modus. Add then some difficulty and you will be addicted in no time.
We all love sid meiers games because of the complexity. Otherways, if you like something simple to learn, go play Counter Strike. By decreasing the complexity in the station building/revenue/economy system he downsized the quality of the game. maybe new players will get through the tutorial in 10 minutes and not in 30, but still the game looses in many things. There are some new good ideas and some decent graphic in SMR, but that doesnt cover the lack in complexity and good game design RTII had. All in one, after playing some scenarios I would get back to RTII if I hadnt already finished all scenarios of. Maybe Sid Meier (he still remains my personal God) will one day make a new railroad tycoon, which will be better.
Sid Meiers Railroads (SMR):
- Auctions
- Better Graphics
- more that double tracks (new tracking system)
- You can play next map even if you havent finished previous one
Railroad Tycoon II (RTII)
- Complex stock market system (you could get money from Loans and/or the stock market) and more economical information.
- Buyable laying tracks right and other little things like station buildings
Railroad Tycoon I (RTI)
- You could choose in the beginning between basic and complex economy, cut throat competition or friedly competitors etc. Thus you could start from the easy and when you have learned the game go to the advanced settings, which are more fun.
Differences
- Slightly new interface
- Cities look bigger on map
- Revenue is per load and not anymore load and distance.
- The size of the station is not covering an area but a city or recource
- The size of a station isnt anymore changing
- Recources are outside and factories inside a city
interface
I personally like the RTII interface better. I am accustomed to the new interface, but I like the RTII interface because it gets you where you want in fewer clacks and there is simply more information on everything.
Big looking cities
I dont like the big sized cities. It doesnt really matter in gameplay, I just dont like them (same thing in Civ)
Revenue per load vs. Revenue per load/distance
Prices in SMR are fixed for load and change only from the demand/offer regardless the distance you had to haul. If you thing SMR as an real life simulation, that doesnt make any sense at all. Of course there is a basic flaw in the idea, because the railroad company doesnt actually choose the destination. So, in the end it doesnt matter really seeing it from the real life perspective.
It changes the gameplay dramatically. You d been stupid to haul passengers a long distance (I liked those connect-big-cities-with-express-routes-passenger-trains-and-get-people-happy trains. I thought pasengers thanked me for not having to change the train that often). Now there is a bigger need to get everything near the production.
I d prefer something like stadart price + distance revenue. If you thing of it, its even more real-life-like. Its like this on railroads or cubs. And the gameplay would be more complicated. You had to make more difficult decitions if it is really intelligent to buy a new factory, if the other one is a little further away.
- The size of the station is not covering an area but a city or recource
- The size of a station isnt anymore changing
In RTII you could get a station which would cover a certain area. You could get a factory or a recource in this area and leace out some houses etc. Getting the perfect location was a big part of the game. Of course something like this would not be possible here , because of the new revenue system. By splitting one city in half and getting the things from one station to the other you would actually get much money for hauling a little distance.
- Recources are outside and factories inside a city
I actually like this. Not only does it make real-like-sense (you cant have factories in the 1900 somewhere outside where the is no possibility to get there, but you have to take the recources from where they come from) but I generally like that there is steady flow from the outside to the cities for manufacturing.
Conclusion
In general I would say that SMR is not as complex as RTII, amybe for the sake of getting to play the game easier. Sid Meier had a good idea in RTI. You could actually define the parameters of complexity (not only the difficutly but the complexity). I think that 's the best way to do it. You can learn playing the game in the basic modus and then swich later to the complex modus. Add then some difficulty and you will be addicted in no time.
We all love sid meiers games because of the complexity. Otherways, if you like something simple to learn, go play Counter Strike. By decreasing the complexity in the station building/revenue/economy system he downsized the quality of the game. maybe new players will get through the tutorial in 10 minutes and not in 30, but still the game looses in many things. There are some new good ideas and some decent graphic in SMR, but that doesnt cover the lack in complexity and good game design RTII had. All in one, after playing some scenarios I would get back to RTII if I hadnt already finished all scenarios of. Maybe Sid Meier (he still remains my personal God) will one day make a new railroad tycoon, which will be better.
. Me and my friend who play Civ a lot can't get into the expansion for that price. Even though we can afford it, we compared value/price.
