What a joke this idea invaders can't use railroads

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Pembleton


I don't get it. Is this a common Norwegian joke/phrase?

hehe, it was complete and utter nonsense

If you capture a city well inside enemy territory how large area will your zone of influence cover? Is this dependant on your cultural rating as opposed to the surrounding civ.

I don't like how cultural rating is affecting military operations. I understand the gamebalance issues, but I just think it's kind of silly that the number of libraries my opponent have is hindering the movement of my troops!!

I think Firaxis should reconsider, and make it possible to use enemy roads/RR to a reduced effect. This, together with the changes on units like the howitser, will make the "one turn kill" more or less impossible.

[Boris Godunov]

...I have yet to see one post on any of these boards from AH that was anything other than a criticism. Sometimes I wonder if some of the nastier posters here are actually from rival companies (Activision?) and are just out to trash the game. Hehe, conspiracy theories aren't my forte, but I'm beginning to see the light...

Second, while at first I was dismayed at this new rule, I have since decided I am quite in favor of it. Look, there are all kinds of nuances of war that Civ3 just can't depict because it would be too much. So they synthesize stuff into rules like this. The fact is, the Germans in WWII could not send troops via trains into enemy territory, right up to a city and launch an attack. First the Germans OCCUPIED territory, and THEN used the rails. That's exactly how the game will work, from what I gather.

Also, I disagree with removing the infinite movement for railways. I can hop on an Amtrak and be in L.A. in a few days. Over 365 days, I could make the trip 100 times. It makes sense that within one's own borders or allied countries, one can use the rails as much as desired. And this problem is solved by disallowing movement via enemy rails. I like it!

I think the ending the modifier for roads is a good answer to the various things that slow down armies on the move, whether it be countryside partisans, bad weather (since Civ3 has no seasons, how else can we account for the nasty Russian winter effect that screwed Napoleon and Hitler?), mines, etc.

Most importantly, if it promotes good gameplay, balance, and creates an interesting challenge, then I whole-heartedly agree with it. I may sound crazy, but I actually TRUST Firaxis to make a game where the rules are balanced.

Weird, huh?

Cheers.

[Madine]

I think that some people are getting the wrong idea about culture and why it is important in Civ.

Culture = Nationalism

Culture isn't about how many libraries you have, it's about people having a strong identity and being devoted to their ideas and values. The social and cultural bonds people shared were a large reason why groups like the French Resistance and the Partisans were formed and were successful.

Culture is something intangible that can't really be expressed numerically, but I think it is better that they tried to incorporate it than to completely ignore it.

[Boris Godunov]

Crix Madine?

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ralf


Its not that you are forced to move your units on roadless enemy tiles, you know. I really hope that nobody is stupid enough to interpret the idea like that. You CAN move them on enemy-roads at any time.

What I was trying to say that it would be stupid if an invading army could not use your roads and rails to full effect, I know that you could still walk over that terran with the road/rail but not be able to use them.

I hope that this is not true or that if it is that it will be changed right away. Again I don't see how this would help balance out the game or make it more realistic.

I when I played Civ2 I sough nothing wrong with invading units using my own rails or roads.

[HalfLotus]

AH has a thing for controversial Civ topics.
Just read the"No cities on mountains" thread in the Civ 2 forum
His threads are actually worth reading, which is more than I can say for most posts around here.

Hey guys! Over hear it's a poll! How many games are you gonna buy for Christmas?

[Wexu]

Boris Godunov,

I SO agree!

Those are exactly my thoughts, but I had hard time trying to write them in English. Thank you!

[Sparky]

In no way does WW1 show that railroads were used well. One of the most ironic points of the Russian attack was that they built their railroads withdifferent gage so that an adversary's trains could not enter Russia. Instead, their own trains couldn't enter Germany.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Ralf
I suggest you "keep full road bonus" activists move over to this road-poll and check out the current poll-results. Believe it or not, but most voters seems to like Firaxis idea, although some would like it tweaked a little.

Why not just give it a rest? The battle is over.

