Railroad Move-Limit Conundrum...

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Now, I recognize that 99% of Civ players regard the "infinite railroad movement" status of Civ and Civ 2 as warranting a change in Civ 3. After all, it's both unrealistic and (arguably) unbalanced for the game. One technology can jump a Civ'ers empire from mediocre to invincible in a matter of a few years..

And, I myself am probably in the same boat on this infinite railroad movement problem. Civ 3 will limit the amount of railroad movement/turn that is possible, and it's probably a good thing.

However, I do have a serious concern about this improvement and I don't think anyone else has mentioned it yet.

For me, railroading was as much an aspect of what I would call "tedium management" as gameplay strategy. By far, the biggest issue for me as Civ games go on is the long, exhausting micromanagement of every aspect of one's Civilization. As experienced Civ'ers, one of the first things we learn is how to manage our empires with a minimal amount of boredom. Most Civ'ers generally develop a system for managing cities, units, production, movement, etc. and that system exists not only for the sake of strategy but for streamlining the amount of time spent on the game. Civ'ers probably save hours of gameplay by developing systems to use for efficiently moving, setting production, building, etc. and using the interface w/ this system becomes second nature to them.

However, as the game goes on it inherently becomes more tedious and difficult to micromange. In my opinion, movement bonuses (predominantly the railroad/airport ones) add a counter to "tedium management" and allow Civ'ers to combat the growing number of considerations in the game by having one less thing to worry about -- movement.

Railroading is by far the greatest killer to tedium management as it provides a way of interconnecting all of a Civ'ers cities instead of having to individually move massive armies from scores of cities across the continents. Because of infinite railroading, the game becomes faster, less tedious, and more easy to manage.

My primary concern is: Will the elimination of infinite railroading increase the tedium of playing Civilization? I am genuinely worried about it. Even even if railroading allows for really long movements in Civ 3, there is still a great deal of difference between infinite movement and a system in which more troop movements must be managed/taken in consideration by end users. No longer can a user just set a destination and have them get there a turn later w/o worry or management.

Thoughts?

[rah]

If the goto command WORKS, I don't care if it take x amount of turns for the "whatever" to show up where it's supposed to as long as I only have to issue one command. And if I can move a whole stack with one command, even better.

But as I've stated in other threads about this topic. I would actually like to see trains moving the "whatever", a traintrack doesn't mean extra movement, having a train there does.

RAH

Originally posted by rah
If the goto command WORKS, I don't care if it take x amount of turns for the "whatever" to show up where it's supposed to as long as I only have to issue one command. And if I can move a whole stack with one command, even better.

But as I've stated in other threads about this topic. I would actually like to see trains moving the "whatever", a traintrack doesn't mean extra movement, having a train there does.

RAH

Good comment; if it applies to everyone, the game will have a more realistic feel.

[Captain]

Hmm..., I always found that Civ 2's pathfinding function really sucked. when using GOTO, my units would walk into a jungle tile instead of taking the RR around it.

In my mind, the infinite railroad mvt points, while making it really easy to conquer the world in twenty turns, made those twenty turns last forever because I would move my armies to one border, conquer the other civ's ten cities, then RR them across my empire to another enemy, conquer their twenty cities, then RR them across my now humongous empire,... repeat.

Infinite RR mvt= micromgt, limited RR mvt = strategy

I think turns would be more fun with limited mvt because then where you choose to go is more important and you have to be more careful when waging war. you have to be more picky about where to build something. I can't just build howies in my power centre and RR them out to borders and conquer cities all in one turn.

once again, distance will actually become a factor in how I play the game. as it is, a city across the continent is just like one next to my capital, except for added micromanagement in getting units there.

if I have to consider distance and mvt points in my tactics, then mvt of those units is no longer micromanagement, it becomes a challenge.
(e.g. it's more exciting to have to choose how many of my mech inf to send versus the English and how many to defend against the Romans, instead of just RR around to do both.)

[Inverse Icarus]

well, wouldnt it be smart to only allow railroads in "one width" lines?

america isnt full of rails, like some game of civ i play where EVERY SQUARE is a rail.

[To_Serve_Man]

Ms. Realism says, "One Turn in the Rail-Road age part of Civ2 realisticly shows how Railroads could move large armies across the land effectivley and quickly" This is true, realisticly... If turns were daily, or weekly, well then this would don't be true.

