Get Rid of Roads and Railroads!

[rah]

Put me down in the camp that would like to use the "TRAIN" concept. And expand it to roads using "TRUCKS". A road would allow foot units double movement but a truck would allow considerably more movement. As previously stated, this would make attacking a continent more realistic. You're not going to ship any trains on a transport. You will have to make a beachhead, take/build a city then build trains and attach to a rail network. And definitely limit how much a train could hold. And have movement points required for loading and unloading trains. You shouldn't be able to unload a thousands of troops off a train and do a coordinated attack on the same turn. Train are very vulnerable when unloading.

And to all you that are complaining about moving one square in 20 years, GET OVER IT. Buy a traditional wargame where the game's real time is only a few years. We're talking about a span of 6000 years here, so there is no way to represent reality based movement without the game taking years to play.

RAH

[drake]

Thats what I was just about to start writing when I saw your post Rah.
You have to have a boat to navigate the ocean and you need a train of some sort to navigate RR tracks. I like the idea of having trains....of course you'd need to limit it's movement per turn, otherwise you'd only have to have one train....and that would be silly

While we're on the subject, lets have paratroopers that actually jump out of planes and planes that can actually carry cargo!

[Grumbold]

I assume the motorised nature of modern infantry formations is the only reason the movement points increase. Our legs haven't got that much longer

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 05-15-2001 04:11 AM I personally don't have any problems with units moving at infinite speeds along railroads. This is counterbalanced by their acutal low movement points. So while they can get anywhere fast, they can't fight many times. Compare this to ships and airplanes. Also railroads are extremely important strategically. Germany built its railways in anticipation of a two-front war. Some war plans were devised by examining railroad systems. Let things as they are now.

How is this counterbalanced by their actual low MPs? Some units like howitzers, maybe have with only 2 MPs but tanks have 4 MPs as does Mech Infantry.

I agree that railroads are strategically important. But if roads have 3x movement and railroads say have 4x or even 5x, they will still be important. I mean at 5x, you could move 20 tiles in one turn!

I simply don't see any value in gameplay and definitely none in realism to have infinite movement railroads.

It is really quite bizarre that people have no problem with infinite movement on RRs but then don't support making all units such as planes and ships have nearly infinite movement. It is a contradiction that I simply don't get!

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-15-2001 03:28 PM I agree that railroads are strategically important. But if roads have 3x movement and railroads say have 4x or even 5x, they will still be important. I mean at 5x, you could move 20 tiles in one turn!

Should it be 4x or 5x? Lets take another look at the tank-move example:
[*] Tank action-radius on 3x road: upto 9 squares.[*] Tank action-radius on 4x railroad: upto 12 squares.[*] Tank action-radius on 5x railroad: upto 15 squares.

Now, lets try 4x. Would the increased tank-radius from 9 to 12 be enough incentive for you to convert roads to railroads - at least the city-connecting ones? Perhaps not; maybe 5x is needed. Just as important however, is the question of adding the declining 2/3 > 1/3 combat-strenght to railroads.

quote: I simply don't see any value in gameplay and definitely none in realism to have infinite movement railroads.

In some end-games I have conquered almost half the AI-empire within that critical first HP-turn. Many of those AI-cities where fortified with rather attack-potent bombers and missiles for example, but to no avail. They simply didnt get any FAIR change to retaliate. Much (if not all) of this have to do with the faulty RR "unlimited moves" and "unaffected combat-strength" rules.

[polymths]

As JellyBean pointed out in the "Near Infinite Movement Model" thread, why is there even a multiplier for railroads?

I mean, do trains on railroads travel faster because there are tanks on them as opposed to slow units like infantry?

Perhaps a fixed speed for all units on RRs makes the most sense!

[This message has been edited by polymths (edited May 17, 2001).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-17-2001 05:26 PM Perhaps a fixed speed for all units on RRs makes the most sense!

Well, why not? Why complicate things? It must be better then roads to make it worthwhile to build. Perhaps a fixed rate of either 12 or 15 moves.

[Jonny]

Let me give everyone my idea about the railroads issue. How many times have you seen a tank travel by train? Or even by airplane? I think that tanks and mechanized infantry should not be able to travel by rail, or even be airlifted. Perhaps artillery, howitzers, and cannon should not be able to use a railroad or be airlifted as well. I think that there should be an improvement for railroad, such as a highway, that provides cheaper movement for all ground units, including tanks, mechanized infantry, cannons, artillery, and howitzers. Perhaps moving on railroads should cost 1/10 of a movement point except for tanks, mechanized infantry, howitzers, cannons, and artillery. It would cost them 1/3 of a movement point (as if a road was alongside the railroad). It would cost all ground units 1/20 of a movement point to go on highways.

Just my ideas.

Jonny

[Captain]

Actually, rail is how most heavy machinery and heavy vehicles are transported. Tanks, artillery, missiles, etc. are shipped by rail primarily because there isn't any better way of transporting them. You can't take tanks on the highways without damaging the roads for other cars. You also want to conserve fuel to actual combat and let the rail-line do the legwork. Aircraft can also transport tanks, just not a lot of them.

I agree with the FIXED movement of railroads and the use of TRAINS as well as LOAD/UNLOAD costs. Unlimited rail mvt is totally unbalancing.

As for using enemy rail lines, how about just having to transport the locomotive? I'm not sure how often it's done today, but back in the late 1800s steam locomotive engines were shipped by sea to countries/colonies without the ability to construct them. The box cars were usually locally built since these were simpler.

[senowen]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-17-2001 05:26 PMPerhaps a fixed speed for all units on RRs makes the most sense.[This message has been edited by polymths (edited May 17, 2001).]

