What a joke this idea invaders can't use railroads

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


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.

Sorry, but that was really funny (like, you must have read a different history than I did).
Most of the rail STOCK (engines and cars) the Germans used had to be converted to Russia's narrow gauge. And the Russian roads? -- what may have been marked on ACCURATE maps as highways were usually DIRT!

Germany was horribly surprised by the state of communications in WWII Russia. They ended up using enormous resources to ATTEMPT to supply their units near the front, and their FAILURE to get supplies to the front cost them many a combat unit because of lack of food, proper clothing, and/or ammunition.

Of course, especially during the Fall and Spring rains, when roads turned to rivers of mud. But in the Winter the roads were a little better because they had frozen solid and they just had to worry about not slipping off the road. Then again, most of their supplies (and transport in general) was in the form of horse-drawn wagons except for the few Panzer and Panzer Grenadier units.

Back to the railroads, a problem is often that it is the rail STOCK (again, the engines and cars), along with the switching tracks that form the bottleneck in the supply chain. And rolling stock is stored in CITIES. And then, if there is a break somewhere in the line (accident, airstrike or partisan interdiction), other traffic can't go around the break -- it HAS to be repaired for the traffic to get through. Russian partisans/paratroops were a MAJOR problem in the German resupply effort, complicating the whole situation which Moscow even managed and coordinated fairly well (e.g., blocking supplies in an area where the Russians were launching an offensive).

Gad, it's been decades(?) since I've read this stuff. Sorry for the 'lecture'.

BTW, what is "Trolling"?

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


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.

Bleep, I've forgotten! Was that a location where (1) the front had been stable for a long time and the Germans had built the rail up to there, or was that where (2) the Russians had made a huge breakthrough in the German lines and were (30-50?) miles in their rear?

Or both (1) & (2)?

[Alexander's Horse]

The German advance was slowed by the WEATHER not the state of the railroads. In fact, the Germans were using the Russian rail network almost from the first day of the campaign. They were dependent on it precisely because the roads were so bad.

There is a nice vignette about this. Under the Nazi Soviet Pact Stalin was providing the German economy with masses of supplies. On the day of the invasion, 22 June, a time was set secretly by the Germans for the last trainload of goods to be shunted across the frontier at Brest Litovsk. I think it was 3am. When the attack was launched, at about 4.30am, the Germans captured the empty Russian engines and rolling stock and almost immediately began using them to ferry supplies to their rapidly advancing spearheads. The difference in gauge was no more than a minor irritant.

Imagine being on the last train unloaded.

[Tjoepie]

I just hope ( but I'm quite sure they did) Firaxis made sure that one can use the square where railroads are build on but not get the movement advantage for it.

If not, then what if a city is surrounded by railroads?

An other thing: how will we be able to distinguish visually our railroads from the once the enemy build?
It won't be funny if you plan to invade a civ by attacking in a Blitz, only to find out at the moment you use them that you can't because he build those railroads.

And last but not least: if you capture a city will the railroads in those bounderies become your railroads?

As long as these three matters are solved I am for the idea, and I think it will make better gameplay.

[Roland Ehnström]

Tjoepie, yes, they have said that you can't use the BONUS from the railroad - you can still use the square, but you don't get the movement bonus.

To answer our second question, I belive the answer is that the civ who built the RR doesn't matter - what matters is if the RR is within your (cultural) boarders or not.

For your third question, the answer is surely "yes". If you capture a city, then you can use the RR within the (cultural) boarders of this city.

IMO, this is a great new rule. It makes your boarders much more important, and I think it is also fairly realistic.

Peace!
-- Roland

[Tjoepie]

Thanks Roland, I must have missed those answers...
Nice to have a friendly guy here that helpes you out , and not tell you are a moron to have missed something.

These forums are becoming so big I should take time off to read them all

[redstar1]

I think what people are forgetting in this issue is the fact that CIV is a turn based game. Imagine playing a game of Civ in the world today. In Civ2 a Japanese unit could disembark at Vladivostok and use the railroads to attack Madrid in the same move, virtually unhindered. Surely on the way there it would encounter some resistance. I think the new way of doing things is going to help in defending your cities and make warfare all the more realistic as well as requiring more of an element in planning your attacks.

