What a joke this idea invaders can't use railroads

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Deathwalker

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.

That's what happens. Most wars only last a few months or years. You break through, its over. Very realistic.

[Grumbold]

If even roads are unusable then we are back to the farcical ancinet warfare syndrome. Both Napoleon and Hitler will have died of old age before their armies get halfway to Moscow even if nothing stands in their way.

Some people maintain that it does not matter how much you accomplish in a turn because the year is only indicative. Unfortunately this is not true. The game is going to end at a fixed year point so it is very important how many turns certain actions take to accomplish. Without road and rail movement modern units are going to need double figure movement points to achieve anything.

Now if the enemy had air missions bombing certain tiles of road or railroad to impede movement, that would be another matter...

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Grumbold
If even roads are unusable then we are back to the farcical ancinet warfare syndrome. Both Napoleon and Hitler will have died of old age before their armies get halfway to Moscow even if nothing stands in their way.

Are you trying to justify your criticism by referring to that stupid backdrop year timescale again? If thats such a huge problem, then go and play a full-length historic scenario, with an tailorcut timescale instead.

Besides, I think your exaggerating greatly. Firstly, you get back full road/RR moves stepwise for each additional city you conquer. Secondly - even if you initially dont get any road-bonus; maybe moving along uncontrolled enemy-roads still always give you easy-terrain move-potential, regardless of these roads go through forest, swamp, mountains, or whatever. Thirdly; we dont know anything about modern land-unit ADM-stats yet. If a chinese rider have a move-rate of 3, then perhaps modern mechanized combat-units have a move-rate of 4.

We just dont have access of all the details yet. We havent played the game yet. I say the overal idea of being forced to earn your invasion full-speed road/RR-moves, is a damn good one.

[HalfLotus]

I suspect that the new road rules are for game balancing, and not for realism or continuity with Civ 2. Nobody on these boards knows how the gameplay or game balance works at this point. We have only been given a few tidbits about the game. Until we play the game, any attempt at strategy discussion is mere speculation.
Again, I’m almost sure that this is a game balancing issue and takes precedence over realism.

A review for Alexander’s Horse:
Fun, Game Balance=#1 priority
Realism=#2 priority

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


That's what happens. Most wars only last a few months or years. You break through, its over. Very realistic.

Sure, TODAY. What about in the past?

100 Years War (116 years)
30 Years War
Napoleonic Wars (14 years)
Etc, ad infinitum.

Look at it this way...Civ3's wars are not meant to simulate specific political conflicts (like Desert Storm), but are rather a synthesis of long-running conflicts. If you want to look at it this way, the U.S's current "war" could be viewed as the continuation of 1992's Desert Storm (since Iraq is probably involved with the WTC attack, it seems likely).

I don't have a problem with Civ's time scale. As many have pointed out, it is an ABSTRACT way of delineating the passage of time. Why not view the 200 years it takes your chariot and legion to go take a city or two as akin to the 300-year long Punic Wars? Just use your IMAGINATION and say "well, while I'm fighting major battles with my troops, I can say that lots of little skirmishes are going on that just aren't shown."

Or, you can b*tch and moan about the time scale and be miserable. Your choice.

OR we can have them switch it to real time! One day= one day! You can spend the next 6000 years of your life playing civilization! Maybe it will get tedious, though, because I don't think wars and stuff happened every day...

Have you played Europa Universalis? Now THERE is an example of how boring it can get when you have a day by day scale.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Have you played Europa Universalis? Now THERE is an example of how boring it can get when you have a day by day scale.

Its possible to speed it up easily in several increments with the CTRL & plus-key.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ralf


Its possible to speed it up easily in several increments with the CTRL & plus-key.

Maybe I was too good at the game. The beginning turns were always the most fun, when I had a fledgling nations. But by the time the first 100 years had passed, I was so strong that I would be caught between two extremes: Either I'd go stretches of years and years with nothing happening, or everyone would attack me at once. I remember one night being at the PC and dozing off...and when I came to (20 mins. later), the game was still going and NOTHING had happened in the meantime. EU's endgame was an exercise in tedium.

That's not to disparage it...it is a terrific game for the most part, and I think Civ could learn some things from it. But EU needs to learn some things, too!

[Leonidas]

Many good points have been made by all sides on this issue of roads and railways.

