What a joke this idea invaders can't use railroads

[Rakki]

I like using alpine troops and mech inf (or even paratroopers) to penetrate behind the target enemy city and basically "seal" them off - exerting ZOC over enemy railway.

"So what if you got roads... you gotta get past these fellas first !"

That's why I think if railway has to wait until you take the enemy city, they should at least confer the road bonus on your units IF the road square is already occupied by a friendly unit. This means that paratroopers can be used in their conventional role - tactical and strategic real estate acquirement..... (e.g. Operation Market Garden - paratroopers used to seize bridges over the Rhine so it doesn't get blown up (pillaged))

of course, I kinda suspect that the code used in in civ3 may not allow that kind of discrimination easily.....

[Madine]

Actually I like the idea of getting the full road bonus for enemy roads/railroads that you occupy.

But I do think that Civ II's "completely open access to all roads/rrs" model is probably the worst possible choice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Re: Aside from the unreality

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
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.

Learn new strategies! Is that so hard?

[Urban Ranger]

Horse doesn't know what realism is even if it hits him in the head

Horse is just bitter because Firaxis has rendered his old boring style of play worthless.

Civ isn't realistic. Explain this to me, Horse, why does it take my Warrior unit 20 years to move 200km?

However, there are good reasons why a player can't use railways to attack until he has secured it.

Railways are regulated by a set of signals along the routes, and these signals are controlled by dispatchers in various stations. Now you can only have complete control of these signals if you have secured a section of a rail line, i.e., controlling stations at both ends of it. If you aren't sure if the signals are right, are you going to send a freight train charging down a line full speed?

This just shows Horse doesn't care about realism, he just wants to complain.

[Sarxis]

WIth ALL this having been said:

CivIII is what it is, and I doubt Firaxis is going to change this feature.

Love it or leave it.

[Alexander's Horse]

Re: Horse doesn't know what realism is even if it hits him in the head

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

If you aren't sure if the signals are right, are you going to send a freight train charging down a line full speed?

Yeah right, I'm sure those who employed armoured trains to spearhead their advances in world war I and II, and elsewhere, were really worried about signals.

"Oh look! Its red! We better stop!"

Also, if you knew anything about trains you would know signals and switches can be changed manually along the line

In fact, even electric ones have magnetic plates on the track and as I found when I was naughty young boy, all you had to do was put a hunk of iron on the plate and the signal .....*cough*.......never mind............

[Rakki]

I'm inclined to think only idiots would spearhead their advance with armoured trains... as far as I know they were only used to *patrol* railways.

of course, it would be interesting to have such a unit wouldn't it ? I mean, railguns (as used in WW1) and armoured trains (used in American Civil War and elsewhere) would be an interesting addition.... and used to "bombard" enemy cities from outside the ZOC

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Horse doesn't know what realism is even if it hits him in the head

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yeah right, I'm sure those who employed armoured trains to spearhead their advances in world war I and II, and elsewhere, were really worried about signals.

"Oh look! Its red! We better stop!"

So you don't think the enemy can have armoured trains and is sending it your way?

With your thinking ability it's good that you aren't in charge of something important.

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Also, if you knew anything about trains you would know signals and switches can be changed manually along the line

No kidding, so who are those people changing the signals? Whose side are they on?

[Boris Godunov]

I have never, ever heard, in all the reading I have done on modern warfare, of armored trains being used to either spearhead an attack or deposit troops into enemy-occupied territory. The very notion is ridiculous. Trains are easy targets for aircraft, can't diverge from the tracks for cover, etc. It would be a complete disaster if one was caught, because tons of equipment and men would be obliterated without having a chance.

No, they were used to ferry reinforcement to front lines and patrols, but not to invade.

[DonJoel]

In fact, even electric ones have magnetic plates on the track and as I found when I was naughty young boy, all you had to do was put a hunk of iron on the plate and the signal .....*cough*.......never mind............

Haha, that was the coolest thing i ever heard about! You are my god!!
What happened??

[Alexander's Horse]

You should read more

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I have never, ever heard, in all the reading I have done on modern warfare, of armored trains being used to either spearhead an attack or deposit troops into enemy-occupied territory. The very notion is ridiculous.

Really? Tell that to the Red Army. How do you think they won the civil war?

But you people just aren't thinking this through. If you don't take the city you can't use the railroads within its borders. That means for CENTURIES you might not be able to use the track even 2 tiles away from the city you haven't yet taken. You could have a massive army sitting on that ground and you still can't use the railroads within that city's hinterland.

Does that make any sense at all?

[Boris Godunov]

Re: You should read more

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Really? Tell that to the Red Army. How do you think they won the civil war?

But you people just aren't thinking this through. If you don't take the city you can't use the railroads within its borders. That means for CENTURIES you might not be able to use the track even 2 tiles away from the city you haven't yet taken. You could have a massive army sitting on that ground and you still can't use the railroads within that city's hinterland.

Does that make any sense at all?

Civil War vs. Invading enemy nation. There is a difference. But enlighten us about it, ball is in your court.

And if you are such a poor strategist that it takes you CENTURIES to take over one city, then maybe Civilization isn't the game for you. I can send you a copy of Lemmings, if you like.

[Madine]

Yeah I haven't heard anything about armored trains spearheading an assault in any war

The new road rules won't stop assaults, just slow them down by a couple turns. It's silly to say that offensive warfare is doomed because you can't ride the train into town anymore.

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by Madine
The new road rules won't stop assaults, just slow them down by a couple turns. It's silly to say that offensive warfare is doomed because you can't ride the train into town anymore.

Exactly! So... everyone, ride the Peace Train!

[Deathwalker]

Though I agree that the idead that an invading nation could not use your rail roads is a crap one I think it was included in the game as to give the defending civ a chance. Because if you land a large army in a civ will loads of rail roads you could capture a huge amount of cities using his rail links. But it is a bit unreallistic. If you could implement a scourched earth policy that would be more realistic, but if you did that it should destoy the rail roads for every one and would have to be re built later.