Movement points on railroad - Page 2

seer_98 · September 13, 2001, 12:50

Railroads should a percent of your total unit specific move for whatever unit type you are. (E.g. somthing between 1/10 and 1/20 of your movement, depending on whether you want units to move 10 or 20 squares.) This way tanks don't move any faster/futher than an infantry would on a railroad. They both move at the speed of the train.

Whatever the length of movement railroads allow, it should be futher than the fastest ground based unit, shorter than air movement and the same for all units.

jsw363 · September 13, 2001, 13:09

Quote:

Originally posted by seer_98
This way tanks don't move any faster/futher than an infantry would on a railroad. They both move at the speed of the train.

Whatever the length of movement railroads allow, it should be futher than the fastest ground based unit, shorter than air movement and the same for all units.

This makes much more sense to me than having some units being borne by trains at higher speeds than others. Trains move at the same speeds for all units and movement points along railroads should reflect this. Great idea!

RedWhiteArcher · September 13, 2001, 13:11

I think the point is that it takes less than a week to croos all of Asia on a train. So its only unrealistic if you will move the units 1000 back and forth. But who does that?!!!

Sava · September 13, 2001, 16:28

How about changing the current way of moving along rail to this: Since rail travels significantly faster than a Civ turn, how about instead of how far, we ask how much. Instead of saying Unit A can move from City A to City B in how many turns, lets say that the rail system between City A and City B can carry so many tons of goods per year/ so many number of people/soldiers per year. This way it would be more realistic and wouldn't change the level of fun.

PGM · September 13, 2001, 20:04

Quote:

Originally posted by RedWhiteArcher
Did you happen to think then that the air system is faulted and not the railroad one. It doesn't take a year to go by train from Asia to Europe.

Duh. Yes I did. And did you happen to think that it's ridiculous to change everything just to leave railroad as it is now? Or are we going to give bombers 100-tile movement to make it a bit more balanced, tanks 20-tile off-road movement (cause it doesn't take tanks a year to cross europe by road also), etc, etc, etc..

TCO · September 13, 2001, 20:29

I don't like the unlimited movement on railroads. This has nothing to do with realism (of course...the roads aren't "realistic" either.) The game si better with strategic choices. Making movement of a howie from one end of the world to the other in one turn removes this element of strategic choice. Also, I think that the human player (in general) is better at massing his forces than the AI and that the railroad plays into this to much and makes a howie sweep by the player more likely. Those who like the railroads, I suspect "like winning easier". But they should try to play to be challenged more.

Provost Harrison · September 14, 2001, 05:34

Stick with the infinite movement on railroads. If we are getting into realism, we know that you could get anywhere on a railway within a year

And I think it is one of those aspects of civ which makes it an interesting game, and a long desired infrastructural reward. No longer would a unit take years to hobble from one end of the empire to the other (even if not perfectly realistic, it would take a Roman legion a long time to get from Spain to the Middle East), whereas when railroads became abundant, this time was dramatically reduced. It represents the availability of locomotives as well which can move greater amounts of goods and much higer speeds.

aaglo · September 14, 2001, 05:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Stick with the infinite movement on railroads. If we are getting into realism, we know that you could get anywhere on a railway within a year...........

Mr. Harrison, I think that the main issue here is not realism, more like relativity. It's realistic, that by train you can travel around the world within a year. But it is not realistic, that you can't do the same thing by boat or by plane

. That is why (IMO) the movement on railroads should be relative to the movement of planes and boats.
So, don't stick with the infinite movement on railroads.

(still suffering from hangover

)

Recurve · September 14, 2001, 07:52

Keep the unlimited MPs!
How else will I be able to wipe out half the world in a single turn?

aaglo · September 14, 2001, 07:57

BTW, is it confirmed, that there will be a railroad systems in the game?

Sava · September 14, 2001, 09:23

Wow, Ralf, I'm shocked...

Your suggestion is very good, but what shocked me is that it sounds ..... OOOOH I'M GONNA SAY IT>... REALALLAL UHOH THE R WORD.....

REALISTIC!!

hehe just messin with ya

Ralf · September 14, 2001, 10:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Recurve
Keep the unlimited MPs!
How else will I be able to wipe out half the world in a single turn?

Above wont happen, since both roads and railroads are treated as non-existing in the invasion-phase. You can only take advantage of foreign road/RR infrastructure after you taken the foreign-land controlling city - and even then you can only use the road/RR-infrastructure within the culture-borders controlled by that newly conquered city. Click on this topic to read more.

Anyway, your argument is exactly the reason why I dont want Civ-2 style infinite RR-moves.

The player take advantage of this, and the AI cannot possibly play on equal terms. How fun is that?
I say; give railroads a fixed (but editable) move-radius, without combat attrition-cost and regardless land-unit, within your own homeland & within conquered secured enemy-land.