EC3 Fix #15 - ROAD & RAIL

[Zanzibar]

Sorry guys, I don't have time right now to study don Don's ideas, but I promise I will return tomorrow with an answer and maybe a final version of the road&rail system. I will try to keep a balance between reality and gameplay.
See you ...

<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>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
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center> You seem to be forgetting that no tile, with or w/o TI, produces any food, shields, or trade unless there is a worker on the tile. In other words, it isn't the TI that makes anything, the people working the tile do. Road trade benefit is already limited to certains tiles (grass/plains/desert, rivers, trade specials).

The same goes for rail augmenting shield production. The increase is proportional, rather than static; the idea is that rail is far more efficient at getting available bulk goods (lumber, coal, gravel, whatever) from the supplier to the demand center. No TI is required to chop down trees or harvest a shield special.

PS: If "trade/money/energy is the same" then try to barter your labor skills for electricity, or buy a loaf of bread with kilowatt-hours. An economy is based on exchange of goods and services (i.e., trade); energy only has value as we have need of it and it is in a useable form. Otherwise we'd just sit out in the sun collecting that 1200 watts/m²; Saudi Arabia would be selling sunlight instead of oil. That SMAC tried to use energy instead of trade is so stupid.

"Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government!" —Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[korn469]

don Don

i have already asked the same thing of Thben...please do not post a summary of any list in any EC3 threads...post a link if you feel it is really important for people to see the entire list...if you think one particular section of the list pertains to the discussion then copy+paste that but do not just post the entire list...here is my reasoning

Firaxis has already seen the list and we shouldn't just resend it to them...the list has been summarized and some of the original flavor of the ideas have faded in the process and i feel that it ould stifle debate instead of encouraging it and could stop new ideas...i do not want the list to become a tool of intimidation

the Essential Civ3 List is all about stating ideas in civ2/SMAC terms and telling how that these ideas could make civ3 better

also about your quote when i said that trade/energy/money are the same thing i meant in civ2/SMAC terms...i was not talking about real life...and do not try to use real economics on a civ game...civ is not realistic it is fun

first thing one totalitarian god like dictator does not control every aspect of every body's life for thousands of years...the govenerment does not build every facility and tell people where they are going to work or pay for most of the R&D in any society or make sure every body is happy...so do not try to argue "realism" in civ with me, it's pointless

i from a gameplay point of view, feel that tile improvements should exist before you gain a bonus to money/trade/energy you collect...this means that it takes time+investment in infrastructure to reap the benefits...i like when things complement each other...like E-mirrors and solar collectors in SMAC, i think that is the most fun type of system...so my final answer is, a money increasing TI should exist in a squre before roads or highways increase money output

korn469

[Zanzibar]

