Railroad improves food, not shields.

Wombat · November 3, 2001, 01:08

I'm only building railroads for the first time (finally got some coal), and I noticed that it's improving the food production of the squares and not the shields as the civilopedia says it should, and as it was in civ2. Is this a bug or a feature change?

Zylka · November 3, 2001, 01:16

Hehehehe oh my.

Soren Johnson · November 3, 2001, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Wombat
I'm only building railroads for the first time (finally got some coal), and I noticed that it's improving the food production of the squares and not the shields as the civilopedia says it should, and as it was in civ2. Is this a bug or a feature change?

This is a mistake in the Civilopedia... Railroads increase the output of irrigation or mines, depending on which exists.

Wombat · November 3, 2001, 01:36

That's interesting. By my calculations that means I should cut down any forest on grassland, mine it and with a railroad it will still produce two shields and more food than before. As it is railroads have no effect on forests.

player1 · November 3, 2001, 02:53

This is similar to CIV1.
Probably that's the reason why there is no FARMLAND from Civ2.
Still This means that you don't need rails of Forest (mine & Irrig)

But "maybe" he thought that it gives +50% Food & Prod. rounded down like in Civ1.

Sarxis · November 3, 2001, 05:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis

This is a mistake in the Civilopedia... Railroads increase the output of irrigation or mines, depending on which exists.

Thanx Soren

I did not know (or bother to look) that the irrigation bonuses.

Mannamagnus · November 5, 2001, 10:37

Quote:

This is a mistake in the Civilopedia... Railroads increase the output of irrigation or mines, depending on which exists.

And the result will be a RR on every square of the map. Such a petty considering the effort you put into making maps look good. Also it will mean a lot of extra micro-management. Is this something that can be un-done in a patch?

El hidalgo · November 5, 2001, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Mannamagnus

And the result will be a RR on every square of the map. Such a petty considering the effort you put into making maps look good. Also it will mean a lot of extra micro-management. Is this something that can be un-done in a patch?

I agree; bad decision, Firaxis. What was wrong with farmland? Still micromanagement, but at least not as ugly. (Theoretically farmlands could have kept the AI from plastering the world with RR in Civ 2, but it never worked out that way.) Or the food bonuses could be abstracted, say into supermarkets (build a supermarket, food production increases). Anything but railroads! What else would have been nice is global warming if you cut down too many trees... that would encourage you to keep some pretty forest tiles... but I digress. Hey, what can I say, aesthetics considerations are important to me...

Admiral PJ · November 5, 2001, 14:44

I suppose railroads also help prevent your support resource routes being destroyed , by making enemies have to pillage the railroad AND the road making it take longer.. any civ3ers confirm this tactic?

blueblue · November 5, 2001, 15:52

From a strategic point of view, you can minimize the number of units you have with the use of railroads. If an enemy lands within say city1, you can dispatch a unit from each city to city1 in no time. This way you get a huge army in a moments notice.

Auslander · November 5, 2001, 19:35

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose railroads also help prevent your support resource routes being destroyed , by making enemies have to pillage the railroad AND the road making it take longer.. any civ3ers confirm this tactic?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I bombard it destroys rails the first time. The second time it destroys roads. So it seems pillaging would work the same way. 2 times to destroy trade network.

I haven't tried this but, R builds roads, and Shift-R builds railroads. So I think you can build rails without the preceding road.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the result will be a RR on every square of the map. Such a petty considering the effort you put into making maps look good. Also it will mean a lot of extra micro-management. Is this something that can be un-done in a patch?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the hell are you talking about? Making maps look good? This isn't Simcity.

Why would this require micro-management?

Has anyone in this board played Civ before?

Kc7mxo · November 5, 2001, 21:09

The look of the map IS important. one spends a great deal of time looking at it after all.

Unfortunately, since building railroad takes only time, it makes a great deal of sense for anyone to railroad their entire empire. This makes movement simple and easy, response to invasion is imidiate, no matter the location, plus there is the resource bonus.

But I will miss the farmland, because it looked a heck of a lot nicer than the irrigation.

morb · November 6, 2001, 00:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
But I will miss the farmland, because it looked a heck of a lot nicer than the irrigation.

me too

Seth · November 6, 2001, 11:32

Everyone seems to be keying in on whether or not RR should enhance food production on an irrigated square or the pros and cons of plastering your countryside with RR. These are valid points of discussion, but I'm surprised and disappointed that RRs don't add to forest (shield) production. What is the rationale for this? It seems intuitive to me that if a railroad can make a farm or a mine more efficient, it will do the same for forestry.

Trachmyr · November 7, 2001, 06:06

I agree, with the aethetics aside... forests are now completely useless... and the AI knows this, they clear-cut everything! I think this was a bad change.