Railroads are just ****

[vondrack]

Originally posted by M. le Comte
There could be several versions of trains, from "boiling water" (i don't know how to say that in english) trains to high speed electric trains, just as there are several types of transports, from sails to troop transports, including galions.

You mean a train with a STEAM engine.

[Blake]

Why not a train unit ?

Click click clickity clickity click.
Thats the sound of the tedious micromanagment of loading units onto and from trains and moving the trains around.

Now shush. Firaxis may notice your idea and pounce on it and make us all suffer increased tedium and pointless micromanagment.

[David Murray]

Okay, fair enough if three thousand people all agreed with the consensus. But are Firaxis going to change the game because 20 or 30 Apolytoners think it should be changed? I bloody hope not! If anything Firaxis should make it something in the preferences to appease all of the grumpy gamers in this thread...

[GhengisFarb™]

There are a lot of good ideas, but I doubt Firaxis will actually rewrite their code for our suggestions.

Personally I'd be happy with a HIGH maintenance cost per tile that has the railroad improvement. That way I'd still have unlimited mobility on the railroad (realistic) but I would have to be real cautious on where I built it having to plot out the minimum number of tiles to achieve the maximum mobility.

[Fosse]

[size=1] originally posted by The Puny Celt[/size=1]

The main users of railroads, even for the wargamers, are the Worker units. To me, it's a real relief to build railroads because it lessens the micromanagement nightmare of shifting workers from one place to another. Imagine restricted railway movement in any new version: there's a hill you want your workers to mine 20 spaces away, a railroad connects your workers to the hill but under the movement restriction it takes 2-3 moves to get there (move your half a dozen workers 8 spaces, end of turn, move your workers 8 spaces, end of turn, move...getting tedious?). Then when you get to the hill, pollution has sprung up back where the workers started from, it's causing a food shortage in that city so back your workers go again).

To begin with, I see no reason that people would be moving their workers eight tiles at a time every turn. Click and drag your workers to their destination, and then wait a few turns while they get thier. There are lots of ways to avoid current opportunities for clickfests, and I don't see that changing railroads would make us ignore this one.

I understand the main argument against a train unit: increased tedium with loading/unloading constantly.

If these train units were implelented properly though, then there would be no call for constant loading and unloading. Remember, this suggestion comes also with the understand that rail tiles themselves would cost upkeep and provide no food or production bonus. The idea is to eliminate the ugly and unrealistic railroad spider. The ideas are not seperable, in my opinion.

So, first of all, we would have a situation where rails don't go everywhere anyway, and you won't be loading workers onto trains because it's doubtful that their destination is along a rail anyhow. (for the record, I support an all terrain as roads Engineer unit with two or three movement points)

Now, this will make the primary use of railroads for the player military (we can model all the economic effects that we want, but they will still be used by us as mlitary transport). Knowing that we can't teleport our armies will lead to us putting some thought about where our troops are stationed to begin with, so we won't be caught with our pants down. This will lead to requiring thought about where to lay rails, to maximize its benefits. So we wind up with more strategy, less thoughtless building.

Train units themselves should be able to hold a vast number of units. one train can represent more than one boxcar, so I have no problem with 12 or 15 units on board.

We would use the trains to move our forces up to enemy territory (I think with these changes that trains should even work in enemy territory, with a one turn "layover" when crossing the borders) and to bring supports to provide extra defense and coutner attacks on our homeland.

The fact that this proposal would break the "Cover Everything with Rail" syndrome, and add layers of strategy to consider, makes it a worthwhile one, I believe.

