Railroads?

[Japher]

How about keep movement the way it is, allow enemy units to use rail (or even just specific units), and...

at the end of movement, all units that used rail to move must "sleep/unload" for one turn. "Sleep/unload" means that it can't act nor does it add to tile values until the turn after it reaches it's destination. This would make so that rail can be used to shuffle units, but wouldn't be able to be used to swoop as effectively on invading units as these units will also be able to use the rail. This would also force you to limit your rail use to create "bottlenecks" so that enemy forces can't surround city.

[lajzar]

Someone proposed rail tiles cost 1 gold a turn upkeep and provide unlimited movemnt. However, this seems like it will be a heavy processing overhead, as the comp must count all the rail tiles every turn.

I suggested (a long time ago in a galaxy far away) that Rail Depot be a city improvement, and allow instant movement for a fee between cities with these similar to civ 2 airport movement for ground units. Each unit moved would cost a small fee in addition to building maintenance

This way, rather than be a completely new system for the comp to keep track off, it is merely one extra building amongst many.

This building could also provide the economic bonus that rail currently provides.

[Max Sinister]

Originally posted by lajzar
Someone proposed rail tiles cost 1 gold a turn upkeep and provide unlimited movemnt. However, this seems like it will be a heavy processing overhead, as the comp must count all the rail tiles every turn.

Actually, it would be sufficient if the computer just updated the number everytime a new railroad is built or destroyed. The bigger problem is: How do you decide which piece of railroad belongs to which nation? Does it become impossible to build rail outside your cultural border? Can I build railroads for another nation with my workers?

[Kuciwalker]

Someone proposed rail tiles cost 1 gold a turn upkeep and provide unlimited movemnt. However, this seems like it will be a heavy processing overhead, as the comp must count all the rail tiles every turn.

This is absolutely miniscule compared to the time it takes to recalculate trade routes.

[builderchad]

Well I for one dont like the unlimited rail movement and always thought it was very unrealistic in relation to roads. Hell here in the UK its often faster to go by car than by train given the state of our railways!

Niether do I like the notion that an invader can use the defenders rail in any way until he has effectively occupied that piece of railway line and hence only able to use use rail that is behind him and up to his front (which is sort of how it works out now, granted). So the vanguard of an invading force should not get the advantages of the rail, only those that follow after can do so. I realise this presents huge complications in tracking 'occupied territory' and especially in a system where rail is everywhere but that is something I have always disliked.

Might have been a funny site to see if the German Panzer divisions had caught the train to Paris and just settled the matter there and then rather than getting thier feet (and tracks) dirty in the Ardenne

Off topic but I would love to see a system of occupied territory and supply lines put into civ 4. But I am guessing this is all way too complicated.

I like the idea of combining the fact that rail has to be built point to point and not just willy-nilly anywhere and that it gives absolutley no improvements to the income of the tile. I would like to see a system whereby a city recieves a small bonus for all of its tiles if it is connected to at least one other city and perhaps more for more connections to other cities up to a limit. After all wouldnt all of the surrounding area benefit from the cities connections be they land, sea or air?

Just to add further complication to what I'm sure is a very simple thing in the engine - tanks and mech inf. move much more quickly than foot infantry over land and roads but infact the reverse is true over rail. What I mean by this is that you can move huge numbers of troops over longer distances on a rail network with little difficulty. You need special carriages and longer loading/unloading times for the machines. So one carriage say would take 4 tanks (a platoon), while the same carriage and for one quarter the weight could carry a whole company of foot soldiers!

[Lorizael]

/me pokes head in.

Still of the opinion that railroads should be a constant movement factor independent of the movement of the units on it. Something like ten or twenty.

[Drachasor]

Well, I think rails tend to be a bit more abstract than "railroads" per se. They also represent highway systems. As everyone should know, the only way to prevent someone from using your highway system is to destroy their access to it, or keep them away from it. I would like this in the game, but I guess it isn't necessary. To me it adds to the strategic depth, so long as other factors are added in to enhance ones ability to guard your rails.

-Drachasor

[akulla]

RailRoads should be based on capacity, if you move a few units in a turn they maybe infinite because the railroad can handle it, but if you start moving a large amount of units the distance they can move is reduced based on the capacity of the railroads. (This would reflect real life better.)

