Railroad Move-Limit Conundrum...

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Now, I recognize that 99% of Civ players regard the "infinite railroad movement" status of Civ and Civ 2 as warranting a change in Civ 3. After all, it's both unrealistic and (arguably) unbalanced for the game. One technology can jump a Civ'ers empire from mediocre to invincible in a matter of a few years..

And, I myself am probably in the same boat on this infinite railroad movement problem. Civ 3 will limit the amount of railroad movement/turn that is possible, and it's probably a good thing.

However, I do have a serious concern about this improvement and I don't think anyone else has mentioned it yet.

For me, railroading was as much an aspect of what I would call "tedium management" as gameplay strategy. By far, the biggest issue for me as Civ games go on is the long, exhausting micromanagement of every aspect of one's Civilization. As experienced Civ'ers, one of the first things we learn is how to manage our empires with a minimal amount of boredom. Most Civ'ers generally develop a system for managing cities, units, production, movement, etc. and that system exists not only for the sake of strategy but for streamlining the amount of time spent on the game. Civ'ers probably save hours of gameplay by developing systems to use for efficiently moving, setting production, building, etc. and using the interface w/ this system becomes second nature to them.

However, as the game goes on it inherently becomes more tedious and difficult to micromange. In my opinion, movement bonuses (predominantly the railroad/airport ones) add a counter to "tedium management" and allow Civ'ers to combat the growing number of considerations in the game by having one less thing to worry about -- movement.

Railroading is by far the greatest killer to tedium management as it provides a way of interconnecting all of a Civ'ers cities instead of having to individually move massive armies from scores of cities across the continents. Because of infinite railroading, the game becomes faster, less tedious, and more easy to manage.

My primary concern is: Will the elimination of infinite railroading increase the tedium of playing Civilization? I am genuinely worried about it. Even even if railroading allows for really long movements in Civ 3, there is still a great deal of difference between infinite movement and a system in which more troop movements must be managed/taken in consideration by end users. No longer can a user just set a destination and have them get there a turn later w/o worry or management.

Thoughts?

[rah]

If the goto command WORKS, I don't care if it take x amount of turns for the "whatever" to show up where it's supposed to as long as I only have to issue one command. And if I can move a whole stack with one command, even better.

But as I've stated in other threads about this topic. I would actually like to see trains moving the "whatever", a traintrack doesn't mean extra movement, having a train there does.

RAH

[Guest]

Originally posted by rah
If the goto command WORKS, I don't care if it take x amount of turns for the "whatever" to show up where it's supposed to as long as I only have to issue one command. And if I can move a whole stack with one command, even better.

But as I've stated in other threads about this topic. I would actually like to see trains moving the "whatever", a traintrack doesn't mean extra movement, having a train there does.

RAH

Good comment; if it applies to everyone, the game will have a more realistic feel.

[Captain]

Infinite RR mvt= micromgt, limited RR mvt = strategy

Hmm..., I always found that Civ 2's pathfinding function really sucked. when using GOTO, my units would walk into a jungle tile instead of taking the RR around it.

In my mind, the infinite railroad mvt points, while making it really easy to conquer the world in twenty turns, made those twenty turns last forever because I would move my armies to one border, conquer the other civ's ten cities, then RR them across my empire to another enemy, conquer their twenty cities, then RR them across my now humongous empire,... repeat.

Infinite RR mvt= micromgt, limited RR mvt = strategy

I think turns would be more fun with limited mvt because then where you choose to go is more important and you have to be more careful when waging war. you have to be more picky about where to build something. I can't just build howies in my power centre and RR them out to borders and conquer cities all in one turn.

once again, distance will actually become a factor in how I play the game. as it is, a city across the continent is just like one next to my capital, except for added micromanagement in getting units there.

if I have to consider distance and mvt points in my tactics, then mvt of those units is no longer micromanagement, it becomes a challenge.
(e.g. it's more exciting to have to choose how many of my mech inf to send versus the English and how many to defend against the Romans, instead of just RR around to do both.)

[Inverse Icarus]

well, wouldnt it be smart to only allow railroads in "one width" lines?

america isnt full of rails, like some game of civ i play where EVERY SQUARE is a rail.

[To_Serve_Man]

Ms. Realism says, "One Turn in the Rail-Road age part of Civ2 realisticly shows how Railroads could move large armies across the land effectivley and quickly" This is true, realisticly... If turns were daily, or weekly, well then this would don't be true.

