Roads and rails

graeme · May 10, 2002, 07:01

Hi,

It just stuck me as very strange that railways are actually built on top of roads! Also when you pilage/bomb a railway the road is uncovered underneath and in perfect working order!

Surely it would be better for roads and railways to be completely seperate. And perhaps building a railway ontop of a road should actually take longer.

Any ideas to stop the endless encroachment of rail into the country side would be welcomed as it is very ugly

I would prefer that railways are only uselful when they actual connect two cities together, this should benefit the commerce for the cities involved plus possibly some food bonuses (maybe would act as a granary).

Also is pollution generated from railways/roads? And what happened to motorways?

Graeme

Cookie Monster · May 10, 2002, 07:07

Having a countryside filled with railways in Civ3 is a bit unsightly I agree. But the benefits that railways bring you is too great to ignore. Still it does seem strange to pillage a RR and have an intact road underneath but the system works so what can you do?

zulu9812 · May 10, 2002, 07:38

Doesn't pillaging/bomabardment of a tile without any units on it remove all tile improvents? I bombarded a tile with road and irrigation on it - both were destroyed.

Cookie Monster · May 10, 2002, 07:46

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
Doesn't pillaging/bomabardment of a tile without any units on it remove all tile improvents? I bombarded a tile with road and irrigation on it - both were destroyed.

Normally yes, but for some reason when you have a tile covered with a rail only the rail gets pillaged. You have to pillage the other improvements again.

Alex · May 10, 2002, 07:51

Yes, the "spaghetti" railroads are ugly and messy. A better solution, IMO, would be to extend automatically the benefits of railroads to all tiles into the city radius when the city is connected to a rail line. Also, railroads should not give this free movement bonus. It is somewhat strange that a land based unit can zip instantly through the continent while ships take 50 years to go from north to south, for instance.

The only problem with the automatic bonus to city radius is that we would need to have some sort of visual clue that the unit is moving through railroaded squares.

Jawa Jocky · May 10, 2002, 10:51

IMO you should not get infinite movement from rail. Maybe 20 spaces would be more reasonable. Actually this idea sucks never mind.

Bella Hella · May 10, 2002, 12:33

yeah, even in SMAC the mag tubes (equivalent of RRs) didn't give you free movement.

Grrr · May 10, 2002, 17:26

The free railroad has been a cornerstone of most Civ strategys, they can't just get rid.

Tuberski · May 10, 2002, 17:43

Yep, you would have far more people complain about the loos of free movement than we do about free movement.

Cyclotron · May 10, 2002, 18:17

The only thing uglier than railroad sprawl... would be roads AND railroads both clogging my tiles together.

Keep it as is, please.

Inverse Icarus · May 10, 2002, 18:27

roads and irrigation/mines are considered ONE improvement for bombard/pillaging purposes. you must pillage a railroad and THEN the stuff under it.

zulu9812 · May 10, 2002, 19:07

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
The only thing uglier than railroad sprawl...

There's a terrain mod which puts buildings at every road/railroad crossing. It looks really cool in the modern age. Urban sprawl. Yeh!

notyoueither · May 10, 2002, 19:40

If they don't modify how RRs work for unit movement, MP warfare is going to be very one-sided on the side of the defender.

Jon Shafer · May 10, 2002, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
There's a terrain mod which puts buildings at every road/railroad crossing. It looks really cool in the modern age. Urban sprawl. Yeh!

I've got that one.

If unlimited movement is such a pivotal strategy for some people, maybe they should have just included a cheat option in Civ III like they did with II instead...

asleepathewheel · May 10, 2002, 21:09

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
If they don't modify how RRs work for unit movement, MP warfare is going to be very one-sided on the side of the defender.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing, in your opinion. I personally think its a good thing, as (if your hypothesis is true) it will make games longer and more entrenched. Which may or may not be a good thing, depending on the individual's perspective.

I still think that it won't make it much more difficult, as long as you can open multiple fronts, the attacker should gain some penetration, someplace.

Jon Shafer · May 10, 2002, 21:13

Though I enjoy offense most of all, better defense makes the game more interesting, because for an offensive to be successful, the player has to be much more clever in his strategy. Anyone can smash 100 Swordsmen into a catapult-Pikemen defense line... it takes a clever mind to defeat it.

asleepathewheel · May 10, 2002, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Though I enjoy offense most of all, better defense makes the game more interesting, because for an offensive to be successful, the player has to be much more clever in his strategy. Anyone can smash 100 Swordsmen into a catapult-Pikemen defense line... it takes a clever mind to defeat it.

I would agree that this hard battles are more interesting and entertaining. (which is probably why my games are boring, played so conservatively until there is no chance for failure, overwhelming force etc. Though in my own defense, MP will involve much more strategy than just playing against the AI)

Looking forward to MP where can play someone who varies his or her tactics and strategy.

Inverse Icarus · May 10, 2002, 22:08

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
If they don't modify how RRs work for unit movement, MP warfare is going to be very one-sided on the side of the defender.

this isnt neccessary (sp) true, although it does reflect a bit of reality.

can you think of a democratic nation that has tons of troops stationed in every city of its empire? no, they have troops all around that can move where they are needed real quick (in civ3, democracies with rails only have to defend border cities, inner citites can be empty).

and what i do, to use the AI's rails for my own benefit, is i like to use marines to take over a city, then move transports full of tanks / cavalry INTO the city, and unload while inside. then THAT SAME TURN you have tanks or cavalry will FULL MOVEMENT that can use whatever rails you control / the enemies culture no longer expands over. it actually works fairly well.

as you can tell, firaxis made civ3 to be more of a builder game that civ2 was. because they couldnt remove all the war elements of the game, they made it easier to defend then to attack, giving the builders a chance in a warmongers world.

the system is fairly balabced IMHO.

danke.

