About added RR-move related cosmic rule

[Ralf]

A railroad-related cosmic rule should be added to the Rules.txt file:
A maximal railroad move-radius input-variable of your choice (0 = infinite), regardless of land unit-type.

(If you put in "12", for example: it means that each and every land-unit have a fixed range of 12 tiles, as long as they move on railroaded tiles. Choosing "0" means infinite moves on railroads - as in Civ-2).

[Gramphos]

Ralf, jag känner mig tvingad att rösta Ja...


I feel forced to vote Yes

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

What idiot wouldnt vote YES for non-infinite RR?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I would vote with a qualified "Yes" in that, I do think that there should be a limit to how far you can move on a railroad, but I also feel that there railroads should also have a Cosmic rule covering "Capacity" (how many of each unit type can you fit on a single railroad tile) and "RR ownership" (ie. if you don't control any of the cities at either end of a railroad, you can't use it unless it belongs to an ally). I also feel that you should only be able to access a railway from a city or from an appropriate tile improvement adjacent to a railway.

Anyway, you did ask.

The_Aussie_Lurker

[DarkCloud]

There should be a rule, say 12 movement in a line;
1. It gets tedious moving the troops
2. It is a potential game winner if you get the RR before your opponents do.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
2. It is a potential game winner if you get the RR before your opponents do.

Thanks to unlimited RR-moves, I could again & again completely overrun otherwise powerful end-game AI-civs, by pick-and-choose 3-4 of the most attractive Wonder-cities (often deeply embedded within enemy territory) + 2-3 of the major AI key-cities, within that first critical turn. It was not so much that these cities where weakly defended: they often had attack-potent bombers, missiles and whatnot. But because of the unlimited RR-rule (and by all means; the overpowerful howitzer + non-existing HP armament-restrictions), they simply didnt get a sporting chance.

With above feature implemented you could fine-tweak the RR-move rule to a fixed rate of 12, 14, 16, 20 or even infinite moves. A small and easily added tweak-feature with really big-impact gameplay consequences.

[Maniac]

Double post. My finger slipped out.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
What idiot wouldnt vote YES for non-infinite RR?

Now that isn't really friendly, is it? What would you say if I told you: "What idiot would be christian?" Respect people with a different opinion. As far as current science can tell, the universe has no meaning. As a consequence, no belief can reasonably claim it's better than any other. They're all just wishful thinking.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

The advantage to infinite railroad is that it combats some of the end-game micromanagement and tedium.

Of course, it is totally abused be every Civ'er out there and the new Civ will (hopefully) make the game less tedious and more focused on slightly fewer cities.

Instead of limiting infinite railroad, however, I'd prefer a system in which it is not possible to utilize an opponent's railroad system without sacrificing some movement points (consider it time spent "capturing" the rail). These railroad systems would be a reflection of overall territory.

The reason I like infinite railroad is because each turn is effectively one year and it simulates it quite nicely IMO. I also like the air-drops....

[SerapisIV]

Booo....Biased poll

Keep it infinite...screw the limited RR. Better would be to extend airplane movement by creating unlimited flight through controlled/allies cities with airports to equalize the extended range problem

[Dr Strangelove]

I think that rail movement should be unlimited. Remember that each turn represents a minimum of a year. There should be some way to limit use of an enemies rails though. It shouldn't be possible to land on an enemy's shores and immediately overrun him via his own rails. Since Civ 3 is supposed to have borders (isn't it?) it should be possible to make a rule that no unit can use an enemies rails, thereby effectively preventing someone from using his enemy's railroads during an attack. The player would have to land (or invade by land) and establish new borders, and then he'd be able to use the new rails, but only within his zone. Alternatively, you could allow a player to use "scorched earth", i.e., rip up the rails ahead of an enemy, but allow the opposition to repair a certain sized zone each turn.

Frankly I'd like to see movement allowances for modern and early modern eras made more realistic. Modern ships should be able to sail or steam around the earth in less than a year! Game balance would be restored by introducing supply and support rules.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
Booo....Biased poll

Keep it infinite...screw the limited RR.

You dont get it, do you. You CAN screw the limited RR option, by choosing "0" as your RR-movement variable. Is it biased to promote such a tweakable text-file rule to make it the players own free choice?

[Urban Ranger]

Hmmm...

