Roads give movement bonus and NOTHING else?

[Willem]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Since we wont be able to draw upon combat resources from our entire empire to counter an attack we will have to maintain many more units and they will need to be dispersed throughout.

Why not? All it's going to mean is that you'll have to plan better. There'll have to be a sizable force near your border before an attack occurs, since you won't be able to call up reserves from the opposite side of your empire anymore. If you know units can move 10 squares in a turn, space stacks 20 squares apart beforehand to guard your borders. I don't think that's too unreasonable.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Willem
You're assuming that these units will still have 3 movement points. By the sounds of it, there will be no 3 move units in Civ 4.

modding, my friend, modding...

[alva]

Why mod something that may well be very well balanced? Too many people making too many assumptions with no (practical) experience. Let's play a couple of games before we start talking 'bout modding, shall we.
I'm almost hoping they won't release the SDK ever and hardcode the rest.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Truth was that I was always somewhere in the middle in the whole 'Limited vs Unlimited' RR movement debate. I could see the point of the realists, and I could equally see the point of the strategists. So, my idea was to have a system where movement was unlimited, but RR capacity was limited. This way, you got the benefits of RR movement, but only for a portion of your units-with the capacity dependent on how well you connected up your RR system and related infrastructure, and its technology level.
The only problem with my idea was that it may have been a little too complex for novice players. Given that, I think the route they have taken is probably the best one.
Oh and, before people denounce the 10MP too loudly, don't forget that some technologies boost the movement allowance of roads-so why wouldn't it do the same for RR's? i.e. perhaps railroads have a starting movement allowance of 10, but are boosted by +1 for techs like combustion, electricity and steel (to represent forward movement in rail tech from steam to diesal and electric-as well as improved tracks!)
Just a thought-feel free to confirm or deny it though Soren !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Gatamelata]

Originally posted by sabrewolf

it is not about being tired but about the time used. if you can travel (let's say) 60km along roads in one day or 300km using the rail (i know, both values are higher, but it's about the relation), going 150km on rail would still take you half a day, leaving you with only time for 30km on foot. right?

so if movement points are internally broken up into fractions, 1 move rail will take away 1/10 of the whole MP of every unit (even quick movers) and road will take away 1/4 of a single MP.

I'm unconvinced.

Your argument is compelling on time scales of a day. I have yet to see a Civ3 mod that goes finer than a week. Your argument might apply well to time frames of a week, but at a month or higher, it breaks down completely.

I don't believe that it takes more than a year (default RR-era turn length) to move an armored division from Boston to San Diego, for the sake of example.

This change stretches my suspension of disbelief quite a bit. I can't see any compelling reason to constrain railroad movement for any turn length of more than a week. I trust that altering this will become a rapidly-developed mod and perhaps later a toggle option in the new game screen.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Gatamelata
I'm unconvinced.

Your argument is compelling on time scales of a day. I have yet to see a Civ3 mod that goes finer than a week. Your argument might apply well to time frames of a week, but at a month or higher, it breaks down completely.

I don't believe that it takes more than a year (default RR-era turn length) to move an armored division from Boston to San Diego, for the sake of example.

This change stretches my suspension of disbelief quite a bit. I can't see any compelling reason to constrain railroad movement for any turn length of more than a week. I trust that altering this will become a rapidly-developed mod and perhaps later a toggle option in the new game screen.

the timeframe is a problem in all games. you've always got the technology developments and the city growth which takes the same time as the time indicator shows.
on the other hand you have the tactical stuff such as building improvements, moving units, which of course are not in any way bound to the interval given by the turn-time.

my example was based on relativity to other movement, my absolute numbers are everything else but exact.... i was trying to say that RR is x times faster than road, no matter whether you look at days or decades.

[Gatamelata]

Originally posted by sabrewolf

my example was based on relativity to other movement, my absolute numbers are everything else but exact.... i was trying to say that RR is x times faster than road, no matter whether you look at days or decades.

At the risk of seeming thick, I'm still not sure I can agree.

Rail transport of military units doesn't compare with road travel on a one-for-one scale, I think. Look at it this way:

At the beginning and ends, rail travel is going to be more time-consuming than road travel. Let's assume that preparing a division or battalion for transport takes the same amount of time in both cases. However, getting onto a road is going to be a lot easier than loading onto trains. In this case, road beats rail by a significant amount.

