Roads and rails

[notyoueither]

The number of words isn't a problem for us Captain. It is however detrimental to your avatar's prospects for making an appearance this century.

OnT. I don't think infinite is a problem if it is limited to one of the two aspects of Rail movement.

Either allow infinite movement for a very finite number of units, or allow very limited movement to an infinite number of units. Either would solve the 100% available for defence AND the conquer an Empire in one turn problems. I favour the first option. Did I already say that? Yes I did. I'll shut up now. For now.

[Edit] Uber's idea isn't bad either. [/Edit]

[wrylachlan]

I'll say it again

I've posted this at least a half dozen times on different threads, but this one seems the most appropriate. This idea I think is a very elegant way of fixing railroads that makes both offence and defence more strategic.:

Roads and railroads make the game unstrategic because their bonuses make players and the AI put them everywhere. When railroads cover every single tile, no one tile is of strategic importance.

My fix is simple. Do away with the bonus per tile that having a road or railroad on that tile confers. NO per tile bonus. Instead give a city an OVERALL percentage bonus for each of the four closest neighboring cities connected by a DIRECT road or railroad.

Additionally make building roads and railroads significantly more difficult or have an upkeep. The end result of all this will be that each city will only have four roads/railroads leading out of it, and each one will be of serious strategic importance.

When you take over a city all rail tiles adjacent to the city, which your units do not already occupy, auto-destruct (your enemies militia destroys them as they flee). This would prevent the phenomenon of stacks blitzing through an empire on a single turn using the enemies rail lines.

On the offensive side of the coin, with only four RRs leading into a city, bombing out the rail lines to prevent reinforcement becomes a viable strategy.


As I said at the top, I have posted this idea in a number of threads, and gotten no response. Come on guys what do you think?

[notyoueither]

Re: I'll say it again

I was supposed to shut up right? Oh well...

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I've posted this at least a half dozen times on different threads, but this one seems the most appropriate. This idea I think is a very elegant way of fixing railroads that makes both offence and defence more strategic.:

Roads and railroads make the game unstrategic because their bonuses make players and the AI put them everywhere. When railroads cover every single tile, no one tile is of strategic importance.

My fix is simple. Do away with the bonus per tile that having a road or railroad on that tile confers. NO per tile bonus. Instead give a city an OVERALL percentage bonus for each of the four closest neighboring cities connected by a DIRECT road or railroad.

Would be very good, except you'd have to replace the source of the bonus with some other improvements that would be timely. Replacing RR bonus for food or shields is easy. AgRev gives better farms. Explosives give shaft mining.

The commerce bonus is harder. What do you replace road bonuses with? You have to replace it or the entire balance for progress in the game is thrown off. It should not be a city improvement.

No. Roads should stay. How many cities do you know of that are not surrounded by rats nests of roads? Furthermore the strategic effects of roads are not nearly as HUGE as RRs. RRs are a game ender. Get them and you largely do not have to worry about losing cities to conquest in most cases. The same cannot be said of roads.

Additionally make building roads and railroads significantly more difficult or have an upkeep. The end result of all this will be that each city will only have four roads/railroads leading out of it, and each one will be of serious strategic importance.

When you take over a city all rail tiles adjacent to the city, which your units do not already occupy, auto-destruct (your enemies militia destroys them as they flee). This would prevent the phenomenon of stacks blitzing through an empire on a single turn using the enemies rail lines.

This is a good suggestion. I'm surprised the designers didn't think of it/implement it given the stated bias against winning through war.

On the offensive side of the coin, with only four RRs leading into a city, bombing out the rail lines to prevent reinforcement becomes a viable strategy.

As I said at the top, I have posted this idea in a number of threads, and gotten no response. Come on guys what do you think?

I think I really hope that some people from Firaxis give this whole thread a good, long look. Or they are already thinking along these lines.

[Jon Shafer]

Re: Re: I'll say it again

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think I really hope that some people from Firaxis give this whole thread a good, long look. Or they are already thinking along these lines.

[rant]But that doesn't happen...

Which is why I'm working on my own game, where I do take into consideration what people care about! And I do not care about a release date! And I do not have to answer to my producer! And I do not have to keep it simple and can make it as complex as I want to. And I can make it what I like. [/rant]

Have a nice day.

