Thread Tools
Old July 26, 2002, 23:52   #1
King of Rasslin
Prince
 
King of Rasslin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: GA
Posts: 343
Railroads are just ****
Insert the ugliest negative title you can think of. Railroads are teleporters that instantly move your units across the world in an instant. I don't like it.

Suddenly, when they are built, the need for strategic positioning of your troops is gone. You don't need a navy as badly because ships do not zip across the map. You make a lot of cavalry and tanks and never think about it. I hate this.

To Firaxis, and the PtW team: Please change this! They should be limited in how many people they can transport. They already give food and production bonuses. A nation without coal shouldn't be doomed, and that is the way it is currently. Please reduce the effectiveness of this brain dead style of late game playing. It would highly improve the late game part of Civ 3 that many feel lacks any sense of real strategy, besides making a lot of 3 movement units and seeing who has a bigger stack.

Anyone with me, we must band together and combine powers, or we will never defeat railroads! Go go Apolyton!
__________________
Wrestling is real!
King of Rasslin is offline  
Old July 26, 2002, 23:58   #2
Optimizer
Prince
 
Optimizer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 698
You're right. Any suggestions of how to create a better model for railroads?

Concerning sea transport, I would really like a "sealift" which would automatically transport one unit from one port to another.
__________________
The difference between industrial society and information society:
In an industrial society you take a shower when you have come home from work.
In an information society you take a shower before leaving for work.
Optimizer is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 00:04   #3
King of Rasslin
Prince
 
King of Rasslin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: GA
Posts: 343
RRs give free food and production, they are already very powerful! I think they should give 5 moves to a unit with 1 movement, but function as roads for mobile units. How can you transport a cavalry division or a few dozen panzers by rail? It isn't practical. They are designed for foot soldiers. I think this would make infantry, paratroopers, and marines better. Mech infantry shouldn't replace infantry because infantry is not obsolete even today.
__________________
Wrestling is real!
King of Rasslin is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 00:10   #4
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
I'll agree with this. Railroads should be reduced to 1/5 or 1/10 movement. I think, however, that this should apply to all units and should not restrict cav, tanks, etc.
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 00:13   #5
King of Rasslin
Prince
 
King of Rasslin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: GA
Posts: 343
Tanks and cav have too much of an advantage. They should pay for their bulk because they have so much power.
__________________
Wrestling is real!
King of Rasslin is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 00:22   #6
Jaybe
Mac
Emperor
 
Jaybe's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 4,168
Quote:
How can you transport a cavalry division or a few dozen panzers by rail? It isn't practical.
Totally disagree. This is where railroads SHINE! The efficiency of using rails over hundreds of miles FAR outstrip the use of roads with heavy equipment. Fuel efficiency (and associated mechanical breakdowns), especially. Just ask the US Army.

I also would prefer a non-infinite movement on rails, perhaps just a static 20 tiles (regardless of Movement Points), in addition to non-rail movement.

OTOH, I see how any rail movement bonus is totally arbitrary, and 'infinite' simplifies the AI planning immensely. It also goes hand-in-hand with the defender's advantage of the attacker losing road/rail benefits.
Jaybe is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 00:26   #7
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Rasslin, I think that mobility is the major advantage of a tank. Why would you want to purposefully weaken it? You might end up with a strange situation where troops actually move faster in the industrial age than the modern age simply because you want to power down tanks. The disadvantage of tanks is their high cost and many resources needed... whether they are balanced or not is a different argument, but it seems arbitrary to go about balancing them with railroad speeds.
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 00:27   #8
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
I gotta chime in here... infinite movement is absurd, and negatively impacts game-balance.

