Keep infinite railroad movement?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Elok
Uh, because land units don't move at the speed of sound, and are bound by the limitations of terrain. Or were you joking? I, for one, don't want musketeers hovering around the map in a state of quantum uncertainty or whatever. That only makes sense for air units.

What I am thinking is that each unit can only be placed so far from a city. This represents supply limitations. A unit can only be repositioned so far in a single turn. This would be like rebase for planes, but land units could be repositioned on any tile. A unit also has an attack and defend range within which it can attack or defend on any given turn. No more moving tile-to-tile even out in the wilderness with no possible hope of supply. This will also make exploration units all the more valuable.

[Melboz99]

Sorry if I didn't read everything, but here's my take on things.


Railroads have never really been used by the military. I mean, come on, what military today rides the rails?


What we need is an improvement on the road system.

What I'm talking about is upgrading all those dirt roads to interstate (or autobon if you prefer) highways.

Think about it, what did Hitler do before making his invasions? He built the autobon, the first nation wide highway system.

That is how Hitler got all his troops on the border of Poland so fast, he built a highway to it. He did not advance on Rails, rails were use for shipment of goods and supplys, not military personel.

Furthermore, what brought about the great urbanization of America was the American interstate highway system. America would not be where it is today without it.

Sure, rails are what moved people great distances fast in the 1800's, but that was then, this is now. Today very few people ride the train (at least in America) execept for the morning commute on the subway or the L.

When the vast majority of people need to get somewhere in todays world they hop in their car/truck/suv and get on the highway.

This includes the military. I have seen plenty of military vehicles moving on our highways here in America. One time I was on my way to northern Wisconsin and for about 3 hours of the 6 hour trip, we saw military vehicles of all types driving the opposite direction. There were hundreds of them, all moving 60-70mph on the interstate, NOT the railway.

And oh yeah, for those that don't know, America's Interstate was based on the German Autobon.

Dan O.

[Elok]

Originally posted by The Templar
What I am thinking is that each unit can only be placed so far from a city. This represents supply limitations. A unit can only be repositioned so far in a single turn. This would be like rebase for planes, but land units could be repositioned on any tile. A unit also has an attack and defend range within which it can attack or defend on any given turn. No more moving tile-to-tile even out in the wilderness with no possible hope of supply. This will also make exploration units all the more valuable.

Ahem. Read my recent thread, "supply and AI," in this very forum.

[Sandman]

I'd just go with an airport-style system; you can move your units along railways by taking them to a city with a rail link and giving an order to move to another city on the same network. Maybe have a limitation on the number of units you move in this way by having a 'rolling stock' limit, based on number of cities connected by rail, so you can't just move ten million conscripts along your one newly completed railway. You can increase your rolling stock limit by advancing in tech, and building a 'central station' improvement in your cities. A moderately advanced nation should have no trouble moving large numbers of units in this way. However, should you run short on, say, coal, your rolling stock limit will be penalised.

As for sprawl, one way to reduce it would be to have railways as a point-to-point improvement. In other words, you build railways between tiles, not on them. And a maintainance cost for excessively large networks, as well.

[Elok]

Sorry, but that sounds like the suggestion I agreed with in the last page, only with extra micromanagement tacked on. And strategic resources are obnoxious.

BTW, how would you build railways "between tiles" rather than on them, when worker units can't move in such spaces?

[Heresson]

It should be customable, as everything

[Sandman]

BTW, how would you build railways "between tiles" rather than on them, when worker units can't move in such spaces?

Public works? Click and drag build orders? The idea itself is probably better suited to a province-based game, though.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Melboz99


Railroads have never really been used by the military. I mean, come on, what military today rides the rails?

This is really quite untrue. Since the advent of railroads, troop movement has been largely conducted via rail. It's more efficient and less costly to move a military unit by train versus rail.

In fact, even today's US military has a huge reliance on railroads. Given an option, the US Army will transport their armored units via rail to and from the front.

In WWI, the war could not be averted by a last minute diplomacy bid, because the German military leaders told the Kaiser it was too late the stop the troop trains.

Sorry, rail is integral to warfare. I haven't gotten to supply.

[Melboz99]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner


This is really quite untrue. Since the advent of railroads, troop movement has been largely conducted via rail. It's more efficient and less costly to move a military unit by train versus rail.

