Railroad connected

[zeace]

I think it would be interesting to add a new level of "connected-ness" into CIV by treating Railroads specially. If a city is connected to the capital only by roads, rivers abd coastlines, it should only be basic-connected.

If a railroad is connecting them, or an ocean link after astronomy, then the level of connection should be higher, and there should be more benefits.

This would represent the fact that trains and cargo-boats can transport vastly more cargo than carriages and canoes. Maybe the benefit should be something small like +1 Hammer in each such connected city?

I envision the little three arrow connected icon changing colour and getting bolder once the better connection is made.

This would make creating your cross-continental railroad into a real goal. I always find that I try to create one anyway, and envision the "golden-spike" ceremony when it finally completes, but there's no real benefit in the game, besides saving 0.33 movement points when travelling along it.

Anyone like the idea? Know if it's easily moddable given the SDK?

[BigFree]

How about "Highway" systems? Just create a new improvement for workers.

[axisworks]

Some would actuall argue, in the age of traffic jams and car pollution, that railroads are actually more efficient methods of travel

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by axisworks
Some would actuall argue, in the age of traffic jams and car pollution, that railroads are actually more efficient methods of travel

Some others, namely government types in San Jose, find that wasting money on train systems (Light Rail) that nobody rides is a highly efficeint way to spend tons of other people's tax money AND feel good about "saving the planet."

Why is everyone on this thread so far from northern California? Are the only ones who care to post about trains???

[MMC]

We invented trains, so we'll let you take the glory for now.

[alva]

There's been some studies saying that within a city we don't travel any faster than a hundred years ago.

[axisworks]

No one rides them yet because gas isn't expensive enough yet.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by alva
There's been some studies saying that within a city we don't travel any faster than a hundred years ago.

If you find that PLEASE let us know where it is. I'd love to read that study.

I'll throw it all the jackarses who tailgate me on the Interstate.

[MadDjinn]

Originally posted by MasterDave


Some others, namely government types in San Jose, find that wasting money on train systems (Light Rail) that nobody rides is a highly efficeint way to spend tons of other people's tax money AND feel good about "saving the planet."

Why is everyone on this thread so far from northern California? Are the only ones who care to post about trains???

yeah San Jose has a weird ideology about their light rail system...

different tickets for bus vs. LR.
15 min between trains during rush hours.

etc...

not the way to convince people to use it...
(especially since they charge equal or more than cities with much better transit systems)

[DaShi]

Don't rails already give you +1 hammer on certain improvements like the lumbermill?

[Guardian]

Originally posted by MadDjinn


yeah San Jose has a weird ideology about their light rail system...

different tickets for bus vs. LR.
15 min between trains during rush hours.

etc...

not the way to convince people to use it...
(especially since they charge equal or more than cities with much better transit systems)

If you want to make light rail or in fact any public transportation system work, you have to make it fast, cheap and convenient to use.

Basically, what people want to do is arrive at a station, get on a train, get to where they're going, get off the train and be done with it. If you make it into much more than that, then you won't be getting a lot of people to go along with it.

In other words: Making the ticket system a hassle is a big no, no.
Expensive tickets are a big no, no.
15 minutes between trains during rush hours is a big no, no.
Too many stops and detours are a big no, no.

You can't force people to use public transportation, you have to get them to choose it. And most people will only choose to use it if it's faster, cheaper or more convenient than the alternatives. Preferably all three of these, but two out of three ain't bad. Some times even one will do. If you have none, then you've just built yourself a big money drain, which is nothing to be proud of no matter who you are.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by DaShi
Don't rails already give you +1 hammer on certain improvements like the lumbermill?

Yes, they do. Lumbermills and mines, to be specific.
-But you only get this bonus if you have these improvements within the city's "fat X" and your rails are on them.

I think zeace meant that all cities that are connected by rail should get a free hammer just from being connected, with no further requirements attached.

[Ijuin]

I would say rather that any intercity trade route should get +1 commerce if the two cities are connected by rail. (I am speaking of the routes in the trade route box--the ones that get increased in number by various civics, improvements, techs, etc.)

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Ijuin
I would say rather that any intercity trade route should get +1 commerce if the two cities are connected by rail. (I am speaking of the routes in the trade route box--the ones that get increased in number by various civics, improvements, techs, etc.)

I agree that you should get something for connecting a rail network. However how would you handle the multiple links?

For example if city A is connected to city B, then thats one link right?

Then you connect city B to city C.

Is that one more link (B - C) or a total of three links (A - B, B - C & A - C via B)?

[MadDjinn]

Originally posted by nugog


I agree that you should get something for connecting a rail network. However how would you handle the multiple links?

For example if city A is connected to city B, then thats one link right?

Then you connect city B to city C.

Is that one more link (B - C) or a total of three links (A - B, B - C & A - C via B)?

yes, if A & C have a trade route. otherwise it's just another arc on the graph