There are other methods to fix the problem other than limiting RR movement as previously suggested.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Ralf
You dont get it, do you. You CAN screw the limited RR option, by choosing "0" as your RR-movement variable. Is it biased to promote such a tweakable text-file rule to make it the players own free choice?

I do get it, I don't want a feature that has been a constant of the current civ series to be changed, thereby requiring way too much time to tweak, time better spent, in my opinion, tweaking and debugging the rest of the game so that it comes out by Xmas.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
I do get it, I don't want a feature that has been a constant of the current civ series to be changed, thereby requiring way too much time to tweak, time better spent, in my opinion, tweaking and debugging the rest of the game so that it comes out by Xmas.

No offense, but It really looks like you grasping for straws here.

Its not exactly an entirely new feature we are talking about. Its just an added tweak-variation of the same old concept: the RR ground-unit universal movement-rule.

The key-word here is "unit universal". Also, any once-and-for-all RR-move tweaks is likely to stay unchanged & generic throughout the entire game (and game after game) - regardless of different game-situations.

In the Rules.txt files let you tweak each and every unit, city-improvement, wonder, terrain-type, terrain-improvement, government-type or science-tech in every possible screwed-up combinations & variations you possibly can imagine. Why then should this little added RR move-option suddenly require months and months of added playtesting and bug-squashing?

------------ edited:
I found this in the Civ-2 Rules.txt file:

"@COSMIC
3 ; Road movement multiplier"

You can change above "3" variable to something else, if you want to. Why not add a RR fixed movement range variable as well? Especially since the poll clearly show that a majority really dont prefer unlimited RR-moves.

I also want infinite movement rates. As of now we can load a rail car with a load of goods and send that rail car from San Francisco to New York with just changing the Engine a few time in about 48 hours, so why change it?

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Ralf
No offense, but It really looks like you grasping for straws here.

Its not exactly an entirely new feature we are talking about. Its just an added tweak-variation of the same old concept: the RR ground-unit universal movement-rule.

No offense taken. But there aren't any straws being grasped either. The primary complaint people make is that there isn't enough realism in Civ. Every feature people request has some grounding in making Civ act more like real history (though hopefully maintaining fun) I don't like limiting railroad movement. It's a step backwards. If you want an option, fine, stick it in the rules.txt. End game turns are a year, railroads and airplanes should therefore be able to move halfway across the globe in one shot. Earlier I reiterated someone else's idea for infinite plane movement if the plane passes through an airport. I think thats perfect. It doesn't change the fact that the unit only has one attack movement, it only changes its range. You still can't attack all the way into an enemy empire without a base nearby. If air movement is improved in such a way, the only unrealistic portion of the endgame would be naval units, but I really don't have an idea of how to change their movement and haven't heard one on the boards. I don't like infinite railroad movement. It doesn't make sense to me.

One of the largest complaints about inifinite railroad was the ability to race around an enemy civ's territory with them, well railroads should be getting damaged in war anyway. Also, the AI railroad web in Civ2 was a code bug holdover (in my opinion) from Civ1 where railroads gave trade bonuses. I never saw such behavior with mag tubes by the AI in SMAC, and see no reason why it would happen again.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
If you want an option, fine, stick it in the rules.txt.

Great! It doesnt always have to be "my way or the highway" when it comes to these little game-tweaks, you know.

All you have to do once you have installed Civ-3, is to open the Rules.txt file and erase the game-default chosen RR-move variable, and type "0" instead (meaning "infinite moves").

Finally, we are on agreeing terms about this issue.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ralf
Is it biased to promote such a tweakable text-file rule to make it the players own free choice?

There is bias in this poll question, due to the fact that you haven't provided every possible response. You should have put the option: "Infinite RR movement. Final."

[Ralf]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
There is bias in this poll question, due to the fact that you haven't provided every possible response. You should have put the option: "Infinite RR movement. Final."

I have to admit that it never really crossed my mind that some civers actually would vote for "hardcoded" RR-move choices (knowing back in his mind that many would be disappointed, not being able to tweak it "the other way") instead of free optional RR-move choices (there each gamer can tweak it to his own personal liking - in best Civ tweak-file tradition).

I certainly wouldnt be comfortable voting "Fixed RR movement. Final", even though Im personally is 100% supportive about it. The way I look at it: the more game-customization possibilities Firaxis can squeeze to the game - the better it is. Obviously, you dont seems to think so.