Keep infinite railroad movement?

[sophist]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


I don't like this too much, because increasing the cost will also increase the time until the skeleton is in place...

I guess I see that as being also a good thing. I don't think Spain had anything quite like it, but the building of the Trans-Continental railroad in the United States was a monumental undertaking. I think it's a little strange that in civ3, I could completely railroad my entire civilization in just a few turns. It makes for an abrupt transition from one era to another to go from a road network to a rail network in such a short time, and provides an unbalanced power advantage to the first civ to discover steam power. Slowing this down would make the user think more about where rail is most essential and blunt the power of railroad initially. After all, weren't we talking about how railroad is a little over-powered? It should take you decades to finish the job.

Also, think about this.... if you have 25 cities, each 6 tiles apart, you'd probably have to build on the order of 150 segments of railroad to connect them in a skeletal fashion. To make a fully-connected system, with each city connected to each other city, would require railroading many times as many tiles. Look how much more red there is in your second diagram than the first. The costs could be tweaked such that it takes 10-20 years to do the first and another 60 years to do the second. It's quite possible that it would take about the same time to do a skeletal system in civ4(5?) that it took to do a complete rail carpet in civ3. That's fine, though, because you no longer gain any benefit from a rail carpet, so you'd move on to bigger and better things.

[Atahualpa]

Well you know, if you have time you can try how that will affect for example Civ3, by modding the time you need to construct railroads, which is an option in the civ3 scenario editor.

[jw32767]

jw32767, I want to keep the idea that going further costs more. The cost is no longer in motion, though, but in navigating intersections, which you have to do frequently. Such costs exist in the old road days, but were hidden because it was an immense PITA to just get from point A to B in the first place.

Compare the postal service to the Internet. In the postal service, first you have to drop the letter at the mailbox. Then it travels to the local hub (5 hours). They examine it (2 seconds) and decide to send it to a regional hub (10 hours). They examine it (2 seconds) and decide to sent it to a different local hub (7 hours). They examine it (2 seconds) and decide to send it to a local mailbox (24 hours). The exact same issues exist with the Internet, except it's like this: packet goes to local switch (2 nanoseconds). Switch examines packet (100 nanoseconds) and sends packet to router (5 nanoseconds). Router examines packet (200 nanoseconds) and sends it to another switch (10 nanoseconds). Switch examines packet (100 seconds) and sends it to another machine (2 nanoseconds). In both cases, you take a hit both from moving and from routing, but in one case, moving dwarfs routing, and in the other case, routing dwarfs moving.

I guess I see historical rail movement as more like the post office, but with the bulk of the cost actually packaging the item for shipping. Getting guys on and off the train in good order is much more costly than switching them through rail junctions.

To continue with your analogy it's more like:

7 days to get the packaging material together, 10 hours to get the item into the packaging, 10 hours to get to the main rail hub, 2 hours waiting for switching, 30 hours to get to the destination's local hub, 2 hours waiting for switching and 10 hours to get to the destination.

The big upfront cost is finding the right number of cars of the right type nearby, which is more in line with having a lift limit system wide. However, that sucks for playablity. Though I suppose you could build rail units much like naval transports. Give them infinite rail moves, some number of mp, but have it cost them 1 to load and/or unload, same with the transported unit. *shrug* just throwing ideas out there =)

[GeoModder]

That sounds like micromanagement.

[sophist]

Originally posted by GeoModder
That sounds like micromanagement.

It's just a metaphor. None of that would be in the game.

I'd be ok with attaching some cost to getting on the train. Actually, in my model, there's no way to get on the railroad without expending at least 1/3 of a move point unless you're (for some reason) paused on a rail segment.

Perhaps it makes sense to allow only one unit on each section of railroad at a time. You can't pass except in cities, but you can move as many units through sequentially as you like. Might be moot, though.

[Straybow]

Except on most maps the tiles are on the order of a hundred miles across. Have you ever seen a rail map? In most areas of Europe or the eastern US there would be many ways to cross a 100+ mile area.