Mr. Game Play says, "CivX is a game, a strategy game! RailRoads (and Airports) destroy the ever so important strategy that is needed more in the late game with large armies and cities. RailRoads should have give a bonus to movement but be limited. This would increase strategy during wartime and infrastructure building time."

These seem to be the two opposing views that i've seen talked about.

IMHO, I would take another aproach. I think a city improvement called 'Train Station' should be buildable. It would act like the Airport. You would have unlimited movement between Train Stationed cities, but if a RR(title improvement now) is linked to a Non-Train Station city, they get off like they would a road. The would not be able to get unlimited movemet points again until they enter a Train Station City. So unlike roads, you cant just 'hop' on and get the bonus.

[Optimizer]

If travelling by rail is so fast, why do we have cars? Because rail transportation has got some drawbacks.

The solution could be to implement some of them. For instance
* You shouldn't be able to use enemy railroads.
* The capacity of railroads should be finite. Only a limited number of units should be able to use them each turn, the rest should have to move at road speed.
* When used by military, the trade & production bonus from the square should temporarily be halted.
* Railroads should be particularly easy to pillage.

Lesson of history: One of the factors that subverted the Third Reich during WW2 was the over-utilization of the railroad system, especially in Poland. It could not support the arms industry, the death camps and the front at one time.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
My primary concern is: Will the elimination of infinite railroading increase the tedium of playing Civilization? I am genuinely worried about it.

Why does it have to be one way or the other? I dont mind having infinite railroad-moves as an option, for those civers who prefers that. But, why should it be the only option?

Personally. I would prefer a fixed number of RR-moves of 12 (or 15) tiles, regardless of land unit-type.

Now; whether Firaxis changes infinite railroads into above fixed move-radius, or not - they should either way add more "cosmic rules" and "special flags" in the Rules tweak-files:

• Infinite railroad-moves on/off cosmic rule, together with...
• a fixed RR move-radius input-number, would be a needed fine-tweak alternative anyway.

Also an RR combat-value decrease on/off rule perhaps. Make the game tweakable - especially in controversial areas of the game. The question of infinite RR-moves IS such an area.

[Theben]

Arrgh! I don't even see where the problem lies. Yes, turns are years. Yes, units should be able to move at near-infinite movement along them, for both realism AND gameplay. No, there shouldn't be a train, a train station, or some limitation between turns due to entraining/detraining units.

The solution is simple. Color-Coded Rails based on the Civ. When you move onto an enemy rail, you move onto it as a road. If your unit survives to the next turn, the color of the rail switches to yours. Then all your units that use that RR section at unlimited speeds. If your unit dies, the rail gets a neutral color (noone owns it). The colors don't have to be glaring, just noticeable.
Keeps it simple, solves problem. Nuff said.

[Provost Harrison]

I definitely think stacking units is the answer to this problem. Providing I can have a formation moved along a railroad at my command, infinite moves or not, I do not mind. Something I would like to see implemented is a goto that finally works as it should! which would make like easier rather than having to track down lost and confused units hobbling back and forth. Fully functional automovement would be an important improvement to me. One click and it is there.

[Grumbold]

I'm with Theben on this one. Infinite movement in your own country but not in foreign territory. It may allow you to get your army from one front to the opposite end of your vast nation in one turn (unless you span an ocean) but that is the price you pay for tedium busting when the Goto command is not infallible.

I'd even allow the owner to change mid-turn provided a unit actually issues an order to occupy the square that ends its movement. At least that way your artillery needs some support even if you still end up with the artillery closer to the enemy than almost all the infantry! The whole bombardment rule needs looking at to correct that flaw but SMAC was going in the right direction with bombardment only weakening the enemy prior to an assault. That is precisely what it does.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I definitely think stacking units is the answer to this problem. Providing I can have a formation moved along a railroad at my command, infinite moves or not, I do not mind. Something I would like to see implemented is a goto that finally works as it should! which would make like easier rather than having to track down lost and confused units hobbling back and forth. Fully functional automovement would be an important improvement to me. One click and it is there.

In the original version of Civ 2 for mac the goto comand works wonderfully (or atleast very good), but when they ported MGE for mac we to got the lousy goto whit units ending up in the middle of nowhere.
Before I got MGE I honestly couldn't see what all the fus was about.
I dont know if the goto comand worked better in the original PC version though.
It should be possible to make a functioning goto comand, it has been done before (atleast by the ones porting the game)...