What was the Civ2 movement ratio for RRs?
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 00:28   #9
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Civ2 also had infinite movement on rails.
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 00:39   #10
Keeper of Hell
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 79
If you're talking realism (as the guy with the "Cavalary can't move by railroad" line apparently was) RRs make perfect sense, as it would take a lot less than a year for a unit to move across a country. This is why the rather restricted movement range of naval units makes little sense- modern warships taking upwards of five years to make their way around a land mass? But if you're talking gameplay, then I've definitely got to agree. Not only does it remove any need to defend smartly on your own part, but the way the AI uses RRs is incredibly annoying (ever tried a late Industrial /infantry amphibious assault, only to have your units decimated by cavalry that comes in, hits, then retreats to a city halfway across the continent? Not fun at all.)
__________________
KoH
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquistive idiots."
Keeper of Hell is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 00:53   #11
Thomas Paine
Chieftain
 
Thomas Paine's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 37
Unrestricted railway transportation portrays one of the game's most accurate representations of how industrialization revolutionized the logistics of modern warfare and trade. This is especially true when viewing each "turn" as representing one-to-five years. I would find no rules of physics violated by allowing machines and personel to be relocated within such a generous timeframe within one's own national borders. Seems a no-brainer, really... .

What "bothers" me is the molasses-slow movement of infantry units. It seems a bit whacky to begin a coastal D-Day infantry invasion in the industrial age, only to have the enemy research mechanized infantry by the time you reach their capital. Talk about a long walk!

I know, I know - this was implemented in the interest of game balance etc. etc. But you've got to admit, it would have made for some interesting variations on history. Hitler sets out for Poland in 1939, and arrives in 1954... .
Thomas Paine is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 01:01   #12
Optimizer
Prince
 
Optimizer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 698
The production bonus should be removed, shouldn't it?
__________________
The difference between industrial society and information society:
In an industrial society you take a shower when you have come home from work.
In an information society you take a shower before leaving for work.
Optimizer is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 01:30   #13
Inverse Icarus
Emperor
 
Inverse Icarus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: flying too low to the ground
Posts: 4,625
i would just make it so citiex connected by rails had the "airlift" ability. you would only get the 1/3 movement bonus on them, but you could teleport instantly to a city, wasting ALL your MP.
__________________
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Inverse Icarus is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 02:45   #14
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
Quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7
Civ2 also had infinite movement on rails.
Yes. However, they took the first positive step by not allowing you to rail around in an enemies territory. All that is left is to abolish the unlimited number of units using the unlimited movement on freindly rails.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
notyoueither is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 02:47   #15
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
PS. I really like how the general idea of how they have limited air transport (dependent on the number of cities with airports).

I would limit rail movement to a number of units equal to the number of cities connected to the rail net. If I had my way.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
notyoueither is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 02:55   #16
Dida
Prince
 
Dida's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 604
RRs giving infinite movement rate is ridiculous. It removes the need to place your unit strategically.
RRs should give either 3+X of movement rates or a flat movement rate for all units, let say, 10 for all units.
__________________
==========================
www.forgiftable.com/

Artistic and hand-made ceramics found only at www.forgiftable.com.
Dida is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 03:46   #17
Capt Dizle
ACDG3 Gaians
King
 
Local Time: 00:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,657
I think the game should have little sappers that tunnel underground and blow stuff deep up in enemy territory. Then, the tunnels could be used to move troops in. We would need some way to get them there fresh though, crawling in tunnels is hard work.

Probably be best to make some new units. Barrel makers to make, well, barrels. Packers to well, pack in the troops. Then pumpers to pump the tunnels full of water, the pressure of which would shoot the barrels of troops through. We could do a neat animation of the barrels popping up out of the ground and smashing back to earth with the troop landing on its feet firing!

Of course such a tunnel could only work if it originates from a tile with a river until electricity. But, duh, you knew that.
Capt Dizle is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 03:58   #18
ixnay
Civilization II Democracy GamePtWDG Lux InvictaPtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Cake or Death?C3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV CreatorsAge of Nations Team
Emperor
 
ixnay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 3,215
I would give RR's 1/16 movement and production/food bonuses for all cities connected to your capital. This would encourage people to build up a rail network, but not plant railroads on every square.
ixnay is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 07:05   #19
Blake
lifer
PolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of Fame
Beyond the Sword AI Programmer
 
Blake's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I am a Buddhist
Posts: 5,680
Quote:
i would just make it so citiex connected by rails had the "airlift" ability. you would only get the 1/3 movement bonus on them, but you could teleport instantly to a city, wasting ALL your MP.
Good solution. It would make it much harder to repel invasions... altough cities could still be super-stacked.
The idea of them making infantry movement faster is also good. Prehaps infantry could get 1/9th movement cost on RR.

