EC3 Fix #15 - ROAD & RAIL

raingoon · February 22, 2000, 15:25

by Zanzibar

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>A fix for the road-railroad system.
Roads are OK (3x movement). But the railroad system is just unrealistic. Think about it: if you airlift a unit (which is the equivalent of air transportation) you can't move it anymore in the same turn. But, on the same distance (presuming it's on the same continent), you can move a tank to the destination and you still have 3 moves for attack! Maybe something like 6x or 12x-movement rate would be more realistic.
I think also that the introduction of highways would be also nice. Roads-highways-railroads.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Matthevv · February 23, 2000, 11:52

Railways definitely need fixing. In Civ2 I can land my howitzers and immediately move an infinite distance on someone else's railways. How? Did I bring my own trains?

ember · February 24, 2000, 23:43

My fix idea was the deployment system, where any unmoved and undamged unit can be sent to your reserves (not placed on the board) At the end of your turn you can tell it where to deploy (only your cites, allied cities, bases and certain ships) It is defensless until your next turn (can't contribute to defense, but can be destroyed). On your next turn it has no movment, but can defend.

Railroads, etc have limitied movment (8 - 12x) seems the most that is reasonable.
Enemy rail roads count as regular roads until they are incorperated into your territory.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

Zanzibar · February 25, 2000, 02:13

I think the following model would be realistic:
- roads: 3x movement multiplier
- highways: 6x
- railroads: 12x

To prevent map-filled-only-with-railroads situations, like in Civ2, there must be an advantage for highways vs. rails, and that should be the trade multiplier. So, for faster movement we should build rails, but for more trade highways.

Glostakarov · February 25, 2000, 14:30

I can still picture each tile being industrialized over with roads though, a nice big cloverleaf of highways around each city, since they give the trade bonus. Sure the railroads would be cutting through this, but it'll still look a lot like the over-railed civ2 maps. Not sure what can be done about it, but on a side note, the limited movement for rails should prevent the infinite movement and still attack thing.

February 25, 2000, 15:10

CtP uses 5x for railroads instead of the infinite movement of Civ2. In so doing they actually create a problem. Why should rail speed depend on unit speed? If you're on the train, you're all going the same speed, right? Does cavalry get to ride the express trains?

But IMO the Unlimited Mileage Plan of Civ2 also needs fixing. Maybe make rail travel a flat 10 tiles per turn (or 12 or 6 or 15 or whatever). ???

korn469 · February 25, 2000, 16:17

lago,

nice idea

how about this

roads: 3x movement multiplier
highways: 5x movement multiplier
railroads: flat rate of 8 spaces

you build a road, then you can either build a highway or a railroad overtop of it, but not both

then like in Alpha Centauri, no trade bonuses for any type of road

korn469
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 25, 2000).]</font>

Theben · February 25, 2000, 20:00

I wouldn't give highways THAT much better of a move over basic roads. Maybe x4. Rails could have increasing flat rates as tech was accumulated.

Don't forget color-coding enemy rails!

Zanzibar · February 26, 2000, 07:36

Good thinking, Iago! But in this case, there must exist the possibility to upgrade your rails over the time, as new tehnologies are developed: diesel, electric, intercity, monorail (maybe 4x, 6x, 8x, 10x). And there is more: if we consider that units are transported by train, well, we must build that train, at least virtually. So, my proposal is that the rail construction must also cost money (or shields). This will prevent also the filling of map with rails only, because you won't build them if they are not necessary. There is another possibility too: instead of spending money building the rails, spend energy (money, shields) by moving the train (the units on train).
The highways could have something like 4x or 5x movement rate, and of course more trade.

Mer'Zhul · February 26, 2000, 09:23

More tech, faster trains with lower cost to move, energy icons addd, and finally, NO CHEATS!!!!!!!!!!