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
Railroading is by far the greatest killer to tedium management as it provides a way of interconnecting all of a Civ'ers cities instead of having to individually move massive armies from scores of cities across the continents. Because of infinite railroading, the game becomes faster, less tedious, and more easy to manage.

Above tedium is counteracted by the fact that you dont need to move each unit indevidually anymore, as in Civ-2. You can forge armies, and move these few armies instead. Also, building & moving around ridiculously huge quantitys of combat-units, Civ-2 style, is a thing of the past, for yet another reason:

In Civ-3 the AI-civs have much more potent "alternative warfare" options. They can forge pacts in order to strangle your trade-income (making your huge army disintregrate, by the lack of financial funding), and they can also strangle your much needed special resource import. Above reasons + many other great tweaks, makes the strategy of quietly building unproportionately huge quantitys of HP combat-units, (and by that introducing too much unit micro-management), a much less feasible/workable approach in Civ-3, then it ever was in Civ-2.

Originally posted by Theben
The solution is simple. Color-Coded Rails based on the Civ. When you move onto an enemy rail, you move onto it as a road. If your unit survives to the next turn, the color of the rail switches to yours. Then all your units that use that RR section at unlimited speeds. If your unit dies, the rail gets a neutral color (noone owns it). The colors don't have to be glaring, just noticeable.

OK, I get the idea, but I still dont like the part about unlimited moves for your own railroads. Unlimited RR-moves makes it more or less impossible for AI-civs to succesfully disembark armies on your huge railroaded end-game islands. Its just too easy to counteract such D-day style disembarkments, by mobilizing each and every tank- and howitzer-unit/army scattered across your huge island - then move them over unlimited distances - then attacking, with perhaps no decreased combat-values either.

Keeps it simple, solves problem. Nuff said.

Well, I think that fixed (but rules.txt -editable) RR-moves, regardless of land unit-type, is an even simpler (an better) solution. The idea of "colour-coded RR-roads" (with an easy-to-access on/off toggle, of course) have some potential though. I just dont like the "unlimited RR-moves" part of it.

Again: Whether Firaxis changes infinite railroads into above fixed move-radius, or not - they should either way add more "cosmic rules" and "special flags" in the Rules tweak-files:

- A fixed RR move-radius input-number of your choice (0 = infinite).
- Also an RR-move combat-value decrease on/off rule perhaps.

Why does it have to be "my way or the highway" then it comes to the limited/unlimed RR-moves issue? I say; make it possible to tweak it both ways.

[To_Serve_Man]

Originally posted by Ralf


Why does it have to be one way or the other? I dont mind having infinite railroad-moves as an option, for those civers who prefers that. But, why should it be the only option?

It needs to be one way or the other otherwise we have no game. Single Player games can't be tweaked left and right so that each owner of Civ3 can play the way they want to. I don't care if you want to change the rule for a special scenarios. I dont want to start new games of Civ3 and have pages of 'options' that i have to check and uncheck. There should be, idealy, no options other than mutable ones like Bloodlust, Simple Combat, etc. These rules make multi-player possable. We cant both play the same game if you want your trains to be unlimited movement and mine limited. Thats why it has to be one way or the other.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
It needs to be one way or the other otherwise we have no game.

Well, it cant be both simultaneously, of course.
But, it can very well be one way OR the other, by player-choice.

Single Player games can't be tweaked left and right so that each owner of Civ3 can play the way they want to.

Have you ever heard about the Rules.txt files in Civ-1, Civ-2, CTP, CTP-2 and SMAC?

I don't care if you want to change the rule for a special scenarios.

Im not talking about special scenarios. Im talking about the main game.

I dont want to start new games of Civ3 and have pages of 'options' that i have to check and uncheck.

Im not talking about game start-up screens. Im talking about the Rules.txt files in the game-directory.

There should be, idealy, no options other than mutable ones like Bloodlust, Simple Combat, etc. These rules make multi-player possable. We cant both play the same game if you want your trains to be unlimited movement and mine limited. Thats why it has to be one way or the other.

This is a non-existing problem. You see: In multiplayer-games, the software always plays by the rules it can find in the initiating MP-player's game-map. Someone has to take the initiative then announcing a fresh new multiplayer-game over the internet. And he who does, automatically enforces all global game-rules.

Otherwise, each MP-player could secretly tweak his own setup of slightly more powerful standard units; his own slightly more advantageous tech-advance-, city-growth-, production- & happiness-ratios - simply by tweaking the Rules.txt files within his own Civ-map. This is impossible however, because of above reason.