Dave

[Grumbold]

Railroad use in a 1 turn = years game is a nasty subject that has already been exhaustively discussed. You should not be able to invade a foreign country and have troops travel around in enemy territory by train. That is patent nonsense. Supporting your own troops in territory you have already captured should be perfectly possible. We have already debated many different ways of trying to strike that balance. Using the borders is not a perfect answer but it is certainly an easily determinable one which is in keeping with the Firaxians 'keep it simple' approach.

[Wexu]

This is silly.

Not able to use enemy occupied tracks makes perfect sense, I think it's historically accurate enough that only one side can use the same tracks at a time.
Both sides sitting in the same train?

AND REMEMBER, you can use those tracks after you have conquered the nearby city. I think even the Germans weren't using other's railroads when the nearby lands were full of enemy troops? Think about coming with a train full of Germans in the middle of the Russian held city. Side A just can't run their trains in the middle of B's territory as in CivII, that was far more unrealistic than this new idea.

Alexander's Horse, I think Civ3 is not a right game for you.

PS. Sorry about my bad English.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

In civ II you could dewstroy your own railroad... that is the equivalent of Russians destroying railroad behind them... this change is rrather strange??? well I guess they want us to be peaceful builders after all....

[Hydey]

Horse is lucky that there will be no MP as everyone would be kicking his arse while he tried to use a railway.

[Triped]

*is starting to realize that too many people care about history*

[kittenOFchaos]

"Sir! We are at war with France and England!"

"We must hurry or we'll miss the train to Paris...it leaves in 10 minutes"

Comeon even Hitler took 5-6 weeks to beat the France...Even British Rail aren't that slow that Berlin to Paris takes 5-6 weeks.

Seriously you use railroads in territory YOU control you moron and if it is held by the enemy you have to take it off them and roads and railways are the first things to be defended and at bridges primed with detonators to prevent capture.

In ww1 the germans didn't march across belgium for their health!
In ww2 tanks weren't just a waste of metal and petrol! You have to capture the communications before you can adequetly use them...the same is with civ3...you have to take the city that "controls" the land and make it yours before you can "ship in" the vast amount of men, equipment and supplies rail allows to be moved.

So you'll not be taking the next train to my capital...or why not take the plane -it's quicker!

[TJW]

Come on, can anyone here honestly say that they can realistically imagine a big army marching up to someones border, loading all their equipment onto a train, tanks, artillery and all, then driving through this territory to the nearest city, disembarking, setting up the attack then attacking....it just doesn't happen.......

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos

Seriously you use railroads in territory YOU control you moron and if it is held by the enemy you have to take it off them and roads and railways are the first things to be defended and at bridges primed with detonators to prevent capture.

In ww1 the germans didn't march across belgium for their health!
In ww2 tanks weren't just a waste of metal and petrol! You have to capture the communications before you can adequetly use them...the same is with civ3...you have to take the city that "controls" the land and make it yours before you can "ship in" the vast amount of men, equipment and supplies rail allows to be moved.

So you'll not be taking the next train to my capital...or why not take the plane -it's quicker!

I agree. Borders=Control. Certainly a civ would not allow enemies to load up on trains/roads that they control! Once you have control (or no one does) over an area than the rails/roads are fair game.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Triped
*is starting to realize that too many people care about history*

Heh, "too many people" care about history? Not enough IMHO. If you want a group of people who care little for history beyond what they find on TV go poll your average group of American citizens, you'll get what you want.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Ozymandous

Heh, "too many people" care about history? Not enough IMHO. If you want a group of people who care little for history beyond what they find on TV go poll your average group of American citizens, you'll get what you want.

I think he meant history as it relates to Civ3, and how much they correlate.

But as to knowing about history in general, for the average person, does it really make a difference how much they know? Stupid people are stupid people, and whether they know more facts or not doesn't seem to significantly impact life in anyway.

If you are talking about people who do have an impact on society, however, perhaps it is true that they should know more about history.

[Kc7mxo]

There is a more reasonable solution than firaxis's. Reduce the railroud infitie movment. its stupid anyway.

also, make it possibly to pillage multiple tsquares a turn. if they're yours.

unfortunately armies are quite adept at fixing things also.

for gameplay, think taht reducing attacker use of defender railroads to the same as road movement makes the most sense. you'd still be able to use the roads and rails, they just wouldn't provide the same benefit.

[Pingu:]

Borders = control ? that's nonsense...

Troops = control,
that's much more realistic. I can see the point about railroads being a problem when invading, but the idea that a group of Marines or Tanks or whatever, can't use a road, because it falls under a different administration? what are they going to do? give them a speeding ticket.