Tuberski · May 10, 2002, 22:18

I agree with UberKrux(again??). Think of RRs this way, just because they have the rails in place, that doesn't mean YOUR trains can run on them. I believe that an American rail is a different size than a European rail.

Ethelred · May 10, 2002, 22:53

Quote:

I believe that an American rail is a different size than a European rail.

The cars are connected differently as well.

The US used to have THREE different rail standards not counting special rails for mining in the mountains.

Tuberski · May 10, 2002, 22:58

I see, I think roads should increase movement of the attacker but not railroads.

Almost gives railroads another purpose.

notyoueither · May 10, 2002, 23:06

It's just that the rails the way they are make defence a rather brainless operation. Garrison the border cities and strategic fortresses. Stack up Arty in the middle of the empire, with Inf and Fast Attackers around them.

Oh look! Some one has sent 10 percent of his available forces to invade us! Oh my. I guess we'll just use as much as 100% of our entire Army as it takes to completely obliterate them.

OTOH. I guess 'skating the Rails' on the offence is equally likely. Boom! goes a border city. Boom! goes the next city... With the proper use of settlers one could get to the defenders capital on the first turn of the assault with some ease.

All sounds a bit riskish, doesn't it?

Tuberski · May 10, 2002, 23:09

I guess it would make Bombers MUCH more useful. Much like in real life you could use your Bombers to destroy rail lines.

Yes it does sound a bit Riskish.

Oh, this is post number 500.

Jon Shafer · May 10, 2002, 23:15

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's just that the rails the way they are make defence a rather brainless operation. Garrison the border cities and strategic fortresses. Stack up Arty in the middle of the empire, with Inf and Fast Attackers around them.

Oh look! Some one has sent 10 percent of his available forces to invade us! Oh my. I guess we'll just use as much as 100% of our entire Army as it takes to completely obliterate them.

OTOH. I guess 'skating the Rails' on the offence is equally likely. Boom! goes a border city. Boom! goes the next city... With the proper use of settlers one could get to the defenders capital on the first turn of the assault with some ease.

All sounds a bit riskish, doesn't it?

A better way to have done battle would have been to put units in flexible armies (no, I'm not talking about the armies included in Civ III). Rarely did large waves of unorganized troops and scattered units simply flood a landscape... there would be small and quick scout units, with a large mass body of troops following behind. Large-scale battles were few and far between. Manoever was incredibly important. Cities would be abandoned in favor of more defensible locations to place the army. When everything was ready, the two armies would converge, and a battle would ensue. This is very un-Civ-ish, which is why I'm working on GGS, as well as a design for a new game of my own. I simply feel that the entire battle system needs to be re-done in favor of something more realistic and enjoyable.

asleepathewheel · May 10, 2002, 23:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
I guess it would make Bombers MUCH more useful. Much like in real life you could use your Bombers to destroy rail lines.

Yes it does sound a bit Riskish.

Oh, this is post number 500.

Perhaps it also means that you should sabotage your own rail lines in desparation, though at that point, you're probably lost.

I don't think its as easy as just blitzing to the capital in MP, I mean, sure, the AI won't have a preemptive strike against you, bbut if my opponent in MP is very quiet for a while, I will think he's up to something devious and prepare.

at this rate, tuberski, I will soon join you as the only 2002 joiner above 500 posts

Cyclotron · May 11, 2002, 00:35

I would sever railroad lines if the AI pressed the attack a bit more.

...waiting for Tuberski's new avatar...

notyoueither · May 11, 2002, 01:51

The point is that when war erupts in the industrial or modern era your capital could be gone before you can do anything about it. This scenario is very feasible as rails stand.

If on a smaller map, entire empires could be gone before the defender has a chance to move a single unit.

Or conversely, if the attacker is forced to pause, his entire invading army could disappear before his next turn.

Neither case is desirable. Of course, both assume turn based MP, PBEM or hot seat.

The results in 'turnless' could be worse. Either way, infinite has to go.

Captain · May 11, 2002, 02:34

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
The point is that when war erupts in the industrial or modern era your capital could be gone before you can do anything about it. This scenario is very feasible as rails stand.

If on a smaller map, entire empires could be gone before the defender has a chance to move a single unit.

Or conversely, if the attacker is forced to pause, his entire invading army could disappear before his next turn.

Neither case is desirable. Of course, both assume turn based MP, PBEM or hot seat.

The results in 'turnless' could be worse. Either way, infinite has to go.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, NO MORE INFINITE RAILROAD MOVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the RR howitzer blitz at the end of civ 2 games was the initial reason for the demand, then how it made ship useless because of non-infinite sea moves...
we're back to the same reason again, and it looks like culture doesn't really prevent this RR blitzing. attacker will probably take half a defender's cities before any retaliatory action.

Riskish? if it was more like Risk 2, with simultaneous turns, I would be all for it - it's way better than classic Risk.

Captain · May 11, 2002, 02:36

btw, it's strange but i joined a year ago and I'm still nowhere near 500 posts (despite coming here almost daily except for some time off), how does one get to 500 posts in 2 months?!?

asleepathewheel · May 11, 2002, 02:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
btw, it's strange but i joined a year ago and I'm still nowhere near 500 posts (despite coming here almost daily except for some time off), how does one get to 500 posts in 2 months?!?

Tuberski spammed his way up to 500.