First of all, a few considerations.
We are getting with this discussion to a very abstract level. What is energy? What is money? What are shields? Well, let me try to explain how I see these concepts trough a CIVer’s eyes.
I think it’s all about resources. We are gathering, processing and exchanging them.
1. Shields. They are resources-needed-for-construction: construction materials (wood, stone and others, but we can call them minerals), energy (resulted from the processing of wood, coal, and later oil, sun, or whatever) and labor. Just think about what factories are: a place where you input minerals, energy and labor and get more resources, tools or goods.
2. Trade. The result of exchanging resources. Having roads accelerates this exchange, that’s why they are generating trade bonus. In the beginning, you just exchange resources for resources. Later, you exchange resources for money or money for resources. In a simplified, Civ2 form, trade = money.
(I think your trade/money/energy equivalence is wrong, Korn. If energy is seeing like money, then mines should generate trade too. And I agree with Don: SMAC’s energy=trade idea is dumb. Energy is a part of the goods creation process, not the goods exchanging process; manufacturing, not trading).
Nothing is that simple in the real life, but Sid tried to implement these concepts in a very simple way. That’s why you can construct only with shields and upkeep cost only money. It’s clear that maintenance (for example) should cost money and shields as well, but the game must be kept as simple as possible. Of course building a railroad should cost shields, it’s a construction process after all, and as I have stated before, you are virtually constructing the train also. The shields can be assigned to the city the settler belongs to. But any type of maintenance should cost money and nothing else, not because it’s true or real, but because handling money is the easiest and simplest economical tool in the game (you can buy everything with money, like in real life).
Don Don:
Well, I have Internet access only at work, and I really don’t have too much time reading Apolyton (I wish I could). Maybe 15-30 minutes a day. That’s all. If I tell you that I ususally write posts at home, then save on floppy, then move it to my workplace and then post it, you would believe me? (Please, somebody tell me I’m not crazy!) So, unfortunately I can't read everything.
Secondly, I still live in a country without too many interstate highways, but I have a car though (please somebody insert a smiley-face here for me, because, shame on me, I don’t know how!), so I have included the terrain/road_bonus movement formula in my system already, just not posted yet. As for the different types of roads, if Firaxis chooses to make 5 or 6 different type of them, than we should build an army of settlers just for road-building for the entire game-time!
Basically I don’t mind to have both road and railroad in a tile (and it’s realistic, I agree), but, first of all, how do you represent that graphically, and secondly, when you move a unit on that tile, how, in the name of God, would it know if it’s on road or on railroad? How many moves would it have? 3 or 12? I hope you won’t propose another confirmation window! It’s not that you are not right, just we must keep it simple.
There are some good ideas in your post though, and I will use them.
What do you mean by making the road and RR building independent tasks?

[Zanzibar]

Improved road & rail rules.

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

Prerequisite technologies and/or City Improvements:
1. Road – none or Masonry (tech)
2. Highway – Automobile(tech) (and maybe Superhighway as a CI)
3. Railroad – Railroad (tech)

Movement rate:
TM = terrain modifier (just for ex. plains TM = 1; hills TM = 0,5; mountains TM = 0,3)
US = unit speed (ex. Armor US = 3)
RS = railroad speed (the speed of the train transporting the units)

1. Road – 3 x TM x US
2. Highways – 4 x (motorized US), 3 x (non-motorized US)
3. Railroad – flat movement rate (rail speed), the same for all units, which can gradually increase over the time, as new technologies are developed (travelling on RR, the units are assumed to be travelling by train)
(for example: diesel – 6x TM, electric – 8 x TM, intercity – 10x TM, monorail – 12 x TM).
After moving on railroad, the unit would still have all of its movement (US) left.
A unit could use railroads only once per turn.

Trade (money) bonus
Only roads and highways, and only in squares that already generates trade, without any road.
(ex. One trade bonus for roads, and two for highways)

Shield (mineral, energy) bonus
Only railroads, and only in squares that already generate minerals or energy (forest, iron, coal) or already have tile improvements such as coal mines, oil wells, wind mills, solar collectors, etc.

Construction cost
Road: 1 shield
Highway: 2 shields (or 1 shield if a road already exist)
Railroad: 3 shields (the construction of the RR includes the construction of the train, too)
The city where the settler belongs to is allocating “n” shields for road construction as long the settler is working on that road (or highway or RR).

Movement cost
1. For transportation on railroad for all units
For stacked units, the cost will be the same, no matter how many units are being transported. The cost is coming from the train type (diesel, electric, etc)
2. Moving on roads or highways for motorized units only;
The cost will depend only on the type of the unit.

Clarifications
The cost for transportation won’t depend on the terrain type, because this is already included trough the movement rate formula.
The cost should be energy. (or something equivalent)

Movement and borders
Moving inside your borders: +1 movement bonus during war or martial law (priority for military vehicles); only on roads, highways and railroads.
Moving outside your borders: Should also cost money, not only energy, 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 railroad: You could use an enemy’s RR only after you capture it. A RR is captured if you move a unit (U) on the RR, there are no enemy vehicles between the RR controlled already by you and U, and don’t move U until the next turn. You can not use the RR until the next turn. If U survives, the RR is yours.

