Keep infinite railroad movement?

[Straybow]

? I'm unaware of suggesting anything different. However the Bessemer process was created in 1855.

The Newcomen steam engine dates from the early part of the 18th Century, Watt's improvements from the latter part of the 18th Century, and the Stockton-Darlington line opened in 1825, and the Liverpool to Manchester line 5 years later.

Somebody said coal is needed for steel as an explanation why coal is needed for RR. When Proteus said the advance "Steel" is 3 steps after "steam engine" you replied, "How strange- given that steel preceded the development of the steam engine."

On another angle, I've been thinking that it is also possible to use animal power to draw loads on rails. Nowhere near as efficient as mechanical propulsion, but still better than unpaved or cobble roads.

[Addled Platypus]

than you for your support GeoModder

until something else comes up

rail cars is playable for me

a few more ideas on rail cars:

1. no need for a engine unit (automatic)
2. capturable...but you need the appropiate era tech to operate
(if you are still in medival era..no can run)
3. scaleable carring capacity, ie 1 (or more)gold per unit loaded
so if one wants to send 20 units, pay 20 gold
Do we really need to have a whole train of 8 capacity cars?
Having a fee may keep the abuse down?

[Toby Rowe]

Sorry Molly.

Platypus,

I think both rivets and welding deserve a tech advance each as they both changed national navies forever at least.

Steel changed, alas the governments didn't- Think on it everyone.

Toby

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
than you for your support GeoModder

You're quite welcome.

[Addled Platypus]

are you biased agiasnt arc welding Toby

if its in a mod np, I would try it at least once

[Dis]

arc welding would require electricity of course

[Toby Rowe]

Dis,

Arc-welding is later, I reckon steel is enough as a discovery?

Think of it this way: A certain famous Yank was trying to get rich, met another who was already: His choice words were roughly: "design a gun that can kill stupid Europeans when fighting each other more quickly", he did: it was called the Gatling gun, his invention helped slaughter fellow Europeans in WWI in a stupid war.

Franz Ferdinand?- great band, shame about the bloke and the war us Europeans had to fight due to him.

The Gatling gun was almost as good as a GPMG in the modern British army, but only one is worthy of a tech-leap.

Toby

[Addled Platypus]

and inventing ways to kill more effectivelly ever since....

what a waste of time and resources

cant wait to find out what RR does....getting closer

[Toby Rowe]

Hi Mate,

That was a caustic reply to the Governments of this world that on occasion wish us dead seemingly.

After two world wars and the birth of true democracy since WWII, Western European nations will never fight each other again, as they know the people would rebel.

Except for perhaps my nation, the stupid British who read "The Sun" newspaper, but those 4 million readers are laughed at by the other 56 million.

Toby

[Edgar Newt]

I voted for the 1/6 or 1/10 movement allocation, but I also think that beginning and ending in a city should be allowed in one turn, regardless of the distance.

[Zhahz]

Rail is way too powerful in Civ3, IMO. It gives a huge amount of production bonuses and a ridiculous amount of freedom of movement. I look forward to seeing how it's been changed to be more reasonable (and for there to be no reason to cover every tile in your empire with rail).

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Hi Mate,

That was a caustic reply to the Governments of this world that on occasion wish us dead seemingly.

After two world wars and the birth of true democracy since WWII, Western European nations will never fight each other again, as they know the people would rebel.

Except for perhaps my nation, the stupid British who read "The Sun" newspaper, but those 4 million readers are laughed at by the other 56 million.

Toby

and this applies to RR issues?

maybe getting railroaded

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Zhahz
Rail is way too powerful in Civ3, IMO. It gives a huge amount of production bonuses and a ridiculous amount of freedom of movement. I look forward to seeing how it's been changed to be more reasonable (and for there to be no reason to cover every tile in your empire with rail).

The official answer...

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
In Civ4, rails allow all units to move exactly 10 tiles.

As a sidenote, it seems that the poll in this thread was reflective of fan's desire to fix the issue of infinite rails, with the clear desire to get rid of the infinite rail movement benefit. Whether the poll actually had an impact is not important - but it shows that Firaxis realized the strategic gameplay benefit of limited movement over the easy and mindless gameplay in earlier versions of civ.

Furthermore, I would guess that the movement factor can be easily adjusted to whatever a player wants for his own setup. Want infinite movement? Change a number in the editor (from 10 to 1000).

This will have to be confirmed though.

My hat is off to Firaxis, and to the beta testers who probably had a hand in the decisionmaking process. Great job!!!

[Targonis]

Some people have missed something fundamental

For a while, I felt that there should be a movement limitation on the railroad, but that changed quickly once I thought a bit about it.

Think in terms of game time. Each turn is how many years? It shouldn't take even a month to transport something across a continent, so even in the later stages of the game when each turn is a year, that should be more than enough time to transport something, though I agree that SOME sort of limit needs to be in place when it comes to movement.

On the other side, rail might be useful for an invading army, IF they also are familiar with the concept of rail. A civilization that isn't advanced enough to come up with rail themselves shouldn't have access to the movement abilities that rail provides. Also, control of the rail system(switching and such) may or may not be something an invading army would have access to if the switches are all electronic, or it might take extra time for each rail "intersection". Also, the game would need to take into account where things are on the rail system in order to avoid collisions if an enemy were trying to use your own rail system.

If a rail system is in place but isn't being used by the host nation, then it makes sense that an enemy might take control of it as well. Perhaps the need for stealth units for something like that to open the use of the rail system for an invading unit?

[hexagonian]

Re: Some people have missed something fundamental

Originally posted by Targonis
Think in terms of game time. Each turn is how many years? It shouldn't take even a month to transport something across a continent, so even in the later stages of the game when each turn is a year, that should be more than enough time to transport something, though I agree that SOME sort of limit needs to be in place when it comes to movement.

Well, I'm not going to rehash the realism argument, but I would suggest reading this thread (in the earlier pages) to get the reasons why the realism factor does not hold up - in light of other factors like sea movement.

Suffice to say, a person can walk across the U.S. in a year's time too...nor does he need 20 years to walk a single unroadded tile, as is the case in earlier parts of the game.

As for the rest of your suggestions, I agree that movement should be hampered or limited in enemy territory.