What a joke this idea invaders can't use railroads

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm pleased most of you agree with the bleeding obvious point that invaders should be able to use roads. What were you thinking Firaxis?

But I'm shocked that many seem to think invaders should not be able to use railroads because somehow hostile populations prevent them or the rail is destroyed or whatever. WHAT UTTER NONSENSE.

Both World War I and World war II showed that invaders use railroads freely and the only thing that stops them is if the line is blocked by troops. Partisans, bombing, nothing stopped the Germans using the European railways during World War II. In both wars, trains were used to bring supplies right to the battle front, by both sides.

So stop these idotic comments. Some of you should read some history.

[Triped]

Speaking as the president of the Official **** Realism Club of Apolyton:

History doesn't matter. Good gameplay does.
Your people would probably be ripping up the tracks as they retreated, like the Russians in WW2.

[Pembleton]

Are techs researched one at a time, and do you actually know that you will discover a tech years before its actually discovered? Why does it take 20+ years for a civ to counterattack in the early game, and then 1 year in the late game? Why does suddenly completing a building (wonder) in area of your civ automatically give all your citizens a bonus?

As Triped said, gameplay and balance is more important than realism.

[Triped]

You can be Vice-President

[Madine]

But I'm shocked that many seem to think invaders should not be able to use railroads because somehow hostile populations prevent them or the rail is destroyed or whatever. WHAT UTTER NONSENSE.

Yup yup. When the Germans invaded Poland, they loaded up their tanks into trains, took the train right up to the outskirts of Warsaw and unloaded. Right?

You'll still be able to use the railroads after you have captured the nearby city.

[DanS]

A perfectly balanced abstracted game. I'm sure the AI is better too.

[Triped]

I have a suggestion...I think there should be an option to tear up the tracks...that way, the trains could be used, but if you took the simple precaution (no resources required) it'd be hard to get around. Any thoughts?

[shum00]

I for one agree with Alexander's Horse on this issue. I can see why railroads might not be able to be used by invading civs, but I still think pillaging suffices for this purpose. And not being able to use roads makes no sense to me at all.

[Triped]

Yeah, any game where the team that goes first wins 70% of the games is really balanced.

[Yog-Sothoth]

I agree AH, this is just stupid. At least you should be able do use roads/railroad at a reduced effect.

I agree that gameplay is very important, but this is just taking it to far.

Btw, is this effect just for military units or will it affect trade units, diplos etc also?

[DanS]

Triped: Tennis, right?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Triped
Your people would probably be ripping up the tracks as they retreated, like the Russians in WW2.

The Germans got the railroads running DAYS after the Sovs pulled out even where track was ripped up. The Sovs did the same when ther recaptured. Railheads on both side ran to within a few kilometres of the front. Partisans had a nuisance value but never stopped the German army using the Soviet rail network.

The fact is players have ways of dealing with railways like pillaging them or using partisans. There is simply No reason why invaders should not be able to use open captured track.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by DanS
A perfectly balanced abstracted game. I'm sure the AI is better too.

Thanks. I've never heard of chess. I'll go try it out.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Thanks. I've never heard of chess. I'll go try it out.

[The diplomat]

The thing to remember is that roads and even more so railroads made conquest way too unbalanced. Since the AI would literally blanket every square of their empire with roads or railroads, a player could use those roads to move an army through the ENTIRE AI empire in just a few turns. You could literally conquer an entire continent in just 2 or 3 turns. So, I think that this could be why roads will not be useable in civ3 during an invasion, to make conquest more balanced. The defender needs a chance to defend themselves. It is not fair when an enemy can take 5 or more cities before it is even your turn again!

Also remember that 1 turn = 1 year. I think in 1 year, we should assume that the defender has been able to block/disrupt the roads and railroads to prevent enemy use of them. We are talking about an entire 1 year!

[PGM]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
(...) stop these idotic comments.

Instead of insulting people, you should shut up, learn some manners and talk only after you've played the game because you're sounding pretty idiotic yourself.
About the actual road issue, both sides have a point, but I agree with Triped, Pembleton and Madine. IMO Realism is terribly important, but not to the point that it would cramp gameplay.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth
Btw, is this effect just for military units or will it affect trade units, diplos etc also?

Well, considering there are no trade units or diplomats/spies, id have to say that this rule doesnt affect them at all But seriously, i think it affects all units, settlers and workers included.

And i think the rule is a good one. As it is in Civ 2, an enemy unit can appear instantly outside your city, an entire army even, without you having the chance to counterattack. You could even get on a train, travel past all the enemy cities, directly to the enemies capital city, and take it out. Imagine if the Allies used that tactic during WW2!!