The way I see it is: if there are no enemy troops blocking your way, then the road is free to use (except in the case of very poor roads and/or weather).

When the Germans invaded France, it was the French/British troops that impeded the German advance, not the fact that France "owned the roads". Once the troops were surrounded and defeated, the Germans were quickly at the channel.

In Russia, the Germans encircled huge Russian armies fairly quickly - issue of ownership did not enter the equation - superior tactics did.

The main things that slowed the German advance before Moscow was the terrible Soviet winter in late 1941, the mud/frozen roads, and the reinforcements of Siberian troops, and of course, Hitler's diversion of Guderian's armour from this central front.

In Afganistan, the roads would be free to use, except for the prescence of Afganis fighters. No fighters - no blockage of roads.

However, the idea that a unit can travel unlimited movement points on the railway should not be allowed. There should be defined movement points for roads and railways, subject to the presence of enemy troops or sabotage.

Could the present rule in Civ III be due to the fact that the AI is simply too stupid to defend its roads/railways or tear them up?

While I agree that balance is important, it is also important not to frustrate the gamer either. Imagine embarking on world conquest in the 20th Century - all your units (tanks, personnel carriers, etc) would move one movement point once they get beyond your borders - Talk about blitzkrieg - woohoo!

[Ozymandias]

Ah, but paranoid neighbors use different rail gauges (track widths) just so their neighbors CANNOT just roll up and, well, roll. Most notable example would be the USSR in WW2.

By the way ... our current US rail gauge is the same as the British, because the first steam locomotives here were imported from there. THEIR rail gauge was determined by the standard used by contemporary horse carriage makers, whose antecedents were the ruts left in Roman roads, by Roman chariots and wagons.

Japan only has the same rail gauge as the UK because UK engineers built the first Japanese railroads.

My point is there no inevitable, sensible "standard" for these gauges, so why assume invading 20th Century Aztec armies carting rolling stock to Africa would have a chance?

-Ozymandias

[Boris Godunov]

The main things that slowed the German advance before Moscow was the terrible Soviet winter in late 1941, the mud/frozen roads, and the reinforcements of Siberian troops, and of course, Hitler's diversion of Guderian's armour from this central front.

Perhaps, since they cannot account for such things as weather, you can see this restriction as being a way of accounting for that?

In Afganistan, the roads would be free to use, except for the prescence of Afganis fighters. No fighters - no blockage of roads.

Don't forget the 20,000+ land mines left over from the Soviet war.

Could the present rule in Civ III be due to the fact that the AI is simply too stupid to defend its roads/railways or tear them up?

I never pillaged my own roads or rails in Civ. But yes, I did protect them.

Imagine embarking on world conquest in the 20th Century - all your units (tanks, personnel carriers, etc) would move one movement point once they get beyond your borders - Talk about blitzkrieg - woohoo!

BUT, as has been pointed out, Tanks, personnel carriers, etc., have more than one move per turn. Given the fact that the Chinese special horse unit has a movement of 3, it is likely we will see enhanced movements for modern ground units. I think it would be quite reasonable to have the restrictions if tanks and apcs have movements of 4. That would take into account all the little factors that impede an advance (mines, supply lines, partisan resistance, weather, etc.)

Cheers.

[Leonidas]

Hi Boris

The issue of the road/weather problem before Moscow was due to the poor mud roads and the unusually early rains/snow in Soviet Russia at that time. While I agree that severe weather can shut down even modern cities (this is a rare occurrence and not the norm), it appears that in the latter half of the 20th Century most cities and countries have "paved" roads (notwithstanding some third world countries), so an army would not be hindered as much.

While there may be 20,000 mines in Afghanistan, it is stretching logic to suggest that every country, everywhere will have obstacles. If we can assume ANY obstacle/obstruction is already in place, then what is the point of having to construct any physical obstacles yourself? This placement of "invisible" obstacles may be a crutch for the AI.

You may not wish to plunder your own roads/railways, but I wonder if the AI is capable of doing so?

Hopefully, the restrictions on movement when invading won't be too much of an obstacle. It may even force payers to seek a win in other ways. If that is the case, then CivIII could wind up being a very strategic "thinking" game.

I guess only actually playing the game will tell us the whole story. I'm willing to keep an open mind. Thanks for the reply.