Looks like its split 50/50 between those who want no bonus and those who want some bonus to apply. Not quite as clear cut as you would have everyone believe, Ralf. The voting numbers are still very small too. Lets see how it matures....

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Most signatures I've read just seem self-indulgent or pretentious, but yours is the first in a long time that I've liked.

[Rakki]

railroads rocked in WW1. that's one of the reasons why they had a stalemate with the trench warfare - attacking armies faced a huge bottleneck in logisticss at the no man's land even if they did manage to break through, while the defenders could immediately start directing reinforcements to the breach using their own railways. Railways favoured the defenders (you see this in Civ 2 as well... if an AI turns up on your border, you can easily start calling in reinforcements from other cities to fight them off)

come to think of it, that's actually something that Civ3's current ZOC simulates..... although i still think it's a bit of a stretch to say roads don't confer bonus until the enemy city is taken.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Looks like its split 50/50 between those who want no bonus and those who want some bonus to apply. Not quite as clear cut as you would have everyone believe, Ralf.

Thats true. And I would be happy with either one of those two alternatives. Its just the full (uneffected) road-bonus alternative that I dont like.

[squid]

Originally posted by Triped
Yeah, any game where the team that goes first wins 70% of the games is really balanced.

I think you just admitted to being a lousy chess player. The advantage in playing white is very minimal if you are not trading pieces junior-high-school style. Play a good positional game and you will find there is nothing bad about starting as black...just that the openings are harder to remember

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Most signatures I've read just seem self-indulgent or pretentious, but yours is the first in a long time that I've liked.

Why thanks. But I made a major grammatical mistake! But I've fixed it.

come to think of it, that's actually something that Civ3's current ZOC simulates..... although i still think it's a bit of a stretch to say roads don't confer bonus until the enemy city is taken.

Yes, and I like what they did...but I see your point. If they could tweak it, the only change I'd make is that you get only a 1-move bonus instead of 2 (assuming movement bonuses are the same in CIV3 as in CIV2). You would get the same bonus for railroads as for roads, just 1. That would account for rails being much easier to cut off and destroy than dirt roads.

But, if it's a choice between what they have now and back to old CIV2 rules, I'll take what they have now in CIV3

Cheers.

[Alexander's Horse]

In multiplayer, if you can't move units quickly up to a city they are toast. Humans tend to play a lot better than the dumb old AI.

[Rakki]

I like using alpine troops and mech inf (or even paratroopers) to penetrate behind the target enemy city and basically "seal" them off - exerting ZOC over enemy railway.

"So what if you got roads... you gotta get past these fellas first !"

That's why I think if railway has to wait until you take the enemy city, they should at least confer the road bonus on your units IF the road square is already occupied by a friendly unit. This means that paratroopers can be used in their conventional role - tactical and strategic real estate acquirement..... (e.g. Operation Market Garden - paratroopers used to seize bridges over the Rhine so it doesn't get blown up (pillaged))

of course, I kinda suspect that the code used in in civ3 may not allow that kind of discrimination easily.....

[Madine]

Actually I like the idea of getting the full road bonus for enemy roads/railroads that you occupy.

But I do think that Civ II's "completely open access to all roads/rrs" model is probably the worst possible choice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
In multiplayer, if you can't move units quickly up to a city they are toast. Humans tend to play a lot better than the dumb old AI.

Learn new strategies! Is that so hard?

[Urban Ranger]

Horse is just bitter because Firaxis has rendered his old boring style of play worthless.

Civ isn't realistic. Explain this to me, Horse, why does it take my Warrior unit 20 years to move 200km?

However, there are good reasons why a player can't use railways to attack until he has secured it.

Railways are regulated by a set of signals along the routes, and these signals are controlled by dispatchers in various stations. Now you can only have complete control of these signals if you have secured a section of a rail line, i.e., controlling stations at both ends of it. If you aren't sure if the signals are right, are you going to send a freight train charging down a line full speed?

This just shows Horse doesn't care about realism, he just wants to complain.

[Sarxis]

WIth ALL this having been said:

CivIII is what it is, and I doubt Firaxis is going to change this feature.