The problem with simply adding a flat movement rate to railroads is this: Almost no point in cutting the enemies rail liines, and a dilution of the realism and strategy. Units can move to the end of the rail, get off, and get back on one tile over, losing a turn of movement to your cut. If we're using railcars, however, they won't be able to move anywhere without rails, so the lines will have to be repaired. Sure, someone might be able to repair in one turn, but only if they are prepared.
And by dilution of strategy I mean this: the fact that effectivly using train units means organizing units BEFORE deploying them means that you can't just start zipping them in the direction they are needed as soon as they are ready. You have to begin preparing invasion or reinforcement forces ahead of time. You have to plan them out. Players who employ strategy are rewarded, those who fail to see ahead get their cities taken (Reward strategy in a strategy game? WHAT?).

[Capt Dizle]

Seriously, I remember someone from Firaxis saying that there was some sort of technical issue that made it more or less unlikely that railroad movement would be changed. Closed issue folks.

Then again, the board is full of discussion that amounts to hot air because its way too late.

[star mouse]

Railroads should give production bonuses for a city by connecting it to another city.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by star mouse
Railroads should give production bonuses for a city by connecting it to another city.

Right. But not "production bonuses", trade bonuses ! It seems much more logical. So only railroads connecting two different cities should generate trade.

[Zizka]

How about this .. lets institute a maintenance cost for railroads.. keeping these humungous rail networks covering every tile would be insane; especially those outside of city radii.
As for movement i like the idea of reducing the movement base of units that use rail, but not infinite. Moreover, when a tech is discovered (one that modfied movement. wheel, rail, automobile, warp engine (LOL) a movement base of x is given to units, and x increases as techs are discovered until it reaches y max for that unit (same for naval units too).

I tend to side with those that feel that it makes late game war just silly; especially on the defensive. a costly railway network with limited movement (but with increasing movement rates) is my solution.

Z

[GhengisFarb™]

I agree on the high maintenance cost but still believe movement should be infinite. The idea that it takes 2-3 years to ship a cargo from Atlanta, GA to Los Angeles, CA just isn't very realistic.

[YC4B4U]

I like what Zizka is saying regarding the technological impact on Transport. It is not currently taken into account very well.

The Horseman unit moving as far as Mech Inf? I don't think so! Steam Engine allows rail transport, Combustion increases movement by 1 on road and rail, Motorised Transport increases movement by another 1. etc etc. This way a MI could move (say) 12 squares by road after Motorised Transport. Twice as far as a Horseman.

Something to think about anyway.

BTW - GhengisFarb - for my sanity, please don't use the word realistic in relation to Civilization 3!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Both Zizka and YC4B4U make some excellent points! I think, though, that initial railroads could grant units on them a 1/10 MP bonus then, as YC4B4U then, as YC4B4U points out, each new tech should increase the movement bonus, for roads and rails, to the next level. So combustion would give 1/4 MP and 1/12 MP bonus for Road and RR respectively, then motorized transport would give 1/5 and 1/15 bonus respectively (Though motorized transport refers to automobiles, I also like to think that it refers to the development of the modern, diesel locomotive!) You could even have a Modern Age tech which grants you a 1/6 and 1/18 bonus!
Anyway, just a thought! This is all probably just speculative anyway!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Jaybe]

As a hypothetical, let's say that RRs allowed a flat movement of 20 tiles. In many instances, especially on a less than Large/Huge world or on a non-pangea continent, that would allow for movement most anywhere you wanted to go. Therefore, infinite movement is a great simplification.

OTOH, vondrack's idea of "I believe that one possible solution would be to allow units either move along RRs, or attack, but not both in a given turn" would be a great addition, though unlikely to be implemented.

[Conqueror]

If railroad infinite movement is no way restricted, then patch makers should atleast increase modern ships movement points pretty much.

Ofcourse trains are faster then ships, but it sucks when it takes 10 turns to cross an ocean with transport and you can travel the same distance in one turn + attack if you somehow have rails around the big ocean what is in the middle of this fictious map.

[Zizka]

The problem i have with infinite movement isnt so much the "realism" aspect as to what it does for defence; it makes the human player essentially invicible, especially on an island/continent. Thsi would make for pretty sucky multiplayer. in SP modern wars for me are rare as invasions are an excercise in blood letting.