[Captain]

Re: Re: I'll say it again

wrylachlan,

interesting ideas, I'll have to think about those some more.
1 thing pops out at me now, wouldn't ics be encouraged then? close packed cities would benefit from your system much much better, no?

more when i think of it, but other than the above, sounds like a good solution.

Originally posted by notyoueither
RRs are a game ender. Get them and you largely do not have to worry about losing cities to conquest in most cases.

versus the AI. against a human player, i suspect the opposite. i don't think you'd have a chance to react and concentrate your forces to deflect a RR-howie civ2 style blitz. you'd lose a mighty number of cities before being able to counter. you'd only be able tos it there and watch... (unless playing turnless or simult, of course, )
if I was playing vicious, I'd attack en masse certain points, railroad along, raze as many of your cities as possible (using the side tiles to bypass once the culture border disappears), and then retreat, cutting off all my own rrs. I've pushed your border in 5 cities deep, killed your units in those areas, and destroyed the rail leading back. of course I've wiped out my offensive army in the process, but you've lost half production, and whatever units you have to return fire will take five turns to get to me, enough time for me to rebuild my forces. remember my empire is still intact.

edit: well, this might make helos more useful...

I think I really hope that some people from Firaxis give this whole thread a good, long look. Or they are already thinking along these lines.

me too, but i don't think i've ever gotten a response from a firaxian yet...
that's ok though, as long as the ideas get across.

[notyoueither]

Captain. Yes. That is what I've been saying. The attacker will nuke the defender in a single turn without response, or he will stall and be annihilated without response. Imagine your surprise if the first target for your Cav has 12 or 24 Riflemen stacked up in it. Heh, heh. In either case the RR will be the implement of doom far more than any other factor. It's crazy.

... and to bring Trip into it. Actually, Firaxis have demonstrated a tendency to listen to the fans. With 1.16 they patched all the exploits we had found and fixed some of the bigger bugs. With 1.17 they reacted to the clamouring for some kind of group movement. With 1.21 they have given lethal bombardment as an option. These are just a few of the instances of them listening to the people here and elsewhere who have offered helpful comment. I for one feel listened to, after all I was among the foremost in clamouring for group movement and for lethal bombardment. I just can't help it if I'm louder and more persistent than some others who have asked for other things.

[Jon Shafer]

I know they're changing things, but there are some basic game concepts that would be better if they were completely re-worked... however due to time constraints (XP coming out, new patches, beginning work on IV) most big changes won't happen. If they start taking these kinds of ideas for IV, then I'll be happy... I just don't see it happening though personally. But, so as to stop complaining () I suppose we'll have to see once the XP and IV come out.

[Switch]

I think roads should have a mvmt bonus whether or not they're enemy's or yours. RRs shouldn't. I also like the idea that you can move infinitely (ie, not infinitely, but a lot) on RRs, but it takes a separate turn to get on/off RRs, or to attack. Gives the illusion of riding a train. Maybe also have units on RRs look like trains to your enemies. Unless they have the Intelligence Agency SW and have set up an embassy in your capital. At least, that would be neat.
Too bad life's realistic, though . It'll never happen...

[wrylachlan]

Re: Re: I'll say it again

Originally posted by notyoueither
I was supposed to shut up right? Oh well...

Would be very good, except you'd have to replace the source of the bonus with some other improvements that would be timely. Replacing RR bonus for food or shields is easy. AgRev gives better farms. Explosives give shaft mining.

The commerce bonus is harder. What do you replace road bonuses with? You have to replace it or the entire balance for progress in the game is thrown off. It should not be a city improvement.

No. Roads should stay. How many cities do you know of that are not surrounded by rats nests of roads? Furthermore the strategic effects of roads are not nearly as HUGE as RRs. RRs are a game ender. Get them and you largely do not have to worry about losing cities to conquest in most cases. The same cannot be said of roads.

I agree that making the food and shield bonuses through new techs would be the easiest thing. But the commerce bonus should come from having your city connected to the next city. When a worker completes a road or railroad tile, the computer parses through to see if it completes a road between two cities. If it does it institutes a 5% percent overall bonus to commerce or 10% if RR. (obviously the exact percentages could be adjusted with playtesting) And if a road or RR is destroyed, the computer parses through the connected tiles to see if this "unlinks" cities. If it does, those cities loose their bonus. I'm not a hardcore programmer, but I know enough to say that this wouldn't be a terribly difficult thing to code (the bonus that is, getting the AI to understand the bonus and use it strategically might be more difficult).

interesting ideas, I'll have to think about those some more.
1 thing pops out at me now, wouldn't ics be encouraged then? close packed cities would benefit from your system much much better, no?