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Zanzibar on 02-26-2000 06:36 AM</font>
Good thinking, Iago! But in this case, there must exist the possibility to upgrade your rails over the time, as new tehnologies are developed: diesel, electric, intercity, monorail (maybe 4x, 6x, 8x, 10x). And there is more: if we consider that units are transported by train, well, we must build that train, at least virtually. So, my proposal is that the rail construction must also cost money (or shields). This will prevent also the filling of map with rails only, because you won't build them if they are not necessary. There is another possibility too: instead of spending money building the rails, spend energy (money, shields) by moving the train (the units on train).
The highways could have something like 4x or 5x movement rate, and of course more trade.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

MadWoodster · February 26, 2000, 09:54

Following on from lago's suggestion about a fixed amount for railways, would highways speed calvary up more than infrantry? I think not so maybe we should have fixed for highways, I can see that maybe motorized vehicles such as tanks would move faster than other units over land.
Also you could simulate the movements by having to build APC's (armoured personnal carriers) and trains to transport units, though this would increase the amount of work by the player and be annoying I admit.

Theben · February 27, 2000, 01:32

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by MadWoodster on 02-26-2000 08:54 AM</font>
Following on from lago's suggestion about a fixed amount for railways, would highways speed calvary up more than infrantry? I think not so maybe we should have fixed for highways, I can see that maybe motorized vehicles such as tanks would move faster than other units over land.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

But does the highway bonus come from the availability of automobiles, or from having better roads than the previous type? That's why I said it should only be x4 move bonus. Having autos could be considered abstracted into the system with redeployment.

Zanzibar · February 28, 2000, 03:20

How do you like this?

Improved road & rail rules:
- Roads: Just like in Civ2 (3x move bonus, trade bonus)
- Highways: Only after the discovery of automobile. Trade bonus. Move bonus: 4x, but only for motorized units! For the rest of the units, 3x.
- Railroads: Flat movement rate, the same for all units, which can gradually increase over the time, as new technologies are developed (for example: diesel 4x, electric 6x, intercity 8x, monorail 10x). The building of rails should also cost money (or shields), because we are building not only the railway but also the train, but only virtually!
- The movement on railroads for all units and the movement on roads and highways for motorized units should cost money (or energy or shields or whatever).
- The cost for moving outside our borders should depend on the type of the diplomatic relations we have with the other nation:
1. Ally: the cost will be the same as on our territory
2. Friend (peace treaty): double cost.
3. Enemy: triple cost and slower movement (they are sabotaging you!).

korn469 · February 28, 2000, 04:03

Improved road & rail rules:
- Roads: Just like in Civ2 (3x move bonus, trade bonus)

<font color=blue>i like this idea, except in SMAC, roads don't increase trade, there are other tile improvements that increase trade, which i think is a better system</font color=blue>

- Highways: Only after the discovery of automobile. Trade bonus. Move bonus: 4x, but only for motorized units! For the rest of the units, 3x.

<font color=blue>I love the idea that high ways only increase motorized vehicles movement! that's genius! same comment about the trade issue, but on movement i agree 100% with you</font color=blue>

- Railroads: Flat movement rate, the same for all units, which can gradually increase over the time, as new technologies are developed (for example: diesel 4x, electric 6x, intercity 8x, monorail 10x). The building of rails should also cost money (or shields), because we are building not only the railway but also the train, but only virtually!

<font color=blue>when you say flat rate but type in 6x ect, you do mean an infantry unit and an armored unit would both move the same correct? also one other clarification, after moving on a railroad the unit would still have all of it's movement left right? i completely agree with that, and i love that idea. put in one stipulation though, a unit can only use railroads once per turn

i agree that all tile improvements (TI) should cost one shield to build basic TIs (farms, roads) and two shields to build advanced TIs (railroads, airbases)

additionally all TIs should cost maintenance, counting each TI seperately, (a farm, a road, and a highway on one square would be three TIs) each citizen would give you two TIs free, and every five TIs after that should cost one mineral to support.</font color=blue>

- The movement on railroads for all units and the movement on roads and highways for motorized units should cost money (or energy or shields or whatever).

<font color=blue>if they implement the energy barrels system then i ardently agree that movement should use energy barrels but i disagree that movement should ever ost money or shields</font color=blue>

- The cost for moving outside our borders should depend on the type of the diplomatic relations we have with the other nation:
1. Ally: the cost will be the same as on our territory
2. Friend (peace treaty): double cost.
3. Enemy: triple cost and slower movement (they are sabotaging you!).