Whiel some realists would say "it should not take year to move from paris to moscow"; i dont think it the wholesale re-location of an entire military in one turn should be that easy. Here's a historical example.. WWII 1944, under civ rules the germans would just pull everything out of russia and pound the allies in normady and move back; all in the same turn without Russia being none the wiser.

One idea that hit me was tying movement.unit production to resources in the modern age. IF you have x coal/oil/uranium sources your units (based on that fuel source) would give you base+x movement points +tech bonus. I woudl also eliminat eteh need for coal/oil to BUILD these units. Nothing would stop a nation from building a battleship; but with limited oil supply it wouldnt move very far. Rail would have flat rate +bonuses (resources plus tech)
for example lets a civ has 2 coal + 1 post coal tech
their riflemen would move 1+2+1 =4
on rail adding 5:1 (as an example) the rifleman could move up to 20 areas (and more with better tech..automobile etc)

Z

[kettyo]

Originally posted by Conqueror
If railroad infinite movement is no way restricted, then patch makers should atleast increase modern ships movement points pretty much.

The optimal maximum of naval speed is 7, with 8 bomber oprange. (bomber oprange should always higher and with 8 being the max oprange, ships shouldn't be faster than 7).
And take Magellan into consideration too. (i've modified the effect of it)

I've done this (among other tweaks) in my naval power mod.

[kettyo]

I believe that one possible solution would be to allow units either move along RRs, or attack, but not both in a given turn

Great idea !
Tell it to Firaxis !

[ShuShu]

... Nor would I expect to see anyone else pushing hundres of units around. It is bad enogh relocating a large army as is. Now I am hearing proposals to load things into trains, or repeat the process every turn (or did we forget about right of passages, and other non-enemy occupants of your territory that will block the currently plotted path every turn?)

And all this because railroads make human players invulnerable? Please, just stop playing on regent then.

Even Aeson doesn't ferry his 500 MA's across the ocean. Why do we want to make land travel like current ocean travel? Does anyone consider ferrying large armies over water fun?

For those who propose a model similar to airlifting, what is the point? The "Unbalance" isn't that you can transport 500 units instantly, it is that you can shift 25. I believe Airports and railroad staitions are different. The cost for an Air link is the airport construction cost in a city vs one more tank. The cost for a rail-link is in a railroad for +1 vs road, Mine, Irrigation, cleariring etc.

Personally, I can actually agree with the railroad production bonus being tied to the City not to the square ala MOM, but that flies in the face of one of the core civilization concepts since its inception, that workers/engineers/settlers are a limited resource and there are a lot of things you want them to do.

I agree that converting to Rail OR Attack but not both is a reasonable compromise, but in the end, I happen to believe that this thread is in the minority.

I for one like the infinite move capacity of the rails, and don't think the fact that evolution to infinite movement is in EVERY Civ like game (CIV I, II, III, MOM, MOO I,II, SMAC, SMAX) is either a coincidence or a conspiracy by Sid/Firaxis to repress/ignore the obviously superior intellect exhibited in this thread.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Though much of this thread is purely of a speculative nature I think that, in terms of movement effects, what upsets most people is how RR's are HARD-CODED!!!! You can change the movement effects of roads, naval vessels and even of terrain, but you can't, in anyway, change Railroad movement. This makes this very inflexible for those who would like to Mod the game!
Whilst on the issue of hardcoding, I would also like them to open up the code for movement on enemy roads and rail, so that modders can decide how easy they want movement to be on both friendly and enemy roads and rail! Not to mention removing the hard-coding for cultural victories (sorry, slightly off-topic)
Also, just for the record, I don't believe that this is part of some conspiracy. I'm sure Firaxis had perfectly legitimate reasons for hard-coding most elements of the game when it was first released-because they were not yet ready to support a fully functional Editor at that time. Yet, now that they have added more of the bells and whistles to the editor, and now that they want people to go out and write scenarios, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for them to open up those areas of code relating to Culture and Movement, so that Scenario Writers can have the greatest freedom of expression possible!
Anyway, I for one am keeping my fingers crossed, and hoping that they unhard-code these elements in either PtW or a future patch!!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[GhengisFarb™]

A lot of this thread is pinning hopes on changes with PTW, I'm starting to get the impression that PTW is gonna be a completely different animal than Civ3.