But this is where road advantages break down. With rail, you have the advantage of your transit corridor being dedicated to you. With road, this isn't the case. Even assuming that you can shut roads down to civilian traffic, doing so shuts down a lot of infrastructure that is necessary during day-to-day life, not to mention during wartime. With rail it's possible to execute a low-disruption massive rapid movement (see the Soviet mobilizations during WWII for examples, especially the redirection of eastern troops to the defense of Moscow in Dec 1941).

Furthermore, roads have the disadvantage of requiring power from the units being moved. In this case, you have a much larger logistical nightmare of refueling, feeding and resting each individual soldier and vehicle. You are also constrained by equipment breakdown and soldier illness. In the case of a rail network, refueling, feeding and resting are done on the go. Travel is possible 24/7. The longer the distance travelled, the greater this advantage is.

Finally, maintaining unit cohesion and preventing backups is a difficulty in road travel. A single broken-down vehicle can cause a massive delay (see what happens when a car stalls on a two-lane bridge during rush hour for a comparable example) for the troops behind it, which means the troops ahead have to slow down. This is an entire problem that can be obviated with rail.

Rail is optimized explicitly for hauling large amounts of material efficiently over long distances. Roads are optimized for short-distance travel. I don't think that the relationship in travel times between rail and road are linear. I think that they are geometric, with the factor going up the farther the distance one travels.

[Harovan]

Realism shmealism.

This is a game, which some here conveniently forget. As such it has to be interesting and challenging. Not realistic.

Time is measured in turns, not years. In Civ3, all movement except railroad and airlifting was limited by a number of tiles per turn, not per year. If you are so into realism, please tell me, why even a modern a ship would need 10-20 years to circumnavigate the globe? Or why an armored unit moving over unrailed territory could only move a number of tiles per turn, while it in reality could easily cross a continent in a year even on wheels and tracks?

I repeat it, time is measured in turns. The year associated to a certain turn number expresses only the expected level of technology during this turn. Nothing else.

It expresses a point of time, but you can not derive time differences. Doing that would be opening a big can of worms, as the examples above show.

Time is measured in turns.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Gatamelata



I'm unconvinced.

Your argument is compelling on time scales of a day. I have yet to see a Civ3 mod that goes finer than a week. Your argument might apply well to time frames of a week, but at a month or higher, it breaks down completely.

I don't believe that it takes more than a year (default RR-era turn length) to move an armored division from Boston to San Diego, for the sake of example.

This change stretches my suspension of disbelief quite a bit. I can't see any compelling reason to constrain railroad movement for any turn length of more than a week. I trust that altering this will become a rapidly-developed mod and perhaps later a toggle option in the new game screen.

The entire unit/movement system is unrealistic and it is designed to allow gameplay, not to reflect the real world. Taking a year to travel from Boston to San Diego is equally unrealistic as taking 300 years for a unit of archers to cross from Spain to Greece in early years.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Realism shmealism.

This is a game, which some here conveniently forget. As such it has to be interesting and challenging. Not realistic.

Time is measured in turns, not years. In Civ3, all movement except railroad and airlifting was limited by a number of tiles per turn, not per year. If you are so into realism, please tell me, why even a modern a ship would need 10-20 years to circumnavigate the globe? Or why an armored unit moving over unrailed territory could only move a number of tiles per turn, while it in reality could easily cross a continent in a year even on wheels and tracks?

I repeat it, time is measured in turns. The year associated to a certain turn number expresses only the expected level of technology during this turn. Nothing else.

It expresses a point of time, but you can not derive time differences. Doing that would be opening a big can of worms, as the examples above show.

Time is measured in turns.

Very good post.

[Gatamelata]

Originally posted by Martinus

Taking a year to travel from Boston to San Diego is equally unrealistic as taking 300 years for a unit of archers to cross from Spain to Greece in early years.

Agreed. It's one of my biggest conceptual problems with an otherwise excellent franchise.

But if you're tossing realism out the window in favor of gameplay, then why is unlimited rail movement such a problem? If the argument isn't that it's unrealistic, what is the argument?

[Harovan]

The argument against is, that it makes strategical troop placement unnecessary, thus making the game a bit dumber. Just lump your troops together at some tile in the middle and be sure, that all your forces can be thrown against an attacking foe, no matter from which direction he attacks.

[Krill]

eh, I've seen entire civs wiped out in a single turn too many times due to settler blitzing, which in itself is only possible with unlimited movement on rails.

As SR says, it is not that it is unrealistic, but that all strategy is taken out of the game.