Mr. Game Play says, "CivX is a game, a strategy game! RailRoads (and Airports) destroy the ever so important strategy that is needed more in the late game with large armies and cities. RailRoads should have give a bonus to movement but be limited. This would increase strategy during wartime and infrastructure building time."

These seem to be the two opposing views that i've seen talked about.

IMHO, I would take another aproach. I think a city improvement called 'Train Station' should be buildable. It would act like the Airport. You would have unlimited movement between Train Stationed cities, but if a RR(title improvement now) is linked to a Non-Train Station city, they get off like they would a road. The would not be able to get unlimited movemet points again until they enter a Train Station City. So unlike roads, you cant just 'hop' on and get the bonus.

[Optimizer]

Implement weaknesses

If travelling by rail is so fast, why do we have cars? Because rail transportation has got some drawbacks.

The solution could be to implement some of them. For instance
* You shouldn't be able to use enemy railroads.
* The capacity of railroads should be finite. Only a limited number of units should be able to use them each turn, the rest should have to move at road speed.
* When used by military, the trade & production bonus from the square should temporarily be halted.
* Railroads should be particularly easy to pillage.

Lesson of history: One of the factors that subverted the Third Reich during WW2 was the over-utilization of the railroad system, especially in Poland. It could not support the arms industry, the death camps and the front at one time.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
My primary concern is: Will the elimination of infinite railroading increase the tedium of playing Civilization? I am genuinely worried about it.

Why does it have to be one way or the other? I dont mind having infinite railroad-moves as an option, for those civers who prefers that. But, why should it be the only option?

Personally. I would prefer a fixed number of RR-moves of 12 (or 15) tiles, regardless of land unit-type.

Now; whether Firaxis changes infinite railroads into above fixed move-radius, or not - they should either way add more "cosmic rules" and "special flags" in the Rules tweak-files:

• Infinite railroad-moves on/off cosmic rule, together with...
• a fixed RR move-radius input-number, would be a needed fine-tweak alternative anyway.

Also an RR combat-value decrease on/off rule perhaps. Make the game tweakable - especially in controversial areas of the game. The question of infinite RR-moves IS such an area.

[Theben]

Arrgh! I don't even see where the problem lies. Yes, turns are years. Yes, units should be able to move at near-infinite movement along them, for both realism AND gameplay. No, there shouldn't be a train, a train station, or some limitation between turns due to entraining/detraining units.

The solution is simple. Color-Coded Rails based on the Civ. When you move onto an enemy rail, you move onto it as a road. If your unit survives to the next turn, the color of the rail switches to yours. Then all your units that use that RR section at unlimited speeds. If your unit dies, the rail gets a neutral color (noone owns it). The colors don't have to be glaring, just noticeable.
Keeps it simple, solves problem. Nuff said.

[Provost Harrison]

I definitely think stacking units is the answer to this problem. Providing I can have a formation moved along a railroad at my command, infinite moves or not, I do not mind. Something I would like to see implemented is a goto that finally works as it should! which would make like easier rather than having to track down lost and confused units hobbling back and forth. Fully functional automovement would be an important improvement to me. One click and it is there.

[Grumbold]

I'm with Theben on this one. Infinite movement in your own country but not in foreign territory. It may allow you to get your army from one front to the opposite end of your vast nation in one turn (unless you span an ocean) but that is the price you pay for tedium busting when the Goto command is not infallible.

I'd even allow the owner to change mid-turn provided a unit actually issues an order to occupy the square that ends its movement. At least that way your artillery needs some support even if you still end up with the artillery closer to the enemy than almost all the infantry! The whole bombardment rule needs looking at to correct that flaw but SMAC was going in the right direction with bombardment only weakening the enemy prior to an assault. That is precisely what it does.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I definitely think stacking units is the answer to this problem. Providing I can have a formation moved along a railroad at my command, infinite moves or not, I do not mind. Something I would like to see implemented is a goto that finally works as it should! which would make like easier rather than having to track down lost and confused units hobbling back and forth. Fully functional automovement would be an important improvement to me. One click and it is there.

In the original version of Civ 2 for mac the goto comand works wonderfully (or atleast very good), but when they ported MGE for mac we to got the lousy goto whit units ending up in the middle of nowhere.
Before I got MGE I honestly couldn't see what all the fus was about.
I dont know if the goto comand worked better in the original PC version though.
It should be possible to make a functioning goto comand, it has been done before (atleast by the ones porting the game)...