If there's no troops to stop an invasion, and exert a ZOC, they should be able walk along the road like anyone else.

If there are troops (and there should be troops along every hostile border, especially where there's a road), then it's different.

Pingu

[DarkCloud]

Invaders could use railroads if they managed to take over the trains... Thus, we could use another option for war when the invaders are on a railroad track, "Take over RR"

It would take a turn to activate, and, if successful, your troops could utilize the enemy's railroads.

[HalfLotus]

I see your point, Pingu.
Hopefully, they'll reduce move cost of rail from infinite.
Maybe equal for all units, since they ride the same trains.

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns





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.

Hmm, I must have missed something completely here. There are no diplo/spies? Do you have a link?

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Pingu:


Borders = control ? that's nonsense...





Troops = control,


that's much more realistic. I can see the point about railroads being a problem when invading, but the idea that a group of Marines or Tanks or whatever, can't use a road, because it falls under a different administration? what are they going to do? give them a speeding ticket.





If there's no troops to stop an invasion, and exert a ZOC, they should be able walk along the road like anyone else.





If there are troops (and there should be troops along every hostile border, especially where there's a road), then it's different.





Pingu

I agree. IMO you should be able to use roads/railroads at a reduced effect wherever there are no enemy units exerting ZOC.



I can understand the arguments for not using RR, but roads?!? Looks like civ3 is shaping up to be a "lets all be friends game". Oh is that your road, I'm so sorry... Yes I know, even if we're at war there is no excuse for being that rude.

[Ralf]

I suggest you "keep full road bonus" activists move over to this road-poll and check out the current poll-results. Believe it or not, but most voters seems to like Firaxis idea, although some would like it tweaked a little.

Why not just give it a rest? The battle is over.

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Ralf

I suggest you "keep full road bonus" activists move over to this road-poll and check out the current poll-results. Believe it or not, but most voters seems to like Firaxis idea, although some would like it tweaked a little.



Why not just give it a rest? The battle is over.

Ah, well you can't win them all... do you want some of my lotion?

[Pingu:]

I actually agree with the Pollsters, you can't move down a road controlled by another CIv.

It's the definition of control that's the issue. I say it's not to do with a Civs border, but to do with whether or not there's someone with a weapon who is prepeared to stop you from moving.

If your border is from Culture. By making the use of roads dependant on your border, what you are saying is this:
You can't use this road, as the enemy has a bigger library than you! WTF!

PIngu:


By the way, can anyone point out exactly where all this started from. I remember hearing that a "Right of Passage" agreement enabled another Civ to use your roads. But the way I interpreted that at first was that it enabled the other Civ to use the road without it becoming an act of war. Once war was declared, then this is irrelevant. Of course I may be wrong on that.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth
Ah, well you can't win them all... do you want some of my lotion?

I don't get it. Is this a common Norwegian joke/phrase?

[Jack_www]

I think as well that an invading armies should be able to use roads and rails to full effect. All through out history invading armies have done this. If you want to stop an invader form using your roads or rails there are two things you can do. One you can pillage the road or rail. Second you can put troops on the rail to block the invader. Why couldn't invading armies use your own roads and rails. If this is true the is very very very stupid thing to do. Also I don't see how this unbalances the game in any way, remember if they can use your roads/rails you can use theirs as well. Also what if an invader takes one or more of your cities, then if you can't use other civ road or rails then if you try to retake the city you wont be able to use the roads and rails around the city that you built. Which would give the invaders time to build up their defenses in the city.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Pingu:
It's the definition of control that's the issue.

If the first alternative was "Yes, roads should give movement bonus to all units" - dont you think manofthehour (and a majority of voters) viewed the second alternative as the opposite alternative to the first one?

If the second alternative was meant to be interpreted as "just like in Civ-2" - then both the first and the second alternative would be identical, wouldnt they? And its not very likely that the majority of voters interpreted the Poll-alternatives that way, is it?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Why couldn't invading armies use your own roads and rails. If this is true the is very very very stupid thing to do.

Its not that you are forced to move your units on roadless enemy tiles, you know. I really hope that nobody is stupid enough to interpret the idea like that. You CAN move them on enemy-roads at any time.

Its only a speed-thing. And a very temporary one also, because as soon you have conquered the city that controls the surrounding area, you get your full road-bonus back, for that area.