Railroads too good?

[Lewsir]

The more I play C3C the more I'm begining to find railroads too powerful now - the +1 shield/commerce is nice, but the fact that you can get your entire army from one end of your continent to the other makes certain things just too easy.

I would vote for reducing it to 1/6 or 1/10 movement cost (compared to roads at 1/3). Come to think of it, is this modifiable? I've never checked.

The other thing that would be good is that if something is stopped on the railroad (between turns), other things can't pass. And perhaps that any segment of the railroad only works if it is fully connected between cities. Would make it properly vulnerable to attack.

Thoughts?

[Donegeal]

You might want to check out THIS thread for discussion on limiting RR movement.

I, however, feel that unlimited movement on RR is the correct way to go. By the time RR come around, the year indicator for the turn will go some where between 10 and 2 years per turn (even 1 year per turn in the later game).

Now in the US (once the railroads were in place), did it still take 2-10 years to cross a continent? Not a chance.

Yes they are powerful, but they were in RL also. Good representation.

[dannubis]

then perhaps it should take a loooooong time to build them

so that only super critical routes can be railed.

[hexagonian]

Infinite Rails suck...They are a crutch.

They eliminate the need for any strategic thinking - they foster the creation of stacks of doom.

Fighting a war with them allows a player to take ALL of his forces and deploy them against a single target - and if another civ suddenly declares war on him on a distant front, he can redeploy against that threat instantly.

How hard is that????

Without infinite rails (especially with a large empire), you cannot deploy as many troops on a hot front because you cannot neglect other fronts if another civ suddenly jumps on you. Or you can take the chance and risk being caught with your pants down.

I changed the enable advance for Rails to 'Stealth' to eliminate this crutch - and it makes the game bearable to play in the Modern age.

[Lewsir]

I agree with Hexagonian - this takes a way a lot of the strategic aspect.

Sorry Donegeal, that link is not taking me to a specific thread - which particular thread do you mean?

Another thing (CIV IV-ish) would be to have dirt roads, then paved roads, than railroads, then highways, maybe even two separate systems in the modern age...

[Harovan]

Wow, hexagonian managed to reply to a topic in a Civ3 forum, without spamming about mentioning you-know-what? Even though the mentioning would be even on-topic? How did you resist the temptation?

Seriously, I agree with you on this issue. The infinite railroad movement may be historically correct, but is a strategic killjoy. Historic accuracy is not the goal of a 4X game, anyway. Why would we have infinite RR movement, if we don't have infinite naval movement? Does a modern carrier really need many years to circumnavigate the world?

But it has always been a part of Civ (the real one) and probably will remain so even in Civ4. It makes the AI more competitive, just like the lack of real ZoC, since it can't think strategically. Less fun and depth for multiplayer games is not an argument, because Civ is mainly a single player game. Sadly but true. Who doesn't like it, can always play CtP2 (there, I did it).

[asleepathewheel]

Civ3 rr

[jomateix]

The main problem is the fact that build any improvement doesn't need a mantainment posteriorly, ad -1 G per road and -2 per railroad and resolved.

[Plotinus]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Now in the US (once the railroads were in place), did it still take 2-10 years to cross a continent? Not a chance.

And did it take the Romans several decades to travel from one end of their empire to the other by road? The problem here is that rails as they stand are realistic, but nothing else about movement is.

[player1]

Relative movment is important.

I just hope that Civ4 removes some of these "relics of the past".

[vmxa1]

I am not a big fan of unlimited movement, but it does not bother me. IIRC they said it was done to aid the AI. That is fine, but does it really?

You don't see the AI use the tricks that player do to RR up to the next target with a rr gang.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Even though the mentioning would be even on-topic? How did you resist the temptation?

OK, I'll mention it...CTP1/CTP2 does not have infinite movement/gold bonus RR (Rails are 1/5 movement cost in CTP2) as as such, present a better implimentation of this 'feature' from a strategic gameplay standpoint than civ3...

With a 1/5 movement cost modifier, you still have the ability to quickly deploy forces, but in a war where a loss of a couple of turns may mean the difference between holding and losing a city, you still have to be careful.

And eliminate the gold bonus - make RR and roads strictly movement-based and create an additional set of gold-bonus enhancements to remove the blight that RR/Roads create on the map

I think this is the first time Ralph and I see eye-to-eye...

I agree that this 'feature' is more for the benefit of the AI too, since it provides it a way to mount instant defense while the player is limited on movement when he is attacking. (If a player makes a move toward a particular city, the AI can more easily fill that city with defenders if it has unlimited movement.)

A way to offset the need for this 'infinite movement feature' for the AI would be to create a greater priority for the AI to quickly create alliances with other civs when it it is attacked by an human aggressor. This would lessen the need for it to need infinite movement as a stopgap when it could count on other civs to provide military relief. Players would then have no choice but to manage troop deployment too.

Actually Ralph, I do find a lot to like about civ3 - sure, its a game with its own set of flaws, but it has good features too...

[Lewsir]

Agree with most, but I must admit I really like getting the production bonus with railroads. This is perhaps a reflection of just generally needing more production enhancements (e.g. terraforming) from mid-game on...

