What a joke this idea invaders can't use railroads

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Triped
*is starting to realize that too many people care about history*

Heh, "too many people" care about history? Not enough IMHO. If you want a group of people who care little for history beyond what they find on TV go poll your average group of American citizens, you'll get what you want.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Ozymandous

Heh, "too many people" care about history? Not enough IMHO. If you want a group of people who care little for history beyond what they find on TV go poll your average group of American citizens, you'll get what you want.

I think he meant history as it relates to Civ3, and how much they correlate.

But as to knowing about history in general, for the average person, does it really make a difference how much they know? Stupid people are stupid people, and whether they know more facts or not doesn't seem to significantly impact life in anyway.

If you are talking about people who do have an impact on society, however, perhaps it is true that they should know more about history.

[Kc7mxo]

There is a more reasonable solution than firaxis's. Reduce the railroud infitie movment. its stupid anyway.

also, make it possibly to pillage multiple tsquares a turn. if they're yours.

unfortunately armies are quite adept at fixing things also.

for gameplay, think taht reducing attacker use of defender railroads to the same as road movement makes the most sense. you'd still be able to use the roads and rails, they just wouldn't provide the same benefit.

[Pingu:]

Borders = control ? that's nonsense...

Troops = control,
that's much more realistic. I can see the point about railroads being a problem when invading, but the idea that a group of Marines or Tanks or whatever, can't use a road, because it falls under a different administration? what are they going to do? give them a speeding ticket.

If there's no troops to stop an invasion, and exert a ZOC, they should be able walk along the road like anyone else.

If there are troops (and there should be troops along every hostile border, especially where there's a road), then it's different.

Pingu

[DarkCloud]

Take Over Railroads

Invaders could use railroads if they managed to take over the trains... Thus, we could use another option for war when the invaders are on a railroad track, "Take over RR"

It would take a turn to activate, and, if successful, your troops could utilize the enemy's railroads.

[HalfLotus]

I see your point, Pingu.
Hopefully, they'll reduce move cost of rail from infinite.
Maybe equal for all units, since they ride the same trains.

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns





Well, considering there are no trade units or diplomats/spies, id have to say that this rule doesnt affect them at all But seriously, i think it affects all units, settlers and workers included.

Hmm, I must have missed something completely here. There are no diplo/spies? Do you have a link?

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Pingu:


Borders = control ? that's nonsense...





Troops = control,


that's much more realistic. I can see the point about railroads being a problem when invading, but the idea that a group of Marines or Tanks or whatever, can't use a road, because it falls under a different administration? what are they going to do? give them a speeding ticket.





If there's no troops to stop an invasion, and exert a ZOC, they should be able walk along the road like anyone else.





If there are troops (and there should be troops along every hostile border, especially where there's a road), then it's different.





Pingu

I agree. IMO you should be able to use roads/railroads at a reduced effect wherever there are no enemy units exerting ZOC.



I can understand the arguments for not using RR, but roads?!? Looks like civ3 is shaping up to be a "lets all be friends game". Oh is that your road, I'm so sorry... Yes I know, even if we're at war there is no excuse for being that rude.

[Ralf]

I suggest you "keep full road bonus" activists move over to this road-poll and check out the current poll-results. Believe it or not, but most voters seems to like Firaxis idea, although some would like it tweaked a little.

Why not just give it a rest? The battle is over.

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Ralf

I suggest you "keep full road bonus" activists move over to this road-poll and check out the current poll-results. Believe it or not, but most voters seems to like Firaxis idea, although some would like it tweaked a little.



Why not just give it a rest? The battle is over.

Ah, well you can't win them all... do you want some of my lotion?

[Pingu:]

I actually agree with the Pollsters, you can't move down a road controlled by another CIv.

It's the definition of control that's the issue. I say it's not to do with a Civs border, but to do with whether or not there's someone with a weapon who is prepeared to stop you from moving.

If your border is from Culture. By making the use of roads dependant on your border, what you are saying is this:
You can't use this road, as the enemy has a bigger library than you! WTF!

PIngu:


By the way, can anyone point out exactly where all this started from. I remember hearing that a "Right of Passage" agreement enabled another Civ to use your roads. But the way I interpreted that at first was that it enabled the other Civ to use the road without it becoming an act of war. Once war was declared, then this is irrelevant. Of course I may be wrong on that.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth
Ah, well you can't win them all... do you want some of my lotion?

I don't get it. Is this a common Norwegian joke/phrase?

[Jack_www]

I think as well that an invading armies should be able to use roads and rails to full effect. All through out history invading armies have done this. If you want to stop an invader form using your roads or rails there are two things you can do. One you can pillage the road or rail. Second you can put troops on the rail to block the invader. Why couldn't invading armies use your own roads and rails. If this is true the is very very very stupid thing to do. Also I don't see how this unbalances the game in any way, remember if they can use your roads/rails you can use theirs as well. Also what if an invader takes one or more of your cities, then if you can't use other civ road or rails then if you try to retake the city you wont be able to use the roads and rails around the city that you built. Which would give the invaders time to build up their defenses in the city.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Pingu:
It's the definition of control that's the issue.

If the first alternative was "Yes, roads should give movement bonus to all units" - dont you think manofthehour (and a majority of voters) viewed the second alternative as the opposite alternative to the first one?

If the second alternative was meant to be interpreted as "just like in Civ-2" - then both the first and the second alternative would be identical, wouldnt they? And its not very likely that the majority of voters interpreted the Poll-alternatives that way, is it?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Why couldn't invading armies use your own roads and rails. If this is true the is very very very stupid thing to do.

Its not that you are forced to move your units on roadless enemy tiles, you know. I really hope that nobody is stupid enough to interpret the idea like that. You CAN move them on enemy-roads at any time.

Its only a speed-thing. And a very temporary one also, because as soon you have conquered the city that controls the surrounding area, you get your full road-bonus back, for that area.