<font color=blue>i disagree with the idea that movement should cost more energy barrels outside of your territory, maybe more supply but certainly not more energy barrels that should be a fixed cost. also your units should not move slower outside of your territory...however i would be in favor of a +1 movement bonus while units are inside of your territory, that would make fighting a defensive war easier on the defender</font color=blue>

korn469

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 28, 2000).]</font>

korn469 · February 28, 2000, 05:43

Zanzibar

first can you define what the problem is? is it a significant problem? how does your ideas fix that problem specifically? does your fix effect any other areas of the game? if it does effect another area does it upset game balance in those other areas? is there a simpler way to fix the problem? does your idea hurt gameplay? why out of all of the ideas does your fix belong on this list?

by the way this is one of my favorite threads, the cooperation in this thread is good, the ideas are great and i think if it makes the list, many of the changes in this list could make it into civ3

Zanzibar · February 29, 2000, 02:32

Well, my enthusiasm has gone, after the bad news with those guys leaving Firaxis, but my proposal is getting close to its final shape, so here it is.
Before getting started, just a few taught: I wouldn’t like go give specific numbers, I just want to outline the general idea and let Firaxis to choose the right way to implement it. Even the numbers showed below are presented only for the sake of comparison.

Improved road & rail rules.

For a better reflection of reality, Civ3 should use 3 ways of transportation: roads, highways and railroads.

Prerequisite technologies:
1. Road – none (or ???)
2. Highway – automobile
3. Railroad – railroad

Movement rate:
1. Road – 3 x (unit speed)
2. Highways – 4 x (motorized unit speed), 3 x (non-motorized unit speed)
3. Railroad – flat movement rate (rail speed), the same for all units, which can gradually increase over the time, as new technologies are developed (for example: diesel – 6 moves, electric – 8 moves, intercity – 10 moves, monorail – 12 moves). After moving on railroad, the unit would still have all of its movement (unit speed) left. I choused 6 as the minimum rail speed, because I thought it should be greater or at least equal with a Cavalry’s maximum range (3 road bonus x 2 speed).
In this way, the maximum range you can travel through the map will be 12 (monorail speed)+ 4 (max. road bonus) x 3 (max unit speed)= 24.

Trade bonus
The idea that roads increase trade is right (I think) because roads are accelerating the resource gathering process and road connected cities naturally exchange more goods thus generating more trade. That’s why I don’t think the Civ2 model should be changed in this case.
I think highways should generate more trade than railroads.

Shield bonus
Only railroads (in forests and mines).

Food bonus
Only roads!!! Prevents filling the map only with rails and highways but I'm not quite sure how realistic this is.

Construction cost
Road: 1 shield
Highway: 2 shields
Railroad: 3 shields (or maybe 6; after all you’re building the railway and the train as well).

Movement cost
1. For transportation on railroad for all units;
2. For moving on roads or highways for motorized units;
Cheaper on railroad. (Let’s say movement cost/move = 1 energy barrel. On railroad for 5 stacked unit moving 10 tiles the cost will be: 10 barrels. On the same distance, on highways, 5 stacked unit will pay 5 x 10 = 50 barrels!!).
Moving outside your borders: Should also cost money, not only energy barrels, and for nearly all units, except spies, explorers, caravans, etc (you are paying the right to use those roads). Only for railroads and highways.
Moving on enemy’s territory: -1 movement rate (they are sabotaging you). Another option is to give +1 move bonus inside your borders, but only in war or martial law (priority for military vehicles).

Maintenance cost - I’m afraid to not make this too complicated. So I’m against it.

That’s it.
I hope there still will be a CIV3.

Grier · February 29, 2000, 05:45

I like most of your ideas, but I am dead against having roads etc.. improve resorces from tiles as you end up with an ugly mess of roads around your city.

A possible solution might be to have trade/production increased if a road connects to another city and not give a bonus per tile with a road.

MadWoodster · February 29, 2000, 07:43

That's a good point Theben, but I think the speed up factor of 3x may be a bit too much for some units such as a warrior. How about if you are on grasslands/plains it gives 2x and if you are on forests/swamps/mountains it gives the equivalence of walking on grasslands as it makes it easier to travel on.

Zanzibar · February 29, 2000, 09:09

Movement formula:
(terrain modifier)*(road bonus)*(unit speed).
Only for roads and highways.