Some years ago there was a railroad bridge in MS or LA that was struck by a barge. Traffic was rerouted all over the southeast US to compensate. Small rail sidings around where I live started handling consist transfer work.

Second, rail is not an intra-city anything, unless you're talking about a subway/commuter rail. The city in Civ is an abstraction, it is a region larger than all but 2 States in the US, larger than 187 of 235 countries (based on 21 100x100mi tiles).

The production advantage reflected in RR is the ability to move bulk material over large distances cheaply. Without the RR there would have been no great logging boom in the 1800's (both in terms of shipping and demand). Most of the mineral strikes in the Rockies would have been completely unfeasible to mine without RR to move ore to distant processors or to move copper and silver bullion to cities quickly and securely. If we were still moving coal by ox-cart we would never have had an industrial revolution.

In addition, the same technology that enables rail enables steam powered pneumatic tools for mining, cable skidding for timber, steam power for mills, excavation, dredging, etc.

If anything, the increase in extraction and industrial production is vastly understated.

[Kaak]

i like the unlimited rail movement!!!

[sophist]

Originally posted by Straybow
Except on most maps the tiles are on the order of a hundred miles across. Have you ever seen a rail map? In most areas of Europe or the eastern US there would be many ways to cross a 100+ mile area.

Some years ago there was a railroad bridge in MS or LA that was struck by a barge. Traffic was rerouted all over the southeast US to compensate. Small rail sidings around where I live started handling consist transfer work.

I was sacrificing a bit of realism in order to keep it simple. But I can handle realism. Tell me this... in the real world, have we stopped using roads since the invention of railroad? Of course not. They both have their place. Yet the way civ works, railroads completely replace roads. Railroads and roads have different advantages and disadvantages in the real world and they should have different advantages in the game. That's not (just) because of realism, but to balance the game and make the player think about what he/she wants in a given situation and add depth to the game.

Second, rail is not an intra-city anything, unless you're talking about a subway/commuter rail. The city in Civ is an abstraction, it is a region larger than all but 2 States in the US, larger than 187 of 235 countries (based on 21 100x100mi tiles).

That was my point.

The production advantage reflected in RR is the ability to move bulk material over large distances cheaply. Without the RR there would have been no great logging boom in the 1800's (both in terms of shipping and demand). Most of the mineral strikes in the Rockies would have been completely unfeasible to mine without RR to move ore to distant processors or to move copper and silver bullion to cities quickly and securely. If we were still moving coal by ox-cart we would never have had an industrial revolution.

I know what the rationale is, I just think it's a bad one. Railroads didn't make it possible to dig more ore out of the ground or to cut down more trees. The ore and the trees were the same as before. The mining and logging processes were the same as before. Railroad didn't affect things at that end. What railroad did was make it easier and cheaper to ship ore and lumber long distances. That made it more cost effective to mine and log at such great distances from the main markets, which led to much greater mining and logging. But it didn't actually improve the ability to extract ore from the ground or chop down trees. There may have been related technologies that did that, but it wasn't the infrastructure of railroads that did it.

In addition, the same technology that enables rail enables steam powered pneumatic tools for mining, cable skidding for timber, steam power for mills, excavation, dredging, etc.

That's better modelled as a consequence of Steam Power and other scientific advances. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have some mechanism for increasing production around that time, I'm just saying that doing it in Civ with railroads is a poor way of doing it.

[Jaybe]

One must remember that the perspective in the United States regarding Roads vs. Rails is a more than a bit skewed. In Europe they still use rails alot.

[Europeans (especially Germans) chime in here]

[Straybow]

Originally posted by sophist
I was sacrificing a bit of realism in order to keep it simple. But I can handle realism. Tell me this... in the real world, have we stopped using roads since the invention of railroad? Of course not. They both have their place. Yet the way civ works, railroads completely replace roads. Railroads and roads have different advantages and disadvantages in the real world and they should have different advantages in the game. That's not (just) because of realism, but to balance the game and make the player think about what he/she wants in a given situation and add depth to the game.

