Keep infinite railroad movement?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by 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

Actually, he was just being a flaming *******, and I pointed out that he may be in for a course of crow.

[Maquiladora]

I was flaming who with the what now?

[Toby Rowe]

Notyoueither;

You have one of the best names on the internet, you have a lot of knowlege about the Civ series, yet still you disparage new players to the game by calling them "nOObies" or something like it.

Exactly how will this encourage new players seeking to ask an entirely innocent question about Civ 3?, and correct me if I'm wrong, but were you not once a nOObie as you call it your self? You became an "expert" by playing/repeating the task in hand.

I really dislike this type of attitude on the net- and there is no other option to the net- Why are you so special that you can call others "nOObies"- Do you instantly know all about a game the second you opened the box?
Nobody else on this board has this attitude, sadly you are the first to reply.

If I'm wrong, can I buy the "instant knowledge potion? you must have?

I personally start from the perspective that the questioner knows little or nothing of the game, or else they wouldn't have spent 10 minutes typing the question they want an answer to.

Bar that, how about a private email argument about attitude.

I am fully aware about the many crap posts I've made, whilst drunk or tired, but I'm not seeking to earn brownie points either.
I reckon if we met in a pub, we'd get on fine, as you'd have to explain your attitude to the "nOObies" that daren't post because of it, and I'd ridicule you for so doing, but we'd still have a laugh.

Toby

[notyoueither]

These aren't new players, Toby. These are old trolls who have been haunting the CTP forums for ages. They occassionally emerge from under their bridge to make a lot of noise and cause a stink that Civ3 wasn't CTP3.

However, cheers to the idea of beers.

[Toby Rowe]

Rubbish!!

Have some faith in humanity!

Take people as is.

I look forward to us arguing this privately, but doub't you'll go for it.

You already assumed all questors were "emerging under a bridge"- What? Nah, not good enough mate, perhaps they were asking a question, plain and simple.

The only person that has made a stink is me, and I've been ignored due to it. I feel the game was poor. gave a few reasons why, but clearly stated I wish to move onto: Civ 4, not allowed it seems. I'm bored with Civ3- it's both a diplomatic and soldery nightmare, it represents neither whilst pretending to support both- It's crap.

Toby

[notyoueither]

Have another beer, Toby.

[notyoueither]

I'm cracking one now. Last one for the night.

[Shigga]

keep the infinite movement. how far do you think some unit can move in the space of 2 years irl? One turn = 2 years so th movement should be infinite or very near to it imho

[Maquiladora]

Ah yes, the old realism excuse, whos willing to blow it apart this time?

[Xorbon]

None of the movement in Civ is at all realistic. A couple of examples: ancient units take centuries to travel to the other side of the world, and once there have no problem being supported from home; ships, even modern ones, take forever to travel around the globe. Infinite rail movement should not be kept without making changes elsewhere in the game - for playablilty's sake.

The best thing to do is shoot for playability first, realism second. (Not that I wouldn't mind seeing the above examples improved.)

[Proteus_MST]

I am against infinite rail movement.

For the same reason that other people already posted, i.e. that it makes defending your borders too easy (and boring).

Just create a system like in CtP, with Railroads giving the Units more movement points.
Not necessary the same amount as in CtP (where 1 MP could move you 5 tiles on Railroads instead of the 3 tiles on roads), maybe somehow larger (for example 6-10 tiles per MP) but not infinite.

All units should be able to move on Railroads (as in reality, you could load Tanks and other heavy equipment on trains) but every tile with a railroad on it should have an utilization limit so that for example only 12 units would be able to use a railroad movement bonus of a certain hex per turn, perhaps with heavy equipment like tanks counting as 2 units.

Ah for enemy units using your raiolroads, I think that it should be possible, but that the movement boni for railroads / roads within enemy territory should be lower than those in own territory (for example being halved) reflecting, that the enemy could have taken countermeasures against Intruders using their transportation system (for example mines) and also taking into account, that Units who wish to take the train in enemy territory first have to find a train engine and waggons to use (whereas the owner of the territory would know where the depots are andf just could tell them to move a train to a place he wants) and also reflecting the fact, that, at least during WW1 and WW2 you had armored which were sometimes patrolled the traintracks [and would have to be avoided by any enemy unit wishing to use the railroad system]

What about a system with simple Roads (allowing 3 tiles per MP), paved Roads (allowing 5 tiles per MP) and Railroads (10 tiles per MP)?

Whereas the enemy would get just 2,4,6 (with railroads having a larger malus, as it probably would be more difficult for the enemy to use the enemy railroad system than enemy roads)

*edited: It´s tanks, not trains, which should be transported on trains

[Shigga]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Ah yes, the old realism excuse, whos willing to blow it apart this time?

I am aware that not very much of the movement system is realistic It was just a petty excuse for keeping my beloved infinite rr movement ^^

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
These aren't new players, Toby. These are old trolls who have been haunting the CTP forums for ages. They occassionally emerge from under their bridge to make a lot of noise and cause a stink that Civ3 wasn't CTP3.

...and notyoueither is one of those 'narrow-minded trolls' who feel that if a game does not have the 'Sid' stamp of approval on it, it has no good ideas in it at all...

I'd rather be an open-minded troll than a close-minded one

...and cheers to Toby Rowe Next round is on me!!!

[Sava]

infinite rail movement?!? Sure why not... but I wish it was different

unfortunately, the passage of time is the problem with CIV games, I'd like to see a system more like HoI and Eu2 where the passage of time is more realistic. That way, moving a unit across a large area doesn't take 200 years.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Just create a system like in CtP, with Railroads giving the Units more movement points.
Not necessary the same amount as in CtP (where 1 MP could move you 5 tiles on Railroads instead of the 3 tiles on roads), maybe somehow larger (for example 6-10 tiles per MP) but not infinite.
[/size]

From a realism point of view, it would make more sense if movement on rails was fixed instead of dependent on movement points. That is, infantry should be able to go as far as cavalry or tanks when on rails.