Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 1: The Process of Choosing a Winner for CSR26
This is my first post about a game in my current Steam library other than Infinite Space III: Sea of Stars, and also the first one about Automation: The Car Company Tycoon Game, which is a game in which you build cars and their engines, as the title suggests. Recently, its developers have added a new mode in which you can manage a whole company until 2020, although 1940 is the earliest year in which the company can be established. I have been an active forum member for the game since June, and despite occasional over-enthusiasm, I am still enjoying my time on the forums. As part of my series of posts regarding this game, I will discuss some of my experiences, beginning with a round of a competition I recently hosted, called The Car Shopping Round, in which the host sets criteria for other users to follow when submitting their cars, before reviewing the entries after the deadline has passed, eventually declaring a winner, whose creator (or the runner-up, if the winner declines hosting duties) hosts the next round.
To be honest, though, ever since I first entered the contest in the 15th round (I didn't have enough confidence before then) my record in that contest has been mixed, with poor results on some rounds and good results in others. But in the 25th round, the scenario I had been hoping for finally occurred when, despite finishing second, I was given an offer to host the next round after the winner of CSR25 declined the offer. In CSR25, the users were asked to build affordable track cars, but for CSR26 I decided to go to the opposite end of the price spectrum and challenge other users to build a supercar or hypercar. There was now a huge question on my mind: could I really cut the mustard as a first-time challenge host?
To prove that theory, I set about reviewing the users' entries as soon as I reviewed them. It seemed easier said than done, especially since I received 29 entries before the deadline, but I managed to complete this daunting task with time to spare. However, I could only make room for five finalists, and ultimately rejected the other 24 due to an infotainment/interior quality mismatch, having the wrong engine (in particular, too little reliability, too much power, and/or too few cylinders), being aesthetically challenged, or inadequate dynamics. Eventually, I was left with the Solo Lightning SM V8, Gryphon Gear Jormungandr, Pragata Prima 1, Smooth Keelen GT and Ventnor Bambino on my shortlist.
The next step was to determine a finishing order out of the top five. At first, this seemed much easier than writing and editing the individual reviews; the two fastest cars, the Lightning and Jormungandr, were the first ones to be rejected, much to my dismay and surprise. They were, in fact, too fast and uncompromising to be used daily, but the other three were still in contention for outright honors. So how would I determine the podium positions?
At first glance, the Smooth Keelen GT made a strong case for itself, until I realized that it was too uncompromising given my requirements for a hypercar that can be used daily - which is oxymoronic unless you are a highly skilled car builder. If that didn't prevent it from winning the round, its reliability issues certainly did; extending the redline far enough on an undersquare engine (where the stroke is larger than the bore) will push the bottom end parts to the limit sooner than on an oversquare engine (in which the bore is greater than the stroke), and it certainly was the case here. As such, the only front-engined car in the top five could manage no better than third place. And now it was time to crown a winner...
...but surprisingly, it wasn't the Prima 1, even though it had well over 1000 horsepower, as did quite a few of the entries I received that round. The big blue wedge looked like a clear favorite after some of the more promising entries fell by the wayside, especially since its cleverly tuned AWD system and active suspension made its immense thrust exploitable in all conditions. It also had surprisingly good ride quality. So why didn't it win?
As it turned out, although it had a premium infotainment system, it was merely of average quality, as was the lightweight interior. Now, given that increased quality on interior components leads to increased weight, such cost-cutting is understandable, but ruins the idea of driving a hypercar daily in the long term, since the prestige, safety and reliability values will all be reduced as a result. The Ventnor Bambino, on the other hand, did not have this problem; its luxury interior and high-end infotainment suite were commensurate with my expectations of a highly usable supercar. That turned out to be more than enough to give it the win, much to everyone's surprise.
What else, then, ensured victory for the Bambino? Considering that its chassis was a steel tube frame, which is cheaper than a carbon-fiber monocoque but much heavier, and its engine was a relatively humble 3.5-liter twin-turbo V6 that didn't even make at least 500 horsepower, the Bambino was quite easy to drive, very comfortable (thanks to its high-quality interior), more economical than most of its opposition, and somehow, just fast enough; the excellent dynamics were merely icing on the cake. Not even the slight reliability issues were enough to deny it the top spot. And so, finally, someone had proven that you don't need a lot of cylinders to build a great hypercar.