Also, there should be more grades of roads, like dirt road is 3 movement, brick road(Roman Road) would be perhaps 5, Medeval Highways 7, modern 10 etc., also maintanence costs should be figured into the situation as roads get more complex, and capacity still needs to be accounted for moving 100 units down a dirt road should significantly reduce movement.

[Drachasor]

Some comments:

1. Half or more of the movement benefits associated with the modern age are inthe units. Keep that in mind when suggesting new roads and whatnot. There is a very real limit to how much a road can speed up people on horse, and people on foot.

2. I don't care for the load/unload rail ideas. It is cumbersome, unrealistic (hey, movement is unrealistic enough as-is, no need to delay it for another turn or two) and unfun.

3. The "limited capacity rail" ideas aren't really any better. They are cumbersome--which RR have used up their capacity and how will you easily distinguish between the various states between? They are more realistic, but then you run into the road issue, which also has a limit to how many people can use it. This is another largely unfun addition, and it would also encourage RR sprawl (for more capacity).

4. Rails like Airports would have its own difficulty. Programing it would be a bit annoying, and you'd get unrealistic issues. If two cities have a rail building, then how come you can't get off near one of the cities en route. Also, how come you can go to that fairly new city which is unconnected by road to anything, and in the middle of a jungle, surrounded by enemy troops? Too many issues.

5. As such, the rail system is going to be roughly similar to what Civ2 and Civ3 had, so I would suggest you make suggestions in line with those system. Keep most of the stuff the same--perhaps with some improvements--and only a couple new tweaks at most.*

-Drachasor

*I like to think I have done this, but I'll double-check to make sure...after I sleep.

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by builderchad
I realise this presents huge complications in tracking 'occupied territory' and especially in a system where rail is everywhere but that is something I have always disliked.[/q]

Uh, how's the problem tracking occupied territory? C3 works EXACTLY as you've described. Have you not played it? Once you take the city, the territory around it is now yours...

[Japher]

2. I don't care for the load/unload rail ideas . The former is cumbersome, unrealistic (hey, movement is unrealistic enough as-is, no need to delay it for another turn or two) and unfun.

Then get rid of the load/unload movement penalties for seafarring vessles... It's just as unrealistic and unfun as you seem to think it is.

[Kuciwalker]

5. As such, the rail system is going to be roughly similar to what Civ2 and Civ3 had, so I would suggest you make suggestions in line with those system. Keep most of the stuff the same--perhaps with some improvements--and only a couple new tweaks at most.

You think that's gonna happen, in this forum? We had a debate on stacked combat, even!

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Japher
Then get rid of the load/unload movement penalties for seafarring vessles... It's just as unrealistic and unfun as you seem to think it is.

With vessels it is different, as you don't waste a turn on anything. Also, the units get no penalty if they load in a city and unload in a city. It is also very clear when the units are on a vessel, and when they are not. Lastly, the point of Rail is quick movement across the continent, and quicker defense of your cities. That point is eliminated if you have to waste a turn loading your troops. The point of ship transport, on the other hand, is getting across the ocean. The issues are quite distinct.

-Drachasor

[Japher]

The issues are quite distinct.

That is where you and I will have to disagree... so be it

[Shogun Gunner]

Well, this is certainly Sid Meier's Railroad Tycoon meets cIV

I don't like the movement penalty ideas for utilizing railroads. Do I need to leave my tanks idling on the superhighways or railroad cars to avoid paying the movement penalties?

Instead of trying to only utilize the railroad angle to solve the massive-automovement defense issue, why not the concept of supply for military units?

Military units are either active duty or inactive duty. Higher maintenance cost for "active duty", but can move immediately and defend normally. Inactive duty units are more vulnerable, cannot move immediately, but don't cost the same amount in maintenance.

This would solve the problem of immediate massing of all defensive units to thwart an attack -- unless someone was willing to pay for such a capability.

Bottom line -- I'm for a 1/6 or 1/9 movement rate on railroads. It's both a gameplay issue and a realism issue. Today, I can move an unlimited number of units over a square with a RR. No limit to capacity is unrealistic, but I don't want micromanagement (a la Railroad Tycoon). So that's my vote.