What a joke this idea invaders can't use railroads

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Pembleton


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

hehe, it was complete and utter nonsense

If you capture a city well inside enemy territory how large area will your zone of influence cover? Is this dependant on your cultural rating as opposed to the surrounding civ.

I don't like how cultural rating is affecting military operations. I understand the gamebalance issues, but I just think it's kind of silly that the number of libraries my opponent have is hindering the movement of my troops!!

I think Firaxis should reconsider, and make it possible to use enemy roads/RR to a reduced effect. This, together with the changes on units like the howitser, will make the "one turn kill" more or less impossible.

[Boris Godunov]

First...

...I have yet to see one post on any of these boards from AH that was anything other than a criticism. Sometimes I wonder if some of the nastier posters here are actually from rival companies (Activision?) and are just out to trash the game. Hehe, conspiracy theories aren't my forte, but I'm beginning to see the light...

Second, while at first I was dismayed at this new rule, I have since decided I am quite in favor of it. Look, there are all kinds of nuances of war that Civ3 just can't depict because it would be too much. So they synthesize stuff into rules like this. The fact is, the Germans in WWII could not send troops via trains into enemy territory, right up to a city and launch an attack. First the Germans OCCUPIED territory, and THEN used the rails. That's exactly how the game will work, from what I gather.

Also, I disagree with removing the infinite movement for railways. I can hop on an Amtrak and be in L.A. in a few days. Over 365 days, I could make the trip 100 times. It makes sense that within one's own borders or allied countries, one can use the rails as much as desired. And this problem is solved by disallowing movement via enemy rails. I like it!

I think the ending the modifier for roads is a good answer to the various things that slow down armies on the move, whether it be countryside partisans, bad weather (since Civ3 has no seasons, how else can we account for the nasty Russian winter effect that screwed Napoleon and Hitler?), mines, etc.

Most importantly, if it promotes good gameplay, balance, and creates an interesting challenge, then I whole-heartedly agree with it. I may sound crazy, but I actually TRUST Firaxis to make a game where the rules are balanced.

Weird, huh?

Cheers.

[Madine]

I think that some people are getting the wrong idea about culture and why it is important in Civ.

Culture = Nationalism

Culture isn't about how many libraries you have, it's about people having a strong identity and being devoted to their ideas and values. The social and cultural bonds people shared were a large reason why groups like the French Resistance and the Partisans were formed and were successful.

Culture is something intangible that can't really be expressed numerically, but I think it is better that they tried to incorporate it than to completely ignore it.

[Boris Godunov]

Crix Madine?

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ralf


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.

What I was trying to say that it would be stupid if an invading army could not use your roads and rails to full effect, I know that you could still walk over that terran with the road/rail but not be able to use them.

I hope that this is not true or that if it is that it will be changed right away. Again I don't see how this would help balance out the game or make it more realistic.

I when I played Civ2 I sough nothing wrong with invading units using my own rails or roads.

[HalfLotus]

AH has a thing for controversial Civ topics.
Just read the"No cities on mountains" thread in the Civ 2 forum
His threads are actually worth reading, which is more than I can say for most posts around here.

Hey guys! Over hear it's a poll! How many games are you gonna buy for Christmas?

[Wexu]

Boris Godunov,

I SO agree!

Those are exactly my thoughts, but I had hard time trying to write them in English. Thank you!

[Sparky]

In no way does WW1 show that railroads were used well. One of the most ironic points of the Russian attack was that they built their railroads withdifferent gage so that an adversary's trains could not enter Russia. Instead, their own trains couldn't enter Germany.

[Grumbold]

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.

Looks like its split 50/50 between those who want no bonus and those who want some bonus to apply. Not quite as clear cut as you would have everyone believe, Ralf. The voting numbers are still very small too. Lets see how it matures....

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Most signatures I've read just seem self-indulgent or pretentious, but yours is the first in a long time that I've liked.

[Rakki]

railroads rocked in WW1. that's one of the reasons why they had a stalemate with the trench warfare - attacking armies faced a huge bottleneck in logisticss at the no man's land even if they did manage to break through, while the defenders could immediately start directing reinforcements to the breach using their own railways. Railways favoured the defenders (you see this in Civ 2 as well... if an AI turns up on your border, you can easily start calling in reinforcements from other cities to fight them off)

come to think of it, that's actually something that Civ3's current ZOC simulates..... although i still think it's a bit of a stretch to say roads don't confer bonus until the enemy city is taken.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Looks like its split 50/50 between those who want no bonus and those who want some bonus to apply. Not quite as clear cut as you would have everyone believe, Ralf.

Thats true. And I would be happy with either one of those two alternatives. Its just the full (uneffected) road-bonus alternative that I dont like.

[squid]

Ahem..... 70%? Me thinks not.

Originally posted by Triped
Yeah, any game where the team that goes first wins 70% of the games is really balanced.

I think you just admitted to being a lousy chess player. The advantage in playing white is very minimal if you are not trading pieces junior-high-school style. Play a good positional game and you will find there is nothing bad about starting as black...just that the openings are harder to remember

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Most signatures I've read just seem self-indulgent or pretentious, but yours is the first in a long time that I've liked.

Why thanks. But I made a major grammatical mistake! But I've fixed it.

come to think of it, that's actually something that Civ3's current ZOC simulates..... although i still think it's a bit of a stretch to say roads don't confer bonus until the enemy city is taken.

Yes, and I like what they did...but I see your point. If they could tweak it, the only change I'd make is that you get only a 1-move bonus instead of 2 (assuming movement bonuses are the same in CIV3 as in CIV2). You would get the same bonus for railroads as for roads, just 1. That would account for rails being much easier to cut off and destroy than dirt roads.

But, if it's a choice between what they have now and back to old CIV2 rules, I'll take what they have now in CIV3

Cheers.

[Alexander's Horse]

Aside from the unreality

In multiplayer, if you can't move units quickly up to a city they are toast. Humans tend to play a lot better than the dumb old AI.