Railroads?

[Kuciwalker]

Except that in many cases only the fast-movers will be able to attack (often, not even then, because you can have two tiles of buffer). Until late industrial you won't even get any arty support at all for this (afterwards, you get bombers, but still), and your fast-movers will be split into two groups (those sitting outside the city b/c they attacked and killed defenders, and those sitting inside), with no defenders. If you have an SOD with arty and slow-mover defenders, it can get pounded by arty first and attacked by your own fast-movers.

Basically the current system really favors a first-strike, and I don't care for that much. (This sin't as evident with the computer AI because it is really bad at massing troops).

Guess what? So does real life.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Drachasor
No, there are plenty of ways to eliminate the need and desire for RRs on every tile:

1. Allow anyone to use anyone else's rail and road.

2. Restore ZOC (right of passage eliminates ZOC issues though). At least restore ZOC to units in forts and cities.

This doesn't have anything to do with it.

Not only does this not work (this provides a disincentive to any rail network), but it's ****ing stupid. Maybe you do, but I don't want to go back to the days of "take over an entire country with howitzers in one turn".

Maybe you should read my entire post and then consider all the points acting in concert, because there is a synergy to them. If you just look at one point, then you miss this synergy, and you fail to see how the point does anything.

Now, if you can use another persons rail, and if rail gives no bonus to resources the square generates, then there is little reason to put the rail everywhere. The former reason that existed (bonus shields/trade) no longer exists, and additionally putting it everywhere allows the enemy easy access to it. Stupid on both counts.

Now, with limited rail movement there is no chance that the enemy will take over your entire continent in one turn. It simply can't happen. With ZOC (at least for cities and forts--or perhaps some sort of attrition for units passing by), you have ways of controlling enemy movement through your territroy, which means you can further control their access to your rail system, assuming you control where you place it.

Naturally, when you do this, it is going to be easier for artillery to get in range, and you still have the issue of the enemy massing many, many troops and being able to pick from many nearby cities which to attack. They can do this in a way that emphasizes the weakness of a TBS, namely that you can't react to anything until your next turn. Give a "Defend" order, which isn't that complicated, there could even be a menu command to show the radius around a selected unit, and you can partially alleviate this. Allow your artillery to counter-attack enemy artillery, and you also further alleviate this. This is a relatively simply function that adds more depth to the game; taking out enemy rail lines becomes more necessary, but had more trade-offs, and with some of my other ideas, it becomes more difficult.

Anyhow, I would appreciate it if you considered the points as a set of changes, and not as individual changes that could be taken piece-meal. They are part of one coherent idea, and they compliment each other, and address each other's problems.

4. Reduce the rail bonus from infinite movement to something more reasonable, like 1/6 at first and later upgradeable to something like 1/9 or 1/12.

That just makes rail in general less useful. People

Sure, it makes it less useful, but perhaps it is too powerful now, ever consider that? It needs to be toned down, it needs to be less powerful, and it is part of the cohesive plan that I am proposing. Changing this increasing the thought and strategy required in the late-game, when you have rail connecting all your cities. No longer will you be able to move your troops from one side of your massive continent to the other in one turn. No longer will you be able to respond to potential aggression instantly. Instead you'll have to think, you'll have to plan, you'll have to prepare.

5. Let all tile improvements that aren't roads give 1/2 movement (upgadeable later if roads get an upgrade). This means that your workers can move around more easily in the improved radius of a city. This represents that road support network that would exist, and how it would be less efficient for unit movements compared to the main roads.

Or just give workers infinite movement on roads, with a certain tech (probably the same one that gives RR's).

Again, that doesn't work because we are trying to decrease road and rail sprawl. To do that we need to lessen the need for road and rail everywhere, and part of that is making sure you don't buiild it around your cities to make improving the tiles easier. Hence, make movement around improved tiles easier. (though a Public Works system would address this too).

