Keeping train units on track (Spader's question)

[Boco]

Now to our little problem with these magnificent über-cannons. How are they supposed to go (and STAY) on rails and rail only?

(Found in WW2-1979 Graphics Showcase, but I didn't want the discussion get buried amongst the pics)

The most successful method that I've seen was used in Techumseh's Russian Civil War. He took advantage of ToT's impassable terrain toggle. All terrain but Rail Beds were impassable. All units, except trains could enter impassable terrain. Works well.

For other versions:

Kull once suggested using ocean terrain as RR's, but that has some major challenges associated with it. The converse is to make railways the only land terrain, surrounded by oceans disguised as land.

Lining RR's with immovable air units of a civ other than the train unit could work in some restricted circumstances.

Any other ideas?

[yaroslav]

I have an idea, but it will work only if you want a one-square-per-turn movement for trains units: make the train an air unit (like a figther) and put an airbase in the all the railroads... If the train is moved to a square that is not a city or a rairoad, it will get destroyed (out of fuel)

[Shaka Naldur]

that it is a good idea yaros

[curtsibling]

Yaro,
Yet more evidence of your brilliance!

Well done, fellows!

[Elok]

The "water" solution sounds most feasible due to the value of trains for rapid transport. Actual in-game railroads would then be free for a cleared road terrain or something.
I'm not sure how but the trireme flag might be useful for such a scenario. Just a feeling in me guts.

[spader]

yea and the funny thing then, would be that planes can land on railtrack...

I also thought about that "ocean-and-trains-being-ships" thing... It would fit very well into scenarios without "sea"...

I guess there is no "easy" solution to this train thingie...

/Spader

[Elok]

There never is. Incidentally, what aspect of trains are you trying to simulate, Boco? If it's just a matter of restricting use to owners of a railway, can't you use the harlan thompson trick(I think it's his, at least) of renaming airports "RR terminal," perhaps accompanied by a chain of reworked mountain terrain between airports?

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by Boco
Kull once suggested using ocean terrain as RR's
Any other ideas?

I don't know if I am just repeating what you wrote, or if I am (hopefully) building a bit more on it! Anyway, the idea was excellent for MPGE

What could be doable is make the raillines ocean terrain. Then you can make a railway improvement that would hide the fact that it's not a land terrain (as you can build railway on ocean, or at least change a terrain under a railway). So now at least you have the right "look".

And now about the train... You can then make some train units that would actually be "naval transport" and would allow you to bring your units to the front! And you can choose how fast they would be! And your überkanonen then just need to be naval units able to shore-bombard! And, which is more, it would solve the "infinite movement" on railway problem which can unbalance some scenarios!

And now to adress a few further problems:

1) you don't want to see your trains get out of your raillines and "wander" in the seas and oceans: so you need to make sure that your raillines are "closed" and not linked to the seas, even through cities!

2) you don't want new trains being built and used in the seas: so create your trains and überkanonen by events, and make them unbuildable

3) you probably don't want cruisers, battleships and carriers on your raillines ( ), so you should make sure the cities on the lines are not able to build naval units!

4) the lines can't be used by land units, of course! (Anyway, everybody knows that it's dangerous to cross the raillines! ), so it might be a good idea to link the railway squares diagonally, so that they don't block the passage for the land units!


Don't know if that was clear enough...

[techumseh]

Or just use Test of Time. There is no substitute!

[Elok]

If you don't feel like using TOT, you could make a railway "unit" and put it wherever you want the trains to go, then put immobile, superhigh-def barbarian units around said tracks. The train unit would be forced to travel along the track units to circumvent ZOC restrictions. Other units would ignore ZOC, or be air units or domain 3s. I don't know how you would avoid the player moving a unit in to temp-generate a "track" to escape from, but it's a start.

[Boco]

@Elok, like Spader, I'm a little interested in using armored trains. They existed in Egypt in 1916, but played a minor role. If I can portray them without major changes, I'll put them in. Otherwise....

@Cyrion, that seems to be one of the best non-ToT ways to do it, but your road bonus better be small. At bonus=3, the max ocean (i.e. Cyrion/Kull train) mf is 42. At bonus=5, it goes down to 25. At bonus=9 (the bonus I'm using), you're down to 14. The other problem I face is that these armored trains were deployed along a coastal line.

