Railroads are just ****

[Blake]

You'd be suprised.
A very simple algorithm can be used for "connectivity", run this once over the map to find connected regions (consider such things as ROP, units, etc...), iow, the route finding is done ONCE for all units moving on a single area of rail.

If two tiles are part of the same RR region, it can be guaranteed a route can be found. And because the unit will expend 0 movement theres no need to even find the route, just move the unit!.

This is no longer true when using a mixed rail-nonrail movement (from rail to road to rail, or something) in which the full algorithm can be used, but if you think about how many of your unit movements are entirely on rail, then consider the AI is probably doing just as many, you'll figure out that a bit of time must be saved by not doing any route-finding for those units.

Ofcourse I can't say for sure that Firaxis HAS used such a system but it'd be a justifiable reason for infinite movement.

[King of Rasslin]

If we have infinite railroad movement, having a zone of control rule would help balance it as it is. Roads are not hard coded, but railroads are. This also needs to change.

In my opinion, roads should take 1/2 a movement point and railroads should take 1/4 of a movement point. This seems good to me.

[gergi]

Originally posted by NeoStar


Or the Prussians (Germans). After all, they were the first to use railroads for mobile warefare during the Franco-Prussian war.

Not to nitpick, but the Franco-Prussian war was preceded by the American Civil War which was really the first war to use railroads for logistics and mobile warfare and was studied extensively by the Prussians (and everyone else)

[Jahi]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
RRs give free food and production, they are already very powerful! I think they should give 5 moves to a unit with 1 movement, but function as roads for mobile units. How can you transport a cavalry division or a few dozen panzers by rail? It isn't practical. They are designed for foot soldiers. I think this would make infantry, paratroopers, and marines better. Mech infantry shouldn't replace infantry because infantry is not obsolete even today.

i totally disagree with this.. during desert storm i lived by an army base and i cannot even begin to count the tanks transported my rail.. i think if you look in your military history book you will see how powerful rail is in war.

as for infantry being obsolete in favor it of mech inf is correct. infantry that cannot keep up with armor weakens both the armor and the infantry. rember, infantry in jeeps can be considered mechanised

[Pyrodrew]

Unfortunately, I doubt any RR changes will happen in any patch, only in Civ4 might we see something. Nevertheless, at least some good options to modify the power of railroads should be offered in the Editor. Railroads/transportation are powerful IRL, but in Civ3 gamebalance terms they are too powerful. This was in 1 of my posts when Civ3 came out & the editor still didn't have a mini-map or start locations.

I agree farmland/supermarkets should have been placed back in. With how easy it is to get 8 luxuries & keep people happy, potentially larger cities would have been fine & offered another option. Farmlands were also a welcome new terrain image. Railroads can be limited to offering only production and/or trade (I don't care which).

The limited railroad movement (as in CtP2) at around 1/10 (perhaps varies with techs & for all units) is better than this 'move or attack' thing, which the AI may not use properly. Civ3 Industrial/Modern Navy is not only too slow, but practically worthless without any mod once RRs hit & especially when Airports come into play.

I agree with the railroad maintenance for the most part as well, especially if the AI understands. I would love if the AI could connect its cities better.

I agree with giving workers in the Industrial Age the 'all-terrain-as-roads movements' OR more feasibly (in Civ3) offer the option to upgrade workers to a new better worker unit.

I also agree with the mined grasslands comment. Grasslands were already powerful in Civ2... making good terrains (like grasslands) even more powerful & others (like jungle) even worse only makes one's starting position a bigger role in determining that Civ's destiny.

Train idea will never happen. As many mentioned before, too many clicks. It's the same reason we lost our sexy Civ2 spy unit for streamline speed.

And the train wouldn't even have cleavage or nice legs... even if it does have a nice caboose.

[Mad Bomber]

The problem with RR's really is not with the 'teleporting' ability, its the hardcoded timeframes that are included in CIV3 to begin with. The solution is simple, allow time scale, and RR movement changes in the editor. If you reduce the movement of RR's without changing the timescale then you will only make a mockery of movement in CIV3,. which is already a joke. RR's are simply a way to increase movement in industrial times. Think of movement without RR's and only roads avaiable, a tank would take 30 years to get from one end of your country to another!

