The game is so much more enjoyable ...

[Dis]

I seem to be the only one who likes it

SMAC had it as well- and that's the greatest TBS of all time.


I know from a strategic standpoint it isn't that great. But it speeds up the game. Late game tedium is already bad enough as it is. I don't want more.

perhaps there should be a limit to how many troops you can transport accross country. It's not like you have infinite number of trains.

[MattPilot]

hmm another patch?

i think i remember jesse said something about "Worker Gangs" - they weren't in this patch (unless i'm confused), so maybe there will be another patch?

[Last Conformist]

There's rumoured to be a final patch due in the summer, hopefully addressing the sub bug.

I'm personally for rethinking RR for CivIV.

[Phoenix]

How about this....'civ4'ish sollution

What if Railroad provided 6 movement per turn (twice roads) and require 1/gold per tile per turn upkeep and then late game with a late modern tech you could build 'Superhighways' or something that give infinite movement but each tile requires say 5 gold/turn in upkeep?

I liked infinite RR in civ, civ2 and I think it makes perfect sense in civ3. I see no reason that moving tanks across a vast modern empire should take more than one turn.

If you think fighting the AI is boring boost the difficulty level.

[zyelmyrada]

What is the sub bug? I don't usually build subs - too slow and sitting ducks if discovered by DD's.

And as for RR's, I think they should remove the infinite move but make it akin to roads. That is, roads have 1/3 movement cost, why not make railroaded hexes 1/5 movement cost? Same rules as roads - you have to start on a railroad hex in order to get the movement bonus when moving to another railroad hex. That would seem a fair compromise to me.

==========================

@Edit: ha, Phoenix, same idea as mine - sorta. Quicker fingers on your part!

[Solomwi]

You're not alone, Dissident. I've yet to understand the outcry to nerf railroads.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Dissident
I know from a strategic standpoint it isn't that great.

Actually it screws up everything from the Industrial age onwards and completely removes any semblence of "strategy" from late-game warfare.

But it speeds up the game. Late game tedium is already bad enough as it is. I don't want more.

Then in your case the problem isn't with changing the RRs but with the need to have them function as they do.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by zyelmyrada
What is the sub bug? I don't usually build subs - too slow and sitting ducks if discovered by DD's.

If an AI ship runs into one of your subs they will automatically declare war on you irregardless of any other concerns.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Trip

Actually it screws up everything from the Industrial age onwards and completely removes any semblence of "strategy" from late-game warfare.


Then in your case the problem isn't with changing the RRs but with the need to have them function as they do.

how can you say it completely removes all strategy, when you can't utilize railroads in enemy territory (which is where I am most of the time- I try to avoid defensive wars in my territory- I tend to lose cities that way).

This is what seperates civ3 from civ2. And we *****ed and moaned about it, but it's a good idea.

[Jon Shafer]

A good player can be almost invincible on defense with RRs assuming there are two teams of equal strength.

It's also possible to fight multiple wars at once without hardly any ramifications due to the fact that you can teleport your army from one opponent to the other in subsequent turns, no matter how far away fronts are.

The same goes for naval invasions... you can either A) block the coast whenever you see a Transport fleet coming using infinite RR movement to get units anywhere on the continent to prevent (pre-Marine) forces from landing); or B) station your army anywhere on the continent, waiting for your opponent to land, then crush his invasion force with the full strength of your army which can be deployed anywhere on your RR network.

There are also problems/exploits that can be used with RRs while on offense against human players... take a perimeter city by some means, then use 3-move Cavalry using the RRs you just captured to march through your enemy's undefended center, razing every city you can reach.

Basically, RRs screw up how wars are fought, and not for the better. Wars turn into a quagmire of "how can I exploit RR's infinite movement in the way that suits me best?"

[DrSpike]

Well put. Those who say raise the difficulty level are missing the point......the balance issue still remains. I don't think this will (or even should) be addressed within the Civ3 model, but it's certainly something I would bear in mind if working on Civ4. Hopefully they'll have a least a few people that can actually play Civ working for them.

[TheArsenal]

Whether or not RR infinite movement is a good thing is one point. But there is definitely a certain strategy to coordinating bombardment units (land and sea) and bombers to neutralize RRs when engaging in battle to isolate groups of AI units and cities. I’ve actually come to enjoy it to a degree. The problem, as with many aspects in the single player game, is there is no way in hell an AI could employ such a strategy in reverse.

[Jon Shafer]

In other words, it's a strategy that's more trying to remove the effects of RRs rather than a strategy to try and defeat your opponent. Using Bombers to cut roads and RRs is a tactic actually used historically, but the Civ 3 engine means that its pivotal to do so on a large scale in order to try and make sure that your invading army lives.

In order to cover an invasion now with, say, Tanks and Infantry you have to crawl ahead at 1 tile per turn. Even with fairly compact city spacing, with a full RR network intact this force would be completely decimated by the defender. Not only would they be able to call upon every combat unit to fight in actual melee combat, but all Artillery units could also be called upon to attack the very same turn. I'm not sure how much everyone here knows about how artillery was used historically, but that is certainly not it... placing artillery in strategic locations in order to provide fire-support across the entire front was an important part of decision-making. Packing up and moving artillery between fronts was a major deal, not something that could be done with the snap of fingers.

So once you've hit your poor enemy's invading army with 40 Artillery and basically destroyed all of his defending Infantry, you can send in the Bombers... and then finally the Tanks. Voila, invading army is now toast.

Want to prevent that? Well then, you must find a way to render your opponent's RRs ineffective... Bombers. There isn't a very strategically challenging trade-off that has to be made. You either cut those RRs or die.

[WarpStorm]

I would like to see an infinite movement but with limitations. The limitation I'd like to see is this a unit must start its turn on a railroad and use up its entire turn to use the rail net.

(Yes, I realize that in the scales of Civ this makes no sense. It is kinda taking an operational scale concept and scaling it up.)

[DrSpike]

These are the kind of tweaks that will surely have to be made if the current system is to be kept. Balance must dominate all realism arguments.