Overall, I enjoyed this round, and not just because my wishes of hosting the contest for a while finally came true. This was a highly unpredictable round, with a more liberal rule set than usual. Also, the user who submitted the winning entry also had a long drought before he hosted a round himself, which came right after CSR26. And somehow, it was only fitting that the runner-up in that round won CSR27 (as the Automation community calls it), ensuring that he would host the next round. There was just one question left to answer, though: what would I have done differently with the Bambino? The answer lies in the next post.
To be honest, though, ever since I first entered the contest in the 15th round (I didn't have enough confidence before then) my record in that contest has been mixed, with poor results on some rounds and good results in others. But in the 25th round, the scenario I had been hoping for finally occurred when, despite finishing second, I was given an offer to host the next round after the winner of CSR25 declined the offer. In CSR25, the users were asked to build affordable track cars, but for CSR26 I decided to go to the opposite end of the price spectrum and challenge other users to build a supercar or hypercar. There was now a huge question on my mind: could I really cut the mustard as a first-time challenge host?
To prove that theory, I set about reviewing the users' entries as soon as I reviewed them. It seemed easier said than done, especially since I received 29 entries before the deadline, but I managed to complete this daunting task with time to spare. However, I could only make room for five finalists, and ultimately rejected the other 24 due to an infotainment/interior quality mismatch, having the wrong engine (in particular, too little reliability, too much power, and/or too few cylinders), being aesthetically challenged, or inadequate dynamics. Eventually, I was left with the Solo Lightning SM V8, Gryphon Gear Jormungandr, Pragata Prima 1, Smooth Keelen GT and Ventnor Bambino on my shortlist.
The finalists of CSR26, from top to bottom: Solo Lightning SM V8, Ventnor Bambino, Gryphon Gear Jormungandr, Smooth Keelen GT, Pragata Prima 1
The next step was to determine a finishing order out of the top five. At first, this seemed much easier than writing and editing the individual reviews; the two fastest cars, the Lightning and Jormungandr, were the first ones to be rejected, much to my dismay and surprise. They were, in fact, too fast and uncompromising to be used daily, but the other three were still in contention for outright honors. So how would I determine the podium positions?
At first glance, the Smooth Keelen GT made a strong case for itself, until I realized that it was too uncompromising given my requirements for a hypercar that can be used daily - which is oxymoronic unless you are a highly skilled car builder. If that didn't prevent it from winning the round, its reliability issues certainly did; extending the redline far enough on an undersquare engine (where the stroke is larger than the bore) will push the bottom end parts to the limit sooner than on an oversquare engine (in which the bore is greater than the stroke), and it certainly was the case here. As such, the only front-engined car in the top five could manage no better than third place. And now it was time to crown a winner...
...but surprisingly, it wasn't the Prima 1, even though it had well over 1000 horsepower, as did quite a few of the entries I received that round. The big blue wedge looked like a clear favorite after some of the more promising entries fell by the wayside, especially since its cleverly tuned AWD system and active suspension made its immense thrust exploitable in all conditions. It also had surprisingly good ride quality. So why didn't it win?
As it turned out, although it had a premium infotainment system, it was merely of average quality, as was the lightweight interior. Now, given that increased quality on interior components leads to increased weight, such cost-cutting is understandable, but ruins the idea of driving a hypercar daily in the long term, since the prestige, safety and reliability values will all be reduced as a result. The Ventnor Bambino, on the other hand, did not have this problem; its luxury interior and high-end infotainment suite were commensurate with my expectations of a highly usable supercar. That turned out to be more than enough to give it the win, much to everyone's surprise.
What else, then, ensured victory for the Bambino? Considering that its chassis was a steel tube frame, which is cheaper than a carbon-fiber monocoque but much heavier, and its engine was a relatively humble 3.5-liter twin-turbo V6 that didn't even make at least 500 horsepower, the Bambino was quite easy to drive, very comfortable (thanks to its high-quality interior), more economical than most of its opposition, and somehow, just fast enough; the excellent dynamics were merely icing on the cake. Not even the slight reliability issues were enough to deny it the top spot. And so, finally, someone had proven that you don't need a lot of cylinders to build a great hypercar.
The specifications for the winning entry of CSR26, the Ventnor Bambino, in its original form
Overall, I enjoyed this round, and not just because my wishes of hosting the contest for a while finally came true. This was a highly unpredictable round, with a more liberal rule set than usual. Also, the user who submitted the winning entry also had a long drought before he hosted a round himself, which came right after CSR26. And somehow, it was only fitting that the runner-up in that round won CSR27 (as the Automation community calls it), ensuring that he would host the next round. There was just one question left to answer, though: what would I have done differently with the Bambino? The answer lies in the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment