Reasonable use of terrain improvements

[mini98ad]

Have anyone ever tried this ?

Build up an empire, laied Rail all over the place, and then... Here come a settler or any other enemy unit, and even though they havent inventet Railroad, the happily rock along, on your rails...

This represents a problem......

They havent got the knowledge to use this improvement.
But still they do..........

Have anyone else experienced this questionable behavior ??

I hope it will be fixed in Civ3

[Ralf]

CIRARIC = Computergames isnt real-life and real-life isnt computergames.

Civ is an abstraction. Dont try to squeeze the whole world into it, please.

[Christantine The Great]

I think that you are to assume that if it is a noncombatant than they are paying a fare to use the rails and if it is a military unit than they probably threatened the operators of the rail systems.

Rails would be correctly used if they were highways.

And there is nothing stopping the AI from using anything you built. It isn't a bug.

It probably will be fixed by making it impossible for enemies to use anything inside your territory usless you are on friendly terms and you let them use it.

------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"

The Viking Archives

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 12-02-2000 04:32 PM CIRARIC = Computergames isnt real-life and real-life isnt computergames. Civ is an abstraction. Dont try to squeeze the whole world into it, please.

I second that

[mini98ad]

Hey ... isn´t this the forum where u post comments and ideas for the next generation of Civ´s.
If Civilization is to be a game about humanity,evolution and knowledge it is imparent that as many as possible of the factors from Reality is put into the effort....
I´m not suggesting a thing that isn´t possible, im merely stating a fact.

700 years ago, people were hanged for beliving the earth was round, and that the earth was´nt the center of the universe !...

My point...
Lets say You encounter a civilisation who is 200 years behind you.
Tey would have very little chance of introducing any of your techs into their current level of evolution. Simply because of the fact, that they would´nt be able to comprehend the actual basis for the new thechs introduced, and they would´nt acknowledge the effects/possiblities it might have....


Thats Why !!

[jdlessl]

I should point out that not being able to instantly use the Soviet railroad net cost the germans heavily during WW2. Such a simple thing, the different track gauge, but it made their logistics a royal pain in the ass.

How about this: if you do not have railroad tech, the only way your units can use one is by using the railroads built/captured by an allied civ. Once railroads are researched/bought/stolen you may ride them to your heart's content.

Same thing applies to agricultural and mining improvements, airbases, and anything else that requires specialized knowledge to operate. Fortresses and other easily usable improvements can be used by anyone, even if they don't know how to build them.

Hmm, I just thought of something. Different kinds of fortifications. You could have simple wooden stockades, stone forts, and fortified bunkers. Stockades are somewhat effective against infantry and cavalry but vulnerable to, say, catapaults. Forts are very effective against everything pre-gunpowder. Bunkers are really good and could even provide some protection against nuclear weapons. Obviously not direct strikes, but nearby units in bunkers would only take 50% damge rather than being destroyed.

--
Jared Lessl
[This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited December 07, 2000).]

[OreoFuchi]

quote: Originally posted by jdlessl on 12-07-2000 11:09 PM I should point out that not being able to instantly use the Soviet railroad net cost the germans heavily during WW2. Such a simple thing, the different track gauge, but it made their logistics a royal pain in the ass. How about this: if you do not have railroad tech, the only way your units can use one is by using the railroads built/captured by an allied civ. Once railroads are researched/bought/stolen you may ride them to your heart's content. [This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited December 07, 2000).]

I saw this proposal somewhere else, and I really liked it. When you build railroads, you have the option to use the standard or a specialized one. If you use standard, you can connect to anywhere. If you use specialized, then only you can use your railroad. After you conquer some civlization, so that you don't have to build a whole new railroad, you can build a switching station for the trains to change tracks. I suppose switching trains could take up the rest of your move points for the turn for that unit so there is some disadvantage to having two types of railroads in your civilzation.

[Tiberius]

quote: Originally posted by OreoFuchi on 12-07-2000 11:50 PMWhen you build railroads, you have the option to use the standard or a specialized one. If you use standard, you can connect to anywhere. If you use specialized, then only you can use your railroad. After you conquer some civlization, so that you don't have to build a whole new railroad, you can build a switching station for the trains to change tracks.

Oh my God!
The next step would be to drive on the left side of the road in some countries and on the right side in others and thus losing units in crashes!
Civ is not Railroad Tycoon (which game I like very much) or any other game or real life.

So please just keep it simple and fun. Realism is important, but not essential like gameplay and fun.

[Belart]

Sorry, I don't see the point for anybody to use standart tracks in such a case. But if having a railroad connection to a neighbouring nation would bring money or smth else then perharps you would think between choosing a bit of money or a small delay in the enemy troops

AB

[OreoFuchi]

quote: Originally posted by Belart on 12-08-2000 04:03 AM Sorry, I don't see the point for anybody to use standart tracks in such a case. But if having a railroad connection to a neighbouring nation would bring money or smth else then perharps you would think between choosing a bit of money or a small delay in the enemy troops AB

it's just convenient. you can move your diplomats, caravans, and military in far more easily.

[Yog-Sothoth]

I think that to use foreign railroads you must have invented railroads, or at least have a few inventions from the same epoch as railroads. Even with the knowledge you should not be able to utilize 100%, but get double movement or something. If you then move along the railroad and capture a city thus moving your borders (hopefully there will be borders in civ3) to include the railroad, then you could use it as your own.

