Railway ideas

[Nobody]

I know there used to be some railway rules before (maybe someone can dig them up?), but being build individually just to have them for eventual troop transports makes them pretty pointless in my opinion.
In reality (state) railways were very profitable (for example: did you know that most of Germany's port WW1 reparations were paid the "Reichsbahn"?), and responsible for economic growth & development.

Let's assume we use the map mike found (link) with its many many small "provinces", and countries composed of many of these counties.
My idea is to introduce "levels of Infrastructure development"(until ~1910 that would be railroads) for these provinces. Each level with description from "none" over "single/few mainlines" up to "dense grid/network". Railways could produce direct tax income and/or trigger growth, and there would be a table with fix costs for building/improving them.

Personally I think we should differ between main- and branch lines. Also improving ones railway system should boost the local economy for a few years. Branch lines themselves should be unproductive, instead they would boost the mainlines.


Now before you say "too complicated" let me tell you that simplest version of my idea would require only a single number (to be copied from report to report) and the most complex variant three numbers (namely main and sideline level plus the year of the most recent change) per province.

[snip]

I think that if we had those three categories that you outlined, or one-two more, with an economic modifier of some sort attached to each level would be acceptable, as it could be "black boxed".

[Sachmle]

As another level of infrastructure, much like ports, airfields, etc... I like it. Sometimes I think our attempts at KISS make things TOO simplified. There has to be some detail or it's Risk w/ ships.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Nice.
Borys

[miketr]

Speaking as a player I would like railroads also.

Its something to invest in, something for us to play with in the non-industrial nations in addition to trade.

I would suggest that railroads economic impact be tied to economy of the area they are placed in.  This is to prevent people from building railroads all over and places like across deserts, etc.

The question is are people willing to track economy of each province within their nation?  Are they willing to track the 'infrastructure level' of each province.  This is a non trivial paper work load.

Michael

[Valles]

Speaking for myself, I absolutely am. It's just a matter of making a list, after all, and updating particular entries when they change. Remember to read through the whole thing every time you process a turn and within a year or so of gametime you'll have the entire thing memorized anyway.

[snip]

The question is are people willing to track economy of each province within their nation?  Are they willing to track the 'infrastructure level' of each province.  This is a non trivial paper work load.

If I may propose something. What about just making 3-4 levels to show the industrialization for a province? Each of these levels would give a monetary bonus (a percent or flat rate increase in the GDP of the province) that is greater then the one before it. Railroad infrastructure could be folded into this with the option to improve the railroads separately in order to allow more flexibility. The additional railroads could impart a additional GDP increace or drop the cost of moving the province to the next industrial level. I think that this would also help show were the industrial heartland of nations is, which is something important when we get to wars of industry instead of colonies. The only drawback is instead of being able to do a single econ calculation for the whole nation, a player would need to do it for every province to account for the modifier from industrialization. However, if the econ calculations are "black boxed" then I think that it would be fine.

Example: The province of Bobistan has a industrialization level of 2. This means that there is not much industry and that the economy is still agriculturally based, but industry is starting to appear. Bobistan has all the railroads necessary to support this amount of Industry. In addition Bobistan's rail network has been expanded (with a separate cash payment) to facilitate troop movements as it is on the boarder of a rival power.

I am opposed to the tracking of the path of individual lines, but agree that we do need some way of tracking railways.

[P3D]

I disagree. The railroads are important not for being in a province, but connecting that province to the rest of the nation. And by 1880 the only regions in Europe proper without RR were mountains.
What other RR would you insist to build?

Inland waterways were just as important as railroads. Do you want to account for them, too?

Second, it gives just one more layer of unnecessary micromanagement, with the need to manage 50 provinces.
If we go that way, we should account for the population in individual provinces, the GDP there and so on. If that's the way we want, we should just play Victoria II Multiplayer (although it doesn't work, unfortunately).

And at the end we will end up with similar GDP growth as without, as numbers would be adjusted.