Quote:
I think the game should have little sappers that tunnel underground and blow stuff deep up in enemy territory. Then, the tunnels could be used to move troops in. We would need some way to get them there fresh though, crawling in tunnels is hard work.
...
Blake is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 07:12   #20
NeoStar
Warlord
 
NeoStar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaybe
...Just ask the US Army.
Or the Prussians (Germans). After all, they were the first to use railroads for mobile warefare during the Franco-Prussian war.

I agree with you all, in theory. In reality, I've been spoiled by civ2 and civ3 and as I found with my brief stint with CTP2 it would get very annoying...

I think it should have been capped BUT railroads with no limits have been part of civ strategy for too long.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thomas Paine
What "bothers" me is the molasses-slow movement of infantry units. It seems a bit whacky to begin a coastal D-Day infantry invasion in the industrial age, only to have the enemy research mechanized infantry by the time you reach their capital. Talk about a long walk!
Yes-that is ridicolous. 'Infantry' should be able to procure transport on the way to battle with horses/jeeps/trucks - whatever!

They should have 2 movement, but that would be a tank... I have a feeling they lowered the tank (from civ2) to only 2 because of the Panzer (3). A 4 point panzer would have been too much.
__________________
"Show me a man or a woman alone and I'll show you a saint. Give me two and they'll fall in love. Give me three and they'll invent the charming thing we call 'society'. Give me four and they'll build a pyramid. Give me five and they'll make one an outcast. Give me six and they'll reinvent prejudice. Give me seven and in seven years they'll reinvent warfare. Man may have been made in the image of God, but human society was made in the image of His opposite number, and is always trying to get back home." - Glen Bateman, The Stand (Stephen King)
NeoStar is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 10:24   #21
Boris Godunov
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Boris Godunov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,412
I think the answer is to limit the number of units you can move freely on your rail network per turn. After all, in the real world, rail transportation is limited by the number of railway cars available. Perhaps notyoueither's idea of limiting it to the number of cities linked is a wise one.
__________________
Tutto nel mondo è burla
Boris Godunov is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 10:48   #22
King of Rasslin
Prince
 
King of Rasslin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: GA
Posts: 343
"Rasslin, I think that mobility is the major advantage of a tank. Why would you want to purposefully weaken it? You might end up with a strange situation where troops actually move faster in the industrial age than the modern age simply because you want to power down tanks. The disadvantage of tanks is their high cost and many resources needed... whether they are balanced or not is a different argument, but it seems arbitrary to go about balancing them with railroad speeds."

The strength of the tank is its power. It already have 2 movement, and is very powerful. Modern armor is too easy to use and very unfair because the winner is whoever has a bigger sod. I am glad there is average scoring because the modern era is messed up as it is.

I would go with Uberkrux here.
__________________
Wrestling is real!
King of Rasslin is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 15:58   #23
Chronus
Prince
 
Local Time: 05:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 371
As much as I love Civ 3, I must agree that the infinite RR movement does take out a large strategy factor.

I think they should be 1/6 the movement (i.e twice as effective as roads . . . nothing fancy). Even this number, however, may be too much. That's 18 tiles in one turn for your modern units! This would cover most of the continents I've seen. Perhaps it should only be 1/4?

The idea of "airlifting" a unit from one city to another connected by RR seems like a good idea. Two questions though: will each city have the ability to only handle one unit? (too restrictive, in my opinion) . . . and . . . can this be easily done with "stacked" units?
Chronus is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 16:27   #24
GabeRivers
Settler
 
Local Time: 23:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1
Some thoughts
I agree with the suggestions that rail movement should be limited. Anywhere from 10 to 20 tiles would be fine. I do not agree with the suggestion that rail movement should not apply to mobile units, such as tanks and cavalry. This would be unrealistic, as military history clearly supports such movements.