[Unconquered]

One idea to offset the advantages railroads have in the modern age for the defender is to only use one movement point (or the cost of moving through the terrain you land on) having all remaining movement-points available for attacking on the same turn as you land your forces. Therefore you get a chance to capture (or raze) as many cities as you have coordinated attacks (e.g. three landing forces simultaneously attacking three cities within the enemies empire). Severely weakening his ability to make war and adding a surprise element to massive coordinated attacks. If this does not change large wars in multiplayer in the modern age will virtually be impossible to win for the attacker.

[King of Rasslin]

I don't care about a stupid AI anymore! We have multiplayer now, so it's time for some revised railroad moves!

[Pyrodrew]

I don't care about a stupid AI anymore! We have multiplayer now, so it's time for some revised railroad moves!

MP can often involve AI Civs, from the start or I would imagine taking over when a human gives up the throne. Therefore revisions which both the human and AI understand are superior.

[NeoStar]

Originally posted by gergi
Not to nitpick, but the Franco-Prussian war was preceded by the American Civil War which was really the first war to use railroads for logistics and mobile warfare and was studied extensively by the Prussians (and everyone else)

Well this is a fairly old thread. It seems something I said in it has come back to haunt me...

OK, I never heard of railroads playing a major role in the American Civil War but now I'll have to find out about it.

BTW - a similiar thread like this seems to have popped up in the PTW forum.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by NeoStar
BTW - a similiar thread like this seems to have popped up in the PTW forum.

The resurrection of this aged thread is perhaps because I posted a link to here in the other (PtW) thread...

I am often too lazy to repeat what has been said on a given topic (even if it was interesting) and rather spend a few minutes looking for the previous good thread on the topic, posting a link then...

[Sandman]

I have a simple, elegant, solution to the RR problem.

Every railroad you build will increase your 'rolling stock' by one point. With a large network you would have hundreds of rolling stock points. A city improvement, say a railyard or something like that, would also increase your rolling stock points. The rolling stock points regenerate every turn.

Each time you move a unit one square along a railroad, it uses one rolling stock point. Moving many units a long way could very well consume all your rolling stock for that turn.

This is clearly much better than the 'train' unit idea, since it involves much less micromanagement, whilst still making rail transport a finite resource.

[Mad Bomber]

Neostar-

RR's played a vital role in the American Civil war, from the first battle to the last. THe Union lost the battle of Bull Run because of the reinforcements that the Southern army recieved via railroad.

[aaglo]

I would give railroads a fixed system speed - say 10 moves/turn. And this could increase to 15 and 20 with apropriate techs (electricity and ecology?).

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by Optimizer
You're right. Any suggestions of how to create a better model for railroads?

Concerning sea transport, I would really like a "sealift" which would automatically transport one unit from one port to another.

Airport & helicopter.

[gsmoove23]

Aaagh, no. Infinite RR movement throws off game balance? It maintains it. At a point in the game when shear number of units is multiplying exponentially and trying to position them all strategically gets dangerously boring RRs turn strategy on its head which is exactly what they should do. They also increase the value of aerial bombardment when wiping out 1 tile can have a drastic effect on the defensive capabilities of the enemy. If your upset by infinite stacking after invasion then precede your invasion with heavy bombardment, naval, aerial or otherwise, if this is impossible then tough noogie. You've got a hard target.

If war concentrates in an area for a long period of time then I usually find there are no RRs or even roads left. Making workers so easy to capture also subtracts from RR power because you're not going to risk building them in contested territory.

Keep infinite RR, but I've always thought roads should be a little more effective in the modern age. Perhaps after Motorized Transport they should get a boost.

[DrFell]

A flat movement rate on railroads is probably the only realistic solution. Having a train unit would be a micromanagement nightmare (as if industrial/modern age MM wasn't already bad enough with all the workers you have to move around, not to mention sea invasions), having a reduced move cost is unrealistic (why should a train with modern armour move faster than a train with infantry?).

[NeoStar]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
RR's played a vital role in the American Civil war, from the first battle to the last. THe Union lost the battle of Bull Run because of the reinforcements that the Southern army recieved via railroad.

OK, OK - I've since read something to confirm that. Dammit, that stupid history textbook I read about the Prussians made it look like they were the genuises behind it And that was a final year high school book too.

[Gen.Dragolen]

NeoStar,

That is why you read many books by different authors on the same topic. Then you get to figure out what the truth of a situation for yourself.

