Infinite movement on rail??

[conquistadore]

i know this is welcomed by many players but i have some doubts over whether is this a good system at all. Come on, the fastest train in the world (TGV?) cant travel the globe in one day! It doesnt make sense that the enemy can send 20 infantry from the other end of the world to reinforce his frontlines in a single turn. This has taken the element of surprise in combat outta the game completely.

The CTP system is that rail increases movement by 6 times but i've misgivings about that too. Do you mean to say that a cavalry on rail can move faster than a marine on rail? Well, its the train that's moving and not the horse or the guy!

What i'll really like to see is that all units on rail have the SAME movement points but not InFINITE mp. Comments anyone?

PS: Sorry, kinda confused CTP with civ 2...thanks for correcting me. Feeling a bit stupid right now..

[Arkatreides]

Erm ... Railroads always allowed infinite movement, this is not a new feature.

[Eli]

In Civ2 Railroad also gave infinite moves.

[Frito]

You must be thinking about Ctp. I think it had 1/6 movment in it.

[Wrong_shui]

I like it, i guess most ppl do, were all gonna think u r an odd bod now.

[Eli]

I think that ~10-15 moves on rail(ala CTP2) is the best choice. It is much more realistic, and you still can move troops in reasonable time from opposite parts of your empire.

[kenway]

What do you mean by 'the old Civ 2 system'? The original Civ 2 created by Sid provides infinte move on rail in a turn too...

No doubt that a unit couldn't travel around the world with railway in reality. But take note that one turn in Civ doesn't equal to one day, it is equal to, at minimal scale, one YEAR! 365 days! Reasonable enough.

I believe this rule greatly refect the importance of railway in human history...

[Mister Hand]

It makes perfect sense to me. In Civ3, the shortest a turn ever lasts is one year. You can cross the United States in a matter of days on a choo-choo, so do the math from there.

[Arkatreides]

True - but so can you on a road. In fact you could probably walk around the earth (ignore the fact that there is water ) in a year. It's just a gameplay question.

[Ludwig]

Actually, what I've hoped for for years - but will probably never happen - is a system where movement in tiles that were visible to you at the start of the turn costs zero movement points, and movement points are only expended when moving into tiles that were either unexplored or covered by fog of war when the turn started. Naval units would only expend movement points when entering tiles that were previously unexplored; fog of war would have no effect [for naval units, if you've been there before you can get there again].

This would help "fix" the movement/turn time disparities prevalent in the game without allowing the player to instantly explore the entire globe.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Ludwig
Actually, what I've hoped for for years - but will probably never happen - is a system where movement in tiles that were visible to you at the start of the turn costs zero movement points, and movement points are only expended when moving into tiles that were either unexplored or covered by fog of war when the turn started. Naval units would only expend movement points when entering tiles that were previously unexplored; fog of war would have no effect [for naval units, if you've been there before you can get there again].

This would help "fix" the movement/turn time disparities prevalent in the game without allowing the player to instantly explore the entire globe.

Ehhm... So you can move a pikeman in 100AD a distance of 30-40 tiles from one part of your empire to another in one turn?
And if you're talking about space visible only to this particular unit, why not simply increasing the MP by 1 for all units?

[Frito]

Why not keep it the way it is. It might not be historically right, but its a game and it makes for good game play.

[bahoo]

I like the rail system, but what bothers me is it takes close to 10 years for me to move my boats across the world for a naval attack.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Frito
Why not keep it the way it is. It might not be historically right, but its a game and it makes for good game play.

Have to agree with this, although I also think a movement of 1/10 improves the game by making it impossible to guard your continent with just 10 units...

Nothing about the movement in Civ is correct - you can get your train across the map in one turn, but not your airplane, boat, or car? Goofy. But the alterantively are to give EVERYTHING infinite movement, which doesn't work for obvious reasons, or have differing move rates for game balance. They chose the latter of course...

Venger

[Deathwalker]

It always was infinite on Civ2, were di you get your game from Though I think six squares a turn is the best way

[Frito]

Yeah, but if they lower the effect of railroads + make them harder to build(resourse dependancy) we would be looking a system thats been weakend a lot from civ2 and I'm not sure the old system was THAT unbalanced.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Venger
Have to agree with this, although I also think a movement of 1/10 improves the game by making it impossible to guard your continent with just 10 units...