Clarifications
1. No road and RR on the same tile.
2. No maintenance cost.
3. Modern military units being capable of road (but not RR or highways) and fortress building, at the speed of a settler.

Travelling by train would be not necessary speeder, but cheaper, and especially for stacked units. I mean, on a highway, an armor could travel 4 x 3 = 12 squares, the same as the fastest train (at least in my example). If cost/move=1 energy barrel, than 5 stacked units moving on 10 RR tiles will pay 10x1=10 barrels. The same 5 stacked units, on highway, will pay 5x10x1=50 barrels.

It is NOT the final version. It’s still open for discussion.

[Zanzibar]

deleted
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Zanzibar (edited March 05, 2000).]</font>

[Zanzibar]

Sorry for double posting. My Internet connection broke down exactly when I pushed the "Submit reply" button (Thanks, Murphy).

[korn469]

zanzibar sounds good!

how about this:

in SMAC when you raise or lower terrain it asks for confirmation about the cost of the action

how about when it asks for confirmation about building a railroad or road, or highway have a screen pop up that ask if you want to spend a shield or want to spend money...in the preferences screen you could permantly select one or the other though, so the screen wouldn't pop up

korn469

korn,
I had overlooked your other question: if you want rail movement to be independent of unit movement allowance you are essentially assigning to each unit a separate movement allowance for rail. Otherwise you would just move the unit by rail the allotted amount, move a space by road, and get back on the rail and move again.

Whether you separate unit movement allowance from rail movement allowance there will be a cost to move, and that should be terrain dependent (terrain/x) to reflect the limitations that IRL can only be overcome at fantastic expense. The number I had used in the List was terrain/12. Obviously with any large divisor the affects will not be great unless you must move through much rough terrain.
----------
It is not my intent to cite the List as an authority, but as a reservoir representing countless threads of discussion, etc. We need to consider that Firaxis has (theoretically) already seen the List and so we don't want to be rehashing the old as though it were new.

On the other hand, when we are highlighting, expanding, or contrasting against ideas that already exist in the List it would be good to refer to it precisely because it is a reference that the Firaxis team can easily get their hands on.
----------
On the esoterics of TIs, yes I can see that arguing "realism" with you is pointless. But all kidding aside, building roads is the investment in infrastructure that increases trade. Just as irrigation is the fundamental investment in infrastructure that increases food and mining is the fundamental investment in infrastructure that increases shields. The various ideas for later additions (highways, road networks, etc) are the complementary TIs just like farms complement irrigation.

[korn469]

don Don

with rails...i think they should have a flat rate movement rate that can only be used once per turn...so however you do it (and giving all units an equal rail movement category is a really simple idea that does the job perfectly!) that is the system to go with...a 3 move tank and a 1 move infantry unit should both move at the same speed on rails, a move multiplier is a bad idea for railroads because a fast unit is not going to speed up the train hauling it

but as rails exist now, almost aby system will be a major improvement on it...but i love flat movement railroads

_____________________________________________

also i want the list to be used as a source of inspiration, but i didn't want the entire 500 pages of the list posted in various pages, a link or a particularly apt quote should be enough...i just got worried that having a large chunk of the list posted in every active thread would kill those threads...you or theben or either one weren't guilty of using the list as to kill an idea thread, i just wanted to stop it before it happened

_____________________________________________

Zanzibar

please drop this part of your idea

<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>Moving outside your borders: Should also cost money, not only energy, and for nearly all units, except spies, explorers, caravans, etc (you are paying the right to use those roads). Only for railroads and highways.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

because for one thing energy barrels should take care of the cost to move just fine, for another...who would you pay to use the roads? i cannot see your allies charging you to use their roads and i cannot see you paying your enemies to use their roads, so that means you would only pay neutral/truce countries to use their roads...i do not see how this adds to gameplay, and if you had to pay money to move on an enemy road that would really make me made mad at the game especially if it ran me out of money...maybe supply cost should be increased outside of your borders but it should not cost money to move on roads outside of your territory...i cannot support this idea unless you can somehow convince me it adds to gameplay

one other small change

diesel, electric, intercity, monorail

how about

steam, diesel, electric, mag-lev

other than that i think your system looks really good

korn469

Zanzibar,
"Road: 1 shield
Highway: 2 shields (or 1 shield if a road already exists)
Railroad: 3 shields (the construction of the RR includes the construction of the train, too)"

You may have missed this among the (light-hearted) bickering between myself and korn (for which I apologize in principle)—

"Construction costs: money [or shields] 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."