One thing I would do in order to force strategic defensive deployment would be to allow troops that are unloaded from transports to retain their normal movements when they are unloaded. Requiring them to wait a turn renders them dead meat. In my current game, Germany has landed 3 boat-loads of tanks and MI positioned against a city and poised for attack. Of course, I've been able to easily wipe them out before they could take any action. If they had been allowed to move when they first landed, I would have had to have been well defended or I would have been in trouble.
GabeRivers is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 16:35   #25
Jon Shafer
PtWDG RoleplayPtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG Neu DemogypticaInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG LegolandPtWDG Vox ControliPtWDG Glory of WarPtWDG2 SunshineApolyton UniversityC3CDG Desolation RowApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG SarantiumApolyCon 06 ParticipantsPtWDG Lux Invicta
Firaxis Games Programmer/Designer
 
Local Time: 01:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,567
I agree with everyone else here. Along with the lack of better use of naval combat/sea routes, the problem with 'teleporting' railroads is my biggest problem with Civ 3. I beg of Firaxis to make that editable in PtW... it just takes so much strategy out of the late game, and will make MP defense nearly impossible to break, since humans know how to use defense much better than an AI can.

What I think should be done: Limit the distance and number of units that can move in a railroad per turn (no doubling/trippling movement), and make it cost 1 gold or so to move it (railroads don't run for free you know).

Unfortunately, I highly doubt these changes will be implimented in PtW.
Jon Shafer is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 16:42   #26
Saurus
Prince
 
Local Time: 07:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 360
You are all correct, I think.
Everyone has a point in a way or another.

We really should be able to EDIT the properties of railroads (and other terrain improvements as well)
in the editor so that every one could modify railroads to their liking.

Personally, I HATE railroads as they are now.
It gives the human player too much of an advantage.
In addition it is extreamly ugly whit the railroad-spider covering every possible space on the map.

If there would be anything to do about it, I would instantly remove food/production bonus the railroad provides and reduce its movement bonus from unlimited to 1/6 moves.

I would re-introduce farmlands and introduce the concept of advanced mines...oh, but sadly this is just a dream...=(

-S
__________________
GOWIEHOWIE! Uh...does that
even mean anything?
Saurus is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 19:02   #27
Destroyer
Prince
 
Destroyer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hobbits Armpit
Posts: 311
Railroads should offer a flat bonus to all units. not a times of the movement rate.

Why whould a tank move 3 times as far as infantry for example? Trains all move the same speed

Perhaps speed.movement could be determined by current tech level.
__________________
The strength and ferocity of a rhinoceros... The speed and agility of a jungle cat... the intelligence of a garden snail.
Destroyer is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 19:35   #28
alva
Civilization III PBEMPtWDG2 Cake or Death?PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
alva's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Republic of Flanders
Posts: 10,747
To be honest, I don't see any simple sollution to this.
Allthough I've seen a couple off good suggetions, it's
gonna be pretty difficult to change it. You would almost need to redo the whole game IMHO.
Still I hate it and consider it a gamebreaker.
This is where I usually end my games and start a new one.
__________________
#There’s a city in my mind
Come along and take that ride
And it’s all right, baby, it’s all right #
alva is offline  
Old July 27, 2002, 21:21   #29
star mouse
Civilization III Democracy Game
Prince
 
star mouse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of the Barbarians
Posts: 600
I also agree that infinite movement for railroads is overpowered. The movement rate for railroads should be editable, like it is for roads, with 0 = infinite movement.

One thing I liked about the CTP/CTP2 series was how railroads (and their futuristic replacement, maglevs) did not confer infinite movement. In CTP/2, I think roads were 1/3, railroads 1/5, maglevs 1/10. A movement-3 unit could go 30 squares in a turn, but the movement was not infinite, and you were forced to position your troops carefully throughout the game.
__________________
None, Sedentary, Roving, Restless, Raging ... damn, is that all? Where's the "massive waves of barbarians that can wipe out your civilisation" setting?
star mouse is offline  
Old July 28, 2002, 00:40   #30
kring
Civilization III Democracy GameCivilization III PBEMCivilization III MultiplayerNationStatesCTP2 Source Code ProjectApolyton UniversityCivilization IV Creators
King
 
kring's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wichita,KS,USA
Posts: 1,044
I agree RR's are way too powerful as now implemented. Limiting them, or giving us the ability to limit them, would be nice. You could just stick it the same place as the road move setting in the editor.
kring is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:02.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team