Up until the 1950s many state highways were still unpaved. Almost all interstate commerce was by rail. We have not gone back to using the old, 2 lane, barely paved roads. In the US we have stopped using roads. What we use most is the Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. It is, in Civ terms, equivalent to Rails.

I know what the rationale is, I just think it's a bad one. Railroads didn't make it possible to dig more ore out of the ground or to cut down more trees. The ore and the trees were the same as before. The mining and logging processes were the same as before. Railroad didn't affect things at that end. What railroad did was make it easier and cheaper to ship ore and lumber long distances. That made it more cost effective to mine and log at such great distances from the main markets, which led to much greater mining and logging. But it didn't actually improve the ability to extract ore from the ground or chop down trees. There may have been related technologies that did that, but it wasn't the infrastructure of railroads that did it.

Not true, because without rail there would be no market except the local markets. There would be no great Texas cattle ranches because there were only a few cities in Texas. Rails created access to national markets, and thus mines and timber became more lucrative and expanded greatly.

[Straybow]

Second, rail is not an intra-city anything, unless you're talking about a subway/commuter rail. The city in Civ is an abstraction, it is a region larger than all but 2 States in the US, larger than 187 of 235 countries (based on 21 100x100mi tiles).

That was my point.

No, you said:

Regardless, it uses an intra-city mechanism (boosting local production) to model something that has inter-city benefits. If my cities can trade with each other better because of railroads, that shouldn't affect each city's local production, just the flexibility with which it can trade it.

You are still, in essence, looking at the city as an urban development rather than a large region with centralized economic ties. There is no inter-city benefit to rails in terms of production. City A doesn't gain more shields of production because a tile in City B's radius has rail.

"Local" production is on the tile level. Anything that improves the tile is local only to itself, not to the city. The city proper is the distribution/industry center and the nearest tile is a hundred or more miles away. Shipping timber that far isn't very economical, and so finished goods are the predominant trade with the city proper. After rail comes to that tile bulk goods can be cheaply shipped for use in the urban factories.

Cities do trade better with each other because of rail. For Civ2, if two cities are within 23 tiles and connected by a recognized rail connection there is a +50% bonus to the trade route.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Straybow
We have not gone back to using the old, 2 lane, barely paved roads. In the US we have stopped using roads. What we use most is the Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. It is, in Civ terms, equivalent to Rails.

Except we still have and use railroads. Also, there are many interstate roads and inter-metro roads that are not part of the highways system. Additionally, this system only appeared after WWII, or, in civ terms, at the end of the Industrial era and the beginning of the Modern era. As such, I'm pretty sure that the designers of Civilization did not mean the interstate highway system with the game concept called "railroad."

Originally posted by Straybow
Not true, because without rail there would be no market except the local markets. There would be no great Texas cattle ranches because there were only a few cities in Texas. Rails created access to national markets, and thus mines and timber became more lucrative and expanded greatly.

Er... how is that different from what I said?

Originally posted by Straybow
You are still, in essence, looking at the city as an urban development rather than a large region with centralized economic ties. There is no inter-city benefit to rails in terms of production. City A doesn't gain more shields of production because a tile in City B's radius has rail.

"Local" production is on the tile level. Anything that improves the tile is local only to itself, not to the city. The city proper is the distribution/industry center and the nearest tile is a hundred or more miles away. Shipping timber that far isn't very economical, and so finished goods are the predominant trade with the city proper. After rail comes to that tile bulk goods can be cheaply shipped for use in the urban factories.

Ok, I get you. I think we may have different scales in mind. I don't think that a city represents anything larger than an average American state, and quite possibly smaller, as the average American state is roughly the same size as the average European country (Texas is bigger than France, according to an obnoxious bumper sticker). As such, I still think rails are more significant for trade between (civ) cities than they are within the region. You mentioned Texas cattle ranches. Well, those weren't getting sent a few hundred miles to Oklahoma or Louisiana. Those were getting sent to the Midwest and East Coast. You mention mining and lumber. Again, those commodities were getting sent across multiple states.