Otherwise, shouldn't all tile improvements cost money/shields to construct? Why is the cost of trains included in rail but not the cost of trucking fleets included in roads? Why just roads and rail? If you upgrade from irrigation to farm don't you have to build McCormick reapers and tractors? If you build a mine don't you have to install mining equipment? What about upkeep—mines are notoriously unstable?

Also, if we have to spend shields why even bother with Settler/Engr/Former units at all? It becomes only a clumsier and costlier version of CTP's Public Works system.

Remember KISS. We don't want to endlessly entangle the support and cost systems that make Civ simple in concept (even if unrealistic). I'd rather have no money/shield costs at all for tile improvements than too much complication.

Moving outside your borders: There is a lengthy proposal in the Movement Summary (see §1.10) on diplomatic and financial aspects of permission and rights for movement in other civs' territories.

If there is an energy system (which I really hope there isn't except in the most generalized sense) the difference in efficiency between road and rail shouldn't be more than a factor of two (armor being an exception). Otherwise railroads wouldn't be going bankrupt!

I can't emphasize this enough: no prohibition against road and rail in same tile! First, it isn't as though rail or roads actually take up space the way farms do. Second, (and perhaps more important in principle) tiles are huge and any exclusion of one TI by another (such as Irrigation vs. Mine) is ridiculous.

<font size=1>PS: Next time you're online just click on the "edit post" icon on the header of one of the doubles. There is a "clear fields" button to make it easy to remove all the text.

What you may want to do is bring a bunch of floppies to work and save copies of threads to read at home. It's fairly easy to do with either IE4/IE5 (from the File menu) or Netscape (File menu or right click menu).

There is a trick to make it work smoothly. When you get home, open your browser and tell it to "work offline" (from the file menu). Open the floppy window, then right click and drag the thread file from the floppy to the open browser. The browser will complain that it can't find all the links and remind you that you're offline. If you double-click on the thread file or left-click and drag, IE or Netscape will keep trying to look up all the links instead of complaining just once that you're offline.</font>

[Zanzibar]

Korn, how does it work?
I should post here, in this thread the final version, or I should start a new thread? Sorry, I didn't understand very well your post about this issue.

[Zanzibar]

Korn:
I think you are right. The idea with the payment outside my borders is too complicated. It's realistic, but too complicated. As for the railroad types, that was just an example. I don't mind to be diesel, or mag-lev or whatever. I think Firaxis should decide this, after they studied very well a history book about railroads (and I'm sure they will).
Don Don:
The train is included in the cost of the railroad construction because the units are supposed to travel by train, so I wanted to represent this, somehow. I didn't think at trains going in mines or forests, but on trains transporting troops. So the comparison with trucks and reapers is not right.
About the settlers and engineers: "why even bother with Settler/Engr/Former units at all?" Because I like them! Just like the camel-caravan, the city view, and many other useless things in Civ. They are adding charm to the game. If we make everything abstract, Civ may become boring. But you have partially right: why pay for roads and highways? So, it will be:
Roads, highways: no construction cost
Railroad: 1 shield

[CrispyCritter]

Zanzibar,

I like of what you have: the fixed movement RR (once per turn), highways, bonuses.

Worries:
1. Construction costs: I already pay a shield per turn in settler/engineer support. I view this as including construction costs. Besides, it's a nightmare to assess. How do you charge the last RR link midway between two cities? How do I know which city is charged? What turn is it assessed on? What if I change my mind and need to have the RR finished next turn, not this one? At times I need to be able to predict the exact shields for a city; that means I need to keep track of what every settler is doing???