There is no need to give workers infinite movement, and I don't think it should be encouraged to move all your workers about willy-nilly. You should need some thought about how you are going to order them about, and where you are going to locate them.

6. Add a "defend" order to troops. This acts like fortify/sleep in that you have to cancel it to give the troop another order. The effect of "defend" is that the troop would move to defend any fort or city within some X square radius if all the defenders there were beaten. If stacked combat is used then this order would be given to the entire stack. Lastly, if the troops couldn't get to the location in 1 turn, then they can't defend it (perhaps have this be the limited factor as opposed ot the X square radius).

Way too complicated...

Maybe it seems that way because I mentioned how it would work if stacked combat is used. Basically this is an order that holds the unit in place, and makes them rush to defend a fort or city with no defenders, so long as it is in their defend radius (which will be a certain number of squares, and there should be a command to see this). Once they've moved, somewhat like sleep, the defend order disappears.

Anyhow, I think this is a good thing to implement, as it resolves some TBS issues. Just because I am flexible on the implementation doesn't mean it is too complicated (and certainly not "way too complicated"). Ruminating over wether the troop should have a rail connection to the city or how the enemy can combat the system is not the same as making a complicated system.


-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Except that in many cases only the fast-movers will be able to attack (often, not even then, because you can have two tiles of buffer).

And when you get tanks, you have that 3 movement, and some cases you don't need that. Anyhow, it fits into my overall picture of how things should be changed.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Basically the current system really favors a first-strike, and I don't care for that much. (This sin't as evident with the computer AI because it is really bad at massing troops).

Guess what? So does real life.

It doesn't make for a fun or balanced game if you are playing a peaceful Civ.

Additionally, first strikes don't necessarily give you an advantage. First strikes that are done in suprise or against an unseen weakness do. Germany against France in WWII, if they hadn't gone around the line, they wouldn't have done nearly as well (perhaps they wouldn't have even taken France).

-Drachasor

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Now, if you can use another persons rail, and if rail gives no bonus to resources the square generates, then there is little reason to put the rail everywhere. The former reason that existed (bonus shields/trade) no longer exists, and additionally putting it everywhere allows the enemy easy access to it. Stupid on both counts.

Putting the rail in at all allows the complication your suggestion creates, specifically the ability to blitz through your entire empire.

Now, with limited rail movement there is no chance that the enemy will take over your entire continent in one turn. It simply can't happen. With ZOC (at least for cities and forts--or perhaps some sort of attrition for units passing by), you have ways of controlling enemy movement through your territroy, which means you can further control their access to your rail system, assuming you control where you place it.

They can still take over a large portion of it. And any units with ZoC would only be minor obstacles, if that, given that the person is breaking your defenses anyway. This exacerbates the thing you're pissed about - offensive blitzing.

Naturally, when you do this, it is going to be easier for artillery to get in range, and you still have the issue of the enemy massing many, many troops and being able to pick from many nearby cities which to attack. They can do this in a way that emphasizes the weakness of a TBS, namely that you can't react to anything until your next turn. Give a "Defend" order, which isn't that complicated, there could even be a menu command to show the radius around a selected unit, and you can partially alleviate this. Allow your artillery to counter-attack enemy artillery, and you also further alleviate this. This is a relatively simply function that adds more depth to the game; taking out enemy rail lines becomes more necessary, but had more trade-offs, and with some of my other ideas, it becomes more difficult.

1) This isn't a weakness. This is real life.

2) This makes defending trivially simple (though not exactly easy) - just dump some units their and hit "auto-defend" or whatever, then forget.

3) If anything, C3 rail makes defending EASIER.

Sure, it makes it less useful, but perhaps it is too powerful now, ever consider that?

That's not my point. I'm saying it doesn't target the specific aspect of rail that you're complaining about, that is, rails everywhere.

Again, that doesn't work because we are trying to decrease road and rail sprawl. To do that we need to lessen the need for road and rail everywhere, and part of that is making sure you don't buiild it around your cities to make improving the tiles easier.