[To_Serve_Man]

Have you ever heard about the Rules.txt files in Civ-1, Civ-2, CTP, CTP-2 and SMAC?

No I have never heard of these, and I think thats hersey. I shouldn't have to change a game after I buy it to make it worth my time. The game should be balanced. Why not make my own game if I'm going to have to change all the rules. I'm new to the Civilization series and want to play the game. I don't understand all these weird things that I need to edit before I play.

The reason why I dislike your idea of editing things in strange files is because your basically making a 'option' screen when your starting a new game, accept now I have to fart around in strange files, I'd wratehr have the easy interface windows before game start. I dont like games were the user has to 'fix' it. It seems that in many threads that ask for an idea about something, many people go with the 'Just make it an option' answer. Thats why I said that I didnt want huge Option Screens. I would like to play the game the way it is, based on a professional computer programers knowledge about the game.


I mearly want to take a stand on something, instead of throwing it in the option bin.

PS: I know there is a Rules.txt file, that whole first paragraph is just an example. We need to think of everyone, Novice player, Elite Scenario makers, Multi-players, Single Players, etc

[Ralf]

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
I shouldn't have to change a game after I buy it to make it worth my time. The game should be balanced. Why not make my own game if I'm going to have to change all the rules. I'm new to the Civilization series and want to play the game. I don't understand all these weird things that I need to edit before I play.

OK, but you really dont have to. Firaxis is very well aware that perhaps the majority of all potential Civ-customers dont have the slightest interest to fool around with these files. Not to mention game-magazine reviewers, with deadline-considerations. The latter category are more or less obliged to review the games "out of the box", without taking game-file tweak-possibilities an/or any future bug-patches so much into account. So I believe that Firaxis priorities a pick-up-and-play Civ-game with well thought-out and well-balanced game-defaulted options, very high on their priority-list. Dont worry.

The reason why I dislike your idea of editing things in strange files is because your basically making a 'option' screen when your starting a new game, accept now I have to fart around in strange files, I'd wratehr have the easy interface windows before game start. I dont like games were the user has to 'fix' it. It seems that in many threads that ask for an idea about something, many people go with the 'Just make it an option' answer. Thats why I said that I didnt want huge Option Screens.

I expect the option-screens in Civ-3, to be just as extensive as they where in SMAC. These option-screens should be tucked away however, with well-balanced defaulted choices in them - so you dont have to change anything if you dont want to, in order to play a good game.

We need to think of everyone, Novice player, Elite Scenario makers, Multi-players, Single Players, etc

Yes, I agree.

[Theben]

Ralf-

OK, I get the idea, but I still dont like the part about unlimited moves for your own railroads. Unlimited RR-moves makes it more or less impossible for AI-civs to succesfully disembark armies on your huge railroaded end-game islands. Its just too easy to counteract such D-day style disembarkments, by mobilizing each and every tank- and howitzer-unit/army scattered across your huge island - then move them over unlimited distances - then attacking, with perhaps no decreased combat-values either.

Then I'd say it would depend on what Firaxis allows bombers to do and how well the AI uses them. In civ1 bombers were exceedingly effective at crippling rail lines and mine production (they could automatically pillage terrain). In civ2 it was removed (IMHO a bad idea) and brought back in SMAC, but w/o the 100% chance of pillaging. I think that's what we'll see bombers do in civ3, but the AI needs to know this.

[Lung]

Well, CTP had limited railroad movement, and it certainly altered strategy. You could not compensate for lack of foresight by throwing everything at your new defensive line. If you get flanked, you stay flanked!

It is certainly a better option, and worked because the goto actually works It seems that CivIII will incorporate this, but they should make it a bit more than the crappy 1/5 movement points that was applied in CTP. How many? 7? 10? More??

I think this deserves a poll

[Grumbold]

It will depend on the size of map the game is designed to work best on. 1/5 could be perfectly adequate - or even too much - if the Civ III world turns out to be significantly smaller than the Civ II one. The cost is certainly something that should be easily accessible in rules.txt if rail movement becomes quantified rather than infinite.

[Theben]

Actually 2 ideas. The 1st is that, in addition to color-coded RR's, any unit that uses a rail line loses 1 mp for that turn, each time they use it. Thus an engineer could use the rail and then move to an off-rail location, or a tank could use rail, attack once, and redeploy again.

The other idea I got from the old boardgame 3rd Reich. It would replace rr movement with Strategic Redeployment, which would allow units to be moved anywhere within your empire, but then couldn't move later in the same turn.