I wouldn't object to a gold maintainence cost for RR (or even highways); that would serve the same purpose of keeping the number of RR squares down a bit.

2. The +1 at war bonus. This again is something tough to keep track of. I'm often officially "at war" with an AI I haven't seen for 20 turns. What happens when I encounter them in the course of a turn and make peace (or had peace forced upon me)? Suddenly, all my travel plans have changed.
It's realistic in some situations to have a bonus, but I think it's unplayable.

Thanks for doing this!

[korn469]

CrispyCritter

i forgot about the eternal wars with civs halfway across the map...so you are probably right about the +1 movement has to go when you are at war...

however with construction cost for railroads i don't think it would be much of a drain on your civ just enough to keep it honest...one measly shield per square to build a railroad...you would have to be building lots of railroads around one base before it would really hamper your economy

korn469

[MadWoodster]

Using other people's roads:

If I was at war with someone I would just drive straight onto their roads as I'm sure the Germans did in Poland and Irag in Kuwait (among others)
If I was at peace with them then provided I didn't have a non-trespressing agreement (or even have a new treary such as use roads agreement) then I coud drive on them.
Obviously with allies you could use them as normal.

Using other people's railroads:
I couldn't use my enemy's railroads as I doubt their trains would be willing to pick me up somehow!
With friends you could have a use railroads agreement.
With allies you would already have this agreement.
Possibly charge them the energy cost as it is their train you are using. Obviously they could come up and say please don't use our railways.

[Zanzibar]

CrispyCritter, Korn

Let's say you have an engineer from Boston, building a railroad between New York and Washington. Now, which city is charged? Very simple: Boston! So, normally an engineer costs you 1 shield. For only those turns when he is building a RR, you will pay 2 shields. I don't think it's complicated. Of course, if you want do build a diesel RR on existing steam rail, it will cost you 1 shield. But if you want to build a mag-lev RR on a virgin tile, it will cost you 4 shields.
But I also have an another idea for this: You don't pay extra shields for RR building, but in order to link a city to a RR, you must build first a city improvement (maybe a RR Station or a Train Depot). Also, you could build RR only near cities or near tiles that already has RR on it ("chain-building").
Now, which do you like more?

Movement in war: I have 2 proposals. Please tell which do you like. If none, I will drop the idea:
1. -1 movement penalty on your opponents' territory , because they are sabotaging you
2. +1 movement bonus inside your borders, during war, IF there are enemy troops on your territory

Otherwise, in your opinion, is the R&R system ready for the final draft?

[Glostakarov]

I can see a railroad station as being a +trade building, but I can't picture it as being necessary to use the rails. After all, when you're not in a city you load and unload simply by stopping the train and piling units in or out. This would not be much different in a city. Plus, any city on a rail line is going to be so eager for the trade that they will build at least a basic station to provide services to the train.
A classic example of how far towns will go during the rail boom is Chadron, Nebraska, where I lived for a few years. When the first rails were being built in the area, the entire town picked up and moved itself three miles so that it would be along the tracks. It wasn't a large town, but still they physically moved all the buildings to take advantage of the train route. Something as simple as erecting a platform for easy boarding of the train is nothing next to that.

[The Mad Viking]

The movement point fixes are very good and absolutely essential.

Road and rail must be independently built, and must be able to co-exist on the same tile. Rail movement could be initiated like an airlift, thereby ensuring that a unit only uses it once per turn and there is no confusion about whether its moving on rail or road.

Don don has good knowledge about railways. Here's a little more info. Highways cost about twice as much to build as railways. This changes radically in mountains, where railway costs absolutely skyrocket. "Roads" should cost about half as much as rail. This is all actually taken nicely into account in Civ2, with the time it takes to build each. (Highways being an improvement) I really agree that the maintain costs on engineers should be enough for whatever they're working on.

Although rail is somewhat slower in the mountains, particularly uphill, as Don don pointed out, this is probably not significant enough to bother with. For trains to be able to travel at all, the track is relatively straight, and relatively level. Roads are 10 times steeper and 5 times twistier, so using the terrain modifier only with roads is legit, IMHO.