[PyscoWard]

 As a newbie I do not want the game to complex .
As I will be learning the Game system as the game goes .

I have mod a few miniature campaigns over the years and the more complex you make them the less likely they will last .  

[Logi]

You can't improve inland waterways, P3D.

Railroads/roads/highways etc. are important IN the province as well. I think I've posted before, but they give 3x the investment in revenue in local businesses. The more railroads you have, the better. This is fundamentally because the largest portion of the cost of an item is shipping cost. Improve and increase railroads, improving their reliability yield great returns and helps to out compete the rest of the world.

In other words, every country in Europe could have RR, but you can always build more and the returns wouldn't drop significantly.

[Valles]

Logically, they'd have to eventually, but I don't have any problem believing that the limit is high enough to be essentially impossible to see in 'real play'. Likewise, the construction of canals and slackwater navigation improvments like locks and flood control and so forth did take place historically, and had significant economic effect...

...but was in relative decline by the time our period starts. My own suggestion would be to average the two together as 'transport infrastructure' - the significant thing is that they can move thousands of tons of troops and material very quickly, not the fine details of how it happens.

[P3D]

And the only thing a "Transport infrastructure" would achieve is about the same GDP growth for ten
times the amount of micromanagement (except three players out of 15 who do not bother with powergaming). The aim of this sim as far as I know is not railroad building but fleets, expanding the colonial empire and protecting the national trade.

The more RR the better is not always true. If the existing network works below max capacity, a parallel track would only result in higher overhead cost for the same total revenue. We would then also need to determine when overcapacity sets up, resulting in bankruptcy and loss of investment.


These nations are not the US Wild West. Whatever is worth connecting to the network, is already connected. Rights-of-way are established. Any improvement can be done by the RR companies itself. Actually, most of that
improvement would come from improving rolling stock not laying down another track.

By this time the transport infrastructure is developed enough that economic effects of such improvement would be marginal. You have two-lane tracks connecting every large (over 50,000) cities, express trains going at the speed of 80-110km/h.
In local network, mixed trains move goods and passengers something approaching snail's pace, but that's because steam engines are not ideal for low-volume passenger transportation, but it's still faster than walking
and bulk freight does not really care.
There's just not that improvement potential left in the system.

[Nobody]

Yes the idea was to handle them and, if they have an impact on GNP, the growth they generate for a specific province only.

I disagree. The railroads are important not for being in a province, but connecting that province to the rest of the nation. And by 1880 the only regions in Europe proper without RR were mountains.
What other RR would you insist to build?

Inland waterways were just as important as railroads. Do you want to account for them, too?

I started this as a railway idea, but as I said it could be other infrastructure as well (roads, canals etc.). Also there is more to railways than tracks. Rolling stock for example. It can also represent other improvents in the infrastructure like higher axle loads, increased top speed, better signaling system whatever you want it to be for writing about.

Second, it gives just one more layer of unnecessary micromanagement, with the need to manage 50 provinces.
If we go that way, we should account for the population in individual provinces, the GDP there and so on. If that's the way we want, we should just play Victoria II Multiplayer (although it doesn't work, unfortunately).

And at the end we will end up with similar GDP growth as without, as numbers would be adjusted.

Yes and no. There would be one to three number per province more, and you are likely to end up with the same overall (it must be, otherwise it would be strange), however, think of the options! There could be an actual difference between the homeland and a colony for example.

That aside, I just realized a error in my proposal: If the annual growth rate would increase with every upgrade, the GNP would "gallop" away - which is not desirable for a stable long term environment.
Although I might just have found a way to counter that.

[TexanCowboy]

I'm with P3D. It adds unneeded complications to an already very complicated game.

[miketr]

Just so people are aware while I like the idea I am hardly going to push it in the face of heavy opposition from other people trying to setup the new game.

1) P3D's point on the industrial nations is well taken.

2) There MIGHT, MIGHT be an opening to try to do something in the non player nations and the like.  That said the paper work load needs to be low and easy to manage.

Michael