Keep infinite railroad movement?

[Toby Rowe]

Hi all,

Just had to reply quickly to this comment:

"These are the kind of concepts we can look forward to in civ4 with a lead designer interested primarily in the AI's performance."

I can't see the authors' name now which I've been looking for but doesn't appear in this "Reply" page, however:

Oh joy!!

Toby

[Toby Rowe]

About Railway movement:

Britains Industrial revolution, and then that of the rest of the world might never happened as quickly were it not for railways.

Going to Scotland from London in 1850 took 8 hours on a train, before it could take a week.

If we scale it into the timescale of Civ 4 then movement should be instant regarding railways- It took King Harold only 3 days to march his victorious army from York down to Hastings to fight the Normans- still considered incredible to this day by historians, in the context of foot-slogging for a tired consript army.

Sooo, If you start in 4000BC, then once Railways occur, then yes, movement is certainly instant by comparison.

For large nations like the US, then from a military point of view Air travel might well seem more logical should a rapid mobilisation ever be needed.

From a European point of view, with much smaller nations, the railway system remains our quickest method, with the fastest French and German trains able to travel at 350mph, rather than a plane at 450mph, the capacity of the train still wins in Europe, and the railway network will get you to almost anywhere.

Regarding Military and Railways, Britains were built for industry, begining in the 17th C, passengers came late, Bismarck in Germany built the entire network to connect military bases to borders, and again passengers were an afterthought. Surely Bismarck would be spinning in his grave within this game, were not movement instant upon it, from a military perspective, relative to speed of Warfare at THAT time?

Toby?

[Shogun Gunner]

Welcome General Metaxa. to your post.

Originally posted by 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.

Sounds like a great idea. A lot of people on these forums have complained that Civ3 is so boring in the modern era. This would go part of the way in addressing some of the deficencies of modern combat.

One of these days I'm going to get around to modding a scenario with all the little changes I want to make...

[Maquiladora]

We thought maps filled with railroads in every square were just plain ugly, so we introduced Farmland, Supermarkets, and Superhighways to encourage a more well-rounded approach to civil engineering.

I happened across this written in the back of the Civ2 manual under "Designers Notes", quite funny considering what happened to civ3, farmland disappears, in comes RR sleaze.

[Toby Rowe]

Shogunner,

I find the modern era extremely boring.

I want to play for longer in the other era's, but Civ 3 rushes through the interesting period in no time at all, leaving us with the bloody railway+ era.

Most don't want it, but the programmers are obsessed with making us all suffer it, regardless of the game title.

Shiny metal rails are great- but I'd like to spend a lot more time before I have to see them. Shiny metal spears fits more with the evolution of Civilisation (real historical one that is).

By the time you have the choice to build railways, the game should be nearly over, not beginning as it tends to be.

Toby

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Infinite RR movement

These are the kind of concepts we can look forward to in civ4 with a lead designer interested primarily in the AI's performance.

Words that may go good with crow, and a bit of salt.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Hi all,

Just had to reply quickly to this comment:

"These are the kind of concepts we can look forward to in civ4 with a lead designer interested primarily in the AI's performance."

I can't see the authors' name now which I've been looking for but doesn't appear in this "Reply" page, however:

Oh joy!!

Toby

Surprise!

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Words that may go good with crow, and a bit of salt.

Infinite RR...
The biggest AI crutch available to the designer.

[joncnunn]

Actually, Rails were used extensively by both sides during the US Civil War to bring newly formed units to a few days march from the front lines. As well as transfer units from one theater to another. (Again bracketed by a few days march.) The North had faster effective rail because the northern side had pre war already been standardized, while the southern side featured several incompatable train gagues.

On WW II and Germany, yes, but past that point for the Russian campaign it was rail thru Poland, and then by foot once the ex-USSR was reached. And those that fought as part of the major german thrusts generaly had to get there on foot.

The idea for the US Interstate system was a military one when it took two months during WW I for a unit from San Francisco to get to St Louis. (Ike's) During the 50s though, the big city mayors successfully got the system to connect major cities instead of going clear around them. This led to suburbia greatly expanding along the interstates, and also contributed to rural population far from interstate declines while rural population along interstates stayed the same or increased. It also led to the bussiness centers of towns virtually relocating a few miles over, especally as non-Interstates started adopting the interchange model. As anyone going a good sized distance along a US Interstate knows, the divided highway allows them to still carry traffic in both directions thru construction zones. Including presenting two seperate targets for bombers trying to take out bridges.

Light rail is also popular in Chicago, downtown Portland, download Atlanta, and downtown St Louis. (For those who both live and work in a conventent enough location) Much more efficent than the buses that are stuck in the same traffic jams the cars are.

