Roads give movement bonus and NOTHING else?

[Martinus]

Originally posted by vomitus


Keep in mind that many things in the Civ games are abstractions of real life. There is no weather, night and day, and so on in Civ. Not all things need to be a part of Civilization.

Yup. Also it can be assumed that the maintenance cost of a structure is already taken into account, and the production/food/money a tile is generating is a net, rather than gross income.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Ecthy
I hated the fact they couldn't in CTP

It used to be in most of the old board wargames that rail movement and attack couldn't be combined. Of course in most of those the time scale was different...but Civ combines what I'll call 'tactical' time with the passing of ages, or 'strategic' time lets say. I like the no attack w/ rail rule bucause I've moved an armored unit by rail (a real one) and it's a *****. Also, it's very vulnerable when moving by rail. Defense should be reduced for the rail movement turn...

[hexagonian]

All my bitc*ing and complaining paid off...

IN FULL!!!!!!!!!!!

[Capt Dizle]

Exactly 10 tiles. So, if you want to move to a spot 7 tiles away, you have to go 3 past. Then probably disembark next turn and hike back. Of course, we can only speculate if Soren was being precise.

[Cabbagemeister]

Let's be realistic. If they (finally) got rid of infinite rail movement, and they got rid of rail bonuses for tiles, then there's no way they got rid of the same turn rail-and-attack. Rails would then go from being way overpowered to way underpowered--nothing more than a Civ3-style airport built by workers.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Martinus

So if you had only one city on an island/continent and it was surrounded by railroads, you wouldn't be able to move your units out of it? Not the best idea, I think.

Duh, you can still cross the railroad. Just not get on it But it´s a stupid idea anyhow...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
Exactly 10 tiles. So, if you want to move to a spot 7 tiles away, you have to go 3 past. Then probably disembark next turn and hike back. Of course, we can only speculate if Soren was being precise.

That´s not what he meant. Don´t be daft

[WHY]

Originally posted by alva

WHY?????WHY DID YALL DO THIS??NOOOO
And why people here are so disdainful of the unlimited mileage of RR? Please tell me there is a significant trade off to upset this unfriendly offset, pease please. I know people argue all this BS about it makes the game unrealistic n blah blah, but in all actuality it makes it very much realistic cuz if u look at it holistically, unlimited rail movement allows for judicous blitzrieg tactics that has come about in the last 80 years. With in the last century railroads and highways(Autobahn was originally built for the quick tranportation of the Panzer to the front lines of war) have allowed wars to rage on much quicker, and with the elimination of the UL RR movement, you have just took all the fun out of a long game on a huge match! Now are you telling me I gotta play on a tiny map to re-enact Alexander the Great in the 21st century?It only took us a couple of months to "conquer" Afghan n Iraq, and now if im playin CIV 4 is it gonna take a couple of decades? BTW thank you very much for puttin the info up Soren Johnson its good to know that the people at Firaxis dont forget about their raging fans.

[Zoid]

WHY, you just have to think a bit more now. Strategic deployment decisions and all that. IMO this is the biggest leap forward in the franchise to this date. This will totally change later game strategy. I for one salute Firaxis for this bold move!

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Ecthy
I think cav only has 2 MP, no?

ok, but there is bound to be a different 3-mover.. maybe modern armour? or even just in an own mod.

Also, why should half of the MP be used whilst going on railroad? You don't feel tired after doing a 2 hour train ride, do you? I say give full movement after a railroad movement, but only one time railroad travelling per unit and turn.

it is not about being tired but about the time used. if you can travel (let's say) 60km along roads in one day or 300km using the rail (i know, both values are higher, but it's about the relation), going 150km on rail would still take you half a day, leaving you with only time for 30km on foot. right?

so if movement points are internally broken up into fractions, 1 move rail will take away 1/10 of the whole MP of every unit (even quick movers) and road will take away 1/4 of a single MP.

so a foot soldier could go 5 tiles on rail and 2 on foot.
a cavalry could go 5 tiles on rail and then have 4 more on horse.

or something like that

[lockstep]

Originally posted by sabrewolf

ok, but there is bound to be a different 3-mover.. maybe modern armour?

Modern armor has a movement rate of 2 (or at least it had in a bunch of the latest IGN screenshots).

[SpencerH]

The lack of infinite rail movement will completely change the modern era. Since we wont be able to draw upon combat resources from our entire empire to counter an attack we will have to maintain many more units and they will need to be dispersed throughout. The costs will be much higher.

IMO, without complementary changes to other aspects of the game this is not a good choice by Firaxis.

[Zoid]

It will change the modern era. But I don´t think we´ll have to build that many more units. Just deploy them better

[Willem]

Originally posted by joncnunn
So this is one more reason not to rail-spam. A parallel road may be more efficent for calvary and modern armor to use at times.

You're assuming that these units will still have 3 movement points. By the sounds of it, there will be no 3 move units in Civ 4.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
Exactly 10 tiles. So, if you want to move to a spot 7 tiles away, you have to go 3 past. Then probably disembark next turn and hike back. Of course, we can only speculate if Soren was being precise.

I doubt very much if that's the way it will work. I'm guessing it will be a maximum of 10 only.