Actually, I just think rails shouldn't be everywhere. Roads actually are everywhere.

There is no need to give workers infinite movement, and I don't think it should be encouraged to move all your workers about willy-nilly.

Micromanagement.

You should need some thought about how you are going to order them about, and where you are going to locate them.

Fine. You play the Industrial and Modern ages without infinite worker movement. I dare you.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drachasor
And when you get tanks, you have that 3 movement, and some cases you don't need that. Anyhow, it fits into my overall picture of how things should be changed.

Actually, when you get Modern Armor (or Panzers, but the ability for the to blitz into enemy territory is kinda the point...). And by then, yes, warfare now really and truly IS like that.

It doesn't make for a fun or balanced game if you are playing a peaceful Civ.

OMFG you actually have to work to defend yourself! You can't just label yourself "peaceful" and leave it at that

Additionally, first strikes don't necessarily give you an advantage.

Generally, they do, because you have the initiative. If you screw it up, obviously they don't, but that's not relevent.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drachasor
If, as a defender, you have to spend a lot more time and resources defending yourself, then you might as well attack. If you attack you get more cities, which means more of everything.

Basically the current system really favors a first-strike, and I don't care for that much. (This sin't as evident with the computer AI because it is really bad at massing troops).

-Drachasor

The defense in Civ3 has huge advantages if played right- one, it has infinate RR so it can bring forces to bear on any point the attacker can't becuase of its inability to use enemy RR's. Add to that the imporvements to defense in Conquest, such as Flak and civil defense bunkers that help the defense. PLUS the ability to draft more defenders after nationalism.

As for the first strike notion- the game favor large but concentrated empires- if you play versus a lot of civs, then the only way to get there is attacking. But the fact is war is easier before RR's and the modern age since the defense gets so many bonuses. Only in the late game does the offense gain a sort of balance, which is completely in keeping with reality.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

It doesn't make for a fun or balanced game if you are playing a peaceful Civ.

OMFG you actually have to work to defend yourself! You can't just label yourself "peaceful" and leave it at that

Well, thank you for taking what I said out of context. Try to consider my words before declaring whatever gut reaction you had.

Yes, you have to work on defense if you are peaceful, but generally in Civ games the best way to defend yourself is to take on enemy civilizations.....

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Additionally, first strikes don't necessarily give you an advantage.

Generally, they do, because you have the initiative. If you screw it up, obviously they don't, but that's not relevent.

Hence my point, I am glad you made it for me. In Civ this generally is true, so the best way to be "defensive" is to be offensive and take out enemy cities. The fact that good defensive units are not good offensive units goes into this as well (though I supposed this could be changed with stacks into a combined arms approach).

However, I concede this did change more that I initially remembered with Civ 3. I still have some concerns. For instance, if there is stacked combat then there will be some limit to how many units you can have on a tile (in all likelihood). This will unfairly penalize city defense, and I don't think the solution is to up defensive values from structures. This is a real problem that will occur with stack combat.

Rather, there would need to be a way to increase the number of units you can use to defend a city with; more specifically the cost of defending a city. A multi-stack interface for cities would be cumbersome, and I think the formation of armies is a bit cumbersome as well. One way I see to modify this is my previous suggestion, which is to allow certain units to be given the "defend" order. If you don't like the idea of them moving long distances, then have it limited to 2 or 3 squares in distance (or even 1) connected by road or RR, and they defend unfortified and lose their action on the next turn.

Another idea is to allow automatic conscripts in a city to replace fallen units. However, the penalty would have to be some sort of nation-wide one, as a city penalty is unfair if the city is taken.

Anyhow, I think the stacked combat issue needs to be addressed, for while it is a good improvement to have, it does bring with it its own issues.