IMO Civ 3 actually compensates for this by making the AI more likely to pick on you if you are weak, so there is a definite penalty for trying to manage an empire with a pocket size defence force. Even if you have tanks and they have muskets, if they outnumber you 4-1 they will be demanding techs and money. If you want to be a peaceful builder you need the guns to enforce your right to privacy even if you never use them.

I thought I would hate the infinite movement but only in your country system but it works much better than I anticipated.

[Trifna]

Have to agree. Infinite moves sin't very normal, and moves corresponding to unit and not train isn't perfect too.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Grumbold

IMO Civ 3 actually compensates for this by making the AI more likely to pick on you if you are weak, so there is a definite penalty for trying to manage an empire with a pocket size defence force.

Oh, I'm not weak...my forces are off where they are needed though.

Even if you have tanks and they have muskets, if they outnumber you 4-1 they will be demanding techs and money. If you want to be a peaceful builder you need the guns to enforce your right to privacy even if you never use them.

Peaceful builder? What's that?

I thought I would hate the infinite movement but only in your country system but it works much better than I anticipated.

I agree with removing unlimited rail in enemy territory, but to not use roads is just nuts...

Venger

[Evil_Eric_4]

Im just glad that they wont let you use enemy rails anymore.I thought that was silly.

You should be able to use their roads though at 1/2 movement to simulate roadblocks, mines and such and their rails should also be considered roads to you.

[Lord Cannager]

civ 2 let infinite moves. and i like the "feature". "newbies"(sigh)

[Kriton]

If you had a 2/3 movement unit in Civ1, you could attack while on a RR, goto a city and sentry, unsentry and attack again. Forever. I really think it would've been better if all units travelling by rail went 1/6 or even higher, but not infinite.

And now that you can't use you're opponents infrastructure, defending your land will be a breeze in MP.

[GePap]

Venger:
Airplanes in this game have no limit on the range of movement for the rebase command- so planes can be flown accross the entire world in a turn and of course, you can transport certain units by air also without any range, and thus time, restriction. If anything, instead of making rail weaker, make roads faster, double or triple their movement ability. I do agree that ships move very little. The rpoblem there in that if noe edits units and gives them the ability for multiple attacks, you would get units with 10-20 attacks per turn.

[Immortal Wombat]

CtP was 1/5. That worked quite well. Infinite movement across mountain railways is not realistic. Try taking a train down the Andes in a day.

[SSBLoveU]

The rail system is fun to make and defend. However, it makes the navy seem to move too slowly. Wonders can improve the movement of the navy. Still, modern naval systems can make the world a smaller place which is realistic. The train is faster than the navy in real life (in Civ. III, the modern navy is too slow).

Originally posted by bahoo
I like the rail system, but what bothers me is it takes close to 10 years for me to move my boats across the world for a naval attack.

[Thoth]

Originally posted by Venger


Peaceful builder? What's that?

Venger

It's what you do in between wars.

[madmario]

Originally posted by Eli


Ehhm... So you can move a pikeman in 100AD a distance of 30-40 tiles from one part of your empire to another in one turn?

To his credit, that IS 30 years or somesuch.

-mario

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by conquistadore
i know this is welcomed by many players but i have some doubts over whether is this a good system at all. Come on, the fastest train in the world (TGV?) cant travel the globe in one day

1 turn in civ at the later stages represents 1 year. surely normal trains can transport people around the world in 1 yr. hell, even serbian trains could do that LOL

[TheRascalKing]

You're not alone man, I wish the rails didn't allow infinite movement, too. Maybe they'll allow that to be edited in the patch for...oh wait, I forgot, this is Firaxis we're talking about. Nevermind. It will remain infinite forever.

[Zanzin]

Infinate rail movement is fine with me. Actually makes it a reward for building all those bloody rail connections, unlike roads, which, although do give an advantage, don't give "that much" of an advantage.

Air movement has been fixed up as well, which is good.

The only problem is the naval movement is just....silly. I know, it's a gameplay thing, but 20 years around the world....come on, it didn't even take the 15th/16th c. explorers that long!