@Techumseh, yeah, nothing holds a candle to that ToT trick. Very simple, effective...elegant. Problem for El Aurens is that I've already got another use for impassable terrain (there's a little bit of desert here and there).

I don't suppose anyone would actually pay attention to a house rule, would they?

[Civfan]

Originally posted by Boco

The most successful method that I've seen was used in Techumseh's Russian Civil War. He took advantage of ToT's impassable terrain toggle. All terrain but Rail Beds were impassable. All units, except trains could enter impassable terrain. Works well.

For other versions:

Kull once suggested using ocean terrain as RR's, but that has some major challenges associated with it. The converse is to make railways the only land terrain, surrounded by oceans disguised as land.

Lining RR's with immovable air units of a civ other than the train unit could work in some restricted circumstances.

Any other ideas?

with the impassable terrain, settlers/engineers could be able to upgrade the terrain to the "tracks" terrain or change the track terrain to something else like grassland.

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by Boco
I don't suppose anyone would actually pay attention to a house rule, would they?

Not the AI, no...

[spader]

one question!
since I've never played ToT then I wonder:
Should I get it?
Is ToT better than Civ2MGE?

/Spader

[techumseh]

Originally posted by spader
one question!
since I've never played ToT then I wonder:
Should I get it?
Is ToT better than Civ2MGE?

/Spader

Well, let's see....

Perhaps, and Definitely!

Test of Time has many advantages as a scenario vehicle. It has multiple maps, far stronger events language, more unit spots, and a variety of special flags such as impassible terrain and invisible units.

On the other hand, it's more difficult to use because it has no built-in editors. So you need a good graphics program. And some of the events language is quite complex.

The biggest drawback is that not many people use it, so your scenario will have limited circulation if it's in ToT. On the other hand, there is a small but dedicated group, that is committed to ToT scenarios, and we're growing.

If you really want to keep your trains on the track, you can download ToT for ten bucks, here: http://download.com.com/3000-2119-10...ml?tag=lst-2-9

There is a site dedicated to Test of Time called 'Cradle of Civilization'. It's available here: http://coc.apolyton.net/ You can download Red October from my site, here: http://www.tecumseh.150m.com/

Good luck!

[Jimmywax]

Originally posted by techumseh



The biggest drawback is that not many people use it, so your scenario will have limited circulation if it's in ToT. On the other hand, there is a small but dedicated group, that is committed to ToT scenarios, and we're growing.

Just how many of you are there? I have ToT but could never get used to the feel of it. I wish that I did like it more and that it would have been in better circulation but its promise appears to have been wasted.

[techumseh]

Six or eight, depending on who's active at the moment.

If you disable your sprites by putting them in holding folders, and use some of the traditional terrain and unit sets available on the Cradle site, there is no perceptible difference between Original ToT and MGE - except for the additional features and the lack of a built-in editor. In my view, the ugly art has a lot to do with ToT's limited popularity. I just got rid of it!

[MagyarCrusader]

I second everything Techumseh has said in this thread.

[tanelorn]

ToT has even more advantages, such as multiple overlapping maps (up to 4) to simulate different planets, dimensions, galaxies, floors, underground levels etc. 4 times the terrains. A full true colour palette. Larger unit cells. Moving sprites (editable) instead of static units if you want. But really, the lack of a built in editor shows through. The way to mittigate this is to prepare the scenario in MGE, civ-convert it to ToT and go on manually.

[Boco]

It's the enhanced event language of ToT that hooked me. Not to mention the huge stack available for events.

[Mercator]

ToT has just one major drawback, I think... There's no way to get rid of that damn health bar! So using zero-move units to represent landmarks etc. isn't gonna look very pretty.

And... ahem... There's also CSPL. I think you might also be able to use that to restrict unit movement: If a train unit moves outside of a predetermined set of squares, it's moved back to the nearest allowed square.

[Jimmywax]

Originally posted by Mercator
And... ahem... There's also CSPL.

Yah, you see there is one minor problem there too. Only two of you guys know how to use it.