-Drachasor

[Kuciwalker]

However, I concede this did change more that I initially remembered with Civ 3. I still have some concerns. For instance, if there is stacked combat then there will be some limit to how many units you can have on a tile (in all likelihood). This will unfairly penalize city defense, and I don't think the solution is to up defensive values from structures. This is a real problem that will occur with stack combat.

So don't go with stacked combat.

Personally, I hate it.

My idea is simple - rail gives no economic benefit, rail costs upkeep, rail has infinite move BUT rail has a capacity (not including workers). Thus, you have a network that allows you to redistribute a limited portion of your military each turn, which over several turns has a similar effect to simply reduced movement cost but retains the realism.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Putting the rail in at all allows the complication your suggestion creates, specifically the ability to blitz through your entire empire.

Allowing everyone to use all road and RR is more realistic, and there are ways to balance it so it is fun and doesn't harm the game. When you can give things a more realistic feel without sacrificing fun, I think you should. If you don't like the enemy using your roads and RRs, then destroy them or build defended forts about on them. Again, the problem is further handled with certain other changes.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Now, with limited rail movement there is no chance that the enemy will take over your entire continent in one turn. It simply can't happen. With ZOC (at least for cities and forts--or perhaps some sort of attrition for units passing by), you have ways of controlling enemy movement through your territroy, which means you can further control their access to your rail system, assuming you control where you place it.

They can still take over a large portion of it. And any units with ZoC would only be minor obstacles, if that, given that the person is breaking your defenses anyway. This exacerbates the thing you're pissed about - offensive blitzing.

I wouldn't say "pissed," but rather "concerned." As I said, there would need to be a way to enhance border defense. One part of it is limited rail movement, which penalizes the enemy for throwing a ton of troops into one conflict. Now they can no longer rush them back for a war on the other side of the world.

One of my other ideas was the "defend" order, which doesn't eliminate strategy. There is the placement of troops, the formation of your line, and the fact that "defend" troops get no fortification bonuses. Additionally, as I have said, the radius could be quite limited (just a couple squares), and can further be alleviated with the destruction of rail connections to a city. (hmm, perhaps the ZoC idea wasn't a good one). All in all, defending has much more depth, and you are actually *Defending*.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

...They can do this in a way that emphasizes the weakness of a TBS, namely that you can't react to anything until your next turn. Give a "Defend" order, which isn't that complicated, there could even be a menu command to show the radius around a selected unit, and you can partially alleviate this. Allow your artillery to counter-attack enemy artillery, and you also further alleviate this. This is a relatively simply function that adds more depth to the game; taking out enemy rail lines becomes more necessary, but had more trade-offs, and with some of my other ideas, it becomes more difficult.

1) This isn't a weakness. This is real life.

No, real life is being caught with your pants down because your didn't have your troops ready to mobilize against an enemy attack. If you know where they are coming from and prepare, then things are different.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
2) This makes defending trivially simple (though not exactly easy) - just dump some units their and hit "auto-defend" or whatever, then forget.

Nope, as I said, no fortification bonuses are received, so that is far from an optimum strategy. Additionally, this becomes a more pressing issues with stacked combat, and there are other complexities to be had. It makes combat more interesting, and finding a weak spot in an opponents defense (or tricking them about where you will attack--think D-Day) more important.

All this does is provide a secondary, less effective, layer of defense.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
3) If anything, C3 rail makes defending EASIER.

For one because there are so many rails, and they are largely useless to the enemy. But we don't want a rail glut, and part of that is improving the defense of a smaller number of rail lines.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Sure, it makes it less useful, but perhaps it is too powerful now, ever consider that?

That's not my point. I'm saying it doesn't target the specific aspect of rail that you're complaining about, that is, rails everywhere.

As a whole, my plan targets it quite well. You haven't indicated anywhere it doesn't work against this. If necessary some additional constraints such as tile-to-tile rail connections or more expensive/time consuming rail production could be added.