In fact, even today's US military has a huge reliance on railroads. Given an option, the US Army will transport their armored units via rail to and from the front.

In WWI, the war could not be averted by a last minute diplomacy bid, because the German military leaders told the Kaiser it was too late the stop the troop trains.

Sorry, rail is integral to warfare. I haven't gotten to supply.

Well, I have never seen this.

In my town of about 200,000 there is no train station. If you want to ride the train from Chigago to New York it takes 3 days to go the 800 miles because of all the stops, and it costs just as much as a plane ticket.

The only time I have heard of someone riding the train was when they were headed out west to a reseveration in New Mexico.

I know of very few people here in the states that ride rails of any sort other than the morning commute on the L or the Subway.

Matter of fact, I just Googled it. I found the National Trasportation Statistics page, and found statistics for long distance travel.

Here is the page.

It says that out of 2.6 billion person trips, about 21 million take the train. That equates to about 0.8%..

Now, I'm not a military man, but my brother is. He's in the USAF, and I've never heard of him riding the rail to any place he's been stationed at.

When he went to California, he drove, when he went to Texas he drove. When he went to Hawaii, Japan, Turkey, Germany, and Belguim he flew.

Maybe the Marines and the Army are different, I don't know.

I can't find any charts on google, but the fact of the matter is that there should be a highway system built into Civ IV.

For one thing, the US Interstate Highway System changed America. No longer did were by born, raised, and died in the same town. People started taking trips to visit distant relatives, going on vacation on the coast.

There is a huge percentage of trade that goes over the Interstate. If you've ever been on any US Interstate, you would know that there are millions of trucks driving tons of goods from point A to point B daily.

The US Interstate has had a huge impact on our Economy.

In my town I would hazard to guess that there are about 5,000-10,000 trucks on the road daily, yet it has been years since I have heard a train whistle.

I for one think that a highway system should be part of Civ IV.

Dan O.

[Shogun Gunner]

I'm not arguing against a "highway system", I'm just stating that militaries rely on railroads extensively. I'm not talking about off-duty officers getting home or civilian travel statistics - but real military procedures. Sure, individuals in the military drive or fly, but heavy military gear goes by boat or rail a large percentage of the time.

Why don't the existence of roads in Civ3 count as a "highway system". Civ2 had the city improvement "superhighways" that improved trade...which was dropped in Civ3. What exactly are you proposing in this thread for cIV?

I think a reduction in the road/irrigate/railroad every tile would be welcome...I think I would accept any configuration of this model if they would make it a bit more aesthetic.

[Melboz99]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
I'm not arguing against a "highway system", I'm just stating that militaries rely on railroads extensively. I'm not talking about off-duty officers getting home or civilian travel statistics - but real military procedures. Sure, individuals in the military drive or fly, but heavy military gear goes by boat or rail a large percentage of the time.

Why don't the existence of roads in Civ3 count as a "highway system". Civ2 had the city improvement "superhighways" that improved trade...which was dropped in Civ3. What exactly are you proposing in this thread for cIV?

I think a reduction in the road/irrigate/railroad every tile would be welcome...I think I would accept any configuration of this model if they would make it a bit more aesthetic.

Yeah, I'm not saying take away the rail system either. Rails have their place.

It's just strange to have 100 worker units riding the rails to the work site. I mean, if each worker represents a few thousand, it get's pretty rediculous.

I have a few friends in the construction buisness, and it would be rediculous to ask them to ride the rails to the construction site.

Sure, it happened when we built Hoover and Panama, but I doubt that many construction workers really ride the rails. Subway maybe, but a train?


And to those that think we aughta limit rail movement, I don't think so.

Think about it, by the time you get rails, the average turn lasts about 2 years. Does it really take 2 years to get from New York to LA by rail? I should hope not!

That's another thing I think we aughta talk about. The modern transport shouldn't take 10 turns to get from one side of your continent to another. Think about that, that's over 20 years!

Matter of fact, Christopher Columbus went from Europe to the Carribean in about 5 months, and that was in 1492! When we use these ships in Civ, it often takes over 50 years!

If anything ships should be able to move further than they currently do. This would better represent reality.

But yeah, mining, roading, then railing every square is a PITA. Something should be done about it. Besides, it looks plain WIERD.

Dan O.