Too bad for the world that politicians don't like to read history too... May be then they'd quit making the same mistakes.

BTW, as a suppliment to railway units, there is a need for an improved road way: an old Roman road may be great for troops and chariots, but a modern lorrie/semi or tank would get stuck on one. One of the strategic moves the Germans made in preparation for WW2 was to build the Autobahns to allow the rapid redeployment of troops from East to West and back. Railways are limited in the volumes they can carry so being able to send only the heavy equipment by train and the troops by truck was an effective comprimise. Until we blew up all the trains that is...

There should be a limit to how much of a rail system you can build and that trade should rely on having the most modern transporation connection available to keep the gold rolling into one's coffers. If a rail unit is not feasible, then a limit to how far would be a good alternative. Making the unit would be a snap: pull some unit graphics from Railway Tycoon 2 and then "All Aboard!"


D.

[vmxa1]

remember the train animation when something moved on the rails in civ2?

[Mad Bomber]

gen dragolen:

I agree that their should be a limit to your RR's you can build but not to movement. In other threads regarding this subject a proposal came up in which a support cost was factored into the RR system (you pay X-$ for Y-tiles). I think that this would be acceptable, but I am not in favor of limiting movement or number of units that can use the RR network.

[Tattila the Hun]

How about giving units extra speed after the invention of, say, combustion (trucks for the infantry, heavy movers, like Buesin-Nag, for the Pz's and Arty.

Perhaps a railway station could allow "airdropping" of units to nr of squares. And the idea of the RR infrastructure creating a pool of movement points sounded good too.

Normandy style "harbor", created by sinking drafts and such on the shore would ge great. To aid in invasions against heavily RR'd opponents.

(Strange, the next naval transport from a sail galleon is WWII transport? Should be something in between...)

And my workers don't have jeeps in 2002? Come on...

Naval transporting, perhaps putting the unit out of the loop for one turn, and interdicted by the presence of enemy fleets in the waters between?

[Mad Bomber]

tatilla:

Probably should increase mobvement to all units by one with discovery of motorized transport, Do many people have problems with modern invasions? I don't think that RR's make an amphibious invasion impossible, you simply must bring a lot of troops (but Nukes make an invasion much more difficult).

[Qilue]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Aaagh, no. Infinite RR movement throws off game balance? It maintains it. At a point in the game when shear number of units is multiplying exponentially and trying to position them all strategically gets dangerously boring RRs turn strategy on its head which is exactly what they should do. They also increase the value of aerial bombardment when wiping out 1 tile can have a drastic effect on the defensive capabilities of the enemy. If your upset by infinite stacking after invasion then precede your invasion with heavy bombardment, naval, aerial or otherwise, if this is impossible then tough noogie. You've got a hard target.

If war concentrates in an area for a long period of time then I usually find there are no RRs or even roads left. Making workers so easy to capture also subtracts from RR power because you're not going to risk building them in contested territory.

Keep infinite RR, but I've always thought roads should be a little more effective in the modern age. Perhaps after Motorized Transport they should get a boost.

Your comment has fallen on deaf ears. Since they can't flame you, they have decided to simply ignore you hoping you'll go away.

However, I agree with you. The current system with railroads means an invasion requires planning and preparation. The simplistic rush tactics that worked in ancient and medieval eras are as obsolete in industrial and modern eras as the unit that were used.

To comment on rail unit, based on the suggestions above. One would need to build lots of these for them to be of any use. This would add greatly to micro-management.

You would all then cry for an automation function. You would all then cry for a better AI of that automation. You would all then complain about something that should be fixed and probably would have been fixed if Sid & co hadn't spent all their time impementing something that didn't really need changing.

If'n it ain't broke, don't be trying to fix it.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I, for one, have no problem with infinite movement-in principle-I just wish that you could edit it, and other terrain improvements, to your own personal preferences (ie, more flexibility). Given the amount of flexibility they have given us WITHIN each city, it just seems unfortunate that we can't have the same thing OUTSIDE of the city!!
I would, however, also like to see some kind of limit placed on how many units can use a section of railroad each turn-to reflect the whole concept of "Rolling Stock"!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[Basilisk]

Well everything I was going to say when I read the first post has been said by others now..
I particularly like ixnay37 's idea of bonuses only applying to cities connected to the capital...