[korn469]

Removing unlimited railroad movement weakens grounds units and strengthens tactics that have the ability to catch an opponent offguard. So amphibious invasions (and naval units by extension), paratroop invasions, airlifts, and air units in general all become more useful since firaxis has removed unlimited rail movement.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by korn469
Removing unlimited railroad movement weakens grounds units and strengthens tactics that have the ability to catch an opponent offguard. So amphibious invasions (and naval units by extension), paratroop invasions, airlifts, and air units in general all become more useful since firaxis has removed unlimited rail movement.

I agree

[Zoid]

And since there´s already voices that complains about the franchise dumbing down with Civ IV it´s good to see that they (Firaxis) do something to actually increase the complexity of gameplay...

[Joseph]

Once some of you loose a city or two because of 10 tiles, you will change your mind.
I like it the old way.

[Ecthy]

Yeah, let's win wars against great powers with damn undermilitarized states!

In Civ2 I'd fight off any invasion with like 2 or 3 riflemen per city

[Odin]

to this, Unlimited RR movement took the fun out of defending my territory from invasion.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Joseph
Once some of you loose a city or two because of 10 tiles, you will change your mind.
I like it the old way.

If you can't defend your territory with ten point movement on railroads then you're a loser anyway.



joking

[Joseph]

Originally posted by MrFun


If you can't defend your territory with ten point movement on railroads then you're a loser anyway.



joking

I only defend with 2 or 3 units until late in the game. My thing is to build city improvements first, plus any wonder. Maybe that is why I'm not a great player.

[Ecthy]

Maybe you should change that now, I'm similar.

[joncnunn]

Unlimited rail movement was one of the key reasons why navies just aren't important in civ 1 - 3 on contential and pangena maps.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Joseph
I only defend with 2 or 3 units until late in the game. My thing is to build city improvements first, plus any wonder. Maybe that is why I'm not a great player.

good to know... can we schedule a MP game?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Unlimited rail movement was one of the key reasons why navies just aren't important in civ 1 - 3 on contential and pangena maps.

Exactly -- navy units should become more important now.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Willem


Why not? All it's going to mean is that you'll have to plan better. There'll have to be a sizable force near your border before an attack occurs, since you won't be able to call up reserves from the opposite side of your empire anymore. If you know units can move 10 squares in a turn, space stacks 20 squares apart beforehand to guard your borders. I don't think that's too unreasonable.

I'm not saying it will make defense impossible, just more difficult and costly. Given the completely unrealistic ability to massively land amphibious forces anywhere on a continent, large caches of quick response forces will have to be spread throughout a large empire. That will cost much much more. The other option to counter sudden enemy strikes is ICS. Isnt that strategy something that we were hoping would be phased out in civ4?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

To be fair, Spencer, if you want to prevent an amphibious assault on your coastal cities-then the best defense is a good navy, patrolling the coasts and nearby oceans-destroying their land forces whilst still aboard ship. This again suggests that navy could actually end up being a much more important part of the game in Civ4-which IS a good thing.
Also, Infinite city slease will be of no assistance to defense, as that will simply mean even more cities to defend (not to mention the other reasons for not pursuing ICS anymore!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The argument against is, that it makes strategical troop placement unnecessary, thus making the game a bit dumber. Just lump your troops together at some tile in the middle and be sure, that all your forces can be thrown against an attacking foe, no matter from which direction he attacks.

...and to take it one step further, when you take a city from an enemy, simply rush in how many defenders you feel you need on your newly owned rail system, so your forces can continue blitzing...

No planning needed!

[TomVeil]

I'm sure there are some nice gameplay aspects, but these new rules are totally unrealistic.
How fast can troops move on wild terrain? 1-2 km/h, tops, and they experience fatigue. How fast can troops move on rails/highways? 70-120 km/h, and they're chilling the entire time.
Likewise, consider what percentage of crops were unmarketable before the development of roads or railroads, and how the railroad made coal burning economical -- allowing the industrial revolution. I'm from Pittsburgh, so don't contradict me here.
Finally, every major American/European/Japanese city has ring after ring of suburban roads, so it's not like the tangle of roads on the Civ map isn't reflected in the real world.
Making the map look "pretty" or making things more balanced for the invading force could be done in other ways. Civ should never sacrifice reality. I will be among the first lining up to mod this feature back to its classic, correct state.

EDIT: to avoid the inevitable retort, yes, I know the game is measured in turns, not years. I still think that a tank should be more than 2-3 times as fast as a phalanx and that anything on a rail/highway network should be almost instantaneous compared to either.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


good to know... can we schedule a MP game?

Sorry I do not play MP.