[Madine]

Actually Skanky they kind of did (Operation Market Garden). It was a miserable failure because the tanks were not able to travel along the road as fast as they expected.

[manofthehour]

Roads should give you a slight bonus if they are not yours. And than when you capture the city you can fully use it.
If you want to look in a history book look at vietnom where the roads were filled with mines. That will defintly slow down an army.

[Admiral]

If invaders were allowed to use railroads, and unlimited railroad movement points were kept, then, as Skanky Burns said, one would be able to conquer an empire in a few turns. As the AI was incompetant at utilising this stategy, this gave the human player a considerable advantage in the late game. It must be Done Away With

Dainbramaged13, that would be me. Consider yourself shouted upon

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Admiral

one would be able to conquer an empire in a few turns.

Most historical wars took less than a few civ "turns" in fact. How many "turns" is 3 or 4 years? Even WWII only went for 6 turns.

[Xmudder]

Haven't you figured that out yet?

As for using railroads... I remember the exact opposite argument going on several years ago on the Operation Art of War web site. These grognards were complaining that it is almost impossible to use another's rail system to invade them. And I'll listen to a pack of nit-picking grognards before I'll listen to a troll and those who have fallen for his bait.
FWIW, in OPART, if you overrun rail roads, they are destoryed until you repair them.

You can not use railroad and roads in land CONTROLLED BY THE ENEMY, or without a right of passage agreement with an ally. But if you invade and knock out the city, the region will fall into neutral territory, and THEN you can use the roads and rails. But be warned... a high culture city further in may well be a stumbling block.

There are plently of ways to slow an enemy advance, so long as you control the countryside. Hell, you can put dinner plates in front of advancing tanks to slow them down. They'll have to send infantry forward to investigate the potential mines. Or use real mines, and block the road with dead tanks until they are moved out of the way.

[d_dudy]

she burnt horsey

[Rakki]

Historically fortresses and cities (fortified cities) do exert a zone of control upon nearby communications. It's worrying to move around if the defenders could suddenly sally out and burn your catapults or whatever.

But roads are still roads, and in my opinion, what should happen is that squares where a friendly military unit is already stationed should then be counted as outside the enemy city's ZOC. This would simulate the need to provide rear echelon security to your transport routes. Without security then the threat of being attacked would slow you down (moving at caution)

So, if you want to use enemy railway/road, you'll have to station units along every square that you want to use if it's within the enemy city's influence. Otherwise you pay the full cost of the square being travelled.

This is historically accurate - for example, large numbers of German troops were tied down in fighting off Russian partisans in WW2. The Russians also dumped paratroopers into enemy rear...

And if you want to pillage your railway to prevent the enemy using it, you'll have to do it yourself rather than some silly assumption like that the railway was automatically ripped up or something.

Vice versa, if you want to use your enemy's railways/roads, a vanguard will have to move in to secure the area. And if the enemy has pillaged it, well, you'll just have to send in your engineers to build your own.



That's my view anyway.

[DanS]

"FWIW, in OPART, if you overrun rail roads, they are destoryed until you repair them."

That's just the problem. Civ has neither an overrun action nor a railroad repair function. It is obvious that in the vast majority of situations, you have to change gauge no matter (i.e., repair the railroads or provide appropriate cars).

But instead of providing these functions in Civ3, we are forced to a ridiculous abstraction of not being able to do what otherwise equally obviously can be done in real life. With engineering support, a unit can use enemy rail.

So rather than the grognards being at cross purposes with AH, they are in support of him. One big happy family of people who know what they're talking about.

Nice construction, though. Stick around.

[Sarxis]

I think it is an interesting concept; especially since destroying one's own roads was hard to do in previous CIV games. I do agree that the realism isn't being helped by road/rail denial, but it is good gameplay wise.

[star mouse]

Tickets, please.

I'm sorry, sir, but your ticket won't allow you to take a tank on board the train because it won't fit in the luggage racks. You'll have to get out and walk.

[Skanky Burns]

lol @ Starmouse

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by star mouse

I'm sorry, sir, but your ticket won't allow you to take a tank on board the train because it won't fit in the luggage racks. You'll have to get out and walk.

You obviously haven't heard of the famous battle near the Donetz basin city of Stalino in 1943 where an SS panzer division was caught by Soviet tank formations whilst dismounting from trains. They fought off the Sovs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously AH is trolling, because he doesn't seem to care that we are more in it for the play balance and ability to play peacefully (by making war harder) rather than historical fact.