Love it or leave it.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

If you aren't sure if the signals are right, are you going to send a freight train charging down a line full speed?

Yeah right, I'm sure those who employed armoured trains to spearhead their advances in world war I and II, and elsewhere, were really worried about signals.

"Oh look! Its red! We better stop!"

Also, if you knew anything about trains you would know signals and switches can be changed manually along the line

In fact, even electric ones have magnetic plates on the track and as I found when I was naughty young boy, all you had to do was put a hunk of iron on the plate and the signal .....*cough*.......never mind............

[Rakki]

I'm inclined to think only idiots would spearhead their advance with armoured trains... as far as I know they were only used to *patrol* railways.

of course, it would be interesting to have such a unit wouldn't it ? I mean, railguns (as used in WW1) and armoured trains (used in American Civil War and elsewhere) would be an interesting addition.... and used to "bombard" enemy cities from outside the ZOC

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yeah right, I'm sure those who employed armoured trains to spearhead their advances in world war I and II, and elsewhere, were really worried about signals.

"Oh look! Its red! We better stop!"

So you don't think the enemy can have armoured trains and is sending it your way?

With your thinking ability it's good that you aren't in charge of something important.

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Also, if you knew anything about trains you would know signals and switches can be changed manually along the line

No kidding, so who are those people changing the signals? Whose side are they on?

[Boris Godunov]

I have never, ever heard, in all the reading I have done on modern warfare, of armored trains being used to either spearhead an attack or deposit troops into enemy-occupied territory. The very notion is ridiculous. Trains are easy targets for aircraft, can't diverge from the tracks for cover, etc. It would be a complete disaster if one was caught, because tons of equipment and men would be obliterated without having a chance.

No, they were used to ferry reinforcement to front lines and patrols, but not to invade.

[DonJoel]

In fact, even electric ones have magnetic plates on the track and as I found when I was naughty young boy, all you had to do was put a hunk of iron on the plate and the signal .....*cough*.......never mind............

Haha, that was the coolest thing i ever heard about! You are my god!!
What happened??

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I have never, ever heard, in all the reading I have done on modern warfare, of armored trains being used to either spearhead an attack or deposit troops into enemy-occupied territory. The very notion is ridiculous.

Really? Tell that to the Red Army. How do you think they won the civil war?

But you people just aren't thinking this through. If you don't take the city you can't use the railroads within its borders. That means for CENTURIES you might not be able to use the track even 2 tiles away from the city you haven't yet taken. You could have a massive army sitting on that ground and you still can't use the railroads within that city's hinterland.

Does that make any sense at all?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Really? Tell that to the Red Army. How do you think they won the civil war?

But you people just aren't thinking this through. If you don't take the city you can't use the railroads within its borders. That means for CENTURIES you might not be able to use the track even 2 tiles away from the city you haven't yet taken. You could have a massive army sitting on that ground and you still can't use the railroads within that city's hinterland.

Does that make any sense at all?

Civil War vs. Invading enemy nation. There is a difference. But enlighten us about it, ball is in your court.

And if you are such a poor strategist that it takes you CENTURIES to take over one city, then maybe Civilization isn't the game for you. I can send you a copy of Lemmings, if you like.

[Madine]

Yeah I haven't heard anything about armored trains spearheading an assault in any war

The new road rules won't stop assaults, just slow them down by a couple turns. It's silly to say that offensive warfare is doomed because you can't ride the train into town anymore.

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by Madine
The new road rules won't stop assaults, just slow them down by a couple turns. It's silly to say that offensive warfare is doomed because you can't ride the train into town anymore.

Exactly! So... everyone, ride the Peace Train!

[Deathwalker]

Though I agree that the idead that an invading nation could not use your rail roads is a crap one I think it was included in the game as to give the defending civ a chance. Because if you land a large army in a civ will loads of rail roads you could capture a huge amount of cities using his rail links. But it is a bit unreallistic. If you could implement a scourched earth policy that would be more realistic, but if you did that it should destoy the rail roads for every one and would have to be re built later.