Do Different Versions Lead to Different Difficulties?
Posted: 15 May 2021 19:36
I've been at a loss to discover the reason for the wild divergence in success between my Tuhaven & Badburg and Tendean-Leningdon games.
They are of course being played by the same person with the same playstyle and quirks (no diesels,no monorails,no non-upgrade vehicle replacements...)
Same or very similar NewGRF sets.
Same or very similar game settings.(Breakdowns,inflation...).
Same or very similar world generation parameters.
Very similar start years (T&B 1880,T&L 1878).
Similar histories of buying (T&B 1939,T&L 1947) a LuDiAIAfterFix that was challenging in the standings with its road vehicles but always concentrating on the rail network afterward except when a clearly superior road vehicle could be ordered to replace the fleet.
Both games have their money-losing experiments of long standing (Coastal Long Haul,Malsay-Accley).
Yet in 1970 T&L is just rolling in cash and T&B on the point of collapse (in 1971 I gave up and went back to a what-if-no-merger fork).
I noticed that I apparently originated T&B in November 2016 and T&L in November 2018...did the mechanics of the game versions change in that period to make things easier?
I know in some of my very old games changes in elevation slow down trains much more than in more recent versions,for example.
Some things are random game to game (reliability of particular vehicles) but I don't see a global reliability gap between these games in particular...I have noticed a change in historical trends,I THINK (T&B electrified tracks in 1965 in response to fading steam reliability while it has not been necessary for T&L though it's clearly approaching)
But I don't see what I have done differently to produce such different results.(Do recent versions "reroll the dice" on reliability of vehicles?...someone playing with a save of mine uploaded a version where the figures were different,I can provide the numbers my vehicles have as is).Is it the game or is it (unknowingly) me?
They are of course being played by the same person with the same playstyle and quirks (no diesels,no monorails,no non-upgrade vehicle replacements...)
Same or very similar NewGRF sets.
Same or very similar game settings.(Breakdowns,inflation...).
Same or very similar world generation parameters.
Very similar start years (T&B 1880,T&L 1878).
Similar histories of buying (T&B 1939,T&L 1947) a LuDiAIAfterFix that was challenging in the standings with its road vehicles but always concentrating on the rail network afterward except when a clearly superior road vehicle could be ordered to replace the fleet.
Both games have their money-losing experiments of long standing (Coastal Long Haul,Malsay-Accley).
Yet in 1970 T&L is just rolling in cash and T&B on the point of collapse (in 1971 I gave up and went back to a what-if-no-merger fork).
I noticed that I apparently originated T&B in November 2016 and T&L in November 2018...did the mechanics of the game versions change in that period to make things easier?
I know in some of my very old games changes in elevation slow down trains much more than in more recent versions,for example.
Some things are random game to game (reliability of particular vehicles) but I don't see a global reliability gap between these games in particular...I have noticed a change in historical trends,I THINK (T&B electrified tracks in 1965 in response to fading steam reliability while it has not been necessary for T&L though it's clearly approaching)
But I don't see what I have done differently to produce such different results.(Do recent versions "reroll the dice" on reliability of vehicles?...someone playing with a save of mine uploaded a version where the figures were different,I can provide the numbers my vehicles have as is).Is it the game or is it (unknowingly) me?