Glostakarov · February 29, 2000, 16:27

As a way of implementing static movement for rails, express the movement as a percentage of the unit's max move. For example, if it's decided that a unit can move 10 tiles per turn by rail, than a unit with a normal move of 1 would use .1 per rail tile, while a unit with a normal move of 3 would use .3 per rail tile. Why is this significant? It gives a little bit of variance to how far a unit can move after it hops off the train (provided they don't go a full 10 squares on it).
This makes sense as a slow infantry unit that moves for 7/10 of the turn on a rail isn't going to make significant progress after leaving it, but a fast mechanized unit could.

korn469 · February 29, 2000, 16:36

Zanzibar

i really like your system...however there needs to be a few slight changes

Trade bonus:
roads and highways only
they will increase trade by one for roads and two for highways in squares that already have a trade increasing tile improvement...
also if a city is connected to a city it has a trade route by roads the trade route is increased in value

but don't allow a trade bonus unless a trade increasing TI already exists!

Minerals and Energy bonus:
railroads only
they will increase minerals by one in squares that have tile improvements such as mines ect.
they will increase energy barrel by one in squares that have tile improvements such as oil wells

but don't allow a mineral or energy bonus unless a mineral or energy increasing TI already exists!

Food bonus:
no food bonus!

Construction cost:
Road: 1 shield per square
Highway: 2 shields per square (or 1 shield if a road already exists)
Railroad: 2 shields per square

so this means that when a settler builds a road or highway or railroad it will take a small amount of shields

Movement cost:
don't change movement costs or rates on enemy roads or highways...but only allow movement on railroad squares that are within your borders or on a allies railroads

also allow +1 movement for your military units on roads and railways in your territory during a war or martial law

use borders like in SMAC

clarification:
a square can't have both a highway and a railroad square

korn469

korn469 · February 29, 2000, 16:39

Glostakarov

after a unit gets off of a railroad it has its full movement left

korn469

Omsat · February 29, 2000, 21:02

What about ocean cities like in smac or CTP? They never had the benefit of a road or rail system. I'm not sure they should put something like that in. But an enclosed tub that runs from shore to the ocean city would be nice for caravans. If they did that what would the movement rate be?

Zanzibar · March 1, 2000, 05:41

Korn, I like almost all your suggestions, and I will include them in the final version.

Trade bonus:
I agree.

Minerals and Energy bonus:
I agree.

Construction cost:
Road: 1 shield per square
Highway: 2 shields per square (or 1 shield if a road already exists)
Railroad: 3 shields per square

Movement cost:
"don't change movement costs or rates on enemy roads or highways...but only allow movement on railroad squares that are within your borders or on a allies railroads"
I still think you could use a friend's railroad, but paying some money (or anything else) for that. (friend = peace treaty).
My idea is that you could use an enemy's railroad only if you capture that railroad. A railroad is captured (controlled) if you have at least a unit fortified on the enemy's railroad and only after it stays there at least a turn! Of course, you capture only a piece of the railroad, between your border and the unit fortified on the rail. To be clear: you move a tank on the enemy's rail and fortify it. Only in next turn you can use that piece of rail.
+1 movement bonus on your territory (inside your borders) during war or martial law. OK

Of course, a square can't have both a highway and a railroad square.

korn469 · March 1, 2000, 11:44

Zanzibar

i really liked your ideas, and all i can say is that when the time to votes comes, you can count on a vote from me!

korn469

March 3, 2000, 09:14

I hadn't mentioned anything before because I wnated to see what new ideas came forth. If I may pull material from Movement Summary, which some newer people may not have even seen (see also Movement, Supply, etc.):

<font color=blue>1.3) Make road building and RR building independent tasks. (In crossing the American West and the Russian East, RR came long before roads.) Movement on roads would no longer cost 1/3 mp per tile, rather terrain/3 mp per tile.

1.4) Movement on railroads would cost terrain/12 per tile. Unlike roads, railroads would be constructed one link at a time, from one tile to another rather than connecting to any and all surrounding tiles at once. Construction of a railroad link by Settler takes [1 + 2 x terrain] turns (or [1 + terrain] turns if the tiles are already connected by road or river) and costs 1 money unit. In tiles without roads, one or more rail link(s) confers whatever trade benefit is applicable for roads.