It depends on balancing. If the percentage bonus was really high and the upkeep for railroads was really high, then the benefit of having closer cities would outweigh the loss of productivity for overlapping city use areas. If the percentage bonus are worth having, but not worth loosing productivity over, then people would not build overlapping cities.


I also had another idea which would change the attacker/defender dynamic. What if only ground troops can totally destroy roads/RR's. Bombardment/bombing would make them "broken RRs/broken roads". And it takes workers significantly less time to fix a "broken ..." than to build one from scratch.

The effect this would have on play is that if you are on the defensive and it looks like your city is going to be over-run, you can flee totally destroying the roads on the way out. If your enemy has bombarded the roads leading into your city and you want to send reinforcements it is easier to rebuilt the RR and send in the troops. This keeps the balance of war on the defenders side.

[Ethelred]

Re: Re: Re: I'll say it again

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I'm not a hardcore programmer, but I know enough to say that this wouldn't be a terribly difficult thing to code (the bonus that is, getting the AI to understand the bonus and use it strategically might be more difficult).

The game actually makes this check allready. Its not done for the reasons you want but there is a similar effect. Cities that are connected by road to the rest of the Empire have less corruption. The equivalent to a Courthouse. Also of course the road connection check has to be made for trade with the rest of the Empire and for connection to other Empires.

I also had another idea which would change the attacker/defender dynamic. What if only ground troops can totally destroy roads/RR's. Bombardment/bombing would make them "broken RRs/broken roads". And it takes workers significantly less time to fix a "broken ..." than to build one from "scratch.

I can see the arguement now.

'I want lethal bombardment of rails'

'You ninny in 1915 in the nation of Andorra a Jenny dropped two 20 pound bombs on a rail crossing and destroyed Andorra's connection to Spain.'

'@%^&* you @(*@#%&( that was a Basque @#%(& that did that with sappers.'

')(*%& _)*^& ^T%) &)^0 You'

[alva]

i agree with all of you guys
i think the ai wasn't able to cope with anything else/more. So
they opted for this solution. that's my 0.02cent
i hate infinite railroads thoug, it IS a gamebreaker as far as im concerned

edited: forgot a few words

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: Re: I'll say it again

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I agree that making the food and shield bonuses through new techs would be the easiest thing. But the commerce bonus should come from having your city connected to the next city. When a worker completes a road or railroad tile, the computer parses through to see if it completes a road between two cities. If it does it institutes a 5% percent overall bonus to commerce or 10% if RR. (obviously the exact percentages could be adjusted with playtesting) And if a road or RR is destroyed, the computer parses through the connected tiles to see if this "unlinks" cities. If it does, those cities loose their bonus. I'm not a hardcore programmer, but I know enough to say that this wouldn't be a terribly difficult thing to code (the bonus that is, getting the AI to understand the bonus and use it strategically might be more difficult).

Wonderful idea. Or at least the kernal of it. A city gets a commerce bonus to a maximum value based on the total number of other cities/civs it is linked to in the trade network. Isolated cities do not generate much commercial activity. I like it.

[simwiz2]

Here's my idea to prevent civs from being blitzed in one turn: Make the RR move bonus from captured cities not available until the next turn. Or if you want it could be until resistance ends, or some other factor. This would keep you from doing the 1-turn MA blitzes. And newly founded cities should NOT automatically get their 9X9 border, if the other civ's cities have enough culture the border shift should be minimal. Plopping cities down should NOT be a quick way to advance your RR's.

Also I agree that RR movement should not be infinite.

And I do not think enemy roads should give movement bonuses, because then we will be seeing a lot of modern armor/radar artillery blitzes. Having RR movement be less-than-infinate will prevent the defender from getting too big of a bonus.

[Inverse Icarus]

in my current game i really wish you could use rails in enemy territory if you have had a fortified unit on the square for x amount of turns... my attacks might actually take less than 3 turns to execute.

[Jon Shafer]

How do you suggest you actually use enemy rails anyways?
You gonna bring along a train with you and all the necassary cars to carry ya around anywhere?