[hHydro]

K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, sucka!)

mines, farms, advanced mines, advanced farms, railroads;

These should all be unusable unless you have the tech. If you don't have the required tech, have railroad only give the benefit of road, and have advanced farms/mines only give the benefit of regular farms/mines. This is a simple solution that provides some realism without turning into a micromanaging nightmare.

The only exceptions should be roads and forts; anyone can use those. Although speaking of forts;

quote: Originally posted by jdlessl on 12-07-2000 11:09 PM Hmm, I just thought of something. Different kinds of fortifications. You could have simple wooden stockades, stone forts, and fortified bunkers. Stockades are somewhat effective against infantry and cavalry but vulnerable to, say, catapaults. Forts are very effective against everything pre-gunpowder. Bunkers are really good and could even provide some protection against nuclear weapons. Obviously not direct strikes, but nearby units in bunkers would only take 50% damge rather than being destroyed. -- Jared Lessl [This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited December 07, 2000).]

Building different levels of forts is a bit much, BUT, if barracks are made obsolete at certain tech levels as they were in Civ 2, it follows that the bunkers/forts should also be made obsolete/disappear. Again. A simple way to make the game a bit more realistic

[Grumbold]

I'm all for special units of <50 people like spies, diplomats etc using foreign railways PROVIDED they do not block passage by other units through the same tile. I do however have a problem with large scale units like settlers and armour hopping along. I would prefer (like contested production tiles) the army had to occupy the tile (at unenhanced movement speed) to transfer ownership.

With the way the turn based system works, this could mean that unit 1 with 3 movement moves and captures 3 squares, unit 2 travels those cheaply then captures two more etc until finally the remainder of the units can move their full enhanced movement range along that path of captured tiles. This mimics the troops required to secure the territory, repair any damage and keep partisans at bay. Optionally capturing a city would immediately transfer ownership of the 9 surrounding tiles too.

This keeps blitzkreig as an effective tactic without making it quite so easy to break through the front lines in a single spot and seize a national capital in a single turn.

[jdlessl]

Building different levels of forts is a bit much

Not at all. Europe is dotted with literally thousands of old castles and fortresses which would be virtually useless in a pitched battle today. In the game, old fortifications should not just disappear, but could be upgraded to effective modern ones. That annoyed me greatly in Civ2; having to go back and rebuild the barracks when all they needed was an upgrade.

Also, my problem with only a few types of improvements is that they don't capture the effect that modern resource gathering has had. Consider: less than 3% of the population of the US is involved in farming, compared with more than 70% just 2 centuries ago and even higher in the centuries before that. Each farmer now produces more than 50 of his predecessors could. How is that represented in Civ? You have to build a new set of improvements all through the empire and get maybe a 33% bonus in food production. Advanced farms should provide a 3300% bonus.

But I'd much rather not have to constantly upgrade improvements. How about this: there are only a few improvements (the CTP set suit me fine) but there are a number of techs that increase what you get out of the improvement. A farm is great, but simply researching mechanized harvesting vastly reduces the labor you have to put into it.

--
Jared Lessl

[OreoFuchi]

quote: Originally posted by jdlessl on 12-09-2000 01:34 AM Building different levels of forts is a bit much Not at all. Europe is dotted with literally thousands of old castles and fortresses which would be virtually useless in a pitched battle today. In the game, old fortifications should not just disappear, but could be upgraded to effective modern ones. That annoyed me greatly in Civ2; having to go back and rebuild the barracks when all they needed was an upgrade. -- Jared Lessl

Just pretend that the barracks were no good unless they were upgraded (like you want with the fortresses) and then pretend the price of building them is the price of upgrading them and pretend that the game is being nice and not making you pay upkeep on an obsolete fortress. There, your civ2 problem is solved.

[Deity Dude]

This is little off the track here (how's that for a double pun) but i don't think movement on railroad should be unlimited. i also agree that you shouldn't be able to just use an enemy's railroad at no cost or time penalty

[Grrr]

Foreign railroads should still be usful as a settler will be able to walk along the flat railway a lot faster than across a mountain range, it is still faster, even if it doesn't catch the train.

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth on 12-08-2000 06:04 PM I think that to use foreign railroads you must have invented railroads, or at least have a few inventions from the same epoch as railroads. Even with the knowledge you should not be able to utilize 100%, but get double movement or something. If you then move along the railroad and capture a city thus moving your borders (hopefully there will be borders in civ3) to include the railroad, then you could use it as your own.

[Stuff2]

I like grumbolds solution on this matter. A railroad can still be used as a road , 1/3 movementcost, in enemyterritory and as a railroad withtin occupied area.
It's simple and logical.

About warstartegics. It's normal to destroy valuable terrain improvements if you know that you are loosing a battle, this could be implemented in some way. Look at russia during WW2. The germans invaded areas which produced nothing, instead of a rich agricultural soceity they controlled a huge burned down wasteland. The russians had done their best destroying everything before they retraited. The germans needed longer supply lines than expected and finnaly the wonderful russian winter did the trick.

[Grumbold]

Thanks Stuff

On the fort levels, I would prefer to see upgradeable forts than have them lost suddenly on a tech gain. That could have negative ramifications if your border forts were currently holding some ravening invaders at bay. Seems silly too if your opponent is a few techs behind but they get to keep theirs! The same could apply with barracks. Until upgraded they wouldn't produce veteran units of the modern era but sould be fine for older stuff. A one-click option to pay for upgrading would K.I.S.S too, although that shouldn't be the overriding priority. If it was, we would be discussing Tic-Tac-Toe v342.63 not Civ!