From the info here and there I think PTW might be a different section with a slightly different bic format from Civ3, which might mean PTW would have railroad changes but Civ3 may be unaffected and I'm not sure PTW will have a solo mode.

[King of Rasslin]

I think PtW will be little more than multiplayer and a few new civs... But you can still hope!

[JRWMD]

I agree with people's issues about hard coding and the unrealistic effects of RR's in the current scheme.

I my game I have modified the bic file, making Steam Power harder to get (more prereqs, higher cost), and also greatly increasing the worker effort required to build RR's.

Of course, RR's can be completely eliminated from the game by removing the Steam Power advance altogether !

JR

[candybo]

Hey, JRWMD....
Way to just end the debate with one swell foop

As for PtW, I doubt any changes will be radical. Remember, the whole excuse in getting us to buy it again is just to have MP.

That said, I would love to have the effects of RR without the dreaded RR Spider. Tho, it sure gives all those sla.... I mean captured workers something to do, "idle hands" and all that rot.

[Blake]

If your curious, the reason for hardcoding railroads was most likely for reasons of performance. Basically, using a 0-movement cost railroad system means that any routefinding from one railroad tile to another connected one is - instant. Thats right, no routefinding has to be done at all. This should in theory save quite a bit of processing time later in the game, especially with workers zipping all over the place.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I realise a lot of "ink" has been spilt on this subject already, and that I'm probably adding nothing new to the debate, but I just thought that I'd reiterate my suggestions for how Firaxis could solve the problem of both "Railroad Sprawl" and Railroads as teleporters!!
These are:
1) Ability to edit the movement rates for both roads and rail (both friendly and enemy), and the ability to create new terrain improvements which increase movement rates.

2) Roads to no longer be a prerequiste for Railroads.

3) If RR movement remained in place, then moving into a city from a RR should always cost 1 MP.

4) If RR movement were no longer infinite, then units should only be able to move OR attack in a turn-not both.

5) Units (Land and Sea) should have an "Operational Range" this is the number of squares outside the owning Civs cities (including non-resistant, captured cities), fortresses transports and borders. Every square outside this range would cost the unit 1hp/turn. Non-combat and Spec-Op units would have the highest OR, and mechanized units would have the lowest! Tech level of the unit would also effect OR!

6) Cities connected to the capital by a road should gain a +1 bonus to production/food and commerce for every 6 cities (editable) also connected to the capital. Cities connected to capital by a RR would get a +2 bonus to production/food/commerce for every 6 cities also connected. A city would only gain the road OR rail bonus-not both.
For example, a city in an empire of 18 other cities (not including the capital) is connected to the trade network by both a road and a railroad. 12 of the other cities are connected by road and rail, and 6 are connected by just roads. Thus this city would recieve a +4 bonus to it's commerce/food and production from it's rail connection and +1 bonus from it's road connection-for a total of +5. These bonuses would replace the tile-based bonuses for roads and railways, thus hopefully reducing the ugly Rail and road Sprawl which currently afflicts the game! P.S: Capital also includes cities with a FP!

7) Have improvements or minor wonders (or both) which increase the aforementioned bonuses from Roads and Rail! For example, a Transcontinental Highway System might be a Small Wonder, requiring something like min 12 cities (Std Map), which double the Food and Commerce bonus granted by roads, wheras a Transcontinental Rail System would have a similar effect on Production and Commerce bonus granted by Railways, and possibly require a minimum of 16 cities (Std Map).
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what you guys think!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[wrylachlan]

The way I see it, the biggest problem with railroads is that as soon as you conquer enemy territory their RRs become your RRs allowing you to RR rush into enemy territory very quickly, especially in the late game.