I merely added some more dynamic features to the rail system so that it would be more interesting. Hmm, however, I will grant you that ZoC was perhaps ill-conceived. At least as far as stopping movement. Attrition damage should be sufficient.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Again, that doesn't work because we are trying to decrease road and rail sprawl. To do that we need to lessen the need for road and rail everywhere, and part of that is making sure you don't buiild it around your cities to make improving the tiles easier.

Actually, I just think rails shouldn't be everywhere. Roads actually are everywhere.

But not highways, which is what roads basically represent, long term. Farms and the like have smaller roads, less suited to the movement of military units and the like. Hence my suggested modification for them. This will be realistic, and allow for a cleaner and nicer view of the map.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

There is no need to give workers infinite movement, and I don't think it should be encouraged to move all your workers about willy-nilly.

Micromanagement.

You should need some thought about how you are going to order them about, and where you are going to locate them.

Fine. You play the Industrial and Modern ages without infinite worker movement. I dare you.

If you have to build less roads, then they are not going to have to run around as much building things. Additionally there are other, better ways to fix micromanagement without making special rules. Having a work order queue on improvments (which workers automatically follow) or using Public Works in some form are but two examples.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So don't go with stacked combat.

Personally, I hate it.

My idea is simple - rail gives no economic benefit, rail costs upkeep, rail has infinite move BUT rail has a capacity (not including workers). Thus, you have a network that allows you to redistribute a limited portion of your military each turn, which over several turns has a similar effect to simply reduced movement cost but retains the realism.

If they are eliminating building upkeep, then rail upkeep isn't going to get added in. Rail upkeep strikes me as too unwieldy and messy a system. For when you get more territory, suddenly the upkeep can soar, and unlike Sim City, what rails deteriorate when you don't pay the costs matter a great deal. Additionally, it seems to me that making it so that you can eliminate rail anywhere at anytime (which you would need) would have its own issues as well.

And I can't believe you called my "defend" system too complicated when you are proposing a limited use rail system.

As I have said before, all movement is unrealistic. In 1 year you could use roads to go anywhere you want as well (or heck, even just use a horse to go really, really far). Many civ turns are longer then this. Rail is just faster than Road, but it isn't infinitely faster, and this is how it should be modeled, given the necessary unrealisms in the game.

Most people are in favor of stacked combat, as it adds realism to the game (archers feel like archers) and the combat makes more sense.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by lajzar
I regard the fact that the defenders need more men than the attackers as a valid strategic choie that has to be made, not as a chore tht needs to be gotten rid off.

Might as well make more attacking units then, as a "defender" and go and take the enemy out. Then you get more cities, and so forth.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Kuciwalker, we might just have to agree to disagree...we seem to be taking over the thread and going almost nowhere. : )

-Drachasor

[Kuciwalker]

Welcome to the OTF

[MORON]

What about the following combination:
1. Destroy rail+road on being destroyed command for units
2. Everyone uses rails
3. No tile bounse for rail
4. around 1/9 to 1/18 movement for rail, free for workers.
5. ZOC
6. No building improvements on someone else's land
7. Maybe a new type of terrain improvement that slows units down. (mines of the blow uppy kind?) Perhaps with upkeep/usage cost?

This way an defender can stop a bad blitzkreig in its tracks by controlling the terrain but a failure to do so can allow allow attacks to run around fairly fast. After all, only the most impressively manned fortifications can withstand an well planned massed assault and the most common strategy in defense is to trade space for time to mobilize. If the attacker fails to break the defenses for one turn than the counter attack can be deadly.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Drachasor
However, I concede this did change more that I initially remembered with Civ 3. I still have some concerns. For instance, if there is stacked combat then there will be some limit to how many units you can have on a tile (in all likelihood).

Just a sidenote - stacked/combined arms combat does not require a limit on number of units on a tile. In fact I can see a CTP-style combat model working with unlimited units.

Whether a cap is better or worse from a strategic gameplay issue is open for debate though.

Now back to the RR merriment...