Railroad connected

[zeace]

I think it would be interesting to add a new level of "connected-ness" into CIV by treating Railroads specially. If a city is connected to the capital only by roads, rivers abd coastlines, it should only be basic-connected.

If a railroad is connecting them, or an ocean link after astronomy, then the level of connection should be higher, and there should be more benefits.

This would represent the fact that trains and cargo-boats can transport vastly more cargo than carriages and canoes. Maybe the benefit should be something small like +1 Hammer in each such connected city?

I envision the little three arrow connected icon changing colour and getting bolder once the better connection is made.

This would make creating your cross-continental railroad into a real goal. I always find that I try to create one anyway, and envision the "golden-spike" ceremony when it finally completes, but there's no real benefit in the game, besides saving 0.33 movement points when travelling along it.

Anyone like the idea? Know if it's easily moddable given the SDK?

[BigFree]

How about "Highway" systems? Just create a new improvement for workers.

[axisworks]

Some would actuall argue, in the age of traffic jams and car pollution, that railroads are actually more efficient methods of travel

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by axisworks
Some would actuall argue, in the age of traffic jams and car pollution, that railroads are actually more efficient methods of travel

Some others, namely government types in San Jose, find that wasting money on train systems (Light Rail) that nobody rides is a highly efficeint way to spend tons of other people's tax money AND feel good about "saving the planet."

Why is everyone on this thread so far from northern California? Are the only ones who care to post about trains???

[MMC]

We invented trains, so we'll let you take the glory for now.

[alva]

There's been some studies saying that within a city we don't travel any faster than a hundred years ago.

[axisworks]

No one rides them yet because gas isn't expensive enough yet.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by alva
There's been some studies saying that within a city we don't travel any faster than a hundred years ago.

If you find that PLEASE let us know where it is. I'd love to read that study.

I'll throw it all the jackarses who tailgate me on the Interstate.

[MadDjinn]

Originally posted by MasterDave


Some others, namely government types in San Jose, find that wasting money on train systems (Light Rail) that nobody rides is a highly efficeint way to spend tons of other people's tax money AND feel good about "saving the planet."

Why is everyone on this thread so far from northern California? Are the only ones who care to post about trains???

yeah San Jose has a weird ideology about their light rail system...

different tickets for bus vs. LR.
15 min between trains during rush hours.

etc...

not the way to convince people to use it...
(especially since they charge equal or more than cities with much better transit systems)

[DaShi]

Don't rails already give you +1 hammer on certain improvements like the lumbermill?

[Guardian]

Originally posted by MadDjinn


yeah San Jose has a weird ideology about their light rail system...

different tickets for bus vs. LR.
15 min between trains during rush hours.

etc...

not the way to convince people to use it...
(especially since they charge equal or more than cities with much better transit systems)

If you want to make light rail or in fact any public transportation system work, you have to make it fast, cheap and convenient to use.

Basically, what people want to do is arrive at a station, get on a train, get to where they're going, get off the train and be done with it. If you make it into much more than that, then you won't be getting a lot of people to go along with it.

In other words: Making the ticket system a hassle is a big no, no.
Expensive tickets are a big no, no.
15 minutes between trains during rush hours is a big no, no.
Too many stops and detours are a big no, no.

You can't force people to use public transportation, you have to get them to choose it. And most people will only choose to use it if it's faster, cheaper or more convenient than the alternatives. Preferably all three of these, but two out of three ain't bad. Some times even one will do. If you have none, then you've just built yourself a big money drain, which is nothing to be proud of no matter who you are.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by DaShi
Don't rails already give you +1 hammer on certain improvements like the lumbermill?

Yes, they do. Lumbermills and mines, to be specific.
-But you only get this bonus if you have these improvements within the city's "fat X" and your rails are on them.

I think zeace meant that all cities that are connected by rail should get a free hammer just from being connected, with no further requirements attached.

[Ijuin]

I would say rather that any intercity trade route should get +1 commerce if the two cities are connected by rail. (I am speaking of the routes in the trade route box--the ones that get increased in number by various civics, improvements, techs, etc.)

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Ijuin
I would say rather that any intercity trade route should get +1 commerce if the two cities are connected by rail. (I am speaking of the routes in the trade route box--the ones that get increased in number by various civics, improvements, techs, etc.)

I agree that you should get something for connecting a rail network. However how would you handle the multiple links?

For example if city A is connected to city B, then thats one link right?

Then you connect city B to city C.

Is that one more link (B - C) or a total of three links (A - B, B - C & A - C via B)?

[MadDjinn]

Originally posted by nugog


I agree that you should get something for connecting a rail network. However how would you handle the multiple links?