1.5) After a civ builds one Superhighway city improvement, that civ may improve roads to Highways, reducing movement cost to terrain/6 per tile. Upgrading takes a Settler [1 + terrain] turns and costs [1 + terrain] money units. Highways give a +1 trade bonus above road (and Superhighway improvement) trade bonuses, even for tiles that would not get road trade bonus (but do not enable Superhighway bonus for such tiles).

1.7) Make military units capable of road building (but not RR) and construction of fortresses at ½ the rate of Settler units. This would represent their own labor plus levied labor from the tile inhabitants.

1.11) Additional suggestions to make roadbuilding somewhat closer to historical progression: paved roads such as the Persian Royal Road didn't come until 5th century BC, and quality of roads varies too much to be represented by a single tile improvement type. Trade contribution of roads and rivers is undervalued in many peoples' opinions.

1.11.1) An initial primitive trail (does not reduce movement cost or create trade) necessary to extend city radius from 1 square to the standard 2 squares, and necessary for mounted units to cross mountains.

1.11.2) Basic Roads (terrain/2 movement cost, ½ standard trade bonus) available as a civilization advance (preq Masonry) necessary for wheeled units to cross mountains.

1.11.3) Paved Roads (altered from the existing road improvement as suggested in §1.3 above) as an advance available after Basic Roads and Construction.

1.11.4) Road Network (trade bonus ½ unit per tile subject to §1.11.8) improvement available after discovery of Bridgebuilding.

1.11.5) Secondary Paving (trade bonus ½ unit per tile subject to §1.11.8) improvement available after discovery of Automobile.

1.11.6) Tertiary Paving (trade bonus ¼ unit per tile subject to §1.11.8) improvement available after discovery of Superhighway.

1.11.7) Graded Highways (see §1.5 above; see §1.11.8). Does not require road network, secondary paving, or tertiary paving.

1.11.8) Secondary Paving and Tertiary Paving trade benefits do not accrue to tile types that normally would not receive road trade bonus in the absense of rivers or special resources. Road Network trade benefits apply to such tiles only if Highway improvement has been built in that tile.

1.11.9) Trailblazing (§1.11.1) can be performed by any military unit, requiring only 1 turn. Construction of any tile improvement also includes the construction of trails. Initial road building (§1.11.2), and upgrading from one road type to the next, would require only terrain/2 turns rounded up (except as noted in §1.11.7 and §1.5). If §1.7 is implemented it applies only to §1.11.2 and §1.11.3.</font>

Some of the younger members of this forum have never lived in a world without interstate highways and don't understand that movement before such extensively graded roads was very much slowed by terrain. Also those accustomed to car travel only think of trucks chugging up hills as annoyances rather than as the standard for terrain based movement on even the best graded highways. Hence terrain/3 road cost and terrain/6 highway cost.

Also discussed: trails and roads tend to erode in bad terrain without upkeep (which may be as simple as having population units working the tile in the city screen).

The suggestion of having rail and advanced road construction cost money is included. Money is generalized throughout the civ, but shields would have to be deducted from the production of a specific city, which could be very troublesome to program and to moreso to (micro)manage.

The idea that you can't have both rail and highway in a tile is nothing short of ridiculous. Roads and rail are completely separate entities that do not interfere with each other unless you're late for work and stuck waiting at the #*%@ crossing.

Personally I don't care if the map is covered by roads, rails, or whatever and anyone who complains about the aesthetics 1) is a putz and 2) should redirect complaint to the graphics department.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by don Don (edited March 03, 2000).]</font>

korn469 · March 3, 2000, 09:45

don Don

i really like ideas

1.3) make road building and RR building independent tasks. Movement on roads would no longer cost 1/3 mp per tile, rather terrain/3 mp per tile. (Highways would then be terrain/4 for motorized vehicles)

*however, on a railroad it should be the same flat rate...if you are building railroads through mountains though, it should take much longer

1.7) Make military units capable of road building (but not RR) and construction of fortresses at ½ the rate of Settler units.

good idea!

and i could live with highways and railroads on the same tile but how would you graphically represent it without making it look like crap, and having it easy to see that highways and railroads both exist?

however as for the other ideas i like zanzibar's model alot better, i really think zanzibar has a good model (especially railroads) that fits well into civ, and is simple and works

korn469

March 3, 2000, 09:55

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>…in SMAC, roads don't increase trade, there are other tile improvements that increase trade, which i think is a better system
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center> SMAC's conflation of trade with "energy" is perhaps the dumbest aspect of the game ("Energy Bank" is what, a giant Duracell battery, or perhaps a pink bunny on a leash?).

