Great Idea, Please Read!

Tim White · October 24, 2000, 13:43

I got this idea from the List. I think it is great.

Instead of just roads and railways, make it like this:

1. the first one would be Paths, they would be the beginning, 1/2 movement.

2. the next would be roads, this would be 1/3 movement.

3. then Railways, this would be 1/4 movement.

4. then Highways, 1/5 movement.

5. and the last would be Metro/Subway system. These would be 1/6 movement.

Special Note for Rails and Metros - Both would have stations, every 5th square or so, they would be automatically placed on railways and metros. And also, enemies (and you) would have to capture stations in order to use rails or metros in other civs territory. and no more of that unlimited movement thing, to unrealistic, and way unbalanced.

Nikolai · October 24, 2000, 14:10

I think this idea could be something.

But, why couldn't you just post it ONCE?!

------------------
Who am I? What am I? do we need Civ? YES!!

Ralf · October 24, 2000, 14:21

The increments between each improvement is too low - there is not enough incentive to upgrade. In practice players would pass some of them.
Also, theres only perhaps the standard 500+ turns available in Civ-3. Theres simply isnt enough time to build them. I say: dont change for the sake of change.

The *only* tweak i would recomend is:

Move as far as you like, within that turn, on Civ-3:s most advanced land-transportation improvement. Just dont expect to be 100% fresh then you arrives (= weaker attack/defence).

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited October 24, 2000).]

Tim White · October 24, 2000, 14:44

quote:

Originally posted by Nikolai on 10-24-2000 02:10 PM
I think this idea could be something.

But, why couldn't you just post it ONCE?!

Sorry posting it twice, it was a mistake.

UltraSonix · October 24, 2000, 17:48

quote:

Originally posted by UltraSonix on 10-24-2000 05:42 PM
The only problem is:

How does the paths/road/things

upgrade to the next one. Does it do it automatically according to your tech level (but maybe you need to pay), or do you have to do it via settlers/engineers. Or maybe it's a combo of both?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

Tim White · October 24, 2000, 18:15

You would upgrade by the same way in Civ2 from roads to rails. you would first have to research a tech, then use your settlers/engineers to build it over (just like civ2, escept more upgrades).

UltraSonix · October 24, 2000, 18:32

Using the settlers to rebuild the road network every few turns is far too much micromanagement.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

UltraSonix · October 24, 2000, 18:36

More archived stuff:

*Railroads: just ilimited movements?
*Railroad Idea. (Hopefully a new one...)

quote:

One thing that bugs me is the unrealistic unlimited movement generated via use of railroads. On a large world (my fav setting) the distance travelled is nigh on impossible in real terms. Perhaps a mod to movement cost of railways would fix this, roads are 1/3 so perhaps 1/9 or even 1/12 for rail will allow a large movement without crossing the globe in a network of rail ( In one game I played it was possible to move complety around the world using rail from one continent to Arctic region then right across to next continents and back again!!) Perhaps add a further development for some modern form of transport that improves rail for modern times, the old steam trains certainly not travel as far as modern ones....

quote:

Railroads are just used for ilimited movements? Or they should provide another thing just like improvement rate or sth like that?
I think that railroads were more than just a transport, I believe that railroads made certain places to develop, like towns which had a railroad station, then grew into Big cities, just because railway system allowed them to flourish. Trade started to pass by these station and generated comercial activity, and also made immigrants to stop in that station to settle down.
In conclusion, I think that railroad should have other attributions, than just ilimited movements. Perhaps, in a certain time.
Sorry for spelling and grammar mistakes, I'm not from an English speaking country.

===========

I agree. Although it increased shield by 50%, it didnt do any for population or trade.
Well, IT should. Essentially it can bring in trade by ways of new businesses. Or something like that.
And speaking of unlimited movement, completely wrong. Or so it may seem. Unlimited movement within own boundries(or allies) is OK but once outside borders, it should have no benefit.

Think about it, if I have my tanks move from one of my own cities to another own city, it would travel by train. But once in enemy territory, youd think theyd allow my train carrying tanks i plan to attack them with to travel their railroad line all the way to their capital to blast them.

In conclusion, allow unlimited movement within own(or Allied) borders. But be renderd useless in enemy territory. Your units would only get the benifit of the roads.

Daniel

===========

I agree! Railroads should cost something. If it were free, we'd all be riding to work in trains!

quote:

Okay, I looked over the List and checked all topics on this group and haven't found anything about what I've been thinking of regarding railroad movement.
I was reading the antipathy people had to the howitzer onslaught that happens in Civ2 when some player sends a huge amount of howitzers down the rail lines and takes a bunch of cities and/or wreaks havoc.

Basically my idea is this: railroads should give a good movement bonus, but you have to "load" the unit onto the railroad and "unload" it to have it be able to fight without a massive penalty. (I.e., the equipment is on the flatbeds, and is very vulnerable/unable to manuever, etc.)

After all, railroads are used to move equipment to the frontline, but the troops/equipment are unloaded and sent on to the fight. The train doesn't barrel down the tracks towards the enemy with the military units firing from the cars.

I did think of making actual train units, but that might be trying to be a little too realistic. ;-)

Other stuff in the threads linked above.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

Tim White · October 24, 2000, 18:47

Ultra, you got any ideas then??

UltraSonix · October 24, 2000, 22:18

Not really

- I'm a bit tired

, so maybe I just drag up old threads for a while...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

DarkCloud · October 25, 2000, 16:20

I like this idea-- I believe something like this was posted in the Mountain Crossing thread; can you find this Ultra?

UltraSonix · October 25, 2000, 18:06

quote:

something like this

I don't recall this being discussed in a mountain crossings thread, but here's the mountain passes thread, anyways:

*Crossing mountain ranges and rivers

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

Tiberius · October 26, 2000, 05:28

For road and railroad movement rules, check the following link:

* Improved Road & Rail Rules *

This idea was, if I remember well, the 4th or 5th in the Essential Civ3 List, sent to Firaxis sometimes in Spring 2000.
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited October 26, 2000).]