[Melboz99]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Shogun Gunner [/SIZE

Why don't the existence of roads in Civ3 count as a "highway system". Civ2 had the city improvement "superhighways" that improved trade...which was dropped in Civ3. What exactly are you proposing in this thread for cIV?

They don't count as a highway system because in Civ3 any non-fast unit can only move 3 tiles on a road. By the time the 1950s technology is available, moving only 3 tiles is rediculous, as by this time any movent across the highway system should take at the most a week.

I could probably drive from Alaska to Mexico City in about a week, maybe two. If highways are represented by roads in Civ III, then why does it still take several years?

Edit: Also, roads do not generate nearly as much commerce as an Interstate Highway system should.

I think a cool idea for cIV is to have a small wonder of the Interstate Highway. In reality, the Interstate Highway system is modern wonder.

Once it is built, it should allow all land units to move by a faster amount within their own territory. Perhaps even instantaneous movement in their own territory.


Dan O.

[Ward]

Why not treat the railroad system like the airport? Create a rail station and allow point to point movement (unlimited) like the airlift, but that ends the movement. The next turn would then move the unit to the next spot. That way the units couldn't move and attack in one turn from one side to another. I agree that modern roads should be able to carry units much faster than ancient roads.
Why not have the different era roads have different movement capabilities? More modern roads in the modern eras allow faster movement.
We can't say that just because there is no rail movement between Rockford, Elgin and Chicago that the rail system can't work. We are creating this and it works in Europe. I watched Armored vehicles unloaded and transported all the time in Germany and the Autobahn was just minutes away. Open your minds and see the possibilities that are there.

[Shogun Gunner]

I agree that "infinite railroad movement" must be carried forward in some form in cIV. My only issue is with cost. Common sense suggests that wouldn't be able to move ALL your units across the same tile, at the same time, without some type of penalty.

I like the roads staying at the current fractional cost system. Modern units have inherently larger movement values. I guess I don't see the overwhelming need to change road cost values.

Playability must be weighed against historical accuracy. And if you don't like the decisions made regarding terrain movement costs, unit movement values, etc. you will be able to change that in the editor. People are doing that today in Civ3 to eliminate the "infinite railroad movement" issue or to increase the value of a road to movement.

[General Metaxa]

A few months ago I played a scenario which had no railroads in it and since then I play only those without railroads, because the infinite railroad kills the game.

We all know the combat tactics of infinite movement railroads: We need defend only our cities which can be reached and assaulted in single turn and when we are slugging it out with the AI, we can pull every unit that we own into the war. Its one great reason why we can beat the AI when we have forces that half or quarter theirs. The concept of the stategic placement of armies is nearly absent from the game.

Without infinite rail, we must maintain appreciable forces on all fronts to guard against an incursion. Sure during a war one can skim a bit off of the various fronts to bilster your war, but if you strip them too much, you'll leave the door open for even a much weaker civ to come rolling in. It also adds a leveler on huge empires: It can get pretty costly to maintain those armies to proptect those corrupt cities.

In place of the infinite railroad, I'd like to see a railroad that might cost a half or third the cost of traveling along a road. Also, I wouldn't mind having the railroad travel bonues only given to certain units. Its not that I give a hoot about historical whatnot, but from a playablity standpoint, it would be nice to see more then just modern armors and mech infantrys all over the place come the modern age.

Finally, concerning the dailogue concerning train use, I only comment on this because transportation is my profession and it really doesn't have much to do with the game. Firstly,

Furthermore, what brought about the great urbanization of America was the American interstate highway system. America would not be where it is today without it.

The interstate highway system did not bring about our urbanization. On the contrary, it fueled our suburbanization at the expense of the city and to the unmitigated glee of McDonalds, Wal-Mart and any other cookie cutter, utterly un-unique merchandizer who preys on the suburbs.

Secondly,

In my town I would hazard to guess that there are about 5,000-10,000 trucks on the road daily, yet it has been years since I have heard a train whistle.

Roughly 40% of the freight in the United States is sent by rail. And the United States, because of our fantastic wealth and our love for the freedom of the automobile (including the freedom to pay escalating gasoline prices, the freedom to get price gouged by the insurance company, the freedom to wreck the atmostphere and the freedom to get rooked by the car makers into putting thousands of dollars into the only investments which lose value with time) we depend on railed transport less then most other countries, so its even higher in other nations.