I think that is a brilliant idea, but it shouldn't be 12-15. It should be about double that. As a matter of fact I think that all units should have about double what they had in Civ II. It creates much better military strategy options, especially with new army rules. Limiting any unit to just one movement point just kills it strategically in an open field battle. It makes them just sitting ducks and it makes the military a slow bohemoth that will eat away at your time.

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by senowen on 05-17-2001 09:34 PM I think that is a brilliant idea, but it shouldn't be 12-15. It should be about double that. As a matter of fact I think that all units should have about double what they had in Civ II. It creates much better military strategy options, especially with new army rules. Limiting any unit to just one movement point just kills it strategically in an open field battle. It makes them just sitting ducks and it makes the military a slow bohemoth that will eat away at your time.

Keep in mind though that MPs and number of times you can attack is the same thing! So if you have units with very high MPs, and the unit is very powerful, then it could potentially have the ability to attack and kill enemy units before they even have a chance to counterattack!

That is why having too many MPs is not good.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Jonny on 05-17-2001 06:45 PM Let me give everyone my idea about the railroads issue. How many times have you seen a tank travel by train? Or even by airplane?

During WW-2, transport new tanks from nazi-germany to the eastern front with railroad WAS infact the prefered method, when ever possible. It was cheaper, faster and it didnt wear the tanks down nearly us much. Some future american tank-models are going to be constructed with air-lift possibility in mind.

quote: I think that tanks and mechanized infantry should not be able to travel by rail, or even be airlifted. Perhaps artillery, howitzers, and cannon should not be able to use a railroad or be airlifted as well. I think that there should be an improvement for railroad, such as a highway, that provides cheaper movement for all ground units, including tanks, mechanized infantry, cannons, artillery, and howitzers. Perhaps moving on railroads should cost 1/10 of a movement point except for tanks, mechanized infantry, howitzers, cannons, and artillery. It would cost them 1/3 of a movement point (as if a road was alongside the railroad). It would cost all ground units 1/20 of a movement point to go on highways.

Hmm! Some units can use the railroads and some units cannot use the railroads. Doesnt this complicate things? Isnt it likely that Firaxis gets angry bug-report letters from customers that misinterpret this new update of yours?
I say: Keep it simple!

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 18, 2001).]

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-15-2001 03:28 PM How is this counterbalanced by their actual low MPs? Some units like howitzers, maybe have with only 2 MPs but tanks have 4 MPs as does Mech Infantry.

That means an armour unit can attack a maximum of 4 times, just like any other armour unit that are not transported by railroads. What's the difference?

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-15-2001 03:28 PM I agree that railroads are strategically important. But if roads have 3x movement and railroads say have 4x or even 5x, they will still be important. I mean at 5x, you could move 20 tiles in one turn!

If you really want, maybe a rule that says that railroad movement cannot be combined with off-railroad movement, and another rule that says a unit cannot attack more than once after moving on railroads.

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-15-2001 03:28 PM It is really quite bizarre that people have no problem with infinite movement on RRs but then don't support making all units such as planes and ships have nearly infinite movement. It is a contradiction that I simply don't get!

The problem with this train of thought is air and naval units can make near infinite number of attacks. Not so with land units, which was exactly what I tried to point out above.

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 05-15-2001 04:20 PM In some end-games I have conquered almost half the AI-empire within that critical first HP-turn. Many of those AI-cities where fortified with rather attack-potent bombers and missiles for example, but to no avail. They simply didnt get any FAIR change to retaliate. Much (if not all) of this have to do with the faulty RR "unlimited moves" and "unaffected combat-strength" rules.

This is a sword that can cut both ways. If you can do that to a computer player, in theory a computer player can do that to you. In practice, of course, the AI isn't smart enough to do something like that. But this can easily be fixed by

[*]requiring an invader to capture all hexes along a railroad.[*]adding a rule that says a unit cannot attack more than once after moving on a railroad on the same turn. The reverse also holds true: a unit that has attacked more than once cannot move on a railroad on the same turn.[*]railroad movement cannot be combined with non-railroad movement: a unit must start its turn in a railroad hex to use railroad movement.[/list]

[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited May 19, 2001).]

[Admiral PJ]

Make railways much less effective, and only become really useful when Diesel Electric trains are invented.

I ALSO think terrain should affect movement EVEN with roads/RR etc , even a Railroad has to go over some slopes and twists around hills, slowing it down further than hills.
Infantry can walk faster across mountains than vehicles in some cases, 2 legs are efficient over highly rugged terrain, though roads do help vehicles the most I agree.

RIVERS there shuld be a penalty for crossing rivers, just takes 2 MP's to go on or off a river between nonriver tiles. Unless theres a bridge.. otherwise youd need barges or maybe ponttoon bridges to cross.

There should be more done to stop mass tank Blitzkreigs..
things like rivers or brocage tank traps/mines and slower roads could help make it more realistic.

Admiral Pete

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Admiral PJ on 05-19-2001 06:54 PM Make railways much less effective, and only become really useful when Diesel Electric trains are invented. I ALSO think terrain should affect movement EVEN with roads/RR etc , even a Railroad has to go over some slopes and twists around hills, slowing it down further than hills. RIVERS there shuld be a penalty for crossing rivers, just takes 2 MP's to go on or off a river between nonriver tiles. Unless theres a bridge.. otherwise youd need barges or maybe ponttoon bridges to cross.

Above suggestions certainly complicates the game-rules for railroad-travelling, but does it really add more FUN to the game? I say, honour the KISS-rule (Keep It Simple Stupid). Choose between fixed RR move-radius (default) or infinite RR-moves through the Rules.txt files.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 19, 2001).]