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
Railroading is by far the greatest killer to tedium management as it provides a way of interconnecting all of a Civ'ers cities instead of having to individually move massive armies from scores of cities across the continents. Because of infinite railroading, the game becomes faster, less tedious, and more easy to manage.

Above tedium is counteracted by the fact that you dont need to move each unit indevidually anymore, as in Civ-2. You can forge armies, and move these few armies instead. Also, building & moving around ridiculously huge quantitys of combat-units, Civ-2 style, is a thing of the past, for yet another reason:

In Civ-3 the AI-civs have much more potent "alternative warfare" options. They can forge pacts in order to strangle your trade-income (making your huge army disintregrate, by the lack of financial funding), and they can also strangle your much needed special resource import. Above reasons + many other great tweaks, makes the strategy of quietly building unproportionately huge quantitys of HP combat-units, (and by that introducing too much unit micro-management), a much less feasible/workable approach in Civ-3, then it ever was in Civ-2.

Originally posted by Theben
The solution is simple. Color-Coded Rails based on the Civ. When you move onto an enemy rail, you move onto it as a road. If your unit survives to the next turn, the color of the rail switches to yours. Then all your units that use that RR section at unlimited speeds. If your unit dies, the rail gets a neutral color (noone owns it). The colors don't have to be glaring, just noticeable.

OK, I get the idea, but I still dont like the part about unlimited moves for your own railroads. Unlimited RR-moves makes it more or less impossible for AI-civs to succesfully disembark armies on your huge railroaded end-game islands. Its just too easy to counteract such D-day style disembarkments, by mobilizing each and every tank- and howitzer-unit/army scattered across your huge island - then move them over unlimited distances - then attacking, with perhaps no decreased combat-values either.

Keeps it simple, solves problem. Nuff said.

Well, I think that fixed (but rules.txt -editable) RR-moves, regardless of land unit-type, is an even simpler (an better) solution. The idea of "colour-coded RR-roads" (with an easy-to-access on/off toggle, of course) have some potential though. I just dont like the "unlimited RR-moves" part of it.

Again: Whether Firaxis changes infinite railroads into above fixed move-radius, or not - they should either way add more "cosmic rules" and "special flags" in the Rules tweak-files:

- A fixed RR move-radius input-number of your choice (0 = infinite).
- Also an RR-move combat-value decrease on/off rule perhaps.

Why does it have to be "my way or the highway" then it comes to the limited/unlimed RR-moves issue? I say; make it possible to tweak it both ways.

[To_Serve_Man]

Originally posted by Ralf


Why does it have to be one way or the other? I dont mind having infinite railroad-moves as an option, for those civers who prefers that. But, why should it be the only option?

It needs to be one way or the other otherwise we have no game. Single Player games can't be tweaked left and right so that each owner of Civ3 can play the way they want to. I don't care if you want to change the rule for a special scenarios. I dont want to start new games of Civ3 and have pages of 'options' that i have to check and uncheck. There should be, idealy, no options other than mutable ones like Bloodlust, Simple Combat, etc. These rules make multi-player possable. We cant both play the same game if you want your trains to be unlimited movement and mine limited. Thats why it has to be one way or the other.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
It needs to be one way or the other otherwise we have no game.

Well, it cant be both simultaneously, of course.
But, it can very well be one way OR the other, by player-choice.

Single Player games can't be tweaked left and right so that each owner of Civ3 can play the way they want to.

Have you ever heard about the Rules.txt files in Civ-1, Civ-2, CTP, CTP-2 and SMAC?

I don't care if you want to change the rule for a special scenarios.

Im not talking about special scenarios. Im talking about the main game.

I dont want to start new games of Civ3 and have pages of 'options' that i have to check and uncheck.

Im not talking about game start-up screens. Im talking about the Rules.txt files in the game-directory.

There should be, idealy, no options other than mutable ones like Bloodlust, Simple Combat, etc. These rules make multi-player possable. We cant both play the same game if you want your trains to be unlimited movement and mine limited. Thats why it has to be one way or the other.

This is a non-existing problem. You see: In multiplayer-games, the software always plays by the rules it can find in the initiating MP-player's game-map. Someone has to take the initiative then announcing a fresh new multiplayer-game over the internet. And he who does, automatically enforces all global game-rules.

Otherwise, each MP-player could secretly tweak his own setup of slightly more powerful standard units; his own slightly more advantageous tech-advance-, city-growth-, production- & happiness-ratios - simply by tweaking the Rules.txt files within his own Civ-map. This is impossible however, because of above reason.