Also, rail and roads have a neglible maintenance cost, while highways are expensive to maintain. Once again, Civ2 has it right! No need to complicate unless it gives important something back! ;-)

[korn469]

Zanzibar

all railroad tiles should be the same and should cost the same amount of shields to buy...not matter if you are at steam engine tech levels or at maglev tech levels. however when you discover the appropriate tech then your troops automatically move farther on rails...

i would go with proposal number 2 if anything

i like the train depot being a trade building...how about it being a commerce building, having a train depot in your city will increase that cities commerce rate by one and if all of your cities have train depots then your trains get a +1 bonus to movement

(custom houses could be another commerce building but that is another idea for another thread)

korn469

[Zanzibar]

Korn,

The final shape must be very, very exact and specific, or could I write some options there (there are many different opinions, and I don't want to be the judge).

[korn469]

zanzibar

make sure to include all of the important things and then use your best judgement...if an idea is contraversial you might want to leave it out or only include it as an optional after thought...there are a few specific things i could nitpick with you on but you have the major things hammered out i think

korn469

[Zanzibar]

FINAL DRAFT

Improved road & rail rules

Almost every CIV player agrees on the fact that the road & rail rules must be improved. But because of the variety of opinions, this proposal has 2 sections: General Rules (supported by everyone) and Other Improvements (different ideas)

GENERAL RULES

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

Prerequisite technologies:
1. Road – none or Masonry
2. Highway – Automobile
3. Railroad – Railroad

Movement rates:
TM = terrain modifier (just for ex. plains TM = 1; hills TM = 0,6; mountains TM = 0,3)
US = unit speed (ex. Armor US = 3)
RS = railroad speed (the speed of the train transporting the units)

1. Road – 3 x TM x US
2. Highways – 4 x (motorized US), 3 x (non-motorized US)
3. Railroad – flat movement rate (rail speed), the same for all units, which can gradually increase over the time, as new technologies are developed (travelling on RR, the units are assumed to be travelling by train)
(example: steam – 6, diesel – 8, electric – 10, monorail – 12).
After moving on railroad, the unit would still have all of its movement (US) left.
Important: A unit could use only one railroad once per turn.

Trade (money) bonus
Only roads and highways, and only in squares that already generate trade or have tile improvements that generate trade
(ex. One trade bonus for roads, and two for highways)

Shield (mineral, energy) bonus
Only railroads, and only in squares that generate minerals or energy (forest, iron, coal) or already have tile improvements such as coal mines, oil wells, wind mills, solar collectors, etc.

Movement cost
1. For transportation on railroad for all units
For stacked units, the cost will be the same, no matter how many units are being transported. The cost is coming from the train type (diesel, electric, etc)
2. Moving on roads or highways for motorized units only;
The cost will depend only on the type of the unit. For stacked units, the cost should be the sum of all units' cost.

Clarifications
The cost for transportation won’t depend on the terrain type, because this is already included trough the movement rate formula.
The cost should be energy (or something equivalent)

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

1. Road (highway later) and RR on the same tile.
a) Yes, because it's realistic
b) No, because the map could easily become overcrowded. The players need no more to strategically choose between them (based on movement rate, cost, and so on), and will build them both. Some problems may occur when a unit enters on a tile with both road and railroad on it (how many moves he has?)
2. Modern military units being capable of road (but not RR or highways) and fortress building, at the speed of a settler.
3. Railroads could generate trade bonus through a "Train Station" city improvement.
4. Construction cost
Railroad: 1 shield (the construction of the RR includes the construction of the train, too)
The city where the engineer belongs to allocates 1 shield for RR construction as long the engineer is working on that RR.
5. Movement and borders
a) Moving inside your borders: +1 movement bonus during war (priority for military vehicles) if there are enemy troops on your territory
b) Moving outside your borders: Cost you nothing if you have a "Use railroads " agreement. If you have not such an agreement, you must pay money for the right to use the RR.
Possible problem: makes the game too complicated
c) Moving on enemy’s railroad: You could use an enemy’s RR only after you capture it. A RR is captured if you move a unit (X) on the RR, there are no enemy vehicles between the RR controlled already by you and X, and don’t move X until the next turn. You can not use the RR until the next turn. If X survives, the RR is yours.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Zanzibar (edited March 08, 2000).]</font>

I have an idea...