In many cases the US Highways have taken over the earlier role of railroads. Inter-city rail in the US is very unpopular (except for the North East) Generally much faster to drive than take Amtrack. And in many cases it would be cheaper on the US govt to hire taxis to transport the few passengers than operate the train.

Europe has the population density to support intercity rail, the US does not [except for the NE]

The big difference between the German autobahn and the US Interstate highway system, is that there is a speed limit on US interstates even when there are 10+ miles between exits in sparely populated areas. In the 70s, Montana was forced to put a speed limit on highways (and several others forced to lower them.) The other choice was no federal highway funds. Montana was in the dozen that placed it in their state law that the fine for exceeding 55 MPH on interstates is a flat $1.00 no matter how fast the driver was going and whenever the feds abolish the national speed limit it would immedately revert to the pre speed limit status. (A few other states placed the same $1.00 fine as well.) The Texas Highway Patrol manual for a while read don't pull someone over for speeding on US Highways unless they are going over 85 MPH unless they are also presenting a traffic safety problem [excessive weaving] The Feds caught on and so they took that guideline off their manual and made it an oral one with no paper trail. The ironic thing in Montana under the no speed limit rule is that average speed droped by 1 MPH. Montana had reverted to a $68 fine for going "too fast for road conditions" and people weren't quite sure what too fast was. (Montana's Highway Patrol said under ideal conditions, 100 MPH, but cautioned that most of the citizens would say that's too fast.) Montana legislature a few years later voted in a 70 MPH limit. I doubt it's enforced for those going under either 80 or 85 unless needed as a tool to get weaving drivers off the road. (Like the rest of the US where the speed on expresways to get steady speed drivers pulled over is generally 10 or 15 MPH above the posted limit.)

Originally posted by 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.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by hexagonian

Infinite RR...
The biggest AI crutch available to the designer.

And it was in Civ and Civ2. Your point?

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And it was in Civ and Civ2. Your point?

It was a crutch in those games too...

I refer to the post by General Metaxa...
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.

The thing about infinite rails that bothers me so much is the above post by GenMet.

In one regard, infinite rails is a 'crutch' to both the player and the AI because the rules equally apply to both.

This 'crutch' helps the AI play defense. It was even more of a 'crutch' in civ1-civ2 because the useage of rails was not limited by ownership.

I understand why the designers have it in the game simply because it is more for the benefit of the AI - to get it to operate better. At the same time, there are many TBS games out there that do not rely on this type of 'crutch'

(Pretty obvious point I might add)

[notyoueither]

Perhaps you might want to have another look at what I replied to when I posted what you replied to.

Perhaps you think CIV will be as weak in this regard as other civs. Perhaps you want to join the que for tickets for crow.

I thought my point was pretty obvious too, especially since I wasn't saying infinite RR should stay. In fact I hate it.

[hexagonian]

OK, lets analyze this...

You respond to Maq's post when he says civ4 might have a propped up AI because it is a distinct possibility the designers will keep the 'crutch' of infinite RR. And this is a possibility because infinite RR has been part of the entire Sid civ franchise.

The thread is titled 'Keep Infinte Railroad', meaning that people should probably post opinions on why it should/should not be in the game. I posted that it is a crutch - and clarified the reasons when asked (as it was initially posted by GenMet).

Here's the part that was not clear...
At the same time, in the initial discussion, you do not post that you are against infinite RR. In fact, your initial comment can be taken that you were pro-infinite RR, as it comes across more as a knee-jerk reaction to the poster who is clearly against infinite RR...(and I'm sorry that I do not have the time to track through all of the threads on this site just to get your viewpoint on this - it certainly was not in this thread until your last post)

Perhaps you should of posted this instead...
Words that may go good with crow, and a bit of salt. But I would like to see infinite RR removed because...(list opinions here)

Hey, I have hope for civ4. I'll glaldly eat crow if the AI in civ4 is good. I play games because I enjoy them, not because of some sort of blind loyalty to a franchise or creator.

But I will also realize that if infinite RR is in civ4, that AI will be propped up in the same way that it is now in civ3 with its AI bonuses/AI see the entire map/AI slanted trade agreements, and so on.

I hope I'm not sensing some sort of a personal bias against Maq and I... (my guess is that it's probably there anyhow) But, as I said before, and will repeat here, it's just a game, and in the great scheme of things, is not all that worth getting worked up about...

enjoying a good laugh at work

[joncnunn]

The AI would be better off while defending without infinate rail under current AI tactics. (For that matter, current AI would function best without roads and no fast units.)

Because the AI in positing defensive units does not consider relation to the boarder. It's instead placing more defensive units on the larger cities. Nor does it seem to move reinforcing defensive units to threatened cities, the moving ones are part of the AI offensive.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by joncnunn
The AI would be better off while defending without infinate rail under current AI tactics. (For that matter, current AI would function best without roads and no fast units.)

Don't give the developers any ideas!