Please note my problem isn't with the reality of it necessarily, but with the way it favors brute strength battles over tactical ones.

What I think might be an easy solution is this:
When you build an RR it is color coded with your national color. When you capture enemy RRs you can use them, but your units loose a turn crossing from one line onto another. If you want to get rid of the penalty your workers need to do some work on the lines, after which they turn into your national color. It would put a hiccup in RR rushes, especially if you are trying to roll through multiple small nations.

[YC4B4U]

Nation flagged rail systems sound more complicated than it is really worth. I think that a delay of one turn before you can use the rail system that was in another civs area would have the effect you are after.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
I think PtW will be little more than multiplayer and a few new civs... But you can still hope!

Wait a minute.

Are you telling me that now, in August, Firaxis is keeping SECRET what PTW will be about?? They surely already have decided, and are now (hopefully) actually PLAYTESTING it (which they did not do with Civ 3 before release last November).

I guess the less we know the more likely people will be to buy it. If it is just new makeup on the same turkey, no thanks. We must have real changes and a lot more options (yes, number one being turning off Flipping).

As for railroads, UNLIMITED movement for even heavy armored units is indeed ridiculous. No rail network could ever handle that kind of traffic that quickly. Unlimited was NOT the case in Civ 2.

So we have yet another step DOWN in realism and logic with Civ 3.

Something you are all forgetting. . . in Civ 2 we could use air units to interdict the areas around an invasion beachhead - the bombers would have to be shot down (if possible) or the enemy couldn't move ground units. This was a basic tactic in Civ 2, and far more realistic than what we have in Civ 3 where you would need WAVES of bombers to prevent a massive next turn counterattack by destroying RR's and roads. And such counterattacks make invasions very difficult in Civ 3. Which is indeed less realistic - and A LOT LESS FUN.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hate to rain on your parade, Coracle, but in fact you did have unlimited RR movement in Civ2 and, despite my complaints about the hardcoding of movement in Civ3, Civ2's implementation was even WORSE because you could use your enemies RR infrastructure for unlimited movement as well-this of course led to the "infinite howie" maneuver which, though I confess to using it myself, was absolutely RIDICULOUS!!! As for that whole interdiction nonsense, you just had the ridiculous "Bomber Wall" exploit which really SUCKED!!! So please don't tell me that Civ3 is a step down in realism because, in spite of some shortcomings, it's a DAMN sight better than Civ2!
For my part, as long as they: i) allow you to set the movement rate on both yours and enemies road and RR's; ii) not be allowed to use enemy railroads connected to a captured city until you have at least ended resistance in that city and iii) have a move OR attack, not both, when travelling on RR's, then I would be perfectly happy!!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[mwaf]

I can't really say that I'd like to have a train unit or reduced railroad movement. However, I do dislike the fact that, due to the production bonuses given by railroads, every continent will eventually be completely railroaded.

In addition to the fact that it looks ugly (not just in Civ3), neither roads nor railroads (especially railroads) have any strategic value left after being built on a larger scale. Roads and railroads should only provide trade links and movement bonuses. The workers could, as suggested previously, have all terrains as roads. It should also take longer to build (rail)roads (otherwise people would still build (rail)roads everywhere, thus eliminating their strategic value).

Originally posted by Blake
If your curious, the reason for hardcoding railroads was most likely for reasons of performance. Basically, using a 0-movement cost railroad system means that any routefinding from one railroad tile to another connected one is - instant. Thats right, no routefinding has to be done at all. This should in theory save quite a bit of processing time later in the game, especially with workers zipping all over the place.

Although a completely railroaded continent probably reduces the complexity of the path-calculations, it would be false to assume that no routefinding is needed at all.