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Qilue
Your comment has fallen on deaf ears. Since they can't flame you, they have decided to simply ignore you hoping you'll go away.

However, I agree with you. The current system with railroads means an invasion requires planning and preparation. The simplistic rush tactics that worked in ancient and medieval eras are as obsolete in industrial and modern eras as the unit that were used.

thanks. I would have liked some flame though. The rolling stock idea someone mentioned does sound like an interesting idea for a Civ 4 though I'd still prefer infinite or at least to have the choice. Seriously, RRs do a lot to stave off the boredom that comes with the Modern Age for me. What I do think is ridiculous is the need to put RRs everywhere. I know RRs would increase efficiency for land that its near but it also would be an enormous expense to have rails everywhere within a city radius. The bonuses to trade, prod and food should be gotten rid of.

[zorbop]

i think your all being kind of silly. there is nothing wrong with infinite movement on railroads... you all don't like it because it makes the, "build tanks then click on enemy city" strategy innefective.

to fight a modern offensive war against someone with railroads, you have to use strategy(more than in ancient wars anyway, where "strategy" is 2 defenders per city and a hord of swordsman/horseman)

when you launch an attack in a modern war, try some of these technices, prefrebly using them all on the same turn you declare war
-take over some coastal cities with marines, backed by infantry for defence. bombard w/ B-ships railroads, in enemy territory, surround the cities you just took
-dump a decent hord of para's next to thier inner, less defended cities.
- move forward a LARGE force infantry, marines and artillery, probly the bulk of your army, closer into enemy territory. you might even put tanks here, and only move them one square per turn, but be thier reinforcing your infantry, to be able to attack twice...
-of coarse, this is backed up by a healthy air force and navy.

after this, if your opponent uses his current army to try to deal with your marines and para's, your iinfanty force
can simply use it's artillery to bombard the nearest city, and it's tanks to take it that turn... but if enemies try to deal with your slower, infantry army, (which should be pretty large), then they have probly worn out most of thier current military, and would not be ready for an attack on another border. thier units could either move back to defend all their cities, but be at low health for a turn, or heal quickly in the city they just saved. you can't move and be healed...

[Sandman]

After a couple of positive responses about the rolling stock idea, I have decided to try an expand upon it, as the initial post wasn't very clear.

Rolling stock is an empire wide value, dependent on two things, the size of your rail network and the number of rolling stock boosting city improvements. It replenishes to the full value at the start of every turn.

To move one unit one square along a railroad costs one rolling stock point. In a normal, peacetime situation, a well developed empire will have more than enough rolling stock to rearrange garrisons, move workers etc with no hassle.

In a wartime situation, however, the large number of units on the move may very well prove too much for the system and result in the player running out of rolling stock, meaning that certain units might not be able to get to their intended destinations.

Positive consequences of this idea:

It becomes desirable (but not essential) to build efficient rail networks between cities to minimise the amount of rolling stock used.

A sprawling empire with a poorly developed rail network will be at a disadvantage when fighting a small empire with a well developed network. Germany vs Russia in the First World War for example.

It retains most of the revolutionary aspects of the railroad, without overpowering it.

Problems and unresolved issues:

A player may wish to move units normally, so as not to waste rolling stock. A key press could disable railroad use, but this is the sort of micromanagement I'd hope to avoid.

What should be done about broken networks, say an empire spanning two islands? One solution is to just ignore this and still have a single rolling stock figure for both islands. Another is to have two seperate values, but this increases complexity.

Rolling stock usage may force the player to perform tedious sums trying to work out if enough rolling stock remains to move a unit somewhere.

Can the AI use rolling stock effectively?

[Mad Bomber]

Sandman:

Not sure about the rolling stock idea, its clearly better than most other Ideas but it has its drawbacks, mainly from a micromanagement standpoint. I favor paying a maintenence cost for RR's more than the rolling stock system. If a player was forced to pay a cost to maintain a RR on a tile then the player would not RR all the tiles that they could and focus more on building the network system that you are striving to achieve.

One more issue to resolve with rolling stock, if a player uses automated moves or long goto moves they could easily run out of RSP (Rolling Stock Points) and have moves left for more critical moves of units that were not on automation and their move came after the automated moves were complete (new production). Lots of unhappy people will result if that happens on a regular basis.