In a game where most of play exists before "energy" as such is ever a factor (all of history up until WWI, perhaps until the post-WWII period) trade absolutely must be separate from energy. Up to that point trade exists only as physical goods are moved, hence roads/rail generating trade at the drop of a proverbial hat. <center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>i agree that all tile improvements (TI) should cost one shield to build basic TIs (farms, roads) and two shields to build advanced TIs (railroads, airbases)

additionally all TIs should cost maintenance, counting each TI seperately, (a farm, a road, and a highway on one square would be three TIs) each citizen would give you two TIs free, and every five TIs after that should cost one mineral to support.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center> The general Civ model is: food supports population, shields support units, money supports improvements. Deviating from this is really tricky in general and so far only occurs when Settlers require food support. Some people want all units to have food support, etc; just that much more micromgmt.

If irrigation and farms cost shields or money to support should they also cost food? Until the auto all farmwork is either human or animal labor. Livestock eat far more calories than they could ever supply in meat, and even dairy could never break even calorie-wise.

As I mentioned above, money is generalized to the whole civ but shields are not. TI construction and maintenance should never cost shields—how do you assign it to a city if it isn't within a city radius? What if you then build a city on or near existing roads and irrigation, is it suddenly saddled with upkeep shields for the improvements? What a micromgmt nightmare.

Requiring money support for all tile improvements, even in a x10 system, would quickly consume all resources. Especially if you are also proposing that they not generate trade (and therefore money) but that additional TIs would be required for that!

Furthermore, in most cases TIs simply need no monetary support as such. Many Roman Roads haven't been maintained in any meaningful way for centuries but are still around. More would still be around except they were pillaged for building material over a millennium ago. The same applies to a lesser extent to irrigation structures. Most TIs are maintain by the people who use them; even roads were maintained with levied labor rather than the crown's hard currency.

It is reasonable that fortresses, airbases, naval bases (as proposed elsewhere) and other complicated, singular entities that are used entirely by the "state" should cost money upkeep.

March 3, 2000, 10:20

I think it might not be clear that §1.3 wasn't addressing construction cost but only movement cost.

IMO the construction of rails one link at a time (§1.4) is a more important aspect than specific movement rate. But even for rails crossing mountains greatly slows traffic. Not just because of grades but also fewer double-tracked lengths. So rail movement cost still should be terrain/x, but if x is large the cost difference won't be as noticeable unless it's a large area of relief terrain (hills, mts).

I'm also hoping that vegetation will be separate from terrain proper. But not as clumsily or as ugly as SMAC. It costs little more to build a road or rail through forest as through flatlands; one could argue the reverse for rail because you'd use the timber for ties. Swamp costs somewhat more than flat terrain just because more fill material and bridgework is likely.

Construction costs: money should only be required for advanced road types (§1.5, §1.11.4-8). Rail is generally built for demand, and a single line passing through isn't that expensive. But for advanced road types the whole idea is to connect everything that might need it, and so the construction is expensive.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by don Don (edited March 03, 2000).]</font>

korn469 · March 3, 2000, 10:43

don Don

zanzibar never included TI support so that is not an issue

to me trade/money/energy is the same

though energy barrels are different

roads should just increase money where there is a tile improvement there...yes i agree that roads do improve the economy, however if you built a 500 mile long 6 lane highway in the middle of antartica it wouldn't help the economy

so you need something there first in order to see an improvement...hence you need a TI before roads or highways improve your trade/money...if there are no stores to deliver good to then there is no reason for a road to make you more money...same goes for railroads and mines/oil wells (mines for shields oil wells for energy barrels) no mine a railroad won't increase anything

and i could agree that you could use money instead of shields for building cost

but i think that railroads must be flat rate entities...maybe they take a penalty if they do cross too many mountains and hills (why would they slow down though if there was a tunnel?) so if they are flat rate how do you propose for mountain to slow them down and keep movement flat rate?

korn469

p.s. in SMAC energy like we used dollars/pounds/franks/deutch marks/euros/yens...so that leads to the fundamental question what is a dollar/pound/frank/deutch mark/euro/yen?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited March 03, 2000).]</font>