Originally posted by Straybow
Cities do trade better with each other because of rail. For Civ2, if two cities are within 23 tiles and connected by a recognized rail connection there is a +50% bonus to the trade route.

I did not know that. It's a little hackish, though; exactly 23 tiles, no more, and an exactly 50% bonus, no more. I prefer something that varies more with distance and has no upper cap, and (of course) replaces the per-tile bonus. The game would be balanced, of course, in the end so that you would have roughly the same amount of money and science, but you'd have railroads as connectors, not as wallpaper.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Maquiladora


Couldnt agree more... its a real headache organising a MP game where everyone has the same modifications, especially to new MP players who arent even aware of the mods.

The easier it is to go online and start up a quick game of civ with a stranger, the more popular it will become.

Oh -- with my post, I was being selfish in that I was posting my thoughts from the perspective of one who only plays single player.

[Straybow]

Except we still have and use railroads. Also, there are many interstate roads and inter-metro roads that are not part of the highways system. Additionally, this system only appeared after WWII, or, in civ terms, at the end of the Industrial era and the beginning of the Modern era. As such, I'm pretty sure that the designers of Civilization did not mean the interstate highway system with the game concept called "railroad."

Well in Civ there is no difference between the roads of 4000 BC and the roads of 2000 AD. Ox-carts weighed no more than a couple tons, and that's what ancient roadbuilding methods could bear. Modern tractor-trailor rigs have loads of sixteen tons per axle. Modern asphalt roads are built in much the same way as railbeds, up to three feet of graded gravel and paving courses.

I don't know how old you are, but I remember riding through the mountains on US 19 before the Interstate, crawling in a long line of traffic behind a big truck. When I was in college I drove US 19 when very little of it had been upgraded to 4 lanes, although it had been straightened and regraded.

Before WWII the only practical way to ship things was by train. Now the majority of our interstate commerce (other than bulk payload) is by truck. The way we use our highways (yes, more than just the Interstate system, but all those other roads have been completely rebuilt to near-Interstate standards) is equivalent to RR before WWII.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Straybow
Well in Civ there is no difference between the roads of 4000 BC and the roads of 2000 AD. Ox-carts weighed no more than a couple tons, and that's what ancient roadbuilding methods could bear. Modern tractor-trailor rigs have loads of sixteen tons per axle. Modern asphalt roads are built in much the same way as railbeds, up to three feet of graded gravel and paving courses.

...

Before WWII the only practical way to ship things was by train. Now the majority of our interstate commerce (other than bulk payload) is by truck. The way we use our highways (yes, more than just the Interstate system, but all those other roads have been completely rebuilt to near-Interstate standards) is equivalent to RR before WWII.

I would happily see modern roads in Civilization. If that's really your thesis, though, you shouldn't be advocating for a change to railroads but rather their elimination and replacement by the similar highways. But that messes up the timing of railroads at the beginning of the industrial era. Maybe the civ designers thought it was pointless to have highways replace railroads. Maybe that's the solution to it all.

I'd be happy to see a "paved road" improvement that split the difference. Perhaps you start with a dirt road, which has a movement cost of 1/3 the terrain's normal cost; i.e., 3/3 = 1 for mountains, 2/3 for hills, 1/3 for grassland, etc. Then later would come paved roads (with Construction?), which require stone and reduce that to 1/3 move regardless of terrain (what roads are now). Those roads would take a lot more time to build, though, so you'd basically only build them to connect your cities, and only where you needed to span rivers, cross mountains, etc. Then when you discover Steam Power, you can build a rail network that allows infinite movement between cities as I outlined above. Finally, with the development of the Automobile, you can build the highway, which allows unrestricted infinite movement, like the railroad in Civ3 and before. I realize that creates 4 types of movement infrastructure where there are currently 2, but, if nothing else, this discussion has demonstrated that the 2 we have right now are too much of a simplification.