Keep infinite railroad movement?

[Nikolai]

lajzar: Let me assure you, you are not the first one to propose any of this. But if people don't read the List, they won't read a wiki either. What you make is just the List in another form you know.

[Xorbon]

So, has anybody heard what sort of rail system is in Civ 4? I would be slightly disappointed if it hasn't been changed at all. (The same goes for ship movement.)

[Willem]

Originally posted by Inverse Icarus


Units in a city should use a "GOTO" window, and select another city connected by rails. They should get there instantly, but lose all movement points.

I agree with that idea. Have it work more like the rebase command for aircraft in Civ 3. And railroads can only connect cities, not spread all over the landscape. For better movement in the Combustion era, we could have Roads improve to Highways which would increase the movement rate 25-50%. Land production improvements that Railroads now create could be pushed to Electricity with Workers building a hydro grid across your empire, shown with little hydro poles.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Guardian
Only if you choose to look at it that way, I say.

I prefer to think of the rail network as a key strategic asset and expanding it into new areas as a key strategic objective.

But there comes a point where the Railroad covers every square inch of your empire. Where's the strategy there? You don't have to concern yourself with placing your troops anywhere in particular, since they can travel instantly from everywhere. It would make the game much more interesting if you suddenly realized that the border next to a civ that just declared war on you was very lightly defended, and you'd better do something about it quickly. You'd be forced to make more strategic decisions along those lines, instead of just having a Stack of Death sitting around anywhere, just waiting for an attack.

[Jaybe]

As long as rail movement was the ONLY thing a unit did in a turn, I would be satisfied, whether infinite movement or not. Makes it strategic movement, as opposed to tactical movement/combat.

BTW, a unit that uses its strategic movement (railroads) in a turn has a 50% defense penalty following its movement, so it does NOT want to rail all the way up to the front if at all avoidable!

[Willem]

Originally posted by 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

Why do people keep bringing up this issue? Realistic or not we're playing a game here, and sometimes gameplay issues have to supercede. And being able to have your forces anywhere in your empire and defend all of your territory at once is a lousy gameplay choice. It takes away any kind of strategic decision and makes waging modern war downright boring!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Wai_Wai

b) The rail station is a city improvement (which cost maintenance). It is available when a city is connected by rail

Or another option:

The railroads are automatically placed between cities as soon as they build the improvement. With a condition that the rails will only connect those cities that are adjacent to each other. No jumping across your empire, you have to build from city to city.

[Jaybe]

I like the rail city-improvement option only if you can build multiple city improvements simultaneously.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Willem
Why do people keep bringing up this issue? Realistic or not we're playing a game here, and sometimes gameplay issues have to supercede. And being able to have your forces anywhere in your empire and defend all of your territory at once is a lousy gameplay choice. It takes away any kind of strategic decision and makes waging modern war downright boring!

But some players would rather not have to think in a strategic game. That would ruin it

This is why the combination of the current single unit airlift feature allowed from city to city that have airports (and the forfeiture of all movement points after the unit has landed is a nice touch), and the use of rails as ONLY a 1/5 movement bonus is an ideal solution.

Simple and effective...(but please also boost movement points for naval units too)

Originally posted by Willem
The railroads are automatically placed between cities as soon as they build the improvement. With a condition that the rails will only connect those cities that are adjacent to each other. No jumping across your empire, you have to build from city to city.

You run into the potential problem of defining what 'adjacent' means in the game - that can be a very broad definition. If you simply define it as city radius that touch, what do you do regarding cities that do not touch but are next to each other?

[DeathByTheSword]

a good way to limit the amount of RR build a RR improvement in a city (like some other people already said) and then let a 'free' worker automaticly start building a railroad between the cities that have the RR improvements this takes away the RR-lands and lets moving of workers...this way you will only have RR§s between your cities...and maybe with some special station tile improvemnt near your borders...

[Modo44]

I see no reason against infinite movement on Rail. But only inside your civ's borders. And only on terrain that is inside your borders for at least a few (say 5) turns. The thing is, absolutely everything can be transported on rails in a year (hence infinite movement for peace-time transportation). But there is no way this should be possible durring a war, where the Civ time-scale gets skewed, and we are talking days, not years. Especially not if the other country has a different Rail system. More importantly, RR-rushes kill the joy late-game of PBEMs, so they must be prevented somehow.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Modo44
I see no reason against infinite movement on Rail.

So you are willing to accept the element of a lousy gameplay design choice that takes away from the player the need to make any kind of deep strategic decision for the sake of brainless fun?

Infinite rails means that a player simply 'blobs' his units, and then when threatenened, sends them instantaneously against any threat. No need to preplan a war, or preplan for the possible threat of being invaded...Just spit out units and react when it occurs.

You already defeat your own argument when you say

Originally posted by Modo44 More importantly, RR-rushes kill the joy late-game of PBEMs, so they must be prevented somehow.

The advantage of having both unlimited AND infinite movement works both on the side of offense and defense. You may then say that since there is no advantage either way, then why change it? But the limitation makes for a more challenging gameplay choice because it forces a player to make tough choices in deployment. Players simply cannot blob to the extent that they can with unlimited movement, either on offense or defense, because they will have to hold some units in reserve if a secondary threat appears on the opposite side of the map.

I'll take the better gameplay over cheap tactics any day.

I'll go back to my post above...

Originally posted by hexagonian
This is why the combination of the current single unit airlift feature allowed from city to city that have airports (and the forfeiture of all movement points after the unit has landed is a nice touch), and the use of rails as ONLY a 1/5 movement bonus is an ideal solution.

This solution allows the means to have SOME instantaneous movement feature that many civ3 loyalists crave for their safety crutch, but it is limited in scope because of the forfeiture of movement when the unit is airlifted, as well as the limit of one unit per airport per turn.

A compromise, you can say...

[Harovan]

It would mighty disappoint me, if infinite RR movement would have survived in Civ4. Knowing Firaxis, I don't hold my breath, though.

[Nikolai]

I believe it will be kept. Something that revolutionary compared to earlier releases would probably be among the first things to be presented of info of the game, partially to see the response before it is too late I guess.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by hexagonian
So you are willing to accept the element of a lousy gameplay design choice that takes away from the player the need to make any kind of deep strategic decision for the sake of brainless fun?

Infinite rails means that a player simply 'blobs' his units, and then when threatenened, sends them instantaneously against any threat. No need to preplan a war, or preplan for the possible threat of being invaded...Just spit out units and react when it occurs.

You are wrong. If you "blob" all (or most) units, your border cities are empty, and can be taken. If the enemy has fast-enough units (no Rails, mind you), he can then even move farther into your territory. He can then fortify and show your blob the finger. There goes your argument.

What unlimited RR movement does, and what it should do, is let you react the turn after the invasion. Which is perfectly fine, as demontstrated by German defense during late WWII, where divisions and bigger units were shifted "instantly" (a month or less, I do not know exactly; far less that a Civ turn might be) between fronts. Without unlimited RR, this kind of scrambling would not be possible.

What I would like to see is some kind of delay, before RRs in conquered or liberated territory become functional, so that nobody could rush you that way in one turn. Units have limited movement, so even if someone takes 2 layers of cities on turn 1, he would get bogged down, having to watch the counter-attack. With unlimited RR movement they would just roll over everything.