Have any of you'll played Railroad Tycoon? How about a Railroad Tycoon style road & rail management..

I mean, you give the settler/engineer the order to build a road/rail to somewhere.

For rail access, there should be stations or platforms which the engineers build on the track... Units must get on a train at a station (cities could be stations by default) and should be allowed to move as many stations forward as there are within 12 spaces.

Stations also make the economy more realistic.. Suppose there's some gold or oil somewhere in the mountains. An engineer can build an mine/oil well on top of it, build a station and connect it with rail. This railroad can connect it to one or more cities and pump resources which are shared between all connected cities.

The stations could come in various sizes.. From small, which only access an area of one square around it, to large, which can access the equivalent of a city radius...

These railways can also facilitate movement of people, migration etc. For example, if a city isn't doing too well (it could be a foreign city), some people could migrate to a connected city...

This stations idea can be extended to air and sea routes.. Engineers should be able to build ports/harbours/airports around the map, stations near them and connect the stations to somewhere.. There could also be s 'superstation' which incorporates port/rail/airport...

From the ports, you could buy/build ships and send them to other ports for trade/passengers..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@telebot.com
Web: <A HREF="http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ:" TARGET=_blank>http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ:</A> 17719980

[Theben]

Korn,

I have been away for about one week and I haven't seen your responses until now. Since this thread has had the discussion of List vs. EC3 I'll post my concerns here.

I don't know how you plan on presenting the EC3 to Firaxis. The name "Essential Civ3 list" sounds to me like something that all the fans really want, possibly overriding what was in the previous lists. I agree that the ideas in both EC3 and the lists are equally valid, but the title of EC3 just sounds like it deserves preference. And I disagree that most new posters have read the lists. As you say, it's a big document. Hell, I haven't read the whole thing.

So my concern is that EC3 will replace any similar list ideas. If you could present the ideas as a supplement to, as opposed to "instead of", similar list ideas, then this would allay my concerns.

------------------
"The collapse of communism at the end of the cold war removed from the world's political stage the last pretense of principled opposition to the rule of money, and the pages of history suggest that oligarchies unhindered by conscience or common sense seldom take much of an interest in the cause of civil liberty."- Lewis Lapham

[korn469]

Theben

here is a quote from raingoon about the EC3 list a while back

<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>The Essential Civ 3 is not to give Firaxis ideas but rather to be a companion to the 500 page list, a sort of clarification -- by that token, I think it could be a tremendously helpful document.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

now as for presenting the list to firaxis...there will have to be a cover letter and basically this cover letter will tell firaxis a few things...

• the process of forming the list
• it could give a list of signatures that participated in the EC3
• it will tell what the list is all about

here is what the EC3 is all about

• it is not a comprehensive list
• it is not a replacement for any list
• it is not a stand alone list
• it is a prioritized list of suggestions
• it is a helpful tool, that try to catch the general feeling of what is important to civ3
• it is a list pointing out what areas need the most work
• although it does provide some unique new ideas and some specific fixes this list is more about trying to encourage firaxis to be innovative in civ3's game design

now here is the reason why i didn't simply want the list rehashed...since it is a sumpliment to the list, maybe we could mail the EC3 to firaxis and when we do also remail any sections of THE LIST that has a coresponding part in the EC3 List

so if the realtime/firstperson shooter idea from the EC3 makes it then we should send the section of THE LIST that deals with real/firstperson shooters

*note: there is no realtime/firstperson shooter idea in either of the lists...i was just trying to not endorse a specific idea

korn469
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited March 12, 2000).]</font>