[TheArsenal]

For a long time I was against infinite movement of RR. I guess I still am. But I have come to enjoy the challenge of using bombers, naval craft and artillery to isolate cities or pockets of land from their connections before attacking. I also find by the time I get to say, Synthetic Fibers, on a Large or Huge map I like the convenience of being able to use both Continental Rally Point and the RR unlimited movement to ease the burden of moving literally hundreds of units around the map.

[Donegeal]

Sorry Lewsir, I was being lazy when I made the link. Its just to the forum for this discussion, not a specific thread. Its in there somewhere, probably multiple times too. Just look around. Its a good read.

[The Pioneer]

Well, since it is a fact for everybody it still makes for an interesting game as you are never sure where or who will attack you. As your neighbors, friends and foes alike, can move their armies as fast as yourself. Same goes for production bonus.

So long...

[alva]

Now in the US (once the railroads were in place), did it still take 2-10 years to cross a continent? Not a chance.

Another thing I hope tey do away with and abstract into turn numbers instead of years, even though it idoes add to the general atmosphere.
The trouble with IMO is that people take it far to literal.

As far as RR are concerned, pfff, to me it's a gamebreaker, the moment rail roads start to come on line I start to loose interest.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by alva
As far as RR are concerned, pfff, to me it's a gamebreaker, the moment rail roads start to come on line I start to loose interest.

Same here.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I do agree that RR's are WAAAAY to powerful, but not just from a combat perspective. The way that they grant bonuses to commerce, production and food is not only VERY unrealistic but also encourages RR sprawl ! In order to combat this element, then, I think the following should be done:

1) A city connected to the trade network, by a road, should recieve a bonus equal to +5% of the current commerce/production/food produced by all cities in the trade network, which are on the same land mass.

2) A city connected to the trade network, by a RR, should recieve a bonus equal to +10% of the current commerce/production/food produced by all cities in the trade network, which are on the same landmass.

The thing about these bonuses is that the city gets it if you build 1, 3 or even 10 railroads (or roads) to that city. i.e. It doesn't matter HOW many roads/RR's you build from that city, it won't alter the level of bonus the city recieves.

3) Both RR's and roads (and all other terrain improvements, btw) should have a maintainance cost. Roads should have a cost of 1gpt/X tiles, and RR's could have a cost of 2 gpt/X tiles (with X being editable, but initially based on map size).

The combination of these factors may well force players to be much more....'strategic' in their placement of RR's as the benefits would now have to outweigh the costs. This might help balance the strategic (read: combat) side of the game too!
To further balance RR's for combat, the following could apply (any or all of the suggestions could be utilized):

1) Give RR's a 1/6 or 1/10 move bonus.

2) Allow unlimited movement, but only if the square was entered from a city or tile improvement (like a fort). Otherwise the RR will only count as a road for movement purposes.

3) Again, allow unlimited movement, but every city your unit passes through will cost that unit 1mp!

4) Give tiles a 'support value'-i.e. the number of units it can hold for more than 1 turn without suffering from 'degredation' (lost attack/defense strength, hp etc) This way, you will have to stagger the movement of your forces, rather than moving SoD's! This could be further helped if you gave units variable 'support costs', say 1 for infantry and other foot units, 2 for artillery and mounted units, and a 3 for mechanized units! This would force players to adopt a 'combined arms' strategy in order to move larger stacks along the road/rail network, rather than just stacks of tanks for instance!!

Anyway, those are my ideas. Hopefully the next XP pack will contain a few (if not ALL) of the suggested changes !

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Rasputin]

i love railroads but do see that they make the rest of movement unrealistic, ships planes etc.

i think a 1/10 movement cost would be better.

[mesut]

Railroads in real life are different! in Civ3 your railroad is not only able to overcome an infinite distance but also you can transport an infinite amount of units. In reality you would have to provide the capicity fo every single unit in terms of waggons and engines. Limiting railroads is therefore "a must have"-feature.

Mesut

[Allemand]

I think the worst thing about railroads in CivIII is that a unit can attack three or four times at different ends of a continent, without worrying about a counterattack.

Absurd!

[vmxa1]

IIRC it was done to make the pathfinding easier for the AI. As the game gets later, it is harder to check all the possible paths. So it is just a crutch for the programmers and give a bobus of saving some processing power. It goes way back before CivIII.

[Aeson]

One thing good about infinite rails is that it allows the AI to bring all their units to bear somewhere. In earlier ages it's possible to just avoid the AI SOD completely while taking out their entire civ. Doesn't work so well with rails, you eventually have to face their unless you've built up to a 1 turn blitz (and then it's not going to matter anyways).

Given that infinite rails give an advantage to the player, they give a bigger advantage to the AI. If you want to see how pitiful AI Industrial/Modern warfare requiring logistics is, play some archipelago maps to that point. I'd rather not see the AI deal with land warfare more like they do seaborne invasions.

[vmxa1]

Yup and the way they work does not bother me as it has been around forever.

[vmxa1]

I do miss the little locomotive graphics once in a while though.

[alva]

Locomotive graphic?

Is that from Civ1 (never played it)

[vmxa1]

CivII. when you sent someone down the tracks it played an engine graphic.

[The Pioneer]

Really, the standard graphics or was it a mod? I played that game for years and I do not remember that .

So long...

[vmxa1]

I never used any mods. It was the gold version though, IIRC.