For example if city A is connected to city B, then thats one link right?

Then you connect city B to city C.

Is that one more link (B - C) or a total of three links (A - B, B - C & A - C via B)?

yes, if A & C have a trade route. otherwise it's just another arc on the graph

[zeace]

Originally posted by Ijuin
I would say rather that any intercity trade route should get +1 commerce if the two cities are connected by rail. (I am speaking of the routes in the trade route box--the ones that get increased in number by various civics, improvements, techs, etc.)

I like this idea, but I'm worried that the trade routes change too much. Has anyone actually paid attention to how often they change? Theoretically, and time any city increases in population it could cause all the trade routes to change. You'd hate to build the orient express all the way to Bejing only to have your capital change to trading with someone else now.

[Forwarn45]

I like the idea of an increased benefit as well. As for some of the comments about public transportation, I would just mention that for cargo purposes trains remain incredibly efficient and popular. I have read that in the US, rail carries several times more cargo on less rail miles than it did at the beginning of the last century.

choo choo

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by nugog


I agree that you should get something for connecting a rail network. However how would you handle the multiple links?

For example if city A is connected to city B, then thats one link right?

Then you connect city B to city C.

Is that one more link (B - C) or a total of three links (A - B, B - C & A - C via B)?

If you can get from city X to city Y by traveling exclusively along rails through nations that you are not at war with (whether or not it goes through other cities), then X and Y would be considered to be connected by rail.

[MadDjinn]

Originally posted by zeace


I like this idea, but I'm worried that the trade routes change too much. Has anyone actually paid attention to how often they change? Theoretically, and time any city increases in population it could cause all the trade routes to change. You'd hate to build the orient express all the way to Bejing only to have your capital change to trading with someone else now.

but that's happened alot over RL history...

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Forwarn45
I like the idea of an increased benefit as well. As for some of the comments about public transportation, I would just mention that for cargo purposes trains remain incredibly efficient and popular. I have read that in the US, rail carries several times more cargo on less rail miles than it did at the beginning of the last century.

choo choo

Nobody is disputing that trains are great for carrying cargo. Almost all major factories and food plants that I have visited in California and around the country are rail served. These cargo lines are privately owned and operated, and are very cost-effective and efficeintly run. Also, the GDP of the USA in real dollars in 2006 is thirteen times the size that it was in 1929 (before the Great Depression Crash), so it is not surprising at all that more cargo is being moved around today than in the year 1900, despite trains being somewhat antequated.

It is the government-run passenger trains that get goofy with their pathetic ridership and their ever-expanding sinkhole of squandered tax money. No sensible private industry touch most of these passenger routes with a ten foot pole, so the government dutifully loses millions (if not billions) of dollars annually maintaining these archaic and seldom-used routes for "the public good".

"The public good" meaning maintaining as many cushy Governement and Union jobs as possible at the rest of our expense, of course.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan


If you find that PLEASE let us know where it is. I'd love to read that study.

I'll throw it all the jackarses who tailgate me on the Interstate.

Interstate is used to travel within a city? Or maybe, simply, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

[Forwarn45]

Interstate is used to travel within a city?

Saving carnalcanaan from responding = The answer to this question is (perhaps sadly), "yes" in most big cities. So much for literalism.

[Ijuin]

Here's a mindbender for you: There is an interstate highway in Hawaii. o.O

[spartak]

Cool.

[Older than Dirt]

Yes Martinus, unfortunately most of the Interstate-highway-miles-driven in the USA are in total miles and in time spent are within city limits. You could drive from Fort Worth to LA and see fewer vehicles the entire trip than what you'd see during rush hour driving to Dallas (which latter route would be within city limits the whole 30 miles).

[Nugog]

Or how about "Freeways" that you have to pay to use?

[Ijuin]

Officially, the "Free" in "Freeway" does not mean free-of-charge, but rather free-flowing traffic (in other words, there are no intersections or signals or other reasons for traffic to stop other than overcongestion).

[Will9]

I think that with one of the end game techs you should be able to upgrade railroads into maglev rails.

Also with combustion you should be able to make the Highway System as a nation wonder. It would give tourism to coastal cities and cities with wonders. Also the Audobon should be a global wonder that has a higher effect than the Highway System.

[johnmcd]

I'd also love to see railroading be more meaningful, offer some advantages for hooked up resources and cities. But perhaps to offset each piece of rail could cost a couple of gold to lay, it would make it into a much more interesting choice.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by johnmcd
I'd also love to see railroading be more meaningful, offer some advantages for hooked up resources and cities. .

Totally agree - there has to be a greater benefit to building a complete network.