This could be used in the early game. It would have 3 basic settings:

1. For a unit that is not on a road &/or in your territory, using SR would send the unit back to your nearest city. This would be essentially the same as when the AI tells you to scram from it's territory, except that when done in your turn it uses all movement of the unit. The unit MUST have a valid supply path to the city & ALL movement points or SR cannot be used (so no SR on the explorer who just opened a barb horde).
2. Units on a road within your territory &/or in the territory of an ally with road links to your territory may be moved to any city or fortress within your territory linked to the road. The unit also must have all its movement before using SR and SR consumes all its movement.
3. Units on a RR may move to any location linked by a rail for the cost of 1 mp.

ZOC's will block available SR paths.

[To_Serve_Man]

I cannot advance the conversation because I do not own SMAC nor have I ever played it. I've never played CivOne either... Only Civ2 and CTPOne. But I haven't played either of them in some time. Could you refresh my memory and tell me if there was a Rules.txt file specialy made for each Scenario?

I believe our arguments are not on the same topic. However my view might change when I understand were the Rules.txt file is because I disliked the idea of having One Rules.txt file that ran all the scenarios and main (random map type) game. I really dislike games like this (Europa Universalis comes to mind) were I have to edit these files and I have to save back ups of the MOD pack version and origanal, etc etc.. its tedious and can be complex. However, if my memory serves me correctly, each scenario got its own Rules.txt file. If this is the case, well... I have no argument!

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not sure, but I think that the Fantastic Worlds was what allowed you to run different MODpacks without having to save over the original files.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
However, if my memory serves me correctly, each scenario got its own Rules.txt file.

Yes, thats correct. Each indevidual scenario has its very own unique Rules.txt files that you can tweak. And the main game also have a Rules.txt file (and other tweak-files to), completely separated from the ones in each indevidual scenario-map.

All you have to do, is to take a backup copy of the files you gonna tweak - wheter it is the ones related to the main game, or the ones related to each indevidual scenario. Tweaking these files are rather powerful stuff, and things can very well go horribly wrong - especially if one mess around to much the the main game tweak txt-files. If you have orginal backup-copies you can replace the faulty ones, without being forced to reinstall the entire game.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm not sure, but I think that the Fantastic Worlds was what allowed you to run different MODpacks without having to save over the original files.

Hmm! Maybe your right. Im not sure about modpacks.

[Captain]

Limited RR moves is more fun, more strategy.
Unlimited RR moves is tedium, no strategy.

While I normally advocate having options, this shouldn't be an option. It's too fundamental.

Why? 2 scenarios.

1) 2 large armies of enemy AI lands on my north and south shores.

->With unlimited RR moves, I take all the units from my cities, pound the crap out of the nearest enemy on one side, then using the same units RR across the continent and pound the other coast, cycling units so that each of my units has at least 1/3 of a mvt pt left, and then RR them all back to their cities where they're nice and safe from enemy counterattack. do the same the next turn until the enemy armies are completely destroyed.
Too easy, no strategy. No tough decisions. No use of distance to offset numerical inferiority.

->with limited RR moves, I need to choose how many of my units should defend north and how many the south, because I can't do both this time. Perhaps my north is more sparse, so I use just a few units to slow their advance in the north, sacrificing maybe 1 or 2 cities also, while I fight mainly in the south. Do I retreat and entice the enemy to leave the fortresses and follow me into the open where I can counterattack better? This is only possible with limited moves. With unlimited moves, you'd have to be an idiot to leave units in the open when it's so easy to fortify them in cities or forts. Since I must choose my battles, more strategy, more thinking, less automatic mobilisation of all units therefore less tedium.


2) I drive deep into enemy territory with my primary army. The cunning enemy surrounds my army in the newly captured cities.

->With unlimited RR moves, I just take all the newly produced units in my main mfg cities and plow through. No strategy. No thinking, just going thru the motions = tedium.

->With limited RR moves, I have to make strategic choices - do I try to hold out as long as possible in the cities, or pull back with a scorched earth policy until I meet up with my reinforcements, or some other strategy?


ANALOGY:
Having unlimited RR movement is like having unlimited gold.
Normally, you have to be careful what you want to build, whether a bank for more gold or a library for more science is more useful to you now, and whether your city can support both or either. But with unlimited gold, you